Yes, Claymores miner also works, its decent too but IMO EWBFs is currently the best, Claymore has more of an AMD focus from what I've seen (at least last time I looked at it).

I think there are a couple of others but they are far less popular and as such probably not as efficient (I think optiminer and nheqminer were some others?).

Given 60% of the tokens are already in circulation I dont think 2x would be too hard to achieve and with the right community support (coin holders, district operators and dev team) 4x wouldn't be unrealistic, especially being that DNT is a governence token promoting holding over selling. Going up from there will require dedication from the team IMO but definitly within the realms of possibility.

At the end of the day both the moon and the floor are real possibilities for any coin, which comes first depends on the comunity and development (and just because one comes doesn't rule the other out either ).

I would recommend EWBF for a miner, most pools will have setup instructions or you should be able to find recommendations in the EWBF thread. If you get stuck on anything post here as I'm sure myself or some of the others can point you in the right direction.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1707546.0

Think of a fork as creating two chains with a shared history up to the point where the fork happened, if you had 1BTC in a address at the time of the fork you would have 1BTC on one chain and 1BCH on the other in that address after the fork because that address would be valid on both chains. While the chains have a shared history, after the fork they are effectivly two seperate chains all the way back to the first block.

Now if you spent that 1BTC before the fork that address would be empty, as such after the fork it would still be empty on both chains. The credit on the new chain is not from having BTC in an address at any time before the fork or else you could send your 1BTC from one address to the next and multiply your BCH to infinity. If however the other guy didn't spend all of the BTC in that address and there was some left over during the fork that address would have an equal amount of BCH on the new chain after the fork but arguably at that point it wouldn't be yours anyway because you weren't the holder of the BTC and the BCH goes to the holder of each address (or specifically its private key).

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

This would probably be a good place to start

There are other pages on that site that can provide further relevant information too.

No, you would only get BCH from those keys if there was BTC in them at the time of the fork.

The soft fork is cumming up in a few days to implement segwit, the more controversial hard fork is comming in November to implement segwit2x.

Personally I think it does, by being able to drop out of the spotlight he has allowed Bitcoin to become truely decentralised. If he were still a public figure (even as an anonymous one) his say would very likely direct the development and future path of the coin but by leaving his public position early on in the project, after the foundation had been laid, he has completely handed the project over to the Bitcoin community. Even if he is still contributing under a different alias it means no one person or group has total control because they need communities support to affect change. Granted that does slow progress at times but it ultimately embraces the heart of what Bitcoin is

Blockchain/bitcoin is a technology and in the world of technology 8 years is a really, really long time. IMO the whitepaper should be viewed as a guide/foundation to be built apon, not taken for gospel. It was an incredibly forward thinking idea but that doesn't make it flawless and other proposed improvements/criticisms shouldn't be written off just because they weren't included in a 9 page whitepaper.

I'm fond of B2X although BT3, while written looks a bit off, sounds good when said IMO (very similar to BTC )

I think hes talking about the effective/extended 4MB blocksize of segwit2x, 2MB blocks with roughly double the Tx capacity segwit brings. I do agree that sidechains currently seem to be the most realistic method of increasing capacity to the levels that will be required in the comming years, keeping the main chain as their backbone.

At the moment the mempool looks like it is mostly filled up with spam and/or cheap asses (really low fee Txs) so its not actually very expensive to make a Tx, when there's a rush it does start to fill up though with valid Txs increasing the needed fees however by the looks of things segwit will be more than enough to empty the mempool and keep spam attacks/busy periods under control, at least for now.

The reality is neither solution is a good one to the scaling problem, both will alleviate the problem short term with blocksize increases being a slightly longer term solution that adds a fair bit of bloat to the blockchain and segwit being a shorter term solution that fixes several other flaws while being less disruptive. IMO they should deploy segwit and hold off on a hardfork to see if they can come up with a better solution or if ideas like sidechains workout OK, if the breathing room segwit affords runs out before a better solution presents itself then we can look at a blocksize increase but personally I dont see the need to rush it all out right now. I dont really see the value of BCH other than as a stop-gap solution or more likely a cash grab taking advantage of the current debates.

Is anyone else having trouble with the suprnova pool? specifically the US one (zec-us.suprnova.cc). Its been down for a few hours for me.

Nice to see some positive movement again, still a lot of head room for growth in the comming months and years though

FYI Segwit hasn't activated yet

You're talking to an empty room and fortifying your assertions with the fact that no ones dissagreeing lol! (At the same time ignoring the handful of people walking past the door who do dissagree).

Its because you're the only one who still cares about BCH, everyone else moved on

Better they take their time and release a stable wallet than rush something buggy and broken out just to meet target dates that ends in people loosing their money.

The website in the OP is working for me...

Unfortunately even completely dissabling the windows firewall didn't work for me
Still going PRE_ENABLED -> EXPIRED -> NEW_START_REQUIRED