People are completely mental to jump on Bitcoin as soon as the price goes up.  They should look at the charts and find a dip to buy in instead of trying to get in at the highest point possible.

If someone was desperate to buy in at the 2013 pump for example, they were insane.

Bitcoin isn't a career, it's a payment method, store of value and network for cryptographic proof/blockchain systems.

No one should be treating it like a get-rich-quick scheme, instead it makes way for an economy just like fiat currency does or even like gold does to some degree.  If it was to get returns quickly it wouldn't be much different to a Ponzi.

If it says that the coins are tainted, you should run them through a reliable mixer/tumbler and they'll come out clean and much harder to trace as well.  Bitmixer sets fees of 0.5%, so it wouldn't take too much of a dig into your money.

You'll probably be okay, but people who deal with cash want to stay anonymous and could be criminals, so you'd be best off selling after covering your tracks.

Which is all the more reason why people need to do more than googling whether it's a scam.  They need to check reputable lists - some of which are on this very forum.  If they can't find it anywhere, which will be the case for new sites, and they can't find enough reasonable reviews or real looking information about the site, they also shouldn't put any money in.

Despite the occasional buzzwords that people don't use like "co-equal", you have a point.

Just as importantly, people can look at the potential profit instead of the profit they are actually likely to get.  In cryptocurrency trading more than anything else, they'll see leaps of 1000% or more on some altcoins and want to jump right in, not realising that most people trading it didn't actually make those gains because it's near impossible to predict exactly when the price will rise and fall.

If you're making terrible trades and you make some profit on one of them, it's basically gambling except with an unpredictably high house edge.

Profit does have a slight bearing on the skill of the trader though, just because I say "unpredictably" high house edge.  No one can actually tell what the probability of their trade succeeding was exactly, and to even get anywhere close you have to do a lot of analysis which might be daunting for new investors.  What's important is that people put many different trades with small amounts of their portfolio to decrease the risk while having a coherent strategy - in this scenario, profit is very important because it evens out and the probability of failing when you make many strategic trades instead of one is very low, so in those scenarios you can judge your skill based on profit.

Checking out his signature, there are some extremely dubious looking programs he's promoting.  One of them claims to be the "first Bitcoin revshare" which somehow claims to have BTC400 despite the terrible design.

With Bitcoin Core, it's called replace-by-fee and it is possible.  As far as I know, you can't do it on Electrum or most other wallets that don't run full nodes, but I could be wrong on that.

The Blockchain wallet sets fees of 120 satoshi/byte by default.  Their "fee estimation" is just finding out what the transaction size will be and setting the fees to 120 satoshi per byte.

With the network having been very congested you're unlikely to get a transaction confirmed for a long time using Blockchain's terrible fee and timing estimation.  They have no idea how long your transaction will take to confirm, either.

Your best bet is to check the fees on bitcoinfees.21.co and try and set your fees relative to the 120 satoshi per byte set by the Blockchain wallet.

The common goal is to scale.  Unfortunately, some people don't even recognise that the other side is scaling Bitcoin too, thinking that it's impractical/doesn't count as scaling.
Some of us can.  If anyone lets their guard down though, they feel attacked, and then they put it up again which is the main problem I'd say.
Probably not.  Too much money involved.
There isn't really one, both sides and, even more so, development teams are stubborn as hell.

You can't accurately predict the future mining difficulty because it's largely based on the price, which is also unpredictable.

The best you can get is analysing the charts from before, provided that you consider the price won't rise so quickly and the difficulty won't either - you also need to consider Moore's law and how ASICs develop along with it.

If someone is asking on a forum for opinions, they might well be considering a lot of viewpoints and a lot of reasoning before making a decision.  It's obvious he's making his own decisions, so what you're really telling him to do is "make an informed decision" and he might be doing that already.

The stock market, and all assets and everything else - they never rest.  You can never be completely sure of price movements.

However, I would personally say that your best bet is to wait until it drops below $1200 and then buy and hold.  If you're not an expert trader, there's not a lot more you can do.

Frankly if their support don't reasonably respond there's nothing any of us could do.  For all we know, they could have made you send to another address, since they basically send the transactions for you.  Even if they're a real hybrid, they could still scam you.

The other situation that could have happened is that you have malware, so pasting an address appears as a different one.  If so, you should run malware checks and contact their support from a safe computer.  The malware could even have manually sent the money out of your account and then shut it down, in which case it would be much less safe.

It wasn't going to happen, you just felt like aggressively starting it on a thread that's unrelated to that to push your agenda.

Clearly you don't actually care about the place, so no point invading the thread.

Seems pretty likely though, considering just how dominant BITMAIN is over that industry (very).

No one could realistically claim that BITMAIN don't have too much control.  If they managed to cause a problem with other people's miners (which they probably could) they could use their own vast mining power to do a 51% attack.

Decentralisation is necessary in all aspects of Bitcoin.

I don't think there's any significant send limit, or I can't find it anyway.  

The chance of Coinbase freezing your account for potentially manipulating them is well above nothing.  Then again, if you're only leaving the Bitcoin for one transaction in there at a time, it's probably worth it anyway.  I doubt that it's easy for anyone except Coinbase and governments to track your transaction history.

Poloniex still seems like a more reliable option though, especially since they're solely an exchange so they have no fees (I think Coinbase introduced some recently).

Avalon miners are pretty inefficient.  Even with reasonably cheap electricity it's not ideal and you'd be better off with Antminers unless you have a moral objection to BITMAIN or you have free electricity.

Buying some more miners would be a great idea though.  It's very unlikely that you would fail to get ROI at any point, and even if you were failing you could mine other SHA-256 coins.

Without evidence of that, your claim and countless pointless threads are worthless.  If you're just annoyed about something, you could express it with reason instead of increasingly frantic rambling.

They have no incentive to deliberately waste taxpayer money.  Even if they're unlikely to approve it, doesn't mean that it's not reasonable to do a review.
The ETF would just help wealthy investors get involved in Bitcoin.  I don't see it as a problem at all, just a means of the price rising and thus in the future becoming more stable.  Bitcoin is already heavily manipulated, but if there's at least a bit of liquidity that problem will be closer to fixed.

No, the users will follow whatever is the logical course of action.*

The previous Bitcoin is likely to activate SegWit if there's a low-consensus split, which pretty much will definitely happen.  Regardless of any attacks on the minority chain, SegWit will probably come out on top for economic support.


*except for online wallet users and other bank supporters

They've had plenty of time for pointlessly considering their stance before they made their decision.

There's really no point "reviewing" their position.  It's not going to change.