It is not feasible for an attacker to manipulate and obtain the corresponding keys without compromising all the signers. It is not a loophole because it cannot be exploited by an attacker in practice, or at the very least infeasible for anyone to execute.

You should refer to MuSig's whitepaper here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/068.pdf. Specifically the security excerpt proves the security of the scheme.

Not necessarily. Malicious exit nodes can try to strip the TLS but it's probably quite ineffective in most scenarios because Tor always hardens and tries to enforce TLS. Onion addresses are not susceptible to this.

The only way for exit nodes to break the privacy is through analysing plain-text connections or through masquerading with a valid certificate. Otherwise, the exit node cannot determine the origin using the traffic alone. Solely going by this, Tor is better than VPN in terms of privacy. The VPN can do what a malicious exit node can try to do as well.

You'd be talking about the list of addresses, instead of the wallet. As there isn't any external miner made at that time, Satoshi probably mined in his wallet. The pattern obtained by analysing the increment in the nonce on the blocks shows that a single entity (presumably Satoshi) was mining those blocks on the same wallet.

Related as article: https://blog.bitmex.com/satoshis-1-million-bitcoin/

No. The trust score depends on who is in your trust list and your depth of your trust list[1].

If a person who left a feedback is in your trust list, they will appear under the trusted feedback and their comments will affect your overall trust ratings. Check the Trust network, if the person is inside the list and doesn't have a strikethrough, it will appear under trusted feedback. It is specific and different for everyone. If you want to see the trust list as seen by someone by default, add ;dt to the end.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

No. Any fundamental shift results in a fork and given that there isn't any actual faults with PoW, you'll most likely spawn another altcoin. Some might follow that but most probably won't.

It is important to note that PoW isn't flawed like people often postulate. PoW is designed to consume large amount of resources, in exchange for the security it provides. Trying to reduce that using another scheme wouldn't work by the virtue of not "expending resources" to provide security. Elon Musk never actually said that PoW is bad (or AFAIK), in fact, he puts forth an alternative : DogeCoin, which is also PoW.

Having Bitcoin-friendly policies doesn't make it suitable for miners to migrate there. In fact, wind farms are quite expensive and the power is quite erratic as well. Since the costs of electricity through that generation method is significantly more expensive than most, it isn't ideal for miners. It means nothing if renewable energy grows in proportion if the country cannot be independent of fossil fuel as their primary source of generation.

No. Electrum generates a master key using a 12 word mnemonic, with the extended keys being in BIP32 format.

By creating a blank wallet and importing a HD seed in the format above, your addresses will be generated using that HD seed and thus you can restore your wallet using that HD seed without having any deviation in addresses. You will only get the same addresses and labels or any data stored locally are only able to be backed up using the wallet file.
The stackexchange link that you've referenced basically encapsulates the reason why Bitcoin Core isn't implementing it. Just because other wallets are able to implement a mnemonic system, it doesn't mean Bitcoin Core has to follow. I believe that it has been brought up several times but it wasn't implemented primarily because of the shortcomings of the mnemonic scheme.

Electrum RPC is okay, it gets increasingly slower as you increase the number of addresses to query. Bitcoin Core would offer a far better solution than this. Unless your estimated total number of addresses it <1000, then you need to seek an alternative. Most servers don't allow for that many addresses to be subscribed to at the same time.

If you insist on using Electrum, you can subscribe to a callback address and a POST will be sent to your indicated address once the status changes (new TX, >1 confirmation). You have to query it yourself for the actual transaction details after.

Actually, you can't really justify that people agreed upon it. Majority of the users today didn't use Bitcoin at it's earlier stage (v0.1.0, 0.1.3), it was initially 32MB.

No one agreed upon it anyways, Satoshi implemented the change secretly, in 2010.
I didn't see this previously so I thought I'll address it now with an edit. While you're correct that the equivalent security differs with the block speed, it isn't the point. Not everything has to be compared to a specific block interval or rather a specific threshold of PoW. I find it more reasonable to approximate the amount of work (or the cost of it) to the value of a single block. The whole point of the security being offered is to make double spending more expensive, since you are going to approximate the cost to the accumulative PoW for that specific block. So long as the PoW to create a block is costly enough to outweigh the benefits from an re-org attack, it would be reasonable to assume that faster block intervals do not necessarily put transactions at risk.

