In the past month, the lowest that it's reached (according to Google) has been $271,410 and the highest price that it's reached is currently $290,000.

That's a percentage difference of approximately 6.85% in a month.

In the past month, the lowest that Bitcoin has reached (according to CoinMarketCap) has been about $5625, while the highest that it's reached has been about $11,350.

That's a percentage difference of approximately 101.78% in a month, which is about 14.86 times the change in Berkshire Hathaway stock.

It's working fine for me, so it's most likely on your side.

You'll have to contact TREZOR support, assuming that it's something do with your device.  You can do that here or on their subreddit.  You might also want to check your USB ports.

Several wallets are TREZOR compatible, so if your device works fine you can always use it with Electrum or something.

Alright, I used the most dramatic figures, but it wasn't "plain wrong".  I counted the ones that haven't been mined because most of them will exist in the future (in a long time, which is when we're talking about the price being so high).

Regardless, you could just move a bit further back (to a lower price) and multiply it by that much.  Sooner or later, crazy growth has to stop.
There's no reason to assume that people would necessarily keep their coins to themselves if more users get involved.

An increase from $2 to $10,000 (approximately the price now) is an increase by a multiple of 5,000.

If the price multiplied by 5,000 again, the price would be 50 million dollars.  Since 50,000,000 x 21,000,000 is dramatically more than the amount of money which exists in the world, it's impossible for the price to rise by that much again.

So it is very much about whether you had known about it earlier.  Exponential growth forever is impossible, and past prices can't accurately be used to predict future ones.

Obviously this is just in hindsight, and in reality it wasn't necessarily a good investment decision to buy BTC at every point in its history.

This is like saying "cash is so insecure, if you leave your wallet out on the street then anyone could take it", and ignoring that if you put your cash in a hidden safe, it's almost 100% certain that it will never be stolen.

Private keys don't have to be stored on the Internet.  You can create a paper wallet entirely offline and never connect to the Internet until you need to sweep the coins.  So it is actually very comparable to cash.
That's not the purpose of hardware wallets.  The purpose of hardware wallets is to have a separate device to sign transactions which doesn't potentially expose your private keys to the Internet and leave the possibility of a keylogger stealing your coins.

It'll most likely become more volatile in the short term, since traders (especially large traders) will abuse their ability to manipulate the smaller and newer investors into buying and selling BTC based on emotion.

It's possible that this would eventually weed out the less secure investors, which would be helpful in the long term as it would leave people who are willing to go all in and buy futures being more relevant to BTC's price.

However, it might be a problem if more BTC users start being forced to comply to regulation, which is fairly likely if properly regulated exchanges like NASDAQ are freely available.

I suppose it's easier for BTC to be used for pyramid schemes - after all, a large number of transactions to a PayPal account will lead them to suspend the account, and similarly with other online transactions.

Still, that's just a side effect of BTC's existence.  There's not any decentralised way of solving the problem.

Net neutrality hopefully won't break down either, so people will need to take responsibility and be aware of these schemes themselves.

Not true.  If you count the entire 24 hour period, it certainly didn't drop by $2000 in a day.  It had a very wild swing upwards before the swing downwards.

Considering how quickly it rose beforehand, a correction was inevitable.  Without it, the correction might have amplified into a full-on crash as people hop on.

These corrections are by smaller percentages than they were a few months ago. In the event of a bigger correction, I think they'd be terrified.  Especially since they're very new to BTC and some of them are expecting exponential growth for some reason.

It couldn't have been in 2008 because Bitcoin's genesis block was mined on January 3rd 2009 (in other words, the BTC blockchain didn't exist yet).

The only 2009 exchange that I'm aware of is the New Liberty Standard, which set exchange rates based on the cost of electricity, but this no longer exists.

If your friend does not have access to a wallet containing his private keys (most likely a wallet.dat file in an old Bitcoin QT wallet), he most likely will never have access to these coins.

It's experienced growth in price, but not growth in much else.  It's really annoying when you have two sides and neither of them has an actual point to make.
Because bad things can have high prices.

Some dotcom companies ended up with absolutely insanely high prices based on almost nothing except for their vague association with the Internet.  If you were an early investor in these things, you could say "the price is really dumb" and still not sell all of your stock.  The same applies here.

You need to separate the market from the users.  The market isn't 100% representative of users' beliefs about the merits of each crypto, it's representative of users' beliefs about what other users believe about the merits of each crypto.

Have a look at the theory that USD Tether and Bitfinex are manipulating the market.  It's not certain, but some decent reasoning about it is outlined here, and it's possible that they would have more power over the market than it appears on the surface.
There's a lot of discussion about the possibility of Bitcoin futures trading from major groups.  If it happens, that could certainly open the gates for some pretty crazy manipulation.

