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.

Bullshit.  Pretty much everything on that whole website looks like bullshit.

He's talking about AXA investing in Blockstream, and then trying to link Barry Silbert to AXA by pointing out that he's part of Blockstream.  Then they try to associate DCG with AXA due to that, and then try to associate AXA with every company that DCG invests in.

Regardless, even if AXA did have "control" over what these companies chose to do (they don't), it wouldn't matter unless they took action directly supporting them.
Unrelated to Bitcoin.

It's difficult to use the past to predict the future with asset prices.

Since there's nothing really pegging down the price or any particularly strong fundamentals right now, the fact that the 2013 bubble peaked at $1000 is pretty much irrelevant to how it'll peak this time around.

It definitely seems likely that a correction will result in a massive crash though.

Miners (and therefore the difficulty) react to the value of the money that they receive in the block.  That's the block reward and the transaction fees, which obviously is going to add up to a lot when the price is very high.

It's how BTC becomes so secure - the more electricity that's "wasted" the more difficult it is to stage an attack on the network.  Of course this means that it's arguably actually "wasted" energy, since it does serve a clear purpose.
The difficulty reacts to miners, not the other way around.  And indirectly, the miners react to the market.

There is no definitive point at which Bitcoin's anonymity (which by the way never existed at all) is "broken".

Bitcoin's pseudonymity is the responsibility of the user.  It's common sense that blockchain analysis can be used and that governments may use it to help with tax.

Your arguments rely on a series of straw man fallacies and surface-level analysis which you then shove down our throats quite intensively.

You are posting this on a Bitcoin forum and are not being censored.  Bitcointalk is generally uncensored.

What you mean is that the subreddit r/bitcoin is censored.  You are correct, but you're missing the point. 

They're not anything like the North Korean media, because the North Korean media is in the public sector and cannot be legally shown from the private sector.  Therefore, in North Korea they are capable of censoring all other communication channels, whereas r/bitcoin cannot do this.

Right, so in other words they're going to boycott almost every existing wallet, including Bitcoin Core.  That sounds like a good idea.

R/bitcoin is absolutely insane recently.  Loads of the least rational posts are being upvoted and supported.  It's obvious that an attempted boycott like theirs would be weak and unsuccessful, especially when it's on most wallets in general.

It encourages a culture of just saying whatever you want provided that it's vaguely pro-SegWit and anti-blocksize increases.

That site only shows reachable nodes.  Most nodes are not going to be shown on that site, so there's many more.
On anyone's computer who wants to run one.  As long as you're aware of the potential costs, it should be relatively easy.

That's why the BTC network has run, with zero downtime, for almost nine years.  The same can't be said of your average IT system.

They had a hack a while ago, but they reimbursed the users using a Bitfinex token.

Currently, there are also concerns about where the USDT which is being used on their platform is coming from.  A lot of new USDT is appearing and going to their platform recently, which makes it possible (not certain) that they are using all this freshly created money in order to manipulate the BTC market.

They also don't accept customers in the US and have unverified accounts, which leaves them open to a BTC-e style "let's just destroy your exchange now" sort of thing with the US government.

You're misunderstanding a couple of things here:

1.  The median transaction size will not necessarily be your transaction size.  The cost of your transaction may change based on the inputs and outputs of your transaction.  That's why fees are usually measured in satoshi/byte.

2.  The fee of 67,800 satoshi is for your transaction to be included in the next block.  That site also shows information of how long it may take with a variety of different possible fees.

I found this to be quite a good article on Bitcoin Core's fee estimation.  Personally, I would trust that the estimation is accurate.

Bitmixer was a legitimate Bitcoin mixing service which existed until a few months ago when they abruptly decided to shut down.

They've always had phishing sites, but it's absurd that those sites are still going considering that the real site has shut down and they no longer offer mixing services at all.

Sorry for your loss.

The transaction fee is dependent on the size of the transaction in bytes (after all, what you're paying for is storing data on the Bitcoin blockchain).

