To put things in perspective for you:

There are approximately 2^160 possible bitcoin addresses. There are an estimated approximately 2^63 grains of sand on Earth.

The relationship between a private key and a public key is not linear, if you want an explanation regarding the relationship between private keys and public keys, you can watch the video at the bottom of this webpage.

I can also assure you that a lot of resources has been devoted into trying to find a way to calculate a private key based on a public key, not only for ecdsa but other encryption methods as well.

I am referring to politicians. The covid restrictions in 2020 were an excuse for the modified voting rules not authorized by state legislature, as required by the constitution, and these modified voting rules resulted in Biden getting elected, and Democrats keeping the house.

I think left politicians are trying to institute covid restrictions incrementally, to prevent a revolt that would be likely if something like new lockdowns were reinstituted.

The entity signing the transaction gets to set the transaction fee, although as a practical matter, the terms of a transaction are negotiated between the bitcoin buyer (receiver) and bitcoin seller (sender); the terms of the transaction would include the transaction fee, and whether or not the fee is deducted from the amount the receiver would otherwise receive.

Exchanges charge withdrawal fees as a means to make money, and to offset the actual amount of expenses they incur in processing a withdrawal. Exchanges charge a fixed fee to process withdrawals because they have dominant pricing power.

With LN transactions, every intermediary will potentially receive a transaction fee at a rate they set. In theory, a LN transaction with many intermediaries could have a higher fee than an on-chain transaction, but this would be very unlikely based on the current fee market for LN transactions.

LN fees are negotiated between transaction participants. Nodes can set whatever fees they wish to set. The caveat is that if a node operator sets their transaction fees too high, few (or possibly no) transactions will be routed via his channels.

There is a labor shortage right now, so I have my doubts that many companies are going to follow through with firing people for not getting vaccinated. It is more likely that companies will delay allowing the unvaccinated back into the office, but will allow them to continue to WFH.

The trust in public health officials is quickly declining, as is the case with the media.

I really don't think the numbers can account for covid restrictions based on the number of deaths. IMO the left is trying to reinstitute restrictions in order to account for modified voting rules that will allow them to cheat in the 2022 election (and beyond).

Clinton's scandals forced him to move to the center (after initially appealing to the left base), and absent this moderation, he likely would have been removed from office. The W Bush years saw the US move incrementally to the right, but had Kerry won in 2000, the country would not have been run all that differently. You might argue that Obama, who most reasonable people believe hates the US, allowed the Democrat party to move to the left, not only by governing from the left but also by putting up with extremists in his own party.

Trump is arguably to the left of W Bush and is probably to the left of how Clinton governed in his second term on some issues, although is to the right of Clinton overall. Trump was also not very far to the right of where Hilary Clinton would have governed on most issues, although Clinton would have been very corrupt.

If you are on the far left or the far right, chances are that you are not going to vote for a politician in the other party. It is the moderates that are willing to cross party lines and the independents who are willing to vote for different parties. This fact forces national candidates to moderate their platforms. I believe Biden won because he successfully displayed himself as being moderate, and someone who would not bully his opponents the same way that Trump did, obviously once Biden got into office, both of these proved themselves to be false.

I think part of the problem with Trump was that he never made a serious long-term effort to reach out to the other side of the aisle, he only tried to keep his base happy. This was the mistake that Clinton initially made, but corrected himself.

What you describe is just a complicated and more expensive version of 2-of-2 multi sig. in order to spend the coin, you need the private keys for address x and address F.

As Danny mentioned above, your coin should not be thought of as an account, but rather as cash.

As I mentioned above, “freezing” your credit card is a loss prevention feature to prevent losses for your bank, not you. With credit cards, you are generally not liable for unauthorized transactions.

There is definitely no scientific basis for taking the vaccine every six months. The death rate for the new variant is below that of the Flu, although it is more contagious. There might be an argument for someone who is vulnerable to get vaccinated regularly, but not the general population.

Over time there will be more variations and they will become less deadly. I don’t think many people will be willing to get vaccinated more than once. Trust in public health officials is too low, and trust that politicians will not impose restrictions on the vaccinated won’t be there.

I am not 100% certain, but I suspect this has to do with how the database is queried when sorting. When you visit a page, the database query limits 20 results and when you are visiting a page other than the first one, an offset is used. I believe a likely solution would be to always have a sort by topic ID to be used after all other sort criteria is applied.

Democrats and the left wing media reflexively opposed anything that Trump ever said, or any position he took. This is even true for positions that Democrats have taken in the past.

