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Multibit is no longer maintained and has had some serious bugs.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).

 

There are a few possible reasons:

1.  It's possible that more of the Japanese nodes are non-listening nodes.  These node counting sites only account for the nodes that they can reach.
2.  It's possible that Americans consider it more important to be running full nodes rather than SPV wallets, which could suggest that more of the Japanese BTC owners are less dedicated users.
3.  It's possible that the users running nodes have more money on average.  Japanese families are known for having more savings than Westerners.

All programs which describe themselves as an "HYIP" will scam their customers eventually.  It does not matter how long they take to scam their customers, they will scam their customers.

You may think that this is a subjective opinion, but it is not.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-yield_investment_program

Put that into a compound interest calculator.  12% per day is 4380% per year.

If you put $100 into that program and you allowed it to compound daily for a year, your final balance would be worth $82,292,499,203,913,880,000.  Now do you still think it's okay?

It depends on whether you think the new chain will retain its value in the time after the fork.  If you think it will retain its value for long enough to you to bother waiting for proper wallet services to help you split your coins, or you're technically competent enough to understand what you're doing anyway, it's worth keeping it off exchanges to avoid the risk of them not giving you your coins.

If you don't think it'll retain its value and the exchange says it'll give you the new chain at a 1:1 ratio with BTC, I suppose it could be worth keeping it on an exchange.  But I don't think giving it as certain advice is reasonable.

The crypto market is still a bit of a wild west as of yet, which I have a lot of fun navigating. 

It's certainly interesting, but sooner or later countries are going to start regulating whatever parts of it are centralised that they can handle.  That means unlicensed investment programs (Ponzi schemes); exchanges; fundraising such as ICOs; and spending it at merchants.

Regulated industries can still commit fraud or have monetary problems, but it's less likely and governments are more likely to favour regulation.

Because it's in a bubble.  When it's not in a bubble, the discussion is about how to actually make BTC better, rather than just how to make the price more stupidly high.

---

The problem is that loads of people aren't distinguishing between Bitcoin "being a bubble" and Bitcoin "being in a bubble".

On here I see "People thought Amazon was a bubble, but now it's huge" - but Amazon was in a bubble, and now it is no longer in a bubble.  Similarly, Bitcoin could be in a bubble now, but that doesn't mean that it will always be in a bubble or that it itself a bubble.

-Check the team with a reverse image search and try to dig up information.  If the best you can find about them is a doctored LinkedIn profile, they're probably fake.

-If the site makes a bold claim about a person's history, verify that it's true.  If the person did something particularly great, surely they would have some public presence.

-If the site promises you profit, it's a scam.  Especially if the profit is in percentages and measured in fiat terms.

-Not necessarily about scams, but check that very similar projects haven't been done before, otherwise the whole thing is pointless.

People like Tom Lee are just going to set higher and higher arbitrary targets for the BTC price.  As soon as one target is reached, these bulls will just set it higher.

Since we're deep into a bull market, some investors will use the logic that they got the prediction right last time, so they assume that the bullish trend must continue, which pushes the price unnecessarily higher and higher until it just can't go any further and then they will be really disappointed.

Meanwhile, people like Andrew Left will just keep saying Bitcoin will fall until it inevitably does, and then they'll feel like they're great even though they've been wrongly saying that for years and they just got lucky.

So I'd say it's not worth paying attention to either of them.

Even though I would personally love to be spending BTC at Amazon, the number of people just hoarding their coins makes it a pretty insignificant payment option for them.

The CEO of Overstock has already said before that less than 1% of their payments are in BTC - notably, those who paid will BTC would probably willingly pay fiat as well, so the amount of demand for a BTC payment option is probably still insignificant from Amazon's perspective.

So if they did integrate it, the price would only shoot up speculatively, not from people trying to buy BTC that they would then spend at Amazon.

The ICO bubble looks like it's starting to reach the end. 

The entire bubble relies on people being able to get in spontaneously with small amounts of money - most of the people who buy in to ICOs are new to investment, hence why they invest ridiculous amounts in companies with pretty pathetic backgrounds and aims.

If ICOs are regulated similarly to IPOs, it's unlikely that these people will bother getting involved anymore, just like how they didn't bother to get involved in IPOs before.

The forks do nothing on their own.  They just happen and they exist.  What matters is how people react to them.

The problem with the way that forks are being doing right now is that groups (BTG just recently, but I wouldn't put SegWit2x or BCH in this category) often attempt to use a fork as a method of getting automatic publicity.

All that the fork has to do is get a clickbait media outlet or two to publish a story about their unnecessary fork, and then exchanges and online wallet services have people contacting them.  "How am I going to claim it?". The exchanges and wallets feel that they have an obligation to their users, so they give it out with a 1:1 ratio, and then all of a sudden everyone knows about the fork.

I don't trust the crypto markets, in which market manipulation and hype from newbies is very common, to form a fair valuation for every fork once they've reached that point with exchanges at which almost everyone is aware of the fork.

It could be a lot of effort for all that of the services and users involved and it would be quite inconvenient.

It seems unlikely that the majority of BTG coins have already been split from BTC and moved.  The amount of coins that could be increasing the supply on these exchanges over the coming weeks is absolutely ridiculous, so I highly doubt that the price will stay even close to what it is now.

In fact, the 24 hour volume for Bitcoin Gold is so much lower than BTC that it's pretty much negligible, perhaps because the majority of people aren't even able to get it yet.

There doesn't seem to be any full node or even lightweight Electrum-like wallet on their website, so where does this coin even exist other than in their fat pockets and on some exchanges?

---

Anyway, someone's still buying it for all these people to sell, so I suppose some people will just buy anything.

If the inflation rate rises and the interest rates haven't really caught up with inflation (in the UK's case I think the base interest rate is still only 0.25%), it may cause people to dislike the banking system due to their inability to save up money that retains its value.  This would make people more likely to turn to some sort of relatively stable investment such as real estate, but if they were a bit edgy then maybe they would go to BTC due to that as well.  

If the inflation rate stays low and the interest rates are low, it would make the idea of having physical cash more appealing, which is good if people are privacy-oriented and would make them feel more financially free, which may make them less likely to turn to BTC as a currency in the short term.

In the long term I'm not sure it has much of an effect, but for as long as unusually high or low interest rates are happening it may affect people's interest for sure.  It may also affect the publicity of a decentralised system.