The size of the transaction in bytes can change depending on how you received that 5 BTC or 500 BTC that you're spending (how many inputs the transaction has).  It can also change if you intend to send the 5 BTC or 500 BTC to multiple recipients (having multiple outputs).

In theory, you could send a 500 BTC transaction that cost less to send than a 5 BTC transaction, but you're more likely to have accepted a large number of payments in order to spend that 500 BTC, so the transaction is more likely to be larger.

It's certainly not percentage based, anyway.

The payment processor does not have to pay that fee.  The user does.
Maybe so, but that's what has naturally happened in the free market.  Capitalism is weird sometimes.

If a merchant wants to set up their own payment infrastructure or use their own personal wallets (perhaps even cold wallets for optimum security), they're more than welcome to do so.

They did hugely contribute to developing and funding Tor, so it's not entirely impossible.
Even though a large number of people would do this in principle, it's unlikely that they would do it in practice.

At this point I would argue that most BTC users are speculators in one way or another, so they're extremely wary of other investors' potential behaviour.  The problem here could become a self-fulfilling prophecy and cause the price to drop even though they wouldn't actually have control.

This is where your post went wrong.  You started off with at least a hint of logic there, and it was perfectly plausible for those previous events to happen.  However, by this point you're relying on the misunderstanding that miners "charge" users for transactions.

The transaction fees are determined by the amount of demand that users have.  If users are only willing to pay 0.00001 BTC in transaction fees, that's what happens.  If users wanted to pay less, miners would simply lose revenue.
This is relying on the false premise from your previous point.  Also, if there is less demand like you are suggesting, the transaction fees which users are willing to pay decrease, so logically it would go the opposite way to what you're suggesting.

The basic act of receiving a Bitcoin payment is free.  The payment processors are charging you for the service of handling these payments in a simple manner for the merchant to understand.

Some payment processors (such as Bitpay) also allow merchants to receive fiat rather than BTC, converted with no risk of exchange rate fluctuation.  This can also justify the cost of the service.
Yes.  But the cost of keeping 500 BTC secure and/or exchanging 500 BTC to fiat is not the same as the costs for 5 BTC for a service like Bitpay.

Due to the high fees of credit cards, PayPal and other current systems, these payment processors can quite easily get away with charging a fee of 1%.  You could even argue that that fee is very low compared to what a lot of merchants have to deal with (PayPal give a fee of 2.9% + $0.25 in the US).

This is an extremely bad sign because:

-It shows a lack of self-awareness and misunderstanding of their emotions.  Even though they say this, a large number of people panic sell whenever the price goes down. 

-It ignores the fact that BTC has multiplied in value many times before and cannot continue doing so exponentially forever.  A person who buys in at $190,000 would not be able to say "I'll sell when the price reaches tens of millions" (unless the dollar experiences hyperinflation) because that amount of money does not exist.

-It ignores the possibility of it being used as a currency.  Most of the respondents (in this poll's case over 90%) were not even interested in using it as a currency, and they still consider the prospect of selling it for fiat currency when they want to actually spend them.

You can say it, but you can't say it with certainty.  I agree that BTC is in a bubble, but you also can't know that in as irritating a manner as you do.
It's an important security mechanism.  BTC prides itself on allowing people financial sovereignty.  If there was a problem major enough for people to begin leaving - for there to be a panic - consensus would naturally have to form.

For example, in 2010 (before the code was widely checked, as there were not many users at all), there was an overflow bug.  Everyone quickly forked to a new chain in which the problem had not occurred, and their funds were safe.

That's the magic of decentralised consensus.

No.  For low priority transactions, you can pay [ DO NOT POST SESC LINKS ]dramatically less[/url].
It's impossible for double the amount of people to use BTC, because most blocks that can currently be full are already full.  It's impossible to tell how double the number of people wanting to use BTC would affect the fees, because it's primarily about how much those users are willing to pay.
Because it's particularly secure and it has the first movers' advantage.
This depends on what fees you decide to pay.
Because he:

-Didn't know how many people would use BTC
-Left BTC long before the blocks were nearing full
-Wanted to prevent spam in the short term by making it expensive for a spammer to fill blocks.