It's pretty much arbitrary.  There's no one way of recognising how exactly the price will go and what trends exist, especially when the fundamentals (like the November hard fork) can change rapidly without very much warning.

This guy might have trading experience, but so do shitloads of other people who don't all think the same thing as him either.  Ultimately it's about what fancy lines you can draw and technical indicators you can use.

---

His opinion is going to change regularly with each new development, so there's no point in the public following the signals which are inevitably going to be at least a little bit delayed in the first place.

They have an android app.

If you really want to use an online wallet for some unknown reason, blockchain.info isn't as bad as Trustpilot suggests.  They can be buggy at times, but people tend to leave reviews a lot more often when they have a problem.  Their fee estimation has never been very good though, so make sure you set an appropriate fee for the priority you want your transaction to have.

BTC.com is another online wallet with a phone app if you're looking for an alternative.

Electrum and Mycelium are both good mobile wallets with control over your private keys though.

It's impossible to tell when BTC is in a bubble because its value is only determined by supply and demand.  A bubble is usually defined as when the value of an asset differs from its intrinsic value, but BTC doesn't have an intrinsic value as such.  In real estate you could say that the market is propped up by speculation, but at the end of the day you still have a house there. 

Fiat, on the other hand, is deliberately designed to go down in value forever until people's debt to banks starts getting paid back, so if you're looking to hold a currency, BTC is the way to go for me.

I'm no expert, but I doubt there's any way to tell when the (possible) bubble will reach "saturation" either.  It doesn't have to be a global phenomenon where everyone gets involved to just be too high.

We know what they can collect, which is your IP address; referrer field (what website you came from); information that you give them (like an email subscription); and information about your blockchain transaction.

If you use a VPN and you try to obscure the "source" of your BTC before you choose to use Shapeshift, I don't see the problem.  It's by far the most anonymous way to exchange between coins.  It's not like you can go on Bittrex and exchange over 1 BTC at a time instantly without even creating an account.

If you don't want privacy, it's just a very simple way of exchanging coins quickly within your client.
True.  I was just there out of curiosity until they're out of beta anyway.  Maybe the full release will attract some more users.

I can't say that it's worth bothering to find out.  BitPay makes it pretty easy to accept and has a 1% charge for a shop to receive fiat into their bank account (drastically lower than PayPal) and you can also keep Bitcoin or a mixture of both.

As for physical stores, BTC isn't really very good for that IMO but BitPay and Coinbase both have Point of Sale systems.  Blockchain.info also has a merchant app.

It really couldn't be much simpler to accept Bitcoin.  To know if it's worth it, the main thing you have to consider is whether people's confusion about what Bitcoin is or how to spend it will slow down your business.  Other than that, it's pretty easy.

Really?  Personally, I just downloaded it once (for 64-bit Windows) and it was sorted within a couple of minutes.

After I got through the security warnings, it went pretty smoothly and had a simple UI as well.
I think they know that their customers are likely to be privacy-oriented individuals who will have Tor, especially when they're going to be buying and selling items for Bitcoin in the first place.

Having privacy-oriented features doesn't mean that they'll just be a drug market - it looks more likely that they'll just be a market for whatever Bitcoin users are interested in (and that includes a fair amount of legal items as well as illegal ones).
If the user is already trying to stay anonymous, they'll probably just be using Shapeshift with a VPN/Tor and they'll have tried to cover their tracks in terms of blockchain analysis.

The mistake you're making is assuming that "the whales" are some mysterious group that plots away from you about what exactly they're all going to do.

Many whales are just early adopters who had the opportunity to buy BTC at as low a price as possible.  In which case what you're suggesting would not actually make the distribution more even, it would just mean that the next wave of whales is the groups of people who you told to buy the dip.

Another mistake that you're making is assuming that just because there was a dip, that was the bottom.  A dip can last a long time and bear markets can last over a year.

Your coworkers were afraid of losing more money.  Sure, they shouldn't have bought BTC so late, but if they recognise that it was a bad decision, they might as well get out as soon as possible rather than assuming it's going to rocket up again a week later.

Yes.  It's obviously fragile considering that the news has nothing to do with Bitcoin and the price still dropped by several times more than traditional financial markets ever do (except for occasional days which only happen every several years).

It also shows the influence which governments could easily have on the BTC's price, and due to people's excessive speculation, their opinion of BTC afterwards.  If a government were to actually enact a real ban on cryptocurrencies, even though it would not fully work, this shows that it could easily crush public perceptions about cryptocurrency.

---

At this point, I'm not convinced by a "dip" unless it goes significantly lower.

