Unless you're a super pro trader, just HODL.  Otherwise you'll end up throwing away more than you can afford to lose when the price keeps going up or keeps going down in a way that you didn't expect.  Even people who get things right are getting them wrong sometimes, so just HODL or sell little bits at a time.

No one should be trading in a dysfunctional exchange.  Loads of people did it when Mt. Gox was on the brink and look where it took them.  Not very far, let's just say.

Their actual liquidity isn't high at all, and some people (wrongly, in my view) are even arguing that the low liquidity and rush out of there is what's pushing the price up.

If an exchange isn't allowing fiat deposits or withdrawals it might not be solvent.  Since USDT isn't fully functional either it's a very dangerous game.

There are already plenty of good crypto trading bots like Gunbot and C.A.T.

Shouldn't you make it clearer what exchanges you're trading on, whether you're trading altcoins or Bitcoin to fiat, what all these options are you're talking about and more before you charge a much higher price than them?

I don't know, a lot of investors are openly opposed to it.  Warren Buffet was pretty brutal with his lack of basic understanding.

I'd say investors will take time to get involved.  Those kinds of crazy returns might exist now, but that's because Bitcoin is not stable and long-term investors are unlikely to view it as secure even though the risk/reward ratio is pretty good.

Actually, this would be pretty easy.  You just have to choose someone you trust - a website or online pseudonym is never going to be trustworthy enough to provide this service for you.

Just explain to someone how to set up a paper wallet, let them do it for you and tell them to hide the paper where you won't find it for a set amount of time, not giving it to you no matter what you say.

Then after that time they tell you where it is and you're done!

Not everything needs a dangerous website.

You mean the one that they've agreed to address through SegWit without screwing over node users by making them download far more data?

BU is one method of increasing transaction capacity, Core's method (SegWit) is another.  For the years that Bitcoin had been running before this hype, I bet you weren't complaining that the transaction capacity was too small.  The block size shouldn't just be increased every single time the transaction capacity does, there should be changes to make the protocol more efficient or partially offchain as well (extension blocks, LN etc), which are better for decentralisation.

Your argument is basically that people shouldn't support Core because their ideas haven't been supported yet.

I'm fully aware of that one.  The addresses are the only ones relevant to someone holding Bitcoin, which is what the OP was referring to with Bitcoins having their own ID numbers.

Sorry.  That was a misconception of mine.
Poorly phrased, not false.  Transactions do have visible public keys, they're just not created for the transaction.  If they were, I wouldn't have claimed that public keys can reveal your transaction history.
Actually, I got that thought from my TREZOR, which claims in the account that XPUBs (which I now understand are like master public keys for the account somehow?) can reveal transaction history.  I'm seriously interested, feel free to clear up any misconceptions that I have.  

Since you didn't read the post, let me explain it for you. 

The fee is too low for ViaBTC to accept.  I'm pretty sure that they're currently accepting fees of 20 satoshi/byte or more.

OP, there isn't a solution.  Eventually the mempool will reject your transaction and you'll get it back, or it might get stuck for quite a while.

The current fees are through the roof, actually you'd be lucky to get a transaction through with less than $0.5 dollars.  The current recommended fees are 260 satoshi per byte because the network is extremely congested and can't handle the transactions going through it.  Bitcoin is mainly practical for big transactions and for decentralisation / control over your own funds as well as a store of value.

No.  The only things that have "ID numbers" (actually not numbers as that might compromise privacy, more like pseudonyms) are addresses, which are essentially where people store their funds.  A wallet is a collection of addresses that one person controls with the same private key, and every transaction also has a public key which can be seen (although sometimes public keys can allow people to see your transaction history, so you need to be somewhat careful with those too if you want anonymity).

No reason at all why other exchanges would follow Bitfinex.  Bitfinex is following the other exchanges.  A low liquidity can cause lowered prices relative to other exchanges as well.
The Japanese yen was near insignificant in Bitcoin before.  Now it represents over half of all trading volume.  That's definitely enough.
Reality.

