In theory it could happen.  It's certainly true that forks can harm BTC's Nash equilibrium by incentivising miners to potentially go against users' interests until the next difficulty adjustments.

That said, there have been several points at which the BCH profitability has been significantly higher than BTC and it has not resulted in the "death spiral" that they're talking about here.

There's also no guarantee that an increase in BTC's fees or congestion in the BTC network would automatically result in BCH volume.  In fact, there are many different choices for people to go to.

Forums are quite hard to keep active in the modern day, especially when there's only a small amount of relevant discussions that could be had on the topic (Bitcoin discussions that are specifically related to the UK in some way).

There's already the subreddit BitcoinUK which covers all the specific UK-related discussions that are worth having.

Also:
While this is specifically for mining, it is a Bitcoin-related forum which is specifically for the UK.

All mentions of quantum computers have been mentioned millions of times already.  By this point, they're pretty much worth ignoring.

Sure, a quantum computer could theoretically be developed which would break 256 bit security, but there is a very simple solution to this.  There could just be a soft fork which implements a new address type.  People would have to send to that address type to keep their coins safe.

Bitcoin Wiki also notes that Bitcoin is naturally somewhat quantum resistant:

Market manipulation is the interruption of a fair free market through attempts to mislead or lie to people.

What BITMAIN is doing here is simply deciding which coin to accept for their products, which in itself is objectively not a market manipulation tactic nor any sort of problem at all.  If anything, it's a good example of a company exercising their right to make business decisions like this.

BITMAIN know that there is high demand for their miners and they are using this demand for the gain of a currency that they support.  That is perfectly legal and also ethically fine.

If you want to pay in BTC, you will have to just complain to BITMAIN or buy from a different company.

The writer has some pretty poor points on this article.
Last bubble (2013 to early 2014), there was actually drastically more usage and adoption by merchants after the bubble had collapsed.

If a bubble collapses, that means less hype and most likely less trading volume afterwards.  This can result in lower fees and more stability, which actually makes it a more convenient payment option and more likely to be used by businesses like Overstock and Steam which began accepting Bitcoin during a more plateaued period.

The writer also makes a bold assumption about the usage of BTC in poorer countries:
He gives it a "33% chance" that something like this would happen, despite the fact that the prospect of a developing company delving into BTC doesn't necessarily involve them actually holding or using Bitcoin directly, certainly not on a large scale.

Dealing with BCH is currently the responsibility of all Bitcoin users who don't want to lose about 15-20% of their funds.  It's pretty much essential for a Bitcoin user to make a conscious decision of what do with it.  So it is about Bitcoin being hard to deal with.

In this case, having some technical knowledge is pretty much essential for the safety of your coins, because you have to trust that the Electron Cash (or some other software that you choose to download) is safe.  While it is open source, it's signed by anonymous developers, so a malicious version could theoretically be introduced.  That's why it could potentially be risky to install it on an airgapped PC.
Notably, the backups for a hardware wallet are quite convenient to store, and you can also do it in safe places like bank deposit boxes.

I could split the BCH in my TREZOR within a couple of minutes - almost anything in that wallet is very user-friendly.  How convenient Bitcoin is largely depends on the user's circumstances.

There's more like 3 transactions per second, which is several thousand times less than visa or mastercard.
There's no point in being certain about something without evidence.  If you see that someone was in court having been accused of someone, the judge can't just say "well, he did look like a dodgy character - let's chuck him in jail". 

When you talk about this you should at least be tentative.  I suggest saying things like "[Person X] could be doing [Action Y] because [Reason Z]".
No you can't, because you don't know where the top is.  If everyone tried to do that, the net profit would be zero since it's a zero-sum game.

Or they'd just rather sell the electricity (which is produced in the public sector) to groups doing things which they regard to be more important.

Regardless, whether this news is true appears to be a tad more complicated than just "the Chinese government bans mining Bitcoin with state-generated electricity".

As it is, mining could become more difficult due to the difficulty of trading BTC on exchanges.  The OTC market may have to grow to handle this demand.

This is almost certainly false.  BITMAIN control Antpool and BTC.com, giving them about 30% of hashrate, plus whatever miners they control directly.
That would happen with smaller miners as well.  They're likely to switch and mine whichever coin is most profitable at the time.

---

Notably, BITMAIN do not fully control the hashrate that is being directed at their pools.  If they were considered to be part of a 51% attack (for which they would have to bond with other pools controlling significant amounts of hashrate), people would just switch to a different pool.  Confirmed transactions would still be safe regardless.

