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.

I think they're utter morons.  They're pulling in 1.5% fees on each trade, and they still can't have a functional support team.

What sort of company with several million customers doesn't even have a phone line?  There are even people who've complained about no response after they get their account hacked.

---

I'm 99% sure they're not a scam, but they should be replacing the "wallet services" section on their website with "dysfunctional exchange".

The idea behind Bitcoin Gold is "you have money, Bitcoin Gold developers and preminers want money, let's all be happy together".
An example of a properly airdropped crypto is Byteball.  This is given to Bitcoin holders regardless of whether they want it or not, and while that's okay, it puts a lot of unnecessary pressure on exchanges when plenty of altcoins with ASIC-resistant algorithms already exist.
Perhaps we should all be considering that failing to have a functioning client over two weeks after the supposed fork date could show that their developers are incompetent?

It's actually very drastically harder to predict those little bumps than you think.  I was naive enough to think that I could do it about a year ago, and I used to try trading based on short term events with this sort of goal in mind.

However, I couldn't make profit without leverage, so with leverage it would be a disaster.

In the case of cryptocurrency, you'll need some very high stop losses and the willingness to give up.  You'll also need to try the sort of trades that you'll be doing many times without leverage before you move onto trying leverage.

If you buy alts, you are also selling Bitcoin.  So doing so would have the same effect on the altcoin exchange's Bitcoin price that selling Bitcoin for fiat would have on an ordinary exchange's Bitcoin price.

Due to arbitrage trading, the price of BTC on the altcoin exchange that you're selling on would roughly even out with ordinary BTC exchanges, so you would have affected all of the different exchange rates.

Out of Bitcoin and into alts.  Seems pretty self-explanatory.

It would make the most sense to call it "the Bitcoin whitepaper (revised)" and make sure to include a link to "the original Bitcoin whitepaper".

If there are some things in satoshi's whitepaper which bitcoin.org no longer perceives to hold true or which they perceive to be inaccurate, they should make all of the changes transparent.  As long as they don't replace the old whitepaper with the new one without mentioning all of the changes clearly, it's okay for them to make some alterations.

I think people commenting on bitcoin.com and some opponents of this suggestion are being very hyperbolic to claim that it's "rewriting history".  The old whitepaper will always still exist, it'll just be accessed differently.

Shouldn't it be much easier for e-commerce and online platforms to integrate BTC payments than brick-and-mortar stores?  After all, the need for confirmations and the fact that expensive items are much better to buy with BTC makes online retailers far better for accepting BTC transactions.
I don't know how many stores there are in Japan, but with a population of over 120 million people, I would consider 4,500 a pretty small amount and certainly not "mass adoption".

It's also not like BTC is being used for every payment in these stores either.
I don't see where this figure is coming from and it seems very unlikely that it would happen that quickly, considering that BTC has been regulated in Japan since April.