Perhaps there is no need for on-chain transactions? With high transaction fees, no one wants to really spend their Bitcoins nor take it out of their exchange. I don't think that "active" addresses are a suitable metric for measuring how many Bitcoin users because there are so many factors and the results are often fairly skewed.

None. So long as you're not involved in any illicit activities, you should not be subjected to any sanctions or criminal proceedings. You are not aware of the activities and more importantly, you aren't the person involved in it. It is pure BS to be treating those Bitcoins to be tainted, because as usual, taint is a terrible concept to deny legitimate users from using Bitcoin. If anything it is more of a ploy by regulatory bodies to discourage people from using Bitcoin.

If you are using any exchanges that discriminates (so to speak) tainted coins, then I suggest you to switch to another. There can be a myriad of reasons for them to hold your coins hostage or to freeze your account, "tainted" TX is just one of them.

Fees only serves to help with the speed at which you're going to get a confirmation, ie. the number of blocks before you get a confirmation. It doesn't help with the security, in any way if you include a large fee but you accept it before it gets a confirmation. If the transaction is small enough, includes sufficient fees and has no opt-in RBF, then you could possibly accept it without any confirmations.

Anything above a single confirmation should be sufficient, unless you're talking about a million dollars. It is extremely unlikely for anyone to execute a 51% attack against a $1000 transaction. There is no reason to extend the wait and would just cause unnecessary hassle.

Ignorance is more common than you think. Security can't be guaranteed by your conscious decisions; people often make mistakes that compromises their security though it might not appear so to them. It sounds incredibly easy; okay a clean computer and an airgap, but there are plenty of instances of airgap systems being compromised as well. Just because someone might've done their due diligence doesn't mean that security habits are ingrained in them.

Like it or not, an airgap is not immune to loads of attacks. By choosing an airgap over a hardware wallet, you're giving up certain benefits of the latter for certain benefits of the former. There isn't a one-size fits all solution for everyone. Cherry picking vulnerabilities of hardware wallets while ignoring those of the popular wallet software doesn't present the full picture.

Not necessarily. People choose the fork that they deem to be better for the community in general. Given the various stakeholders, either you come to a compromise or you choose the best for yourself.
Miners don't want the network to split, simple as that. If there comes a day that miners or the community are willing to destroy Bitcoin, by having a hard fork that separate the key stakeholders (or economic agents), then Bitcoin is doomed. It isn't about what chain is more profitable to mine on or which has more security, it is about making the rational decisions for themselves, by looking at the bigger picture. If you tarnish the reputation of Bitcoin and/or otherwise destroy the confidence of the general public and potential investors, then you're just digging a hole for yourself.

No... It's not that. Genesis block is just a fancy name for the first block of a blockchain. If it doesn't exist, then that means you never had a blockchain in the first place.
Look at the definition of genesis. It doesn't commemorate Satoshi at all.
Wrong.

Ah yes, of course religion always appear somewhere.

I'm not sure what is the point of the threads that you've started. Bitcoin isn't a cult. Bitcoin isn't perfect, Satoshi isn't a god, you really don't have to create a new thread to worship them everyday.

The actual standardness limits actually puts the threshold native segwit transaction at 294 satoshis, not 546 satoshis. Electrum includes <546sat output as fees because they didn't want to change the threshold, which is understandable because more often than not, it costs more to spend it. However, it is still important to note that just because Electrum always doesn't include change <546 satoshis, it doesn't mean that it is done because it violates the standardness rules.
You can never eliminate dust, that is a fact. You cannot prune them because it makes no sense. Including better coin control will help but it would be marginally more useful at the expense of more privacy leakage from the user. Whether this is an area for improvement is a whole other issue.
Dust isn't that common actually. If you have a dust output, then more often than not, the transaction was once non-standard and miners had to manually include it. You're probably defining it in terms of either costing more to spend it than the actual value or just low value inputs. More often than not, wallets will eventually spend them but it is not always the case. Dust will always exist, while there are proposals for Electrum to start including those smaller and insignificant inputs, I highly doubt it would be widely implemented because the dusting attack will often link many addresses together.

Governments aren't dumb. They ban Bitcoin because it is antithetical with their systems, where they are unable to control the capital of their citizens to any extent and being unable to print money at will. In more autocratic economies, they've shifted to currencies that are controlled tightly by the government, with digital yuan as an example. China used to had quite a huge capital outflow and it wasn't very beneficial for China.

Governments will almost never adopt Bitcoin, there is simply no reason to. Giving up a stranglehold on their fiat doesn't bode well for them at all. In the eyes of the government, whatever Bitcoin can do, fiat can do as well.

Which side do you think would fold first? Would the users want to follow the majority of the miners, but aren't necessarily in agreement with them? IMO, no. Users are far more pragmatic than just going with whatever the miners says. Unless of course, they are able to reach a compromise but it is hardly true that the community only cares about the decisions that the (majority of the) miners make.

If a hypothetical fork were to happen, and that miners were all insistent on a specific fork that isn't in favour of the community (or were in a sense ridden with hidden motives), who suffers more? Miners who are already surviving on thin margins or the general community which doesn't really stand to lose much? I agree that the best case scenario would be cooperation from both parties, but it really doesn't mean that miners has to "authorize" any changes! That is a flawed system and also why we have backup plans to force activation of soft forks.

I thought the idea of UASF during the peak of the block wars would've been a good example of which party stands to lose more by prolonging the fight. They were so adamant on a block size increase. If miners could've successfully coerced the community into adopting a block size increase, then why didn't they go on with it? FWIW: This encompasses the rationale behind UASF: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0.

