note that in most cases if you are downloading the binaries instead of the source code and compiling it yourself, you are still trusting the developer 100% because you are running a closed source application when you download the compiled version.
although there is a simple (to use but complicated to create) solution to this and i only know two wallets that do it, it is called "deterministic builds". bitcoin core and Electrum are the only wallets that i know of which do this. it means if you compile the code you will end up with the same binaries (eg. both have the same hash). so you could verify if for example the .exe that Electrum releases is the same thing as their source code or if it is different.

a bug that is already fixed can not happen again! and since it is a well known and well documented incident, others who are re-implementing bitcoin won't repeat the same thing either.

well, the same argument could be made about any other implementation and it would be true!

i am not an expert and since i have never used this project for anything serious i have never needed to check the source code but it is open source and you could check it. if you found a vulnerability in the implementation, the libraries and the way it is using them then let us know with specifics. otherwise only talking about possibilities covers all the tools, libraries, wallets and implementations out there.

from reddit by luke-jr taken from that article:

although i have to disagree about calling the "tool" unsafe just because users may use it wrong (points 1 and 3 and partly 2). for example if someone is using the website then they don't understand what this tool is for, and for these types of users no wallet or other tool is safe because they can lose their money just the same way.
or regarding #3 paper wallets have a clear purpose, they are meant to be used as a cold storage which means when you have a certain amount of bitcoin and want to "store" that for a long time. again if you are reusing that address then you are using the tool wrong.
as for point #2, if the source code is run on a clean and offline computer (like a live Linux from a DVD) then i don't see how this could even be an issue.

in my experience whenever someone creates a throwaway account like this and wants to reveal his "methods privately" there is something shady going on. otherwise there is absolutely no reason for you not to share them here publicly so that others could post their feedback on that "method".

we will see more rises up until next halving but not because of halving. the rises will be for the same reasons as always: more adoption. and as that grows, price goes up with it. and it is growing, specially as the market calms and ever since it exited the bubble stages and reached a more meaningful state.
the halving hype and its rise will probably take place only in the final month as we are getting close to the event itself, a rise which will be fast and won't last.

10 days ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5179242.0
that is why i don't get the point of opening a new topic for the same discussion. the obsession OP has with this specific number is very strange too. even if you have buy orders wanting to be filled at that price it still is strange to obsess over it this much in this market which is unpredictable!

it doesn't really compromise any security if it is done correctly and by the right person. a lot of cases on different exchanges have been solved this way in the past. the problem is that it is a lot of work to recover these coins so exchanges rarely bother with it unless the amount is significant enough to justify the effort.

this is a very good point which i usually tell others too but i wouldn't say any percentages though. because whether it is 5% or 30% or even 150% depends on the situation a lot. for instance there are times when in the altcoin market they are pumping some shitcoin up fast and it is obviously going up a lot, getting out in 5% is not a good idea and it doesn't necessarily have to be greediness to wait either. it comes down to analysis of the market and speculation.
additionally you can always both get in and get out incrementally. meaning you buy multiple times at different prices (eg. buy at 1500 sat, 1550, 1600) and dump multiple times at multiple prices (eg. 1600, 1700, 2000 satoshi).

i haven't done extensive comparison but the cost of living is usually a lot higher in developed countries. in these underdeveloped countries with a local currency of such low value the cost of living isn't that high specially since the "quality" of life is not that high either. what exists is a big inflation that is dropping the value of their currency. on top of that they keep printing more of their fiat which makes everything worse.

these two statements are contradictory.
you say you want an easy job to earn "easy money" but you have chosen the hardest job (considering the lowest pay) in the whole world not just to earn bitcoin.

money is earned through hard work done wisely, my advice is that instead of looking for easy money you should start learning some skills and do some real jobs with those skills to earn money/bitcoin.

sub $10k IS over.
but the thing is, in bitcoin market because the market itself is small and order books aren't that packed with buy or sell orders, a small manipulation and/or panic can pull the price lower than the strong support (being $10k). but since it is not real downtrend it won't be big or even last long. which is why it is said to be over.
basically at any time, fluctuations within 10% should be expected of bitcoin.

you can still create a master private key using something else (like Ian Colman tool) and then import the yprv into your electrum and have the nested SegWit wallet type with addresses that start with 3.
you can also always open an issue on Electrum's Github repository and ask them to add this option with Seeds that Electrum generates itself so that you could choose it in initial step.

- it is worth knowing that nested SegWit transactions are a lot bigger than legacy transactions although you would pay less fee because of their smaller weight.

so you think mining industry where miners are getting paid 12.5BTC (or $125000) per block is going to collapse if fees were zero and they weren't getting the 1 satoshi/byte minimal fee which translates into 0.012BTC (or $120) with 1.2 MB block!

not to mention when you say "then" you are talking about the time when miners were getting paid 25BTC or $12500 in other words 10 times less than now!

this is on a tiny scale so your "storm" looks more like a small wave in the vast ocean.
the only thing positive about this news and all the others like it, is that they are showing how bitcoin's adoption in the real world as a currency is still ongoing. despite the fact that people sometimes think bitcoin is an investment to make them rich we still see the real world adoption of it for payments,... and they are decently popular.

it seemed hilarious back when it was happening too because they were saying shitcoins that first inherit all the bitcoin flaws and second add more flaws of their own could replace bitcoin! it was hilarious because it didn't make any sense. it is like saying one of those shitty Chinese copies of iPhone is going to replace Apple.

it is indirectly because of the fact that CNY is losing value against USD. over the past 4 months it has tanked about 10% most of which happened in August. and whenever something like that happens in a country people start investing their money to "keep its value".
obviously bitcoin has always been an additional option although the smallest one for investors, so they start investing their money in bitcoin too. but since it is a smaller scale the price doesn't show it yet.

i think you might have confused what this is. OP's proposal has nothing to do with OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, the output he is spending and the new one he is creating are both simple P2PKH outputs (check the raw transactions yourself).
he is simply using "locktime" (the last 4 bytes of every transaction) alongside non-max sequences to make the new transaction spendable only at a certain block height specified by that locktime.
in this tx:
01000000012<-snipped the middle part->8acc0270900
0270900 is the locktime and is equal to 600000 which is interpreted as the block height.

you have to pass the optional parameter called "address_type" with "legacy". i believe the command should be typed like this:
more info: https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/0.18.0/rpc/wallet/getnewaddress/

when you mine, just send the new coins to a P2PKH output instead of a P2SH (P2WPKH nested in script hash) like the one you used above. then spend those coins. that means first sending the coins to an address starting with m or n and then spending from that address.