Use a paper wallet, airgapped PC, hardware wallet or any other system which doesn't involve exposing your private keys to the Internet at any time.
Should be pretty clear, but okay.

-It's convenient
-It's possible that you could lose some of them but not others
-An attacker who knows what funds you have might find it easier to take your wallet if there's only one
-Con - the fact that you're buying these tokens anyway.

The benefit of Bitcoin is security.

Other cryptocurrencies tend to introduce updates more experimentally because they are trying to find a way to be interesting and different to Bitcoin.  However, in doing so they forget the importance of proper development teams, code testing and generally being conservative when it comes to altering software.

Also, even though this one is a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts, it's still valid to suggest that BTC's existing popularity makes it drastically more secure and increases the resources required for 51% attacks or other attacks on the network.

It's not like funds can just shift from crypto to crypto by the day.

Addresses beginning with three are P2SH addresses.

In this case, your TREZOR is using it for accepting SegWit transactions.

TREZOR has SegWit transactions on new wallets by default.  You can also continue to use your "legacy" wallets (in which you have P2PKH addresses beginning with a 1), if you don't wish to use SegWit.

Coinbase have a dynamic fee system in order to ensure that your transactions get confirmed in a fairly timely way.  It's not them that has high fees, it's the BTC network to have a transaction confirmed in the next few blocks.

I'm pretty sure you would be complaining even more if you sent transactions that never got confirmed or that took a very long time. 
I'm pretty sure you can't customise your fees with Coinbase.

That also doesn't appear to be a very good site.  A better website that shows you all the possible options is here.

The closest thing they're doing to "bullying" or "blackmailing" anyone is suggesting that people might decide to use a different crypto.
It's not exactly "blackmailing", is it?  It's not like they're saying "sell all of your BTC for BCH or we'll murder you" is it?
They want their cryptocurrency to become more popular, because they consider it more convenient for their users.

-People who bought in unusually late (after August 1st) do not own Bitcoin Cash.
-Some people decided to sell or otherwise use their Bitcoin Cash.

This is false.  Whether or not you believe that max block size increases could potentially lead to centralised control is irrelevant.

Bitcoin Cash's blockchain is actually smaller than Bitcoin's, because it has processed drastically fewer transactions than Bitcoin since the time of the fork.  The notion that it's under "centralised control" is ridiculous.  The closest thing you could suggest is that a select group of individuals have a lot of power over most people deciding to use it.

Yeah, it isn't all about getting rich.  It's also about other people getting rich!

Pretty weak justification for suggesting that BTC is less speculative.  In order to argue that, you'd have to provide reasonable evidence for its use in merchants, or reasonable evidence that it has some other purpose driving the price increase.

There's also no guarantee that these organisations held the coins throughout that time - after all, they were supposed to actually use them.

That's pretty dumb.  If a bubble pops, you're left with a more stable price in which a lot of BTC owners are actually spending at merchants or doing useful things with their coins.  If there's speculation and not a bubble, then the speculators are actually comfortable HODLing and they're not just emotionally unstable newbies.
Coming out of a bubble does not make something cease to exist.  You clearly have no idea what a bubble is.

I'd also like to distinguish between BTC being "a bubble" and "in a bubble".  People here are saying "a bubble", but what they really mean is that Bitcoin is "in a bubble" and therefore that BTC does not always have to be in a bubble.

I wonder what incentive he would have to say that? /s
Draper clearly has an extremely volatile personality.  If he's switching between claiming that it should drop to zero and claiming that it should rise to stupidly high prices, he clearly opens his mouth before consulting his mind.
Just to clarify, the Internet was a great technology but that didn't mean that everything related to the Internet deserved to be bought in huge amounts or that it could never be in a bubble.  That's how Internet companies got into such a massive bubble.

If people are misled into believing that the hard fork is "free money" and that it'll automatically have a value without people actually supporting it, the price of Bitcoin will rise as people are hoping for that "free money".

If the hard fork will cause significant division and confusion in BTC, such as when there's uncertainty over how well it will do or when there's not enough replay protection, the price is likely to decrease.
It can be irritating to exchanges and a lot of other services when contentious forks happen, but it's still a good thing for people to have the choice of which chain to use.

Depends on the size of the transaction.  Hard numbers are useless in this context.

For us to know what fee your transaction has in satoshi/byte and to potentially help you out with transaction accelerators and the like, we'll need you to post the transaction ID.
Demand is exceeding transaction capacity, so there are a lot of unconfirmed transactions.  One potential cause is the huge increase in trading volume over the last couple of days.