i don't think Satoshi has ever compared bitcoin with anything. there are only hints at other payment systems just to say how they work rather than compare bitcoin with them, there were also hints at gold just because people kept talking about it and the term "mining" and the "limited supply" obviously raises such discussions.
anything else Satoshi has said were in respond to someone. for example someone may have compared it with gold and Satoshi made a comment on that.
the examples posted above are also this way.

that is very true and it would be very good if both traders and exchanges started using lightning network because the user can still hold their coins locally (in their own channel that they control) and send the coins back and forth without having to worry about high fees since LN fees are near zero anyways.

there is no such thing as "top notch security", not for exchanges anyways with their horrible history.
but that doesn't matter because you and I have no way of knowing the level of security the exchanges have. they just give us fake promises to look secure.

i haven't checked Binance but most of the exchanges are already deducting a lot of fee from the users accounts (which is usually a fixed amount too) when they want to withdraw so they have to pay a higher fee to justify that unfair withdrawal fee while taking most of it as their own profit.

there are many different mining pools and each single pool owns multiple different servers in different locations. so for example when you see F2POOL has 15% of the hashrate, that is being spread among multiple servers not just one to be shut down with a natural disaster or any other thing. so for example it could be 3 different 5% servers.
if you look at their coinbases they sometimes even include the server name in it too.

additionally as it was mentioned it is miners who connect to these servers and if one went down they simply switch to another one. although this can take some time but it won't harm the bitcoin network in any major way. worst case is seeing a small rise in the time between blocks that are found until miners make the migration.

at first look it looks that way but with a closer inspection the way price dropped is not normal. it is more like the panic sell button was pushed and the price dropped all the way down from $12k+ to $10.5k range in pretty much 2 big dumps.
that is not normal behavior in my experience and can only be explained by manipulation.

are you sure you mean "growth"? and compared to when? the peak of the pandemic when everything is shut down? that would be obvious. but compared to pre pandemic, not at all.
with the way the governments have been printing money for about 9 months now (good job predicting it 8 months after they began haha) we would be lucky if we don't see a crisis.

what a good Samaritan trying to always care for other people's finances and telling them to sell so that they don't lose money. such a good person and not at all has any personal agenda

so you made some vague and random statements that is pretty similar to the general theme that has been going on ever since COVID19 pandemic began and then ask for money to say more

why would anyone want to know what you think?
is this a new method that you thought of to make bitcoin...

that is the whole point of HD wallets using BIP32 with non-hardened keys, you can produce the same public key from both the xprv and the xpub. and wallets like Electrum do use this scheme to make offline storage and setups like what you are trying to do easily possible.

if you generate the keys automatically they will be sequential and should show up automatically in any wallet you use unless you manually generated a key way down the line at a very high index in which case you have to change the gap as jackg pointed out.

there are always other motivating factors behind the scene when someone adds an altcoin first to their platform while ignoring bitcoin, specially when that altcoin is a very unknown (not used by anyone outside exchanges) and a low quality coin with nothing to offer.
eventually as time passes by and that altcoin dies or continues its death spiral and more importantly when their platform never receives any payment through that altcoin, they have to give it up. but they don't want to just go away entirely. that is when they do what they should have done at the start and add bitcoin!

i get that you think you are simplifying things but in reality you are replacing good advice with bad advice. for example the worst one in my experience is telling a newbie to use a web wallet, specially the custodial ones such as coinbase. if they were to use these types then they shouldn't even use bitcoin in first place.
you see when someone with more experience is giving advice to newbies, they are giving good advice even if at first sight it looks to be more complicated.

i don't think OP actually means "participation", it is a wrong work to be used here if you check the examples he used they are all ways to make money (bounty hunting, mining, trading) and there is no money to be made by running a bitcoin full node.

using bitcoin isn't really hard and the clients (aka the wallets) are also moderately easy to use and they are already available on all platforms. the fact that some people find it hard to understand is also normal and the same people will also find a lot of other things they are currently using very hard to understand too but the difference is that they accept those other things without understanding their internals but don't do the same with bitcoin!
for example how many people know how their phones, computers or even their paypal account work but they are all using it.

in order for bitcoin to reach mass adoption we should ask people why do they insist on knowing how bitcoin works while they ignore everything else?

lol.
a pump by nature is a fake higher price which is happening every day among altcoins. and you don't have to do anything at all for it to come down, it will do it on it s own because it is a fake price. it is like blowing into a balloon, it won't expand forever. it will pop at some point.

that is just your lack of understanding about how hashes work and what a QC is!

this is a concern with all the PoS shitcoins that you can control that shitcoin by owning a lot of it.
it is not applicable to bitcoin.

"they" in this context are the regular pump and dumpers who use the newbies to pump their shitcoin and dump it on them after they get their own profit.
if you don't want to lose money then stop trying to "invest" in shitcoins.


ps. i suggest you educate yourself more before trying to give heads up to others

they aren't the same because this formula is called different number of times depending on the private key. in simple terms imagine if the formula was this: x+1 and you always called it with the same x (like you do with the generator point). if you use it with x=5 and call it 3 times (private key equal to 3) you get 8 and if you call it 6 times (private key equal to 6) you get 11 and so on.

i don't see it that way. bitcoin doesn't have to replace fiat to be considered "gone mainstream". the bitcoin adoption, or the ultimate one mass adoption is when people have the option to pay with bitcoin if they choose to or continue using fiat if not.
and i have never read anywhere that Satoshi said anything about "replacing". even in the paper it is referred to as something like an alternative method.

as for advantages, i'd say the main thing is the control and power one has when they use bitcoin compared to using fiat where they have to rely on banks, credit card companies,... to have access to their own money. and that comes with a lot of limitations.

it is always hard to imagine price reaching 4000% higher than the current price. we had the same feeling a couple of years ago when price was around $500 and some people were predicting the 5 digits prices while could never believe it would enter a 4 digit price let alone reach $20k.
maybe we don't reach $500k but the next high price will definitely be higher than $100k.

there is no special formula for point subtraction as far as i know. instead the P-Q is simply defined as P+(-Q) (same as addition) and -Q or negative of a point is defined as negating its y coordinate. or in other words -Q(x,y) = Q(x,-y) and since we don't use negative numbers in modular arithmetic -y becomes P-y where P is curve's prime.

it mainly indicates that Ripple foundation is again pouring money into their centralized shitcoin to prevent or at least slow down its demise this soon while making a ton of money milking the banks they sell their technology to so that they can create their own centralized private ledger.

yes but also the old nodes will reject any similar thing without the OP_0 coming from the new nodes. that is why it is called hard fork and needs the entire network to upgrade.

the problem is transaction ID. the new node could technically add the OP_0 (it is malleable) and send it to the old node so that it doesn't fail while evaluating that tx but it will also change the txid and when someone spends that transaction with the different txid the old node won't be able to verify that new tx and fails there.

normally if after there is one last OP_0 left it has to push an empty array to the stack so the top stack item is converted (CastToBool) to false hence the evaluation fails.

in case of OP_CHECKMULTISIG, it pops that extra item and throws it away then pushes the result of signature verification to the stack.
this is also why P2WSH scripts don't fail since they expect a clean stack after evaluation, that dummy item is already popped and thrown away.