To tell the right I don't feel this fear for the moment. Even the reason that this situation exist or be created is concrete. For sure the division of the core developers and the creation of two kind of bitcoins will create confusion and maybe even fight between followers of every group or variant of bitcoin. For me is totally incomprehensible to be such big conflict only for 1MB difference on the size of the block. Anyhow, not being a developer maybe cannot be able to understand the importance of this 1 MB and being in wrong. But I know for sure something. This division for sure will harm bitcoin. And the situation mentioned by OP if don't exist already will be created for sure in the near future. And all our hope about the big future of this unique invention will be destroyed like one sandcastle.

It is a very good and useful tool. I had installed it and have in from of my eyes in every moment the price of bitcoin. Had improvements from the first day that I installed it (give much more data and everything in real time while at the beginning the data were in intervals). Give data even for every transaction or wallet address. Full and accurate data (comparable with blockchain.info). The value of bitcoin is taken in real time from seven sources (Huobi, OKCoin, BTCC, Coinbase, BTC-E, Bitstamp, Bitfinex). In few words: to much benefit from only a little icon at the up right corner of google chrome browser. According to me highly recommended. It is a must for every bitcoiner.

This is an interesting and very good way to have real data about something (whatever can be). Very different from these threads who tell: will be 560 us dollar or will reach 987 us dollar. Very different even from those which ask fixed price. Having reasonable options to chose is a scientific tool which measure with acceptable precision (the amount of which depends only by the number of votes) the "humor" and the expectations of the people of bitcoin. Its interesting to see the results of this poll and it would be better that OP first and all the others find ways to spread it as much as it would be possible. More are the voters more everyone will know the overall thoughts of our community. Its interesting to read even the arguments which might give everyone regarding its choice. I can tell that I voted the second option and don't have any particular argument in favor of my choice. It is only (as it told by OP) what I feel about the possible price after halving. I hope to have big wrong and what I feel be a big mistake.  

Beh, for sure it would not be under 200 us dollar and more than 1000 us dollar. With a few less probability this difference can be between 250 us dollar and less than 800 us dollar. Then with even less probability will be between 300 us dollar and 600 us dollar. The most less probability would its price between 350 us dollar and 500 us dollar. The most big probability of the amount of its price in us dollar would be between 370 us dollar and 480 us dollar. At the end, for sure, its price on April of this year will be between 420 us dollar and 460 us dollar. To be correct with the main post (which ask only a fixed value) my "conviction" about the value of bitcoin in this month will be 451 us dollar and will in this amount all the month of April. 

It is really a good post. But it will be verified? All we here (or most of us at least) hold bitcoin because hope on its value and even more in its future value. And why to not tell that hope in having profits (and even big profit) from the amount we have. If this scenario could be verified all our hopes would be dreams put at the trash. It is highly possible that such situation given at the main post cam be verified. Normally every new thing is an improvement of something old. Even bitcoin was and is a qualitative technological improvement. So remain to think and to decide what to do with our bitcoins. I have chosen time ago what to do. Diversification of my amount of bitcoins in other cryptos and the hold only of some of those. In this way have all my bitcoins but in several forms.

Why must be important this news? Even if ISIS has used bitcoin what does it mean? That bitcoin is terrorist? Or that has killed people? If so has killed people every kind of other money in existence. Beginning from the us dollar, euro or other important currencies (all the currencies of all the developed countries). Don't exist only ISIS but even other form of terrorism. Before ISIS were Al-Qaeda and in that time bitcoin was yet not born. So they had not the possibility to use it. For sure has used other kind of money and any kind of money have used must be named killer if can be compared with this kind of attention versus bitcoin for such kind of things. Have no meaning to discuss here such kind of news and to be created such kind of threads. For more with this kind of enthusiasm.

All this big war between people which have the same aim - a better bitcoin as a unique product and invention - is only damage for it and put in discussion its future. Both group has their followers according to various factors which has conditioned even this big division and, according to me, at all necessary. Not being a technician cannot understand what is right and what is wrong or what variant of bitcoin is better than another but for me being 1 MB or being 2 MB it is almost the same. If they cannot deal about such (repeat for me which judge only apparently) kind of matters who knows what may happen for more important question. Anyhow the division is now a fact and the aim of my post is to tell that from now and in the time to come the followers of bitcoin will take care more to fight with each other trying to argues which variant is better than will care with bigger problems of bitcoin such may be its spread, its acceptation and its regulation. What a pity!