Currently, it's also quite hard to get very significant margin on BTC (understandably).
Don't you think the existing statistics on volume (like on coinmarketcap) would be enough for them to analyse the market before orchestrating something like that?

Futures would make the Bitcoin price much easier to manipulate.  One major banking institution or other wealthy group could manipulate BTC users in pretty much any way that they want.

Since BTC has less of a clear value than most other stocks and assets, it means that investors could be manipulated to push the price as high (or as low) as they want.

However, I suppose that introduction to a more mainstream and regulated audience could be helpful, as it could theoretically free us from the emotionally unstable investors we have now.

All changes in price show the volatility in a market, not just the negative ones.

I would argue that the price rising by around 20% in two days is extreme volatility, and the price experiencing slight corrections or moving around barely change how crazily volatile that is at all.

Your conspiracy theories are completely unwarranted, which makes me think you're entirely irrational.  If so, you'll be one of the first investors to leave in the next bear market.

This is a useful site.  Bookmarked.

Maybe you could create a subreddit for this.  There's already one that aggregates all content from the major Bitcoin subreddits, but it might be useful to have one for news sites as well.
You'd be surprised.  It's also difficult to underestimate the fact that some of the modern news articles are poorly written and don't use a logical reasoning process.

No.  It's extremely simple.  All that it would theoretically require is a one-time transfer of users' funds to new SegWit addresses, and for users to begin accepting payments to SegWit addresses in the future.
A reasonable amount of information can be found in Bitcoin Core's statement about this.
Considering that the market is largely speculative anyway, it seems unlikely that actual problems with practicality will have much of an effect.

Joining a pool is to prevent payout variation from affecting your profits.  When mining solo, it's extremely unlikely that you will mine a block (unless you have an extraordinarily high amount of hardware), so the purpose of pools is for people to "pool" their resources together, in the hope of finding blocks more often.
You do not understand mining pools and their relation to "cloud mining" sites.  A "cloud mining" site can choose to direct their hashrate towards any pool or to no pool at all.
It is not a "scam" in that it hasn't directly stolen its users coins - rather, it takes them indirectly through a long process of ambiguous fees, misleadingly showing fiat profits, and a referral program.
Then buy your own hardware.
It's often difficult.  Some Ponzi schemes (such as HashOcean) simply steal their users' funds and vanish.
Yes.  Go to the German local board.
That's impossible.  Actually, it's extremely unlikely that you will ever receive any profit from these schemes.

This is the problem.  It should primarily be when merchants actually accept it that the price goes up - and these price rises should be primarily caused by people buying coins to spend at merchants.  Unfortunately, it currently doesn't seem to be about that at all.
Bitcoin is still pretty much irrelevant relative to the gold market.  We're talking about 1 to 10 billion dollars being traded per day, which is irrelevant relative to the total supply of dollars and will have next to no effect on the dollar's strength.

As for "hyperinflation", that is simply not happening and I consider it misleading (arguably even lying) to suggest that the US dollar is experiencing hyperinflation.

The dollar may well become weaker, but if so there's no point trying to pretend that Bitcoin users somehow played an important role in this.

It's almost certain that the Bitcoin network currently uses dramatically more electricity than all global banking systems combined (this is just common sense, because no banking system could possibly use as much electricity as Ireland).  Once bigger, it would consume many times more than it does now.

---

However, "sustainable" implies that we're talking about the long term.  Once the block reward no longer exists and mining is reliant on transaction fees, the money that is "wasted" would be based on what users are willing to pay for a Bitcoin transaction.

Considering that both miners and banks are working for profit, we could consider both the Bitcoin transaction fees and bank transaction fees in this scenario to be "wasted money".  So then you're left with the question of which has higher fees.

If more people were using BTC and it had been scaled properly, it could theoretically have lower fees and therefore be less wasteful. 

That said, BTC's current "waste" of electricity is important for its security.  That's how the PoW system works.

They were incompetent enough for there to be malware in their reference client (for two days), and they endorsed a scam on their website which stole several hundred BTC from users.
This does not have a functioning codebase, so it hasn't happened.  It's also most likely run by crooks for a money grab, similarly to BTG.

I strongly doubt the integrity of any forks that happen from now on, and when they have names that are obviously just trying to ride on the popularity of other forks, there's no point paying attention to them.

I imagine that they would support a fork provided that:

-The value of it was high enough for their users to demand it
-It had a functioning codebase
-It was secure for them to implement support.

However, since "Bitcoin Gold" was an extremely shady group who listed a scam on their website that stole millions of dollars, failed to protect their official client from malware and basically rode off the back of BCH anyway, I find it hard to believe that there's any more relevant forks to come.