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  Either way, it's hideously outdated and no longer represents the Bitcoin market/crypto market as a whole.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.

No it doesn't.  It's an objective fact that they are lying about the security of their wallet, therefore any other features of their reputation are almost entirely irrelevant.
No it isn't.  To produce a paper wallet you don't need to trust anyone at all.  

You only have to trust anyone if you make that choice.   It's a trustless payment system and that has no relation to the people that a user decides to deal with.
True, but hardware wallets are somewhat different because their software is usually open source.  I would not trust a hardware wallet with closed source code.

As you can see from this graph, the percentage of transactions being sent as SegWit transactions is still at 3.5-4%.  It's not significant enough to reduce the transaction fees by a lot, at least not on its own.

It's more likely that:

-A price drop means that in the short term, fewer people are going to be sending to merchants because they get a lower rate.
-Less hype means less people sending coins to and from exchanges, and hype was at least partially about SegWit which has already activated.
-Arguably that there were spam attacks which have subsided.

Yeah, I'm sure that SegWit2x supporters are quaking in their boots that "Wayniloans" has dropped out.  /s

The only major party that seems to have dropped out is F2Pool, but even they were still supporting NYA in their blocks last time I checked, so it's questionable whether they actually dropped out.

It's unlikely to cause a domino effect unless a really major group decides to drop out.

Your observation is completely arbitrary.  It has no basis in logic at all and I hope you're not trading based on this.  

By using the past as an attempt to predict the future rather than what the future actually involves, you're playing into the hands of whales who manipulate you time and time again into doing stupid things and losing money to them.
Seems unlikely unless the fork turns out to have extremely good consensus.  Uncertainty is never good.

It's impossible to tell what the "invention of the Century" is when we're less than a fifth of the way through it.  Unless of course you have a very good time machine.

By the time that it would be reasonable to have an opinion on the subject (83 years from now), most of the people commenting on this thread will be dead and their opinions will be long irrelevant.

Of course this is just another one of those "hey, you people are on a Bitcoin forum, I guess you like Bitcoin then?" kind of threads which will probably get 1000+ replies within a week because of how interesting the completely bullshit premise is.  I'd better give up having any reasonable discussion here.

Unless you're reliant on signature campaigns in order to sustain your lifestyle (which you certainly shouldn't be) or you're reliant on them to pay obligations such as debt (which you certainly shouldn't be) this wouldn't be a problem.

Campaign managers are real people, not robots.  The managers that have been robots, such as the YoBit campaign, haven't worked out very well in terms of post quality.

---

While they're out doing normal human activities, it's important that the funds are as safe as possible, so it's much better that the funds are kept at home in appropriate places rather than on their phone whenever they're walking around.  DarkStar_ paid two weeks at once a while ago because he wasn't at home, which is good unless you want the funds to actually be lost.

You don't seem to understand what theft is either.

If you were paying any attention to what crypto actually is, perhaps you'd think differently.  Especially since satoshi literally wrote a political message into the first block ever to be mined.

---

A somewhat unfortunate aspect of crypto is that having more money gives you quite significantly more power.  Nodes?  Just run a lot of them.  Miners?  Just run a lot of them.  Community?  Spoof the support and try to gain control of major media.

The network gets harder to attack as it grows but if richer people ever all have similar interests, the public could be misled into using a new chain with a raised supply or other features (or they'd lose money by staying on the old chain with much less economic support).

A ponzi scheme is reliant on a centralised ledger because it requires the "company" to manage which people it pays at which time and which money it can put in its pocket.  You're correct about that part.

However, tulip bulbs are not reliant on a centralised ledger, they are simply an object.  The benefit of having block space is that you can say "I have BTC which is worth X amount" - in the same way, you can show someone a tulip bulb and as long as they know what it is, they recognise that you own it (this is entirely decentralised, just like gold and other offline transfers of goods).

---

The distinction between a Ponzi scheme and Bitcoin is entirely objective and obvious, so it's utterly ridiculous to compare the two as it would just be referring to natural supply and demand as a Ponzi scheme.  

However, tulip bulbs rely on this same supply and demand, so to call it a similar economic bubble is subjective and there is certainly an argument to be made on that side.