No.  Suggesting investments to people is a bad idea, especially when it's something so risky and volatile.  Whether or not they claim to be okay with losing their money in the worst circumstances, most people would care a lot if it went wrong and it would result in a lot of resentment towards you.  The effect of you making a suggestion which turned out poorly is much more serious than the effect of you making a suggestion that turned out well.
This is an extremely naive suggestion and is not based on any reasonable logic.  The price should be based on how BTC is actually doing, not rabid speculation.
To rephrase this into a good argument: "You can't use Bitcoin as a currency as much as you should be able to with a price as high as it currently is".  It's not that you can't use BTC, it's that a significant amount of holders don't.
 

Amazon doesn't remove the third party.  They have a lot of third parties - the additional sellers, the payments, and pretty much every aspect of their service.  There's less third parties to go into a shop and buy a product.
No one is focusing on that because they're too busy focusing on the price and getting caught up in the bubble.  They all convince themselves that it's different this time, when it's very much the same.

The price isn't the only indicator of adoption.  Adoption isn't going too well, whereas the price and the speculation is.

Any differences in price get arbitraged to death.  Their prices are going to be pretty much the same for practical purposes.  It's worth looking on coinmarketcap for trustworthy exchanges (none of them are that trustworthy, so be careful), but Bitstamp, GDAX and Kraken are a few that you could try.
If you want to pay with cash, you should probably try trading with someone in person (or with cash in the mail if you need to) on LocalBitcoins.
You're missing out bank transfers, which can be quite important.  Between cash and credit cards though, cash is ideal since it's non-reversible.  The risk of credit card fraud and necessary KYC regulations lead to a lot of complex verification which can be quite irritating.  

Credit cards are ideally for when you need a convenient way to pay online, but they can also result in high fees and annoying verification.

Sounds bad.  People very casually investing without really contemplating that much about it (just hearing about it on the phone and presumably hearing about previous prices) and not even learning how to invest themselves suggest that they have no idea what they're doing.

People also commonly say that a stock or asset is in a bubble when your grandmother is buying it.  The age range that they're talking about is people who are about 70, especially lay people.
What's this obsession that people have about "going mainstream"?  Can't it just be what it is, an experiment in cryptography, and then find out what it becomes used for?  Especially when the idea of "going mainstream" is just putting money in it, not actually doing anything with it.

Seems like quite an arbitrary statistic.  Not all power is produced using oil.

If you wanted to understand how many resources that mining Bitcoin takes up, you'd have to understand what power sources are most commonly used for BTC mining.  Presumably the most common is mains power, in which case you'd have to consider what percentage of mains power in different countries is generated by different power sources.

After that you'd have to alter your statistics based on the percentage of hashrate which is directed from different countries - something that's very hard to measure.

It's almost impossible to create accurate statistics of how many resources BTC mining actually takes up.  You could take the least efficient power source and say that mining 1 BTC takes up that many resources even though most power isn't created that way.

We don't know that.  There is no evidence of that.  They also haven't been mining at a loss at all yet, they've just been signalling their intention to mine the SegWit2x chain.

It will most likely involve mining at a loss if the current percentage of hashrate support stays the same and the current cost of futures matches the price when the chain is created, but you need to point out these assumptions to make a reasoned argument.
So you think that there's a non-negligible chance for a government to spend billions of dollars incentivising independent miners to individually mine at a loss, just so that the majority of BTC users would then choose to use a new Bitcoin client with a 2MB block size?
Once again, this is a very shocking assumption to make.  You'd need to justify it pretty well.

You should try explaining the importance of a Nash equilibrium in Bitcoin, in that when everyone acts in their own selfish interests, it benefits BTC.   

What's most important about this is that for the system to become insecure, huge groups of people (the economic majority) need to simultaneously disregard their own interests and work on something which is bad for them (and if this happens, they would still feel that it is good for them, since it's what they want to do).

---

I like that you've written the blog like a conversation.  It works almost like an FAQ but in a structured and easy to understand way.

Fortunately, I have my seed in multiple different safe locations, so losing my seed doesn't really seem like a possibility to me.  Especially since I never carry it around with me.

Considering that most thieves don't have a clue what a TREZOR is, never mind how to steal the coins, I'd prefer having the information to take the coins relatively easy to find rather than it being somewhere that I'm likely to forget about and then lose access to my coins altogether.

I'll stay cocky until ten years or so from now when something goes wrong to put me back in my place.

Most of them did not support Bitcoin Cash.  Even BITMAIN didn't actively support Bitcoin Cash - they supported NYA earlier than that.  As for tolerating it, what else are you going to do?  Try and kill the developers?
They treat it that way because they don't perceive it to have enough support.  I don't see why this should prevent others from supporting it.

---

Your other couple of points, though, seem quite reasonable to me.  I'll just be holding both chains and sitting back to see the show, personally.

Choosing to use SegWit is based on your belief about the merits of it (I decide to use it because I agree with the merits of it), but I wasn't intending to suggest that in my previous post.  I was intending to suggest that your belief in the importance of implementing SegWit as soon as possible should not interfere with the fact that a large number of customers using Copay will want a convenient way to move Bitcoin Cash and use it as they wish (or sell it if they do not believe in the merits of it).
Fair point.  I suppose they could have clearly pointed their users to that tool as an easier way of handling the situation, but they've still been at least moderately prompt on attempting to implement SegWit so I wouldn't treat them too harshly in that regard.
I'm not too sure either.  I think people need to distinguish between whether they would like to use BCH themselves (I personally don't use it) or whether they think other people will use it (I think that it has a significant amount of supporters).