I think Trump is a large reason why the Democrat party has moved so far to the left. There are positions today taken by mainstream Democrats that would be considered radical even for fringe groups ten or twenty years ago.

It is more likely that a child will commit suicide while complying with covid restrictions (due to the covid restrictions) than for a child to die from covid.

Should people who don't get periods still wear tampons? Should I wear a band-aid if I am not bleeding? Should I wear a seatbelt in my car if I am talking on the phone while parked in a parking lot?

It is not necessary to have 100% compliance for preventative measures to be effective. IMO, attempts to get 100% compliance with things such as mask-wearing likely actually reduced compliance as some people likely did not wear a mask as a principal of not allowing unelected bureaucrats to tell them what to do. 
The vaccines have shown to be effective in preventing hospitalizations and death against the delta variant. Those who are vaccinated tend to have a case that is similar to a mild flu case. I don't think it is reasonable to take serious preventative measures to stop cases of a mild flu.

FIFY

Unfortunately public health officials have lost nearly all credibility. When you admit to lying to the public about recommendations and thresholds, and when you shout down anyone who dissents or even questions your opinions, people are not going to trust you. Public health officials have repeatedly refused to explain the rationale behind their opinions, and uses the claim that they are "experts" to demand people listen to them.
Unfortunately, the left was willing to reduce confidence in the vaccine in order to harm Trump politically, and Biden is unwilling to put Trump in a position to be able to influence people into getting the vaccine, which would help Trump politically. Instead, Biden chooses to insult all the mothers (and everyone else) who have not gotten the vaccine yet. Those on the left were practically cheering when studies came out showing that hydroxy was not effective in treating covid.

I don't think a nTimeLock parameter would help the OP, at least not alone. From what I can tell, the OP wants the ability to "freeze" his coin as a security measure. If the OP's private keys are stolen, the attacker could simply wait for the time lock to expire. Also, the OP would be unable to spend his coin at an arbitrary time.
This is an important point. Bitcoin (and altcoins) is much less forgiving than the traditional banking system. With the banking system, if someone obtains your credit card information, you will typically not be on the hook for unauthorized transactions. The "freeze" feature as described by the OP is really more of a loss prevention measure for the bank as the bank is the one who will be on the hook if there is an unauthorized transaction.

I don't think this solves the OP's problem.

This is probably the closest thing to a solution for the OP. Although an alternative would be to just have one key and keep that key secure.

Part of this is due to the fact that workers are not accepting lower-paying jobs due to generous unemployment benefits. Another reason is due to the runaway price inflation we are seeing that is being caused by excessive government spending and ultra-lose monetary policy.

Again, you can thank the federal reserve and it's monetary policy for this. Trillions of dollars are being pumped into the economy via QE, and this has caused bubbles in most asset classes. Look at prices in things like NFCs, altcoins, and companies that have no earnings prospects. All are through the roof.
The pollsters were predicting Trump to lose in a landslide in 2016, instead, he won in a landslide. They were predicting that Democrats would see major gains in the house and Senate, instead, they had losses in the House, and took back the Senate due to a fluke special election.

Biden is such a popular president that he was unable to fill a small auditorium at a CNN town hall last week, and viewership of said town hall was handidly beaten by "regular programming" on the other cable news networks. 

Think about why two nodes belonging to a miner might be out of sync.

One possibility is that one node thinks the most recent block is 692827, and this block's hash is 0000000000000000000aa...5d17c6d2 while another node thinks the most recent block is 692827 and that block's hash is 0000...c5d17d6f3. Assuming both blocks are valid, the miner would need to make a decision as to which block they are going to mine on top of, and assuming each block has a different set of transactions, including zero transactions in a block on top of either block will not prevent any new block from being invalid.

Another possibility is that one node thinks the most recent block is 692827, and this block's hash is 0000000000000000000aa...5d17c6d2 while another node thinks the most recent block is 692826 and that block's hash is 000000000000000000011...0025b5c48. If this was the case, one of the nodes simply has not yet received block 692827, and assuming the miner can trust the block is valid, it can mine on top of it with transactions if it has updated its list of unspent outputs. If the miner were to start mining an empty block in this scenario, it would need to choose which block to mine on top of -- mining on top of 826 would likely result in an orphaned block, while mining on top of 827 would result in the block being accepted provided it is otherwise valid and is propagated prior to any other miner propagating their own block on top of 827.

