If someone stores their gold in a safe and then buries it in a secret location which they never tell anyone and then they die, what happens to the gold?  It isn't found until someone digs it up.  Pretty much the same thing could happen if someone has a paper wallet.

Basically, it's the person's choice what they do with the private keys and the storage of it can be handled pretty much in the same way as any other asset.  You keep it somewhere safe, and then you say in your will that you want it to go to person X when you die.

You could make some sort of scheme to make sure that no one except the intended future owner finds out where it is at any time, but I don't see why BTC necessarily has to be any different.
This is where the article gets lost.  The BTC is stored in the blockchain.  If you have a software wallet on your computer, what it stores is the private keys required for the blockchain to know that you have the right to spend those coins. 

I suppose you're trying to figure out how to split your BTG from your main stash of BTC.  BTG has replay protection and a different address format.  You should be fine to send your BTC to a new Electrum wallet and then you'll have to export your old private keys into a BTG wallet.

That said, there don't seem to be any vaguely trustworthy-looking BTG wallets, since the whole project is generally bullshit.  In fact I can't find a single full node on their website, just three online wallets (one of which has a lot of scam accusations and one of which I've never heard of until now).  The closest thing to a trustworthy wallet provider is Coinomi and that's an online wallet.

With the transactions that take place and the consensus rules, BTC is the most transparent monetary system in existence. Banks and the IMF can commit fraud and create money out of thin air - both of which they do on a regular basis.

Sure, the individual may be able to stay private a lot of the time, but that's fine.  Cash works in the same way but without it being clear where the cash came from.

I suppose what they were hoping for was a clean and slow transition to a cashless society, but now it seems impossible.  If cash is gone there can be a new digital system to take its place, or perhaps commodities and assets like gold which are perceived to have value.

BTG has replay protection, so you can move your BTC now that the fork had happened.

It looks like you'll have to send away your BTC and then export the old private keys into a BTG wallet.  Considering that BTG should be almost worthless, you'll have to decide whether that's really worth your time.

This is about non-blockchain projects using an ICO for fundraising, not about an ICO not using a blockchain (which obviously would just be traditional fundraising).

---

ICOs are supposed to be a different form of fundraising.  They are not inherently any better for fundraising blockchain-related projects than other ones apart from the fact that people who are interested in blockchain-related projects are likely to already have cryptocurrencies to use.

There absolutely can be ICOs for other projects.  Thinking otherwise is what triggers all these stupid attempts to tie every industry to the blockchain for no apparent reason.

Yep.  Send away the BTC and then export the key to a BCH wallet.  You can find BCH wallets on their official website.
Electrum has dynamic fee estimation.  If necessary, you can decide your transaction fee in satoshi/byte using this site to figure out how long your transaction will take to confirm.
The features in those wallets are quite important to the average user and the "user friendly" wallets don't always handle the coins that well.  It's important for users to set their own fees for example, because the fee estimation in a lot of wallets results in people paying super high fees.  Bitcoin Core and other full nodes are what I would regard to be "technical" wallets.

It's a shame that forks are making companies feel so pressured to credit their users.  In the case of Bitcoin Cash there was a significant user base and a significant amount of supporters, but Bitcoin Gold is clearly bullshit.

It's clearly just a money grab, and yet by crediting their users and creating systems for people to handle their Bitcoin Gold, companies are unintentionally helping with this and there's little they can do because dodgy groups like Bitfinex have already started accepting it.

People will give a value to anything.  It's just a simple code change and there are clearly plenty of ASIC-resistant coins already, yet BTG is trying to pull thousands of BTC out of this.

As well as decentralised exchanges, it looks like decentralised markets are on the brink of being huge.  OpenBazaar 2.0 has shown us what's possible and I think that darknet markets are going to become decentralised very soon, what with all the closures.

If you already have a decentralised system, like Bitcoin, and then you implement a decentralised exchange and decentralised markets that feature multisignature escrow, there's pretty much no point at which exit scams or problems with the service are a possibility.

Crypto is going to make trust less and less relevant all over several systems.

YoBit was trading it before the fork even happened.  Considering that they're an extremely dodgy exchange, it's no surprise that they would open up trading before anyone else, thus leaving BTG up for market manipulation.  

A similar situation happened with Bitcoin Cash when they listed it too early and it was sold at an inflated price.

---

Bittrex's warnings here are completely reasonable and professional.  "Bitcoin Gold" is only receiving attention because it is a fork, not because of any actual merit to the project.

While people on here kept saying that SegWit2x and BACH are money grabs, they are blatantly incorrect as they are functioning forks which do change relevant parts of code.  This, on the other hand, is a money grab.

Your article claims that Bitconnect is entirely legal, but in all states that I know of, unlicensed managed investment schemes are extremely illegal. Bitconnect's founders are also anonymous.

You also neglect to mention that users of investment schemes tend to compound their interest.  By the time a user had kept their $100,000 in Bitconnect for two years at a rate of 1% per day, they would have accumulated 142 million dollars.  By the time they had left it in for three years, they would have accumulated 5 billion dollars - an amount I think we can both agree is too much for Bitconnect to handle.

