Another issue here is that when a country is facing energy crisis they won't care if a miner is getting its electricity from a renewable/green source. What they care about is any way they could cover that gap. For example if there is mass blackouts they are not going to allow a miner continue mining using hydroelectricity! They are going to want to use that small amount to cover a little bit of that electricity supply shortage.

It is interesting that they are using bitcoin and lightning network but I still think the idea is fundamentally flawed. It is like Steemit and nobody could claim it is a success. The reason in my opinion is that there are already alternatives to this system that don't have the payment factor as "incentive" and they are working fine.
From small Q&A forums like stackoverflow to blog like sites like medium are more popular and I don't see that changing just because they added a payment method on top (still centralized website though).

This day was foreseeable ever since the 90's where they disarmed you and you guys celebrated that event. Today Ukraine has to beg for missiles with a range higher than 300 km.

Strategist say we have 3 threats: military, political and social. When you lose all 3, all is lost.
They first disarmed you so the military threat became real that day.
Then it was the social threat where domestic disagreements among people turns into hatred and polarizes the society. That too happened in Ukraine.
Finally it was the political threat with coups, colored revolutions and finally installing a non-politician (ie. a celebrity in entertainment business) at the highest political position who is just playing the part.

They did the same to a lot of countries, like Iraq: disarmament, polarization, hatred towards the administration and finally invasion. An invasion that Ukraine was a part of by the way...

Umm did you just justify Russian invasion of Ukraine? LOL
Russia is saying the exact same thing for what they are doing: "NATO has been expanding eastward and therefor they have an "instinct for self-preservation" and had to act", as they claim.

You forgot to include the most important keyword in your title: "regulatory risks in Europe".

That changes everything, mainly because there isn't that much hashrate coming from Europe to begin with so even if they outright ban bitcoin mining it won't change anything at all. The biggest country with the biggest hashrate was China and their mining ban didn't really change the hashrate or cause any troubles!

Besides, with the energy crisis that Europe is facing and the super high price of electricity I don't see any kind of mining happening in Europe in near future even if they don't ban it.

P.S. The rest regarding the energy consumption is the repetition of the same old FUDs.

There are a bunch of problems here.

First it is very hard to find the operating system of the nodes since the information is not provided through the defined P2P message protocols so you'll have to find an alternative way to figure that out.

Secondly the only exploit you can hope for is in the operating system not in the full node implementation because they don't leave any room for "remote code execution" to be exploited. That means you are now facing multiple OS versions and types that all have to have an exploit which is not possible.

Finally you can't change consensus rules since it is the compiled code that is enforcing those rules (the code) and you can't change the code at run time. You first have to close the application, change the rules, compile the code again and (re)start running the node. That adds more challenge.

Assuming this attack is successful the scale is going to be small so now you are basically creating a fork where you have a minority chain that is working on an altcoin that is rejected by the rest of the network.
There is also the additional problem of getting a miner to mine said altcoin blocks.

These are two different and unrelated questions.
When you make the getblockchaininfo call, you are using your own full node not someone else's node. So you are trusting the software you have that is enforcing the Bitcoin consensus rules that ensure that the blockchain you have is the "real" bitcoin blockchain, so it is not possible to have "fake blockchain" in first place.

The answer to the other question depends on what you mean by "fake". An invalid blockchain that breaks bitcoin consensus rules is already available out there in form of many altcoins. An invalid blockchain that doesn't follow any rule (eg. no PoW/not mined) is some arbitrary data not a blockchain. And again it is full nodes that have to accept this chain and they don't accept arbitrary/invalid data.

They should but not by other "terrorists and murderers". Don't pretend that what Europe and other "world powers" are doing to Russia is because they invaded Ukraine. It is not. They don't give a crap about Ukraine any of the things you listed here, if they did and were worried about "a country invading other countries for no reasons" they should start with NATO countries and more specifically United States that has invaded, destroyed and directly or indirectly murdered millions of people all for reasons like free oil, exerting geopolitical power, etc.

No, that line is checking to see if there is any bytes left in the array/stream (called input) it is reading from, before it reads the "lenbyte" value which is the rlen and could have a value of zero itself.

Looking at the code, when parsing dersig[1] if r or s length or value is equal to zero, the parser still returns true. Ignoring the strict der encoding enforcement (eg. pre-activation of BIP66) the code eventually ends up here[2] where it would reject the zero r/s values.

My question is if there is any scenario where somewhere in the middle of going from [1] to [2] that it would ignore ECDSA verification and returns true?
Or a better way of asking this question is why isn't the parser in [1] just reject invalid signatures (eg. rlen=0) and return false right there instead of letting it go to [2]?