It isn't a vulnerability per se, your seeds aren't compromised in that case. The premise for the "attack" requires the malware to be in knowledge of the master public key as well as ensuring that the user doesn't store the PSBT file used on it. It is such a novel attack and certainly isn't as bad as it seems; fact that competitors are willing to continuously try to break their competitor's wallets is pretty beneficial for the enduser.

Most users actually don't know how to properly use and contain an air-gap and would often accidentally unknowingly break that airgap. Depends on your technical expertise, but I find hardware wallets far better for most users and that most are designed with countering common attack vectors in mind. Either is fine, it isn't particularly difficult to jump airgaps, if your attacker are persistent enough.

Inflation is not necessarily a problem. The primarily purpose of Bitcoin is not to be a deflationary asset such that Bitcoin gets overvalued, but for it to be a functional currency that can be used for transactions. Inflation has always been part of Bitcoin, monetary inflation in the sense that there is an increase in the supply year on year practically means that there will be some degree of inflation for at least the earlier parts of Bitcoin.

Since we relate inflation (and deflation) to the purchasing power of the currency, it doesn't necessarily mean that Bitcoin will be inflationary or deflationary because its value doesn't necessarily follow economic trends. It is just perceived to be deflationary because it has a fixed supply and the circulating supply will decrease in the future, but that isn't the primary determinant of it's value.

In the context of modern economy, inflation is good but it has to be moderate. Deflation is generally seen to be far worse and there is a reason why Japan have policies to simulate inflation.

I don't think it makes much sense either, to consider this a benefit at all. I've researched on this coin prior, before the warning thread and I always thought that it would've just been a WIF private key. AFAIK, they never did specify how to import those keys so I'm assuming that they never intended their users to redeem the coins easily.

The truth is no one probably knows. Cryptos in general are a totally new concept to economist and there is no way to prove those theory correct or wrong. What you've suggested is essentially a tail emission model, where there is a steady monetary inflation rate after a period of time. This ensures stability by providing miners with a stable block rewards, and isn't like Bitcoin where miners have to rely on the fees.

Bitcoin as a currency is very different from fiat, where financial institutions are able to introduce measures to manipulate the economy.

Woops, wrong choice of words. I meant those either with their public key revealed or P2PK and with the owners having no means of retrieving them.
Yep, correct. We've had quite a discussion in that other thread as well.

Regardless, it would be quite hard to tell if there would be disagreements about solving the issue in the future as well, would probably have a myraid of schemes to choose from. Agreeing to solve the issue is a no brainer, how to solve it is also another potential problem.

People need to understand that quantum annealing isn't applicable to breaking ECDSA because it can't be used with Shor's algorithm. Quantum computers at its current stage are still underpowered such that it makes no difference to the security in the near future. You can't do much if you can't get a sufficiently powerful QC, which should be about 1200 qubits or thereabout for ECDSA.

There is no way in hell governments will let quantum computers out in public. You can break encryption and all the metadata collected by your agencies can then be cracked, why would they sell it to the general public?

Your existing addresses are all vulnerable, so is millions of Bitcoin left untouch in their original addresses. I'd cast some doubt on trying to reach consensus on sensitive issues like these. It is a far, far more complex issue than just forking Bitcoin.

It depends. Are there already people willing to give others control of their coins, the answer is yes. Major exchanges tend to hold disproportionally larger amount of coins as compared to the normal holders because people almost always store it to stake it with them.

I really don't think the monetary perspective is a huge factor, or rather we're looking at it from the wrong point of view. Instead of thinking which is more expensive, either in monetary terms or execution, perhaps we should see which gives sufficient security such that attackers are not incentivised to attack either. If it is infeasible for both kinds of implementation, then it's great. There isn't a need to compare which is more secure, because they are fundamentally different.

There isn't a shortage of onion nodes but you can still run a node in Tor. It'll be better if you were to allow more peers to connect to you, by portforwarding and allowing them to connect to you. Tor doesn't require portforwarding, so if you're having problems with that, it might be a better argument.

As for the slowness, it really doesn't matter. Tor is fast enough for most cases such that you don't find it becoming a bottleneck for your node. Especially given the fact that you're running on a Raspberry Pi, your connection will almost never be the primary bottleneck.

Might be incompetent as well. I find it hard to believe that they would include a non-WIF key, because that includes extra steps to import it into any wallets and use it. At the very least, they should provide a key that is widely supported by the various wallets, be it WIF or just mini-private key. The private key still corresponds, so it is more of a making it harder for the user to sweep their coins rather than an outright scam.

Far easier to launder money than Bitcoins, than you think. Most fiat are untraceable anyways.

There is a misconception that an increase in popularity comes with an increase in adoption, that is incorrect. The rise in popularity also doesn't necessarily means a rise in the crime rate. Something like kidnapping would happen even if the payment is in fiat, the riskiest part isn't with the collection of the ransom in the first place. It might be harder to exchange large quantities of Bitcoins to cash, depending on where you're situated.

No. The argument above assumes that it is simple to acquire and manage the resources needed to attack the network. As we know from sufficiently secure coins, this is impossible. Solely by the fact that the electrical consumption is so massive that it becomes practically impossible to support it, ignoring all other factors required, space, labour, etc. It is also not realistic to assume depreciation for ASICs, they would probably be rendered worthless. The difficulty of acquiring (and set up) that many ASICs isn't comparable to that amount of coins.

The shortcoming of PoS is that miners have no need to support any single fork. Since their coins exists across all of the fork, they can support every fork.