That is counter-intuitive.
Segwit is a capacity increase. You can't possibly reach the levels of major payment processors by solely increasing block size or speed. That is unrealistic.
No. Whatever Satoshi decided on 12 years ago, won't be applicable today. Given the state of the network today, I daresay we can go further with lesser consequences. The issue is plagued with politics, as you've seen from the previous block size debacle.

That is enough. Electrum version shouldn't matter, there isn't anything specific to each version that would affect the addresses generated.

Correct. It won't be installed in the app launcher unless you create a shortcut yourself.

If for some reason the command doesn't work, restarting your computer will have the PATHs take effect.

Decentralization isn't determined by hashrate only or the control of transactions. Centralization can also be in the sense that nodes are controlled by a few entities, or if any of the components of Bitcoin has the potential to be controlled by a single authority.
No such thing. PoW invites centralization because the nature of it promotes economies of scale. There is no decentralization if you incentivise a people with the most resources, be it having a lot of coins or hashrate.

Yeah. Like some newly built solar infrastructure or a newly built nuclear plant would be cheaper than fossil fuel. That MIGHT apply for some areas, not all. Miners go to where it would be convenient and cheap.

Someone doesn't understand basic economics. The number of miners can be approximated to track the revenue of mining, and so is the electrical consumption. If the price or difficulty falls, less miners would be mining and vice versa.

Black market. Banning something that is ingrained into certain people inevitably leads to black market forming and governments can't tax them anymore and thus resulting in even greater negative externality. That is not an example that can be used to approximate the environmental damage done through Bitcoin mining.

Yes. I'd advice you to do it locally.

Download the HTML file from https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org. There should be several zip files under the releases, download the latest iteration. Use a clean computer with no internet access and run the HTML file with a browser. You should be able to encrypt and decrypt the key accordingly.

Ideally, it should be done offline. A clean computer free from malware should be a given.

Research on BIP38.

Please do not put your funds into any pre-generated wallet. Unless you trust the person who sold you the wallet, you're potentially going to get robbed since there are others that would also know your private key.

If you want to store your funds in a paper wallet, generate them yourself, securely.

You're minimizing the number of attack vectors by the choices of wallet that you make.

An air-gapped hardware wallet would probably suffice for most uses. Air-gapped wallets are secure because you're eliminating the most common attack vector; malware or rather the way for malware to communicate. The problem being that most users don't know how to properly set up and maintain one. As with the side-channel attacks, secp256k1 has properties that minimizes leaks with the side-channel so it isn't that great of a concern. Side-channel attacks are generally far more expensive and requires more technical expertise.

Number of nodes isn't the only metric to determine decentralization; how much control any entity has or has the potential to affect the network in any manner will affect the degree of decentralization. You can also argue that having mining pools makes it less decentralized than desired where the industry is largely dominated by larger farms. You can also argue that having a group of people dictating what goes into the "reference" client arguably doesn't make it decentralized. The counter argument being people can run whatever clients that they want; but Bitcoin's function or its "branding" depends on the economic majority.

You can't label Bitcoin as being the most "decentralized". There are tons of areas which Bitcoins, or cryptos in general are deficient in. But they are the lesser of the evils.

Let's say I price my products at 0.1BTC and the current cost of 0.1BTC when compared to fiat is about $3000, but the actual product only costs $50. Would people still want to buy it?

Using fiat as a comparison to BTC will always be the case so long as there isn't a barrier to exchanging fiat to BTC or vice versa. People will always compare BTC to fiat as it is the de facto currency used by most people and it doesn't make sense to over-price your product just to maintain that 1BTC = 1BTC. You can easily compare the value of the product and assert that it isn't worth 0.1BTC, more like 0.0015BTC instead. As there is no price parity, no one would ever purchase something that overpriced.

Electrum private server is pretty much the most straightforward and least resource intensive way of going about it.

The purpose of your full node is mostly as a data source. You can connect to any full node to push a transaction.

I've used this wallet (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.schildbach.wallet&hl=en) which allows you to connect to specific nodes only.