This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Account Generator.

I have no idea where people came up with the 'completely anonymous' fact; nothing truly is.

That's just useless speculation and not a fact. It may go up or it may not, you won't really known until it happens.

That does not matter. The blockchain is a transparent ledger and anyone (who uses a cryptocurrency) should known this by now. Regardless, Bitcoin remains pseudo-anonymous.

Exactly what potential features have resulted in the community dividing itself? I don't recall that happening. Anyhow, this is could also be a signal that the feature is not really useful/desired. Keep in mind that a block size increase is not a feature (in case that some try to assume this).

I don't think this is the case. This "flaw" (if you can call it like that) is inherent in all implementations that use Bitcoin's code. Unless something is completely re-engineered from scratch, it can't really be better/much better as Bitcoin could always add features (hence open source).

Correct. This is why people want to rush the block size limit because they're hoping that as many people as possible jump on the ship (regardless of the size being safe or not).

Bitcoin can not grow much larger with a 1 MB block size limit and no secondary layer. We are slowly reaching the maximum capacity at this size. Obviously, it doesn't mean that everyone is going to jump ship (why would they?), but it means that growth would be limited/impaired.

The miners aren't the one who solve problems, the developers are.

Well, I've looked around a bit and it seems that it unusually tends to be on a custom/contact basis. However, I've found one list that might be of help to you: Inside Bitcoin.

May I ask when this conference might take place? Q4 2016?

Well, basically it is an attack in a system such as Bitcoin where a single entity tries to control as many nodes as possible.
It is not that problematic and you can read more about it here and here.

As an average user, you don't really need to worry about this right now. Just enjoy using Bitcoin.

Oh, I must have missed that part somehow (fatigue got the upper hand). However, I don't prefer this perspective as some might think that it can be directly compared.

A worst case scenario can't be unfounded. When it comes to the processing time of algorithms, different instances will have different processing times and those will always be in O(something). That O(something) is the upper limit, i.e. worst case scenario. That upper limit is obviously used for a reason and would never be an unfounded numbers. People who have worked with algorithms and data structures should be aware of this, the other well, might have a hard time understanding even when it gets explained to them. It might be worth reading this if you want to learn more.

Well, we can't exactly know when these block sizes are going to be safe exactly right now. Additionally, it is worth saying that the internet uses several layers in order to operate.

This is a very bad analogy. You're comparing uploading/downloading data from centralized servers and uploading/downloading data from a P2P decentralized network.

That's what the worst case scenario is, and one has to be prepared for it.

I'm most certainly aware that Bitcoin is not mainstream yet. I understand your viewpoint.

Well, you have to consider another aspect. As a user, you can view thousands of transaction of the blockchain and you have no idea from who they are nor where they're going. This is why it is pseudo-anonymous. Just because there's a possibility that you could be uncovered (a lot of research and information gathered) that does not mean that this aspect is lost.

Your statement does not make sense to me. A user does not need days to fully download nor synchronize the chain. This is a faulty generalization. This is very dependent on the setup that the users are running. Currently with libsecp256k1 it is possible to synchronize from scratch within a few hours (IIRC). Additionally, the average user does not need to and should not bother with running a node. However, I'd argue that this option should exist (relatively cheaply and easily), but it is up to the individual. I'm positive that many do not have the desire to run a node especially since there is no incentive to do so.

Technically we could nuke you since you're a newbie, but the staff does not delete on request. Just follow the steps that Lutpin suggested to abandon your account. This should not be a problem because you have a very low amount of posts.

10 Minute Mail is useful in such cases.

Segwit will also require more bandwidth IIRC.

That opinion does not matter much right now though as they've reached consensus and decided a while ago to do it via a soft fork. From what I understand, the plan is to clean up some things in a hard fork in the future (I have no idea what exactly and when).

I'm certain that it would not be seen as such a bad thing if they choose a proper grace period and consensus threshold. Even Gavin's partner, Garzik, does not agree with him.

The amount that can be reached on-chain is very questionable. Look at the network now, we're still not sure what the exact block size limit would be considered safe (a maximum). Currently the network is able to do around 3 TPS on average. Even if we had 10 MB blocks, that's only 30 TPS and nowhere near enough for it to be used regularly by millions of people. It might be enough to be used occasionally by millions of people. However, wouldn't this make it some sort of settlement layer as well?

So when I'm using TOR, a VPN or a public Wi-Fi, what then? This isn't really a serious concern and should have been known already. You need to bold that 'might be' part there. It does not mean that he will necessarily be able to do that.

That's the IP address of the node that relayed the transaction. However, the node is able to see the IP address of the sender. This is why it might only be feasible if one has control over a larger number of nodes.

This is definitely not true. There are just people who are curious for example.

If by people you also mean the media, then this hits it. This is how false information is being spread easily. People love to talk when they know absolutely nothing about the subject just to 'look smart'.

The user is anonymous if he uses Bitcoin properly (e.g. avoids services that require ID). Exactly what does one get from viewing millions of different addresses going around? Nothing. They have no idea who is behind those transactions.

It actually is.

This helps, but not against people with specialized software.

Don't blame anyone but yourself for not understanding the following:
1) Not really.
2) IP address != person.
3) Circumstantial.
4) Obviously, it is your wallet.

Your thinking is LN transaction size == Bitcoin on chain transaction size. Additionally, your thinking includes: LN transaction resource usage == on-chain transaction usage.

It is crucial for Bitcoin. If Bitcoin loses this aspect then it might as well die as it is not needed. There are better systems that can be used for transacting. Unfortunately, there are people who do not value this decentralization as much as others.

My personal view of Bitcoin Classic is irrelevant in this case. The chart does not lie.

That's still not a good excuse. If those 'people' cared about decentralization at all, they would not be starting up hundreds of nodes at the same datacenters. They'd spread them out to multiple places. Those 800 nodes at Amazon are as important as a single node at Amazon. They can be shut down easily without the need for any kind of DDoS.

I make my own tennis bets, but it might be worth looking into it. The game last night was also a bust. It did come close though as they've managed to play a lot better in the last few minutes. There were some soccer surprised yesterday too (e.g. Bayern - Juventus 2-2). Playing a higher number of goals was the right bet for both the games and could have been easily won.