Bitcoin was never centralized or Chinese to want to become decentralized and de-Chinese now!
China also never had as much hashrate as some people claimed, the mining pools do not own hashrate and the miners connect to them from all around the world.
As for the price drop which OP focuses on, it wasn't because of China or their ban of mining. Instead it was simply market manipulation because price had gone up a lot without a major crash for the market makers to make profit.

These are Epoch Unix timestamps and when you convert the maximum possible value for a locktime to datetime you get the exact time I posted above. The locktime variable is a 32-bit unsigned integer so it can be as big as 0xffffffff which is equal to 4294967295. An example online tool for conversion: https://www.unixtimestamp.com/

You should think about mocking your tests and separating the network layer and other parts of your application so that you can test without needing actual coins.
Or you should use bitcoin core's regtest[1] to mine as many blocks as you want in a second and use the massive amount of bitcoin you gain to test whatever you need. There is also the new Signet[2] which has certain additional characteristics.

[1] https://gist.github.com/System-Glitch/cb4e87bf1ae3fec9925725bb3ebe223a
[2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Signet

Block height 499,999,999 or if time is used a time equal to Sun Feb 07 2106 06:28:15.

That would be their choice to keep a non-mineable transaction until becomes mineable. They usually don't waste their memory and stick to the standard rule and reject transactions that have a far away locktime.

You should only test your own code and behavior not what others do, meaning in this scenario you test that the connection is instantiated correctly, messages are constructed and sent correctly and things like that and you don't care if the other node received these messages or not.

But if you want to know I remember some full node clients sent back the inv message with the hash of the new block they just received and that could be an indication. You could also send them a getdata message requesting the block and see if they have it or not.

Since you didn't provide the hash itself and user can choose any inputs (and their hashes) this is not preimage, this is collision.

I was talking about the second duplication which is followed immediately by a drop, OP_2DUP OP_DROP could be replaced by OP_OVER to do the same thing:
x y -(OP_2DUP)-> x y x y -(OP_DROP)-> x y x
x y -(OP_OVER)-> x y x

Without it, any miner could steal coins from the winner. This is not a collision, this is preimage.
[/quote]
OK. That makes sense but it is still a collision but only limited to valid public keys, it would have been preimage if the script contained the hash.

Wrong.
Many other copies of bitcoin were created where they make changes to bitcoin protocol and introduce weaknesses to an otherwise secure protocol. Sometimes it is with good intentions such as testing other technologies and sometimes it is out of lack of understanding of the technology. The result however is the same poor altcoins.

This makes no sense. It is like saying the Chinese rip-off of a brand is better than the original product!

Because bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that has innovation that works as it is supposed to and delivers on all that it promises.

Fair enough.
This is also why I recently changed my avatar to say "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts!". We've seen two faced people a lot in bitcoin world but they never run a long con, instead they always reveal their true intentions very soon.
In comparison Andreas has been around and positively helping educate newbies for many years now. If he wanted to turn to the "dark side" he would have done it already...

I think it works this way but it doesn't make sense to me to do it this way.
If you want to write a script for hash collision you usually want to use the same hash algorithms not 2 different ones (SHA1 and HASH160).
Also the second OP_2DUP needs to be OP_SWAP so that you "swap" the 2 stack items and hash the other item.
There is also no need for a OP_CheckSig in a hash collision script.

Something like this (from the existing collision puzzles):

You are out of the loop because Amazon news was fake and it became known the first day when rise was just beginning. This is why we keep saying this rise has nothing to do with the short lived hype about Amazon and yet price keeps rising.

It is called hypocrisy when he takes a jab at others like this (eg. for writing a book on a shitcoin's technology) while he himself is known for advertising a shitcoin that was obviously a scam and he probably got paid to do so.

Users pay fees based on their transaction weight and the "competition" for the block space not based on USD price of bitcoin.

These aren't solutions. For starters the miners don't rely on the fees, they are getting paid more than enough with the block reward and will continue earning more money as price keeps going up. Also as I said the fees aren't set based on what the block reward is, it is based on the competition for the block space.

That makes bitcoin unusable for everyone.

It depends on what the things are.
Something like lightning network is not far from everything else you put in a regular wallet, the cryptography for example or all the script semantics are pretty much the same as you would have in a wallet so adding it to the same wallet is not adding a completely new thing.

Polls like this are always very interesting if you look at them based on the time they come out. For example the same question if asked a week ago would have resulted in an entirely different results while it is all positively bullish now that price has started rising.

Of course if you ask me the trend has been bullish even when we had the drop 3 months ago.

The full node software uses the system clock and will not change it. If it receives a block that is 2 years in the future it will simply reject it as invalid and waits for a valid block without updating anything.
If the computer clock is wrong then the user has to manually fix it before they can continue syncing. If the miners are creating wrong blocks there will always be a miner that won't and the chain will continue to grow with valid blocks.

Unfortunately that comparison won't work because of 2 reasons.
1. Bcash block size is so much smaller than bitcoin block size and everything else including the time between blocks is the same.
2. One factor affecting reorgs is the distribution of mining. For example if there is 2 mining pools both near each other or controlled by same entity there won't be any reorgs but if the hashrate is more distributed and pools are stand alone and far from each other the chances of a chain split and the reorg is higher.

That's a very unfair comparison between these two.
Everything Adam Back has ever done was to benefit himself, from Blockstream to the centralized shitnetwork called liquid.
Andreas Antonopoulos on the other hand has been helpful to many newcomers by teaching them how bitcoin words "correctly" instead of giving them some bad information like many others do because they don't understand how things work.

You didn't need to go back 10 years to find silly things like that. Last year we had the same situation with naive people who sold their bitcoin at $3000 just because they believed some FUD telling them price should dump more. Even worse they have been repeating it over the past 3 months selling in $30k range believing yet another similar FUD and in a couple of months from now when price is $150k they will be regretting today's actions.

It depends on "what" you are holding. Not everything has enough long term potential to be held, majority of altcoins for example will surely be worth lower than their current prices. The only thing having long term potential is bitcoin which is why holding has always worked very well for it.

It is the other way around meaning people ignore low quality posts or treat them negatively and also the user making such posts will always be low rank. It is also extremely rare to see a low rank member make a high quality post because if they did they wouldn't remain low rank for long.