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/e7a0e9627196655be5aa6c2738d4b57646a03726/src/pubkey.cpp#L35
[2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/c06cda3e48e9826043ebc5790a7bb505bfbf368c/src/secp256k1/src/ecdsa_impl.h#L216

Regardless of being a newcomers you should still try to use your own logic after reading other people's posts regardless of their rank. In this case there is a connection between hashrate and price but hashrate follows the price not the other way around. That's what was said in other posts too.

Each transaction has one or more outputs (just as it has one or more inputs) and each output has an index inside the output array. The index of the first one is 0, next is 1 and so on. "vout" is that index here.

The error message is already telling you what the problem is and it is not just about being negative or zero, it is about being an "invalid" value for amount which could be for many different reasons like not being a number; in this case the problem is that the value has more decimal places than defined in Bitcoin (10 instead of 8).

True but first they have to prove that those coins are actually acquired through scam otherwise it is not possible to randomly call up the authorities and tell them you want an exchange to freeze some funds just because you claim the owners are scammers.
In other words it takes time to prove it and by then the coins could be sold already and cashed out.

Can anyone confirm the price of wood in Europe/Germany these days? Someone said it has gone up to €‎350 (from $7) but I couldn't find it in the media.

They are not in the same category though, Shahed-136 is categorized as loitering munitions while Mohajer-6 is in the same category as TB2. Although that too is not a good comparison since TB2 is more like a Frankenstein where they import each part and put it together inside Turkey while majority of Iranian drones are 100% domestically produced.

Iranian officials denied having supplied anything to Russia for this war not denying the UAVs or their origin. There really isn't anything to investigate since it is pretty clear. As I said above, these were sold to Russia way before this war began. There are some other military relations between the two nations where Iran receives Su-35 planes from Russia.

It is worth knowing that these drones are already old technology and have been given to all Iranian allies in West Asia and also have been used against US targets in the region over the past decade. They are extremely effective and US has not been able to protect their own bases against them so far!

HIMARS, S300, all kinds of radars and anti air defenses, even MIG-24 are among the things that it has destroyed... Not to mention its regular use in Middle East to hunt Patriot SAM systems.

They can fly as fast as 200 km/h and leave absolutely no "thermal flare" because of their small engine and its type.

You can't shoot down Shahed-136 with small arms due to its small size (about 2 meters), speed and altitude. Not to mention that due to the material used in its body it won't fall even if it is shot with bullets.

There are more than a dozen ways Iranian drones are guided, GPS is at the bottom of the list and that's even if it is on the list.

To be fair Iran has the strongest and most advanced military in the world but the source of that news about BMs is not reliable, same with the one about Shahed-136 drones considering that they were sold to Russia a long time ago (way before the invasion) to be used in the war against terrorism in Syria.

The real question is why isn't Ukraine buying arms from Iran and instead insist of receiving garbage from US? Of course the answer is clear: in the proxy war between US and Russia, US needs to control the arms that Ukraine receives in order to be able to prolong the war. In other words Ukraine is not allowed to purchase anything decent.

Food war is way bigger than Russia-Ukraine conflict and that conflict is only a small part of it.
For example China has been buying and storing all the grains they can. Last I checked they had stored more than 60% of all the grains in the world and were still mass purchasing.
Most countries halted their food related exports or halted then resumed at a decreased capacity.
Europe is desperate for food that the small shipments Russia released from Ukraine ports was swallowed whole by Europeans.
US has been stealing the Ukrainian grains from their ports as much as they can despite them being a big producer themselves.
There is a serious shortage of fertilizers going on in the world because of this war that is going to lead to a big decrease in farmers' yield next year.

The poll is intentionally rigged to suggest that there must be a big drop to a much lower price (-25% dump) whereas there is no reason for it to happen specially since the past couple of weeks have proven that despite most the world economy going to shit, bitcoin doesn't want to go any lower than the current price.

I disagree mainly because the topic doesn't fit in the existing system. Each aspect is either too specialized or doesn't need a course in academia. For example the technical aspects (cryptography, network, database, etc.) are special topics and are already general meaning they can only be taught to programmers and some of them already are. The other aspects are general too like the economical aspect of bitcoin as a currency or altcoins are risky useless version of penny stocks.

You can also go on a gambling site, make some bets on dice rolls and make better ROI but that doesn't mean it is a good idea to do so.
That's pretty much the summary of the altcoin market, specially the token market. People are making bets on short term prices of these useless coins/tokens and cash their "chips" out if their bet succeeds for a profit. Calling it an "investment" is wrong.