In both scenarios, the miner does not actually reduce the risk of having their found block be invalid. If anything, a miner with two nodes can start mining on top of a newly found block more quickly, as it can start doing so once the node receives (and validates) a block.

The only scenario in which mining an empty block would be +EV would be if the miner has received a new block, and has not yet updated their list of unspent outputs, so it cannot know which transactions are valid that can be included in a new block. One might also argue that mining an empty block would be +EV if the transaction fees are very low, but that is not the case currently. I noted above that a miner might validate a block prior to updating the unspent output table to allow it to start mining on top of a new block more quickly, so mining an empty block does not necessarily mean it is SPV mining.

Bitcoin uses consensus to determine which rules to follow, which also tells nodes which chain to follow, what transactions and blocks to accept. As long as your node is following consensus rules, and has the ability to communicate with other nodes that follow the same consensus rules, it will be on the same blockchain as the rest of the network. 

I think my prediction has the highest probability of winning. My $12,200 will be the winning prediction for any closing price below $13.443. This is 4x the low we saw in 2020, and is a price we have seen as recently as November 2020. No one else has such a large price window, except for pooya87, who needs the price to reach ~6.6x the ATH to have a winning guess.

I noted in my prediction post that I believe that QE is causing short-term speculation and that inflation will cause both short-term interest rates and QE to be sharply curtailed, both of which should cause sharp pullbacks in speculative assets.

This does not affect my opinion as to the long term direction for the price of bitcoin.

Given a scenario in which a miner has sufficient hashrate to expect to mine 4 blocks per day, average tx fees of 0.05 per block, and a 3% pool fee to cover things such as orphans, and other expenses:
If a miner receives all the transaction fees in the blocks it finds privately, they will receive:
0.2 BTC in transaction fees privately
25 BTC in block subsidies via the pool
0.2 BTC in transaction fees via the pool
-0.756 BTC in pools fees paid to the pool (to be deducted from the amounts received via the pool)

The pool will receive 25 BTC in block subsidies, but will payout 25.2 BTC to the miner. The extra .2 BTC will ultimately come from the other pool users when the pool lowers the amount it pays per hash.

I don't see any reason why a miner would work on an empty block (assuming the mempool is not empty), other than that the miner has recently received a new block and is not yet sure which transactions are valid. Even if a pool has fully validated a block they are now mining on top of, before constructing a block with transactions, they will need to update their list of unspent outputs and compare this to inputs in unconfirmed transactions. So even if a miner is not SPV mining, there will still be a period of time in which they are mining an empty block.

I believe that most pools probably have direct connections to other major pools in which the pools send newly found blocks directly to eachother so they can save seconds in the time it takes for a block to propagate so the pool can start working on a new block earlier. I don't doubt that pools also have multiple other nodes that are not publicly known so to prevent the pool from being the subject of a sybil attack, or not receiving a block because a miner did not send said block via this private network.

The only reason why two nodes would not be in agreement is if one node received a block but another did not. It would not make sense to mine an empty block if you are not mining on top of a newly found block because you have already validated that the previous block was valid.

I would go a step further.

If the least powerful participant can mine, someone who is not mining can mine all of the blocks in a second. This is an oxymoron.

It is not possible to get the private keys for a range of public keys, unless the length of the range is 1, and you have calculated the public key from the private key.

---

OP, you need to have a shorter range of private keys that you want the associated public keys to. You may also want to choose a different dissertation topic.

A miner who is mining on a pool 'honestly' is providing hashes, the value of each is worth one hash. A miner who is mining on a pool in a way I described in my previous post is providing hashes that are less valuable than the hashes from an 'honest' miner. In your argument, pool X would lose n hashes, but would also not have to payout for n hashes. The value of the hashes the pool looses would be less than the value the pool is no longer paying out.

The pool would have a higher market share by allowing a dishonest miner to continue mining on the pool, but doing so will result in the pool loosing money.

I might compare this scenario to a company with a team of salesmen. If one salesman is dishonest and pockets some payments from customers, the company is going to lose the money as a result of this. The salesman doesn't pocket all of the money from customers, so continuing to employ the employee would result in higher sales revenue compared to if the salesman was fired, but the employee is still causing the company to lose money.

I would also point out that a dishonest miner will result in Pool X being able to distribute less per hash to all other miners, so allowing a dishonest miner to continue this practice will result in honest miners mining elsewhere that don't allow this practice, and can afford to pay more per hash.

If you want to be 95% confident your estimate will be within 5% +- of the actual change, you need 323 blocks in the current difficulty period, or 501 to be 99% confident.

Right.