In your attempts to benefit from their referral program, you are yet another person becoming complicit in Bitconnect's massive scam which is right under the majority of people's noses.

Since it seems you're extremely new to BTC payments (not even understanding the divisions of BTC until now), you should go for something user-friendly but still relatively secure since you're handling high amounts.

Try Electrum (and make sure you keep the seed safe - without it you can't access your coins).  A hardware wallet like TREZOR might also be a good idea for you and it should guide you through the process quite well.

Of course when selling items on the forum, people will be wary of sending their BTC to a newbie, so you'll have to make sure to use a trusted escrow or a multisignature system.

You are free to trade on-chain.  The Lightning Network is not in mainstream use yet, and even SegWit transactions are a minority at approximately 15% of transactions right now.

SegWit transactions are still onchain anyway.
That image doesn't seem to contain any meaningful information.  It's just a lot of very vague connections that don't at all show whether any of those groups are working together or supporting the same things.

I have never heard of Trace Mayers until now, because I don't spend my time listening to and reading bullshit.  It seems you do, which is why it took you so long to figure out stuff you learn within a few months of joining school at five years old.

Regardless, having more money doesn't make you more trustworthy.  If anything, it makes him less trustworthy since he has an incentive to mislead newbies into buying at extortionate prices. 

Of course, everyone would love to think that it's different this time.

When skeptics say that BTC or Amazon "is" a bubble, what the rational ones mean is that it's in a bubble.

To claim that a successful asset or business cannot have bubbles is outrageous.  In fact, Amazon's stock price fell from above 100 to as low as 10 during the dotcom bubble.

It's subjective whether or not an asset or business is in a bubble, so people are going to keep creating articles arguing that they may be in a bubble.  Amazon being a massive business does not prevent it from being in a bubble, and considering that its price has risen unusually quickly over the last couple of years, it's quite deep into a bull market.

So just like how it will continue to be forever, there will be people inside the technology sector and analysts who predict that an asset or business is in a speculative bubble, and sometimes they are correct.  Your insistence that they are wrong may end up being incorrect just like they sometimes are.

Pretty ironic how their website has the word "secure" cut partially off the screen.  Pretty rampant and obvious spamming there.

---

Considering that crypto is a pretty new thing for banks, it might be easy for them to just close accounts rather than find out exact details of what the companies and groups are doing within the blockchain space.

Over time they'll either mature to the idea and start treated blockchain companies normally or they'll decide that it's a massive threat.  Right now we seem to be in some weird transition phase that could go either way.

Apple and Amazon were not ideas in themselves.  They were companies, and people who worked for or were interested in the company, who collaborated to produce ideas.

Even though Bitcoin is not a centralised entity, a key similarity between Bitcoin and these companies is that significant numbers of people contribute new ideas to it and allow it to grow, so it is a collection of ideas, not just a single idea.

But what distinguishes BTC and Apple is that Apple's collection of ideas can be made into products which are then marketed and sold and then Apple as a company can grow to continue being the only group that uses the ideas effectively.  Even though anyone can use Apple's ideas in a new product, they are not going to get bigger without some ideas of their own and without a lot of money because Apple has billions of dollars and corporate interests behind them.

Bitcoin has none of this, so people who are capable of marketing can make something else, which contains some of BTC's ideas, and it can become popular alongside or in place of BTC.  BTC's power is primarily in the faith of the users, and that's something which could be quite changeable.

So the way they're looking at this is quite oversimplified.  I don't think that Bitcoin and Apple's market caps are comparable.

The writer is talking about different types of goods.  It's common sense right from the beginning that BTC wouldn't behave this way, because it has scarcity - therefore a higher price means that there is higher demand for it at that particular time.
What it's like is a speculative bubble.  It's at a point where no price increase will make people think it's too high, and most people buying in are self-aware enough to know that they are looking for a "greater fool" to buy at a higher price than them.

The article is trying to make BTC appear invincible, as if these prices increases are an inherent feature of BTC that will continue and perhaps even multiply in time, but it seems extremely unlikely that this will come true.

Rapid BTC price increases make a Bitcoin ETF less likely, not more likely.

It's not like it's normal for an ETF to multiply in price by six in a year.  The SEC know that this rate is not sustainable and that there will be volatility which scares their investors a lot.

If it was a gradual increase to being a significant and stable market, maybe the case would be different.

Because of simple volatility.  This could be people who are watching the market too closely and are scared of tiny fluctuations, or whales who buy or sell significant enough amounts to move the market and then the price stabilises afterwards.  It could also be that there is a correction or bull run which is overhyped and then people bring the price back to a reasonable range.

The point of a candlestick graph is to show all of the available information from a line graph in a simpler manner that people can comprehend.  It's also useful for technical analysis, hence all the candlestick patterns that people attempt to observe.

Yes.  SegWit2x coins will be owed to the lender when the fork occurs.  Because of this, it will be as if you are shorting SegWit2x coins.

You can read more about it in their statement:
Personally though, I would always prefer to have coins out of exchanges before the fork to be safe.  In the BCH fork some exchanges took parts of their users' holdings rather than giving 100%.  Having control over your coins and having to wait a little while is usually better than the risk.