In first view this news can seem extraordinaire having in mind that bitcoin is banned in Russia and even that one member of Government (minister of finances) has proposed to create an low which would have as its aim to put in jail everyone who use or have to do in some way with bitcoin. But in the same time may be not a such kind of news because there are rumors that Bank of Russia is studying blockchain with the aim to create its own digital currency. The rumors give even various details one of which is that this Bank is collaborating with QIWI in order to build a privately-run crypto-currency for the Russian market. Who want to know more can read here: http://cointelegraph.com/news/russia-to-create-bitruble-a-state-run-digital-currency-for-2016

This is a very questionable problem. And I think with to many unknown factors which make impossible to give a very reasonable answer. It is hard to measure the power and the impact of every above factor since everything will change. If change the nature of the currency which is the blood of every economy and this new "thing" is a qualitative new thing this will affect everything. If I would tell something there can be good things and bad things. The most good thing would be the impossibility of the humans to manipulate the currency of the country. This is a very big problem of the today economies. The use inappropriate of the power to put new money in circulation is or may be the main factor which cause crisis in the future. So, with this way to manage the flow of the money in the economy, hoped to bring significant improvements in the stability of the economy which will adopt such kind of currencies. But on the other hand I see difficult to be managed the economic growth. This result is waited to be within limits but not always these limits are those planned. So it will be difficult to manage the needed amount of money in circulation since the flow of production of such currency is rigorously known and regulated only by the technology applied to produce those. Especially in the cases when the production of the amount of currency cannot follow the economic growth. If it will be one year this problem and the economy will not be satisfied with the needed money this fact will condition the next results of this economy.

These two elements may be only few (even very few) and only macro events waited if an economy which will adopt a digital national coin as its currency. But there can happen to many more. cannot be imagined without being implemented such situation. As for the fact that must be bitcoin such crypto I think is impossible for to many factors. All the above have to do with a crypto produced by the Central Bank of every country or at least managed by it.

First of all I will tell my hope which is that EU be the first entity and community to fully know bitcoin a currency and give to it the full rights which have only currency within every country of EU. If not obligatorily as a strong recommendation for the moment and as a condition for the future. Giving even a deadline and giving space to be regulated according to the various (economic or other fields with importance in this matter), specifics of each country. This is my hope.
As for that I expect, according to me, it were be at maximum some recommendations about the good and maybe the need that bitcoin be regulated in order to be under control and the remembering of the fact that Eu must not remain behind the most important or even not so important countries, which have regulated in some way, its status. Anyhow must be told that the fact that they will discuss about this matter it is a very important and a step ahead in the behavior of EU versus bitcoin. Hope to have wrong in my foreseen about what will bring this interest.

I am not taking the part of no one. I am not able to understand the difference that can exist and the problems which can be caused if the block size is increased with 1 MB, 2 MB and 8 MB. I told since the beginning that my technical knowledge in this matter are almost zero and I judge from that I can understand reading the news about this matter. And being in such situation cannot even find who has right and who has wrong or which is the best choice. But if it is true that Gavin was the most able person in that time for me seems not credible the fact that a person chosen by Satoshi as his successor become incompetent after some time. Have meaning to be better because will be more experienced but worst it is difficult to be credible for me. What would be happen if he wouldn't have been given the codes to the other devcores since the beginning? My answer is: it wouldn't be any kind of such problems for bitcoin today and even in the future.

About the first part quoted by you and the links given by you in another thread I can tell that the first (for that what I was able to understand without registering on that site) is really a kind of online financial intermediary. But with high risk. A bank never can exist having as a field of its acting only a segment of the market like it is this case. To not mention the fact that this activity to which they are connected is very particular. They borrow money to the traders and this kind of activity is very risky. As for the remaining two, these have nothing to do with the banks. They only make possible the contact between two parties. Who want bitcoin to give and who want bitcoin to take. The site have any kind of responsibility about the lose of the invested bitcoin. Any bank in any mock of the world act in this way. And that is the most important the money at every bank are protected from the loss until big amounts from the State. In any kind of the above three no one who save or invest is protected from the loss of its savings or invested money.

As for the share of my opportunities I am clear in my post. Who is interested pm me. Not all but two of those are reflinks and reflinks are not allowed to be put openly. I had 10 days ban for this account and close of another (of my wife) only for a reflink published in one post. Anyhow I have an update. One of the above three opportunities only yesterday was disappeared (but I had my profits from that). Things this foreseen even in my previous post. But the other two continue to be ok. And have found another one which have almost two years online and give some particular warranties which made me to invest even in this.

For that I can understand it is the second one contributor on the development of the Bitcoin Core if it is taken as a point of reference this website:  

https://bitcoin.org/en/development

And in which I found the below data:



Anyhow, as I told in my post I am not an expert in such field and here the numbers cannot have that importance given or taken by me. But for sure I know another fact which cannot be never bypassed by no one. Gavin Andresen was the only person to whom Satoshi gave the codes of bitcoin and if so must be the most professionally able and prepared person in this field according to the inventor of bitcoin. Otherwise have no sense that was the chosen and the only One who has the trust from Satoshi.

