Aren't we using public key in P2TR outputs as well?

I'm not against this approach (even though I don't think it works, people will ignore the warning) but I say the security of Bitcoin as a whole doesn't rely on how many addresses are vulnerable. It is based on whether any of them are. In other words if one address were vulnerable then the whole system would have been considered vulnerable.

So even if we manage to encourage majority of the users to avoid address reuse (like 90% of address reusers) there are still going to be 10% reusing addresses and if their coins were to be stolen people won't say "those who reused address lost coins", they will instead say "bitcoin is vulnerable" and the catastrophe (specially price-wise) will happen nonetheless.

This is why I've always said the move to a new algorithm should be done through a hard fork with a deadline and any coins that don't move before that deadline should be considered unspendable.

Part of SegWit is about keeping things backward compatible which has created a slight overhead. That can be removed with a hardfork and everything else including the malleability related changes can become the default behavior. For example what we call P2PKH right now could use the same sighash mechanism as SegWit v0 is right now without needing the overhead and definitely without needing the wrapped SegWit scripts.

Exactly. This is why I support discussion about replacement options even though it is still too soon.

Yes. Do this:
1. Start the address with the valid character (1 for P2PKH, 3 for P2SH)
2. Avoid invalid characters (0OIl) in the string you are using
3. Your string has to be small enough to not exceed the standard address length (160 bit hash when decoded)
4. Convert your string to bytes and pad it with zeros until it is 160 bits
5. Encode the result using Base58check

Please don't, you would be creating an unspendable UTXO that will remain in the UTXO set forever. Use OP_RETURN if you want to insert an arbitrary message into the chain...

Another important thing to consider doing is to increase your income; after all when prices go up and you have to spend more money, you have to own more money to be able to do it. And the only way you can have more money is to earn more of it (increased income). Otherwise investment is there to protect your net worth not make you more money.

Additional income can mean different things for different people. It could be a second job for employees with a fixed paycheck or it could be expanding your business if you are self employed.
That secondary job doesn't need to be something fancy, it can be something simple as trading cryptos if you know how to do it (keep in mind that trading crypto is different from investing in it).

You mean "regular currency" not "regular money". Money by definition should be a store of value and fiat currencies are not money. Bitcoin is.

Run out of what? Bitcoin is not "burning" when we use it. The coins just change hands and we can never run out of it!

I voted no because I see it as a pointless warning because that's not how Bitcoin security should be viewed.

The way I see it is that if there is even a small possibility of reversing a public key to get the private key, and we still haven't migrated to a resistant protocol (a hard fork), then Bitcoin will have had become obsolete!
That means the warning you are talking about is either pointless (meaning it is impossible to reverse pubkey and reusing your address doesn't put you at any risk) or it is not a warning (bitcoin is already over and you shouldn't even be using it anymore).

I entered Bitcoin world back in 2014 and I remember people working on the same exact thing back then too! In other words this is not new. Hardware has improved but not enough to make a significant difference in order to make this a possibility. That means your attempt at conveying a sense of urgency is wrong.

However, I fully support any discussion about our replacement options.

If ECDSA and ECSDSA on secp256k1 curve are to become obsolete, they need to be removed completely IMO; and that requires a hard fork. In such a scenario we no longer need SegWit, it too can be removed.

That's a weird way of putting it! As if you are suggesting that without a block subsidy, people won't be able to accumulate bitcoin! Which may be the reason for your follow up question.

Trading bitcoin (and people accumulating it) takes place on the market and is unrelated to mining and its reward. People buy and sell bitcoin from and to each other on the market. Any coin you buy from an exchange today is many "hops" from a coinbase reward. Which means in the future without a block reward, the market should not change at all. People will still continue trading with each other with the coins they have.

The only thing that changes is when "supply" of fresh coins entering the market/circulation decreases while "demand" goes up, the price should go higher. Which is one of the reasons why we usually have a big bull market each 4 years starting after the halving (supply cut by 50%).

This problem arises when the politicians are the ones making the decisions instead of experts. They don't even consult real experts, they get some report from some malicious actors and then act on it specially if that makes them "look good" and can get the polls up!

In other words the system is broken and needs fixing...

Just because some completely useless thing gets pumped after being advertised, it doesn't change the fact that what you are talking about is participating in a market manipulation scheme.

When you view it that way, things start to change. A market manipulation scheme aka pump and dump, will obviously increase the price of that garbage (token, coin, stock, etc.) but it is fake.
Can you make profit from it? Sure.
Can you lose money in it? Sure.

So stop thinking you missed out just because some shitcoin got advertised and pumped. Think more realistically about the risks. If you are willing to take those risks and if you know how to get in and more importantly to GET OUT, then start trading these shitcoins that get pumped and dumped.

Tokens are completely useless. They are only used to raise funds. They serve no other purpose.
That means they can't be anything other than a pump and dump scheme.

