I don't gamble like that.  If BTC lost value I'd be pretty far down the shitter.  
Some people (including me) think it's in a bubble when the price multiplies by six within a year and everyone is completely euphoric in assuming that the price will continue to rise exponentially forever.

Personally, I think that that kind of position (in which people's attitudes and the price rises are what to consider) is much more reasonable than just assuming that Bitcoin could never be in a bubble no matter what happens, which is obviously false because it has happened several times before.

However I do think that Buffet needs to distinguish between BTC being "in a bubble" and being "a bubble".  He also needs to point out that fiat currencies are not value-producing assets.

It never was accepted by Core.  A block size increase requires a hard fork, which will result in two separate chains with the same blockchain until the point of the fork.  This fork will be created by different developers.

It's just that, in order to reach the 95% of miner consensus that the original SegWit (BIP141) required to activate, the owners of most of the hashrate had a meeting in which they came up with the New York Agreement (NYA).  NYA involves activating SegWit on the condition that three months after SegWit activation, the signatories will follow the new chain with 2MB base blocks.
Yeah.  SegWit was pretty much supposed to be a block size increase that didn't force people to upgrade and use it if they didn't want to.  It preserves the ability to run a BTC node with a 1MB max block size, but that would be a legacy node/old node.

Your transaction has a fee of about 14 satoshi/byte.  Check this page to see how long it's expected to take for your transaction to confirm.

Note that it's possible the transaction could more or less time than that to confirm if the mempool gets more or less clogged or another factor like people sending more or less SegWit transactions affects it.  This is something that Electrum's dynamic fee system can't predict since it relies on humans' future activity.
It's fine.  You can accelerate the transaction with ViaBTC when they have space.  Antpool also has a transaction accelerator.

There's nothing wrong with your transaction, it's just that the fee is moderately low so it might take a bit longer.

TREZOR has handled these updates and forks in the most reasonable and professional way of any company I've seen so far.

When SegWit happened, they implemented it very quickly, but they did it on their beta wallet in case there were any problems, and they are referring to older wallets as "legacy wallets" while having new accounts for SegWit transactions.  When the BCH fork happened, they added it as an option on the top left of the wallet and added a splitting tool to help you out.

Slush Pool is run by them as well, and they allowed people to choose which proposals to signal for or to allow them to decide.  They're doing exactly what all responsible hardware companies should be doing.

I have full faith that they'll handle this properly, and I'm sure they'll do it better without having to confuse themselves with other companies' stances.

Cex.io takes credit and debit cards.  They claim to accept all countries apart from a list of restricted countries, which Bosnia and Herzegovina is not on.

In general though, you'll find that your life will be much easier if you bother to do a bank transfer.  The premium for exchanges and peer-to-peer sellers tends to be much lower with bank transfers due to the risk of credit card fraud.

If you need another place to try, I think virwox.com would do it as well.

About two to three seconds was the longest wait for me to receive a transaction.

As for confirmations, which is probably what you're talking about, the longest has been about a day, which was around the period of very full blocks (earlier this year, probably in the April-May kind of time).

I usually try to make sure that people set an appropriate fee.  By now most wallets have fee estimation which often sets too high a fee rather than too low, which I suppose is the lesser of two evils and it's not a problem from my perspective.

When I send coins I usually check bitcoinfees.21.co and pay the lowest I can without it getting stuck, which usually these days is somewhere between 10 and 30 satoshi/byte.

The funniest post of all on that thread was posted about 5 years and 2 months ago:
To be fair though, it's pretty hard to justify a price like this with anything other than speculation.

That's not entirely a bad thing, but it does mean that BTC is turning out to be something different to what they expected it to be.  They expected price to be tied pretty closely with the number of merchants that accept it, but now it's become more of a speculative asset and "digital gold" of sorts.

If you were treating BTC as primarily just a currency like they were, you could understand their skepticism.

Online wallets have the benefit of being very convenient, since all you need is an account.  However, the security is pretty weak, and it typically involves at least some trust in a third party.  Sometimes this even involves the service having access to your private keys.

Some of the better online wallets offer 2-of-3 multisignature wallets or access to your private keys, but even then you have to trust the wallet when it comes to privacy, because they could have access to the details of the transactions you send and use blockchain analysis if required by law enforcement.

Some online wallets even have to comply with law enforcement on such trivial matters as BTC gambling (Coinbase).

It's important to clarify that SegWit is a soft fork introducing a new transaction format, while SegWit2x is a hard fork to increase BTC's base block size to 2MB on the current chain (which has already implemented SegWit).

One of the most important reasons for SegWit is to increase network capacity without a hard fork - the new transaction format is optional, and legacy nodes still view the block size as being 1MB.

SegWit is trying to avoid raising the block size by allowing people the ability to continue viewing a 1MB block size if they wish. 

It may be damaging to Nakamoto themselves, but to an ordinary user I doubt it would be. 
It could certainly receive a lot of publicity and pop some bubbles in the BTC price, but I feel like a lot of BTC discussion media are so polarised in support of BTC that it would only strengthen their resolve.  It just depends whether you're a lay man or whether you take an active interest.