Let's not pretend that BTC's price is necessarily strong and stable.  It's always had very drastic fluctuations.  Even though that doesn't have to continue forever, it's very likely that this drastic increase will involve another drastic fall at some point.

---

I'm already into Bitcoin from before this whole bubble situation started, and I'm not going to be buying any more in the near future.  I'd rather buy in a full-on bear market after it's been going down for at least a few months, rather than just buying in as soon as it drops a tiny bit.

Especially since I'm already holding BTC and it's a pretty risky asset in the first place, I'd rather not gather any more in an even riskier time.

The good thing about importing into hardware wallets is that (at least with TREZOR, I haven't used Ledger) it will get you to input the seed in a scrambled way, either by randomising the words or even with an advanced recovery system.  By doing that, it doesn't compromise the paper wallet at all, whereas importing the seed in an ordinary way removes the security of having it in the first place.

So it should be perfectly fine to import the paper wallet into your Ledger, assuming that it has a similarly obscured importing process to the TREZOR and that you don't intend to reveal to anyone how many coins you hold or anything else that may leave you vulnerable to a 5-dollar wrench attack.  It's more of a convenience thing than anything else.

I keep trying to report these posts, but it looks like a futile battle.  Considering there's a captcha when you register and when you log in, it seems difficult for there to be a bot doing all of these, even though they're very bot-like posts.

They're all newbie accounts and they only seem to post 1 spam post, so I don't see how they could be getting past the forum's system.  IIRC the forum makes you pay a fee to create new accounts if you create several from the same IP address, so they would have to be using a VPN with many different locations or possibly hacking a lot of old unused newbie accounts.

If a human is doing it, I doubt there's any useful way to stop them at all except for banning the accounts one by one, which would be pretty ineffective.

Here's the first indication that you're incorrect.  The fees are nothing to do with how much you decide to send, it's about the size (in bytes) of your transaction.
Correlation =/= causation.  You are not explaining why the fees are going up.  It may be that an increase in price causes an increase in hype and therefore trading activity, which means more transactions sent, and then that pushes up the fees.  But you have to clarify why this actually happens.
Once Electrum and a few more major wallets implement SegWit, the fees will fall drastically because there will no longer be congestion in the BTC network.  It's possible that further scaling solutions will be implemented as time goes on and as the price rises (if it does).

If the network is only just becoming congested when it reaches that higher price point, a priority transaction would still have relatively low fees as it's coming out of a phase of low fees for a long time.  The price does not affect the fees at this point.

You'd better get some trustworthy people around while this specialist has a look.  The fact that they're dealing with over $1,000,000 might tempt them to try and steal the coins.  You need to make sure you have them overpowered and that you're watching them throughout every second of the process.
It shouldn't be too hard, provided that the hard drive isn't broken.  You just need to look for the wallet.dat file.  That said, I can see why you're getting someone else to look at it, considering how devastating it would be if you lost that money.

How did you get so much money in the first place?  Even in 2014 it would have been shitloads of money.

Those are not lost coins.  Hackers can still spend the coins.  We're talking about coins for which we know the keys have been lost, and therefore no one will be able to spend them unless someone can ever crack 256-bit security.
There's no way to know for sure, but this thread tried to add up all the coins that they knew were lost (such as from news articles with people that lost their hard drives and any other information that they could pick up).  

The most recent count I found was on page 16, and it was at BTC134,679.00144159.
I wouldn't consider those coins lost forever.  If we count getting hacked or scammed then the same coins could be lost loads of times, and they're not actually lost forever.  I would count services closing down as part of this.

It's obvious that BCH would be a higher priority, because the wallet is making it convenient for their users to access (and potentially sell) their newfound holdings. 

If they didn't do that, they would have thousands of complaints from their customers who would like to access the money that they obviously have a right to send.  There isn't so much urgency for SegWit support because if they didn't implement it, users would find it very easy to move to a SegWit-supporting wallet, but it's not the same in the case of BCH.

They also clearly said that they expect SegWit to be implemented soon, so I honestly don't see what you're complaining about.  It seems very childish to suggest that the companies' priorities should be switched to favour your beliefs even though it was more convenient for every customer for them to prioritise BCH support.

I noticed that too.  I suppose it could be part of the reason why there's been more unconfirmed transactions and slower transaction times over the past few days.
Seems unlikely.  If they were doing that then they would directly have been sending spam transactions.  Not sending spam transactions anymore would surely decrease the amount of congestion, so it would have to be a pretty complicated and well orchestrated attack which I don't see any evidence of.

---

I can't personally find any major services that have stopped taking SegWit transactions, and the ones I'm using still are, so it's certainly odd.  I can't think of any explanation though.

Electrum has a dynamic fee system which sets a default fee based on what it thinks will get confirmed in decent time.

You can customise your fees by going to Tools -> Preferences -> Fees tab -> Edit fees manually.  To decide what fee you want to pay, you could try having a look at this page, which estimates how long your transaction would take to confirm with different transaction fees.

Currently according to that site, it would be okay to pay anything 21 satoshi/byte or above, and possibly a bit less than that as well.
Are you sure it isn't 0.0006?  It would be very unusual for the fee to be that high.  Perhaps you've accepted a lot of microtransactions to your wallet which is pushing the fee up.

LocalBitcoins are using incoming fees to try and prevent people from sending to them too often.  Because they have an automated system for sending out transactions, they don't want the cost of additional inputs to be added by people sending them small and unnecessary transactions.

The only way to prevent these small transactions is by adding a fixed fee for incoming transactions.  This way they don't lose money no matter what you send to them, but you're incentivised to only send larger amounts.

The fees do seem unnecessarily high considering that the fees for a BTC transaction isn't particularly high these days, and they should be warning their customers before they make a deposit, but it's not as ridiculous as you seem to think.