FTFY
Correct.  It's not like Bill Gates is holding 89.3 billion US dollars in some bank account somewhere to sit and decrease in value by 2-3 percent per year and potentially be lost since it's not fully insured.

When you reach that amount of money (anyone on that rich list), the amount of money you have is based on how much money you potentially have.  It doesn't mean that you could actually pull that amount out of nowhere.  In satoshi's case, it would decrease the value even more because when he starts selling, everyone would be terrified of him selling more and there would be a crash, but this is just speculation and doesn't affect his potential position on the list.

---

However, we don't know for sure that satoshi was just one person and we don't know their real identity, so I'm not sure that they should actually be on the list.

You could pick any moderately recent event and try to draw some meaningless lines on a graph about it, but it doesn't really prove anything.

I don't see what you mean by "become official", because Article 50 has already been activated and Britain is almost certainly leaving the EU at this point.

---

There really isn't any meaningful development.  This is a great example of people assuming that correlation equals causation.

"The community" is extremely vague and it's difficult to say what the majority of regular BTC traders and users favour.  All that it's easy to judge is the miners and the economic majority, but mining and the economic majority are both solely about how much money you have and not about how relevant you are to the network.

I don't think that Xapo should be trying to follow any kind of consensus, but frankly in this scenario it's impossible to say which chain has the most support and be objective about it.  Xapo should just pick a side and not beat around the bush.

It's pretty pathetic that a news outlet called "Bitcoinist", which is obviously supposed to be focused on Bitcoin, would be pushing the misconception that Bitcoin has any relation to GPU mining.  The title is suggesting that Bitcoin is somehow involved in this, when in fact it's the altcoins with ASIC-resistant mining algorithms that are helping NVIDIA.

It's crazy that some groups have started lumping cryptocurrencies all together along with Bitcoin, rather than judging each individual crypto based on its actual merit and its relation to an event.

It's not strange - the distinction is that NYA's intention is to call the new fork "Bitcoin", and a not-insignificant number of merchants and services are likely to be calling it "Bitcoin" as well.  Bitcoin.org only had to distinguish between Bitcoin and the new fork Bitcoin Cash before, but this time they have to distinguish between Bitcoin and Bitcoin, which is significantly harder.

However, their points on the page should be as neutral as possible.  When (correctly) pointing out that "miner actions cannot be used as a justification to redefine Bitcoin", they are essentially using a strawman, because BIP 141 itself required 95% consensus from miners, but that doesn't mean that Bitcoin Core think it's the only step to SegWit on the current BTC chain having widespread adoption.  Similarly, not all SegWit2x supporters assume that miner actions are the only factor in consensus.

Currently bitcoin.com is going to be referring to SegWit2x as "BTC" it seems, so there may be some conflict between the two sites.  Since bitcoin.org is supposed to be an informational site while bitcoin.com is more of a general news site which shows a lot of different information, it's possible that bitcoin.org will stay fairly mellow about their opposition to SegWit2x and Bitcoin.com, while Bitcoin.com's actions are somewhat harder to predict.

"Bitcoin Gold" is irrelevant and unless I start seeing something useful or relevant about it, I don't see why we should bother considering it at all.

As for 2x, it's certainly a much stronger attempt to be the "main chain" than anything that's happened before, and has miner consensus.  Other forms of consensus are much more subjective and difficult to judge, so I'm not going to make any point about user consensus or even economic consensus.

Personally I'll just let nature take its course, and perhaps avoid spending coins or keeping them on online services when it comes closer to the event.
I'd call it "supply and demand" rather than "free cash".

You're incorrect.  The vast, vast majority of cryptocurrency information is on the clearnet.  There's no point in website owners cutting out the vast majority of their readers by forcing them to visit their site on the darknet, when even that small segment of their audience could just visit their clearnet site with Tor and a VPN.

There's really no point in you doing this, but if you need to, feel free to get a VPN and Tor and start searching with DuckDuckGo or another mixed clearnet/darknet search engine.

Searching for information shouldn't be too hard for you at all.

Cryptocurrency exchanges are absolutely nothing to do with the security of Bitcoin as a whole.  If you're a massive public target which has a large collection of employees with mixed responsibility over the coins, you have a history of irresponsibly handling your customers' coins, and you don't have adequate audits like a lot of these exchanges, it's absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin when you inevitably fuck up and someone takes the coins.

It's comparable to if banks were created seven years ago, handling a new form of money which they can't control which was only created eight years ago.

---

BTC brings sovereignty over your funds.  If you can't handle that, it's your fault, but 256-bit security is perfectly sound and it's not even close to being Bitcoin-specific.

BTC is very hard to steal, but it's also the most appealing to steal because no one can reverse the transaction and its pseudonymity looks very good when you compare it to digital fiat money, so people try very hard to steal it and pick off the vulnerable targets.

The right blockchain solution to this problem already exists.  It's called Bitcoin.  Marijuana is just a product with a market and there's absolutely nothing that would warrant something new for it, since BTC can be used to buy any ordinary product.

Besides, I'd say that if you really want a blockchain solution for weed, CannabisCoin, MarijuanaCoin and PotCoin are probably enough for that purpose already.

Legalisation isn't particularly good for the Bitcoin marijuana market either.  Even though the slightly edgy types who would buy marijuana are likely to continue using BTC to buy it, it's a lot better when you realistically have to use BTC in order to buy it online at all.  I find it likely that people will continue to use physical cash when they buy it in person.