I din't think that the problem of block size will be resolved so easy. The main core developer (Gavin Andresen) it is supporter of "another" bitcoin. With him even another charismatic developer as Jeff Garzik. The others remaining at bitcoincore are unknown people and with less contributes in the actual bitcoin (as it is actually). I don't see any point in which these two groups can be together. Every each of those has already its bitcoin and is working for it. So, according to me, not only before halving but even to much time after halving there it will not be a solution of this problem. Being not a technician (devs or programmer) cannot be able to tell if this division (if can be successful both variants of bitcoin) could affect the halving but normally not. It would be the the halving of the bitcoin of today and not of the bitcoin classic. Anyhow if both are bitcoin and have the same code and development (except the block size) can (or must) be even the halving of the other one. Anyhow this is not something that is much important for this thread so have no meaning to be analyzed more.

It is not at all new this fear. This fear is the main reason of its ignoring for a long time or even in or days from several countries (which are at all few but almost 3/4 of all the countries of the world). This fear make some countries (between those even important ones like Russia) to ban it. This make that are only very few of those who has regulated it in some way, have made this action totally independently and not in the same way or with the same rules (or almost the same). It is only one product. Must be regulated almost in the same way. But everyone has made its regulation in order to fit with their situation and having in mind to control it in the best way possible. And at the end this make that almost all of those has regulated and legalized it don't giving the real name and the (legal) status that this product must have: currency. Even in the cases when is used this name or the other one (money) its status it is not never equal with the national legal currency (money) of that given country.

Cannot agree and it is not correct. Cannot agree because cannot be worthless the most important thing for what work almost all the people of the world. Almost everyone work to have that worthless subject and with which can be made everything one person want. That worthless thing open most of all the existing doors of this world. Make almost everyone to do and to have the life he/she want. Make happy almost everyone who receive it and is the only tool who can be used to have almost everything. And sometimes make several people to degenerate or even to harm themselves. That's for its being "completely worthless" according to OP.

As for being backed it is again a wrong deduction that which can be read at the title of the thread. Every currency (money) in existence legally and emit from a Central Bank or a similar Authority within a given country is backet by the owner of that currency which is the State of that Country. They (through the Authorities created exactly for this aim) take care about everything has to do with that given currency. If not do so the economy of that country will be in chaos within days or weeks.

Who told you that can be made 1 bitcoin with faucets or have no idea what is the faucet and what can be earned using those, or has joked with you. With faucets cannot be made never 1 bitcoin even after "working" for years with those and staying all the day clicking on all the existing ones. Only if you find 10 K active referrals (which will make you to sell your home in order to find them and to make them interested to do the same thing and in the same way like you) you can earn this amount in much few time. The faucets serve for the newbies to understand how to move with bitcoin and to understand more about it. That's all. Then doing such "job" is worthless.

As for the investments with bitcoin I have invested my bitcoin in some cryptos and in two websites. I am having very good profits from the investment did in one of the cryptos, I'am stable (nor loss, neither profit) in another one and have began recently the investment in another (so don't exist data for this third one). While about the investments on the websites I am having good profit from one of those and I am waiting to see how will go the second one (it is a long term investment and the results can be seen only after one year).

Put all the thoughts against bitcoin only in this category seems very arbitrary. Maybe there are such kind of people (and for sure that exist) but I think that not all are so. May exist some who don't know the real value of it (not only as a currency but as a product which has opened a new era because was invented based at peer to per). Then may be others who simply don't see it as useful as it is advertised by its followers. There are to many who don't like nor the internet (or use it rarely or only for few things like for example the use of email) and neither (even more less) to buy on it. For this kind of people bitcoin is worthless for true. And are at all not few in our days. Then may be others who believe on the words of Mike Hearn and see it as a failed product full of bugs which will bring its failure. I named only few other possible existing groups of people who see otherwise from OP bitcoin and according to their view do even their judgement about it. Which is different from that given from OP.

May be so but not because of your arguments. Anyhow to many other big inventions (and unimaginable before their invention) was invented but only one person. That doesn't mean that everything is made by him. There were for sure even other people who may have contribution on it or in every invention but the mind who was able to materialize or concept the invention was only one. I think this is the case of invention of bitcoin. And Satoshi Nakamoto is only one person. We can remember here Thomas Edison who invented the electric lamp. For sure he have been helped by other people but their help was secondary compared to the role of the first. Or another one of our days: Bill Gates. He has invented Windows OS but the first version of Windows make laugh compared to this last one. And in this last the contribution of Bill Gates may be only the codes of software.

There is only on point of view for gambling. Rarely two. The second one is to go one time within a month to spend some bucks only to make a drink and passe some time. But for the most of the people it is not game. They want to win because hope to have luck. But even if is treated as a game and they gamble continuously (always treating as a game and thinking that it is a game) soon or later will become addicted by this "game" and will passe at the next step: the step of ruin themselves and their family or all their dears. It is scientifically proven that gambling continuously for a long time bring for sure addiction. This is not known by most of the gamblers. This make gambling even more risky.