Regardless, I don't think that the media are out to get satoshi particularly.  There's no point in governments arresting them either, because satoshi can't control BTC or alter it.

To be fair, this article doesn't have to reflect the views of Nasdaq - it was written by a third party and they clarify that on the article.
Bitcoin's merchant adoption has not risen significantly since the start of the year.  In fact, Fiverr mysteriously stopped accepting it in February.  In any case, it would be very hard to justify the price multiplying by five to six.
This is both meaningless and false.  There is no definitive point at which Bitcoin suddenly "becomes mainstream".
It was limited a year ago as well.

---

The other two reasons are somewhat justified, but they still don't make a price this high reasonable.

I doubt that Buterin has ever had that much faith in cryptocurrencies in general, never mind in the exact things that he's doing.  It's just a bit of an experiment which also brings an interesting method of fundraising and interesting future prospects.

It's surprising that he's stepping in to be the voice of reason during this general ICO bubble, considering that he stands to hugely financially benefit from having loads of ETH.

Perhaps that could even suggest that he expects the ETH price to become higher once the majority of projects are legitimate.

Besides the obvious problems with the assumption that BTC's market dominance would still be as high as before with a larger block size, he's also assuming that a higher market dominance purely means further increases in the Bitcoin price rather than less increases in the altcoin prices.

There was a lot of hype around altcoins, especially ETH, and the prospect of "the flippening" to a newer coin.  This caused altcoins to rise massively, but BTC was not falling during that period.  It just wasn't rising quite as quickly as all the altcoins, many of which were pretty much useless.
It's extremely naive of you to think that the price is somehow held back at this point.  Perhaps you got in extremely late.

DeepOnion uses PoW alongside PoS, so I doubt it.
It still would have been more efficient to buy CPUs in bulk and have drastically larger facilities, while mining in a location with the lowest possible electricity costs.

There is a risk in the fact that BITMAIN sells a large majority of mining equipment, because they therefore have access to machines cheaper than everyone else and have a lot of profit to spend on those machines, but if it was still CPU or GPU mining then it would still be just a few companies selling those.

"Real money"   

But yes, you can exchange fiat money for BTC.  A lot of machines only allow you to buy BTC as one of the biggest purposes of these machines is anonymity for the buyer (paying with cash), and for people trying out BTC for the first time due to the machines' high fees, but some allow you to sell BTC as well.
https://coinatmradar.com/countries/
Often ATMs have a fee of about 4-10% depending on how much competition there is in the area and what company operates them.

In the case of Coinbase and Xapo, yes.

Blockchain.info, Green Address and BitGo are not in a position of enough power to steal your coins, provided that you use the features that they let you use.  I'm sure that there are some others as well.  In blockchain.info's case, you have access to your private keys.
Multibit is no longer maintained and has had some serious bugs.  You should stop suggesting it.
It differs from exchange to exchange, but usually they will have most of their coins in cold storage, and they will take out what they need for a certain period into hot wallets that they control.  There should be an automatic system for the hot wallets to send out withdrawals when requested by their users.

This seems similar to something I saw in the satirical subreddit r/buttcoin.
What many users on this forum and Bloomberg are saying about forks is exactly what people there are insulting.  They're treating forks as if they're some sort of money tree which isn't affected by supply and demand from interested BTC users.  The money doesn't just appear out of nowhere.

---

As for the main point about BTC dominance, I think this is just a correction.  Alts were significantly overvalued relative to BTC, so now alts are going back to where they were before all of the hype started.

Well, it might not quite get as far as it was before and I think crypto will stay diverged a fair bit, but it'll at least go back since the FUD about "the flippening" has passed.

Just to clarify, this kind of crash would most likely be due to the excessive speculation and the bubble which led up to the crash.  Therefore, it's the investors' responsibility when something like that happens.

It's mind-bogglingly unlikely that something like that would happen as a result of a bug, because the Bitcoin Core software has been reviewed by loads of different people who can understand it and can be read through by anyone.

There was an overflow bug in 2010 which resulted in loads of BTC being created, but this was when only a small group of people were interested enough in BTC to read through the code.  That's very much not the case anymore.
That's objectively impossible.

That's extremely confusing.  From their information page:

They're two chains with different consensus rules, so they can't just be BTC.  I'd rather that SegWit2x futures were traded in BTC value, and 1 BTC stays at the value of 1 BTC.

Obviously SegWit2x is going to call itself BTC as well, but since it doesn't exist yet, it would make sense to compare it to something you can actually send to and withdraw from an exchange so that you can trade it with something that actually exists.

After the fork happens, exchanges could decide which one chain to call BTC based on which has the economic majority of support.

The two main reasons for restricting the max block size are bandwidth and storage.  Especially bandwidth.  Moore's Law only applies to the amount of transistors per square inch, and thus the speed of computers.

Moore's Law hasn't even continued working - it takes a bit longer than a year these days and it certainly wouldn't continue forever.

This would also be continuing from 1MB, but there's no guarantee that 1MB is exactly the correct number anyway.  The exact limit is pretty arbitrary, so long as there's a limit which is low enough for running a node to be affordable (that's the main argument of people who prefer smaller blocks).