Seems very unlikely and very illogical of you.  Bitcoin Unlimited was never guaranteed to happen and the circumstances changed so that it's very unlikely that it would ever fork off (especially after Bitcoin Cash happened on August 1st).

What seems more likely is that it will disrupt the network for a while due to confusion and then there will continue to be a confusing scenario with two different coins trying to call themselves Bitcoin.
It is at least somewhat subjective which coin should be considered Bitcoin.  I wouldn't go as far as to call it "propaganda".  Hopefully though, all major businesses will try to clarify which chains they're referring to whenever it's important for their users' money.

This article is attempting to use argumentum ad populum in order to support Bitcoin and suggest what benefits it has, and it relies on the bandwagon effect as a means of promoting BTC.

In the context it's actually ridiculous to even attempt to use such a fallacy, because using the logic that something is good just because it's becoming popular or is popular would mean that people should continue to use fiat.

While the conclusion may be correct despite this, if you are trying to be persuasive and affect actual detractors of Bitcoin, you should be addressing arguments individually and directly.

Also, use a normal title next time.

This claims that Bitcoin's market cap is 14 billion dollars, so it was either last updated in November-December 2013 during the last bull market or in December 2016-January 2017 of this bull market.  Either way, it's hideously outdated and no longer represents the Bitcoin market/crypto market as a whole.

Furthermore, I'm not sure what the relevance of this actually is, because it assumes that the value of the Bitcoin market could suddenly be "withdrawn" and all of the money would be in physical cash, which is obviously impossible.
It's shit by nature, but it's not broken yet.  That'll happen once people start paying back their debts to banks, but it could take a long time.

Well you posted this in the "Economics" section, so let's make this about economics.

People have an amount of BTC.  The higher the value of their BTC, the more likely they are to keep it in safe locations or spread it between different places.  So the chance of them losing their BTC decreases exponentially as the price rises.

If they lose BTC, the supply decreases, therefore making the remaining BTC supply (marginally) more valuable and making people less likely to lose it.  So it never reaches a point at which there's not enough left.

So basically, no.  It's impossible.

It's normal for BTC transaction confirmations to take some time since you have to wait for a block to include your transaction, and a block is only mined (approximately) every ten minutes.

If you have set a fee of over 10 satoshi/byte (with a median sized transaction, about ten cents), you can expect your transaction to confirm in 1-2 hours.  If you increase this fee tenfold for priority transactions, you can expect confirmation in the next block.

Just to clarify, "Bitcoin gold" is entirely irrelevant.  If I remember correctly from seeing the website a while ago, that website used to be a clone of BitcoinABC's website to which they added some dodgy-looking information about an ICO.  Since then, they've removed it and now have a website of basically nothing.

However, there is a relevant hard fork happening in November, which is the SegWit2x hard fork.  You should definitely be distinguishing between that and "Bitcoin Gold".

SegWit2x will most likely result in the price falling due to the uncertainty and the split of merchant and exchange support for each chain.

Stop using anecdotal evidence.  There are billions of Bluetooth-compatible devices all over the world, and loads of them are left on.

If this is a problem that gets exploited to access a significant amount of these devices, it would be a ridiculously large security vulnerability which would hinder the development of further technology for years to come.

Personally, I use Bluetooth regularly for music in cars and I have a crypto wallet on my phone (not Bitcoin).

Good films: none.
Films: The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin.

The problem is that topics like Bitcoin become controversial enough that film makers don't feel like just writing pure information anymore.  They feel like writing "Bitcoin is good, look at how cool and rebellious it is, you hate the government right?" or "Bitcoin is stupid, it's not even real money", etc.

Obviously they don't do this directly but it reaches a point at which people try to exaggerate things to appeal to the general public.

You're better off looking at more informational sources like bitcoin.org for example.

Or it just looks like a biased news article, something which you frequently see on all sides of an argument.  There's no reason to point out the obvious fact that the news article supports a specific side - rather, you could actually argue against the article.

---

Seems like their attitude is fairly simple.  If the block size gets even slightly close to being filled, it's likely to be increased. 

I suspect they'll go for some sort of experimental consensus model for a flexible block size eventually, possibly something like Bitcoin Unlimited's Emergent Consensus system.  At that point it's possible that more big-block supporters might give up on SegWit2x based on the idea that it could take a long time for the block size to be increased on the main chain.
The website is pretty unprofessional.  They've still got a dodgy stock photo of a modern city in the background.

It goes without saying that if the price rises exponentially forever, these amateur investors and amateur miners won't get a slap in the face.  But it doesn't seem too likely, does it?
It's an extremely simple concept to understand.  Over time it self-regulates itself so that it's profitable for the people who mine most efficiently and with the lowest electricity costs earn a significant profit.

It's only strange when people put too much effort into trying to mine when they're not in good circumstances to do so.

The site itself will probably be taken down pretty quickly if you report it.  However, that doesn't mean that the problem is solved by any means.  Google keeps accepting those sites to advertise and then taking them down, but there are new ones taking the older ones' places pretty quickly.

When Bitmixer was still around, there were sites like that around for a really long time.

Unless you can tell Google quite a lot of details about these sites and they actually pay attention to preventing new sites from advertising, there's not much you can do.