Sort of, but by setting spam transactions they're increasing the fees that people have to use and that often sustains after the attack as the fee market is not very competitive.  Regardless, transaction fees only actually account for a fairly small amount of miners' rewards and shouldn't actually be necessary.

That would also explain why people think that it's the BU side rather than the Core side (as both are offering scaling solutions that would fix the problem).  BU is mainly propped up by Bitmain/mining monopolies in its hashrate, and earning profit from spamming the network could even be part of their opposition to the LN.

It's 100% futile to try and ban P2P networks.  If you view all physical commodities as peer-to-peer networks since they're only passed between one person and another, you could compare Bitcoin to drugs.  They're banned, but huge amounts of people use them and governments lose out from taxes they could pull in from just regulating them as well as (in the case of European countries) having to pay for drug addicts' health problems caused by all the crap dealers put in them.

Now imagine that the drugs could be used for medicine, but it's hard for governments to tell whether people are using them for medicine or not.  Now there's yet another reason not to ban them.

Bitcoin is similar to that.  It can be used for both good and bad things but it's hard for governments to find out and near impossible for them to ban, not to mention that it's not even best for illegal activity - Monero is.

Peer-to-peer networks have always proven to be stronger than anything else and even if Bitcoin was banned successfully, a similar cryptocurrency would take its place which is even harder to ban.

No no no!

Bitfinex is not processing withdrawals and hasn't been for a while.  The chance of you getting your money out soon is slim to none and you'd have to take it out again as Bitcoin.  You need to choose a functional exchange - the main ones are:

-Bitstamp
-Coinbase
-Kraken

Keep safe.

I stand corrected and I apologise.  10% weekly is definitely possible in matched betting.

Still, a thousand casinos aren't created every minute and many of those casinos force you to wager bets with them before you can withdraw the bonus so it's not quite risk-free, but it is pretty safe.

But $5000 is a long-term estimate for an asset class which is new and has a huge amount of potential.  The amount of actual money that would need to be put into Bitcoin for that price to be reached wouldn't be much at all.

Also, there are huge amounts of bears as well saying that it'll drop all the way to $200.  Don't underestimate them.

It's very surprising how steady the price rises have been.  The Coindesk BPI has shown a consistent rise in the last few days.

There might well be a correction soon, but this is no pump.  Buying wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.  Personally, I would just wait and see but I certainly wouldn't sell quite yet.

Just went through your five posts.

You don't know what github is and you're a giant epay shill.  I didn't realise that their service was so crap they have to hire shills using names as usernames.  This isn't the first newbie account to shill for them either.  All of your posts so far are promoting epay.

ViaBTC have no economic incentive to accelerate your transaction so all they have is an agenda to increase their popularity among people who are too stingy to set a normal fee for their transaction. 

If you're using any normal wallet, you can choose your fee, and it should be set to the current recommended fee or higher.  In its current state, Bitcoin is not for quick confirmations.

No tether system related to cryptocurrencies will ever be even close to reliable.  However, it does have a trade volume of $40,000,000 in the last day so it's hardly dead yet.  

I'm shocked that it didn't drop quicker than that as money started flowing rapidly out of it.  Frankly, I'm even more shocked that the trade volume hasn't dropped to nearly zero already.

People who want a stable way of avoiding Bitcoin risks in the short term without converting to fiat should probably give up.  No exchange is safe to keep money in for a long time and they'll just have to pick a stable exchange, withdraw the fiat and deposit it again when they've decided the Bitcoin price is low enough to buy back in.

Tether never promised the ability for it to be converted to USD, and that should always be treated as a warning sign even if reputable companies wouldn't do that.

The gap of Bitfinex is harder to tell than that since each exchange has its own price.

Even reasonably reputable exchanges like Coinbase have ridiculously different prices to Stamp.

It's still shocking how low the premium is though.  I don't think the chances of them coming back is as high as traders seem to think they are.