If it has a line through it, then it is NOT using HD, and it must have been created with an older version of the software. However, if you back it up then, it should still be alright. Just don't continue to send money to the backed-up wallet.

Yes, you should be able to. Press Win+R to bring up the run menu, type in %appdata% and press enter. Go into the Bitcoin directory, and copy the wallet.dat file into the same directory on your laptop. Replace the file on your laptop, as long as you haven't sent any coins to the wallet on your laptop. If you have, make sure to make a backup of it first.

To do this in Bitcoin Core, you'd need to open the debug console, unlock your wallet with the walletpassphrase command, then use the dumpprivkey command on every address in your wallet that contains coins. This is a laborious process, and it's much easier to simply back up your wallet.dat file (hopefully you encrypted it with a password that you won't forget) which contains the deterministic key for your wallet, meaning if you back up that file, you won't need to replace it with a new version every time you receive coins.

The wallet.dat file shouldn't have been replaced/removed on uninstall/install. It should be the original one you had, unless you explicitly went in and deleted it (or the directory which contains it, %appdata%\Bitcoin on Windows). So once your wallet is finished downloading the blockchain, you should see the transaction.

I wouldn't get a second ledger, you're just wasting money at that point. You might be interested in the plausible deniability options the Nano S offers. You should have a paper backup of your seed on the card that came with it anyways, so you don't need another device just to store your seed again. Even if your device breaks, if you still have the seed backed up (which you should), you can recover your funds without buying another device by importing it into a supporting wallet (source).

I believe it depends on the wallet software. So older wallets will be looking for outputs on your legacy outputs, wallets with segwit support will probably scan segwit P2SH addresses (possibly also legacy outputs, depending on the wallet, I don't think many do, if any). So far, the latest version of Electrum is the only wallet I know that supports Bech32, although I might be wrong/outdated on that. And as far as multisig, your wallet would definitely have to be explicitly looking for multisig funds.

AFAIK there shouldn't be any security risks from using the same private key for multiple types of addresses, as the key is just a way to sign a transaction for an output where it can provide the required information to spend with. That said, I still wouldn't do it because it just feels wrong to me. If you want to look into it more, [ur=https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script]here is the page on the Bitcoin wiki detailing the script system[/url]. It explains how standard (legacy) transactions work, and also script transactions, and all the various opcodes. It's good reading if the technical details are interesting to you.

IIRC Bitcoin Core doesn't wipe the directory with your wallet.dat when you uninstall it, so once you've reinstalled it and it has synced with the network again, you should have your coins.

I also believe that both are great, but I purchased the Nano S, and I'm very satisfied with it. It was cheaper and I believe it will also support Monero before the Trezor, I also love how I can use it as a U2F key, which is kinda fun for the websites that support it.

It depends on what wallet you are using, but yes, generally you click "receive" or a similar labeled tab/button and it should give you your Bitcoin address so that other people/websites can send you Bitcoins. Note that most wallets will change this address every time you receive money, but your old addresses will still work.

Yes, it's lower user ranks cannot use all the same BBCode in their sigs that higher ranks can. Here is the full table that explains it.

I'm going to assume by BCC you mean BCash, which is abbreviated BCH by most exchanges now.

If you send the 0.1 BTC to some exchange without first splitting the coins, you will send BTC to the exchange, and then your transaction will be replayed on the BCH network, sending your BCH to the exchange as well. The problem is the address used by the exchange will not be set up to receive your BCH and you will not be credited with it.

So no, you must split your BCH before attempting to send to a wallet that you don't control (especially an exchange, as they are the least likely to help you if you mess up).

Are there decentralized exchanges for things other than ERC20 tokens right now? I know there was one for BTC, but did it do altcoins too?

I'm not quite sure it's the devs that did that, just because they already gave themselves plenty of "bounty" coins.

I'm not quite sure any cryptocurrency will surpass Bitcoin as far as market cap in the near future, but I think it would be naive to think that Bitcoin is the best cryptocurrency that will ever exist. I think we will see better cryptocurrencies out there, possibly with different applications but better nonetheless.

Armory is actually an excellent wallet to do cold storage transactions, however I've always had problems with it not being able to sync/get set up correctly. DarkStar_ is correct, and basically the fee is whatever amount is left over from total_inputs - total_outputs, so make sure you send a change transaction back to yourself.

I agree that they're cool and I'm glad they exist, but they're just not the ebst exchange to use at the moment.

1 BTC wagered = 1 xp
Rakeback increases by 1% of house edge every level once you unlock it, I think.
The stars unlock at certain levels, but not every level.

If you sent your BTC to the ledger nano, the transaction was probably replayed on the BTG network if you're seeing 0 balances. Depending on whether or not you're using segwit addresses on your ledger, you'll have different procedures for getting the coins. Make sure not to make any more transactions out of the ledger until you know what you're doing.

I've been eyeing HitBTC but I don't know if others have had problems with them. At first glance they look decent enough.