So the only viable advice here is that if you want to be a real "developer" and create a real project that has a utility then don't create a token! Have an innovative idea and then try to build that as an actual cryptocurrency project...

You should make your expectations more realistic. Establishing a New World Order is not going to happen overnight, like previous times. It will take years and will be accompanied with a lot of conflict. The wars you see in 3 continents today are the result of that.

But it is happening and it is inevitable...

If the economic effects (including inflation and recession) are limited to one country only, then the effects on bitcoin price are going to be very limited. But this tariff war is a global war that is affecting a lot of countries. For example when a country's exports decrease due to these tariffs, they may face recession of their own as their economy slows down.

Not exactly.

1. The tariff war is mostly creating disruption in the world and it causes uncertainty which means people are less willing to invest into something that has higher risk than traditional assets such as gold. This means bitcoin will have trouble rising (that doesn't mean it would drop though).

2. The next effect is going to be inflation in the US as tariffs will increase price of a lot of things (as it already has in the USA). Inflation is generally considered a positive force that can contribute to bitcoin's price rise.

3. But as we know governments battle inflation by increasing interest rates. The rates are already high and they are causing recession, increasing them would worsen the recession. And based on the past we know that during recession bitcoin price drops.

These are generally the 3 main factors that should be considered when we want to analyze what effects the Trump's tariff war has on bitcoin price.

Making any kind of move during small fluctuations of the market is in direct contradiction with being a holder. A holder is a long term investor not a day trader. Which means the holder should try to invest their money into bitcoin at the best possible time but not look too much for a big dip.

Selling on rises, shorting on corrections, buying back, rinse and repeating is what day traders should do. They try to read the market and try to make a move based on the direction the price is going so that they can maximize their profit. This is obviously a difficult strategy. So choose which one you want to be based on that.

That is not dominance, that is market cap ratio. It is computed by dividing bitcoin's market cap by the sum total of thousands of altcoins' market caps. The only thing that it shows is that there are so many shitcoins in the market, nothing else about trends or anything like that.

Shitcoin pumps work something like this:
1. First phase (moderate pumps): when they are introduced initially they get some moderate sized pumps
2. Second phase (a big pump): when they gain popularity and a lot money is injected into the shitcoin. This is the biggest pump they experience in their lifetime
3. Third phase (little to no pumps): this is the final phase where people move on to other and newer shitcoins so this one has a hard time getting the same big pumps as before.

ETH is currently in the third phase. As a shitcoin, it had its pump pump (second phase) back in 2017 when it reached 0.15BTC but ever since that pump, it has been going lower and lower (currently 0.02BTC).
In this phase (3rd) they can only pump it a little because people are no longer interested in this shitcoin and they prefer newer shitcoins that are in their 1st and 2nd phases that can give them the highest profit.

ETH will continue going down in the long run.
But the real question is what is your objective? If you are a day trader in this market, then altcoins are still a viable option since they are still getting pumped and dumped which can be profitable. You just have to learn to find the pumps and stop wasting your time bag-holding shitcoins hoping for a pump that may never come.

It will definitely not be easy. But euro is a good example. It was established among tiny countries that were at war with each other for over a century (2 biggest ones they call WW1 and WW2) and yet they managed to create euro amongst themselves.
I dare say BRICS currency would be easier than that because first of all these countries were never really at war with each other at the level and it also doesn't need to be used as each nation's legal tender, it could be a currency for international trades only.

We have to wait and see where it goes though, at this point we are only speculating as we watch the progress...

China used to be the biggest bag-holder of US bonds holding IIRC $1.6 trillion of US debt. They've been dumping it slowly but surely though. Pretty much starting the dump since around 2014 (when WW5 entered a new phase). Today they are bag-holding around $0.75 trillion and are ranked third among the bag-holders (Japan is the first with $1.1 trillion, UK is second with $0.807 trillion bonds).

P.S. One of the reasons why FED doesn't doesn't reduce the interest rate is to prevent this dump!

These are Electrum server certificates that are used to encrypt your communication with them using SSL (somewhat similar to how you communicate with a website using https). All servers must have them and they send it to you so that you can encrypt/decrypt the messages with that server.

There are no known vulnerability that a "malicious" server can exploit to gain access to your keys though.

What exactly is the problem here because P2PKH is a very straight forward script and you don't need to do anything special in order to spend your coins if you actually have the private key. Just import that key into any popular wallet like Electrum and spend your coins!

If you don't have the private key...
You'd need to find a random 256-bit private key that produces a public key that can produce the same 160-bit hash. This kind of collision is impossible to find.
Don't waste your time and others'.

The only connection between Electrum and Electrum-LTC is the fact that someone else (@pooler) created a copy of the Electrum source code and modified it to work for LTC. In other words these are two separate projects developed by different people hence different websites.

https://github.com/pooler/electrum-ltc/

Additionally the Electrum-LTC project seems to have been abandoned (at least development of it) considering the last commit in the repository is from 3 years ago.