Don't.  It's a terrible idea to try and get people involved in your decisions when it involves money.

If the price drops, they will blame you, whether vocally or subconsciously, and they won't like you for it.  Since that's pretty much 100% likely to happen at some point, it'll be extremely damaging to your reputation with your family and friends.
If someone spoke to you saying "I've been making loads of money from this new blockchain digital peer-to-peer fancy crazy thing, now I have cash!", and you knew nothing about BTC, would you honestly not think it was a Ponzi scheme?  If I didn't bother to research it, I sure as hell would. 

Your mentality is utterly wrong anyway, since you're trying to earn fiat money rather than actually use or hold BTC in any way.

As good as it is for net neutrality and people's freedom to use Bitcoin, doesn't look like it's a good thing for BTC's public perception or governments' perception.

They're implying that BTC's value is difficult to measure simply because it's a virtual asset, which is entirely untrue.  In reality, it's value is just as easy to monitor as a physical asset, if not easier considering that it's easier to move and easier for the price to be arbitrage traded between exchanges.

It could suggest the government's general misunderstanding of how cryptocurrency works, which is terrible considering the high trading volume in South Korea lately.

They still don't control it.  Quote from Bitcoin Core:
See?  "Strongly advise", but they can't actually forcibly prevent anyone from running that client.
So he might claim, but the blocks are still suggesting that they support NYA.  I would take his words with a pinch of salt.

Hopefully it won't be too long before all these bullshit ICOs are regulated and it'll be easier to tell if it's a legitimate group.   Until then, it would be best to check if it's an actual cryptocurrency and ignore ICOs unless you're extremely good at evaluating their quality.

However, just because a coin exists doesn't mean it's legitimate.  Bitconnect is obviously a scam, but it's still a cryptocurrency which is listed on Coinmarketcap.

Important note: if any investment group promises
that you will get specific returns in fiat terms, it's a scam!  In the case of cryptocurrencies, if their website or other public representations of their team promise you those fiat returns, it is a scam.

Seems extremely vague to me.  It's another thing that people buy just for having some vague connection to blockchain technology, without even property considering what that connection is.

What I do know is that as a monetary system, cryptocurrencies are the least efficient I can think of for electricity.  New coins and transaction fees are received by miners in exchange for wasting enough electricity to come close to their value.

"Wasting" electricity is fine in this case because it helps the chain to be secure and the system to work for the user, but it's not exactly a means of preventing climate change.

---

Looks like the main purpose of this is "give me some money, and I'll use it to prevent climate change.  Promise".  Why not just give to a reputable charity?

Crashes like that don't happen so suddenly unless there's a whale behind it.  

It looks most likely that a whale is either attempting to manipulate the market with a sell wall or just offloading a significant amount of coins.  The chart wouldn't be justified by normal market activity.

I believe that BTC is somewhat overvalued so I won't be buying the dip, but if that kind of price movement happened a bit lower down I would certainly be buying it rather than selling.  It doesn't reflect an actual change in market sentiment.
TA in general is bullshit, but it's extremely hard to find what the value of Bitcoin's few fundamentals is.

It's a bit late for that.  The Chinese government have not been oblivious to Bitcoin over the last few years at all - if they know what it's like and they intend to ban it, it would already have been banned several years ago.

In reality they know that there are people in China making profit from mining and other Bitcoin-related activities, so there's no point stopping that useful business.

---

You can't ban Bitcoin anyway.  You can try, but it'll only get rid of the people using it for legal things.  People who use it for illegal things will continue because they're better at handling their privacy.

Well whenever there are blocks mined that have a size of over 1MB (I'm not referring to SegWit here, just basic increases), they're on a separate chain.

Since they're relying on the subjective judgement of what the "main chain" is, I imagine that they're referring to a hard fork (new chain) garnering enough support to be regarded the "main chain".

So if I'm correct, you'll find out whether you win the bet around November when the New York Agreement's hard fork takes place.  You could link to where it shows the exact wording though.

You can claim that the effective block size is larger than 1MB.  SegWit introduces new transactions which allow the witness data to be segregated from the rest of the transaction.

Legacy nodes see the block size as 1MB and new nodes see the block size as larger than 1MB.  But due to the segregation of witness data, more transactions can fit into a block and that makes the effective block size larger than 1MB even if some nodes don't see it that way.

It's important that these things are "stress-tested" properly. 

They use Bitcoin Cash as an example of success in increasing the block size, but I don't think it's at all clear whether it was successful yet because its transaction volume has not been high enough to put any more stress on the chain than the main chain.

Frankly I don't think the authors know what they're talking about, because they also referred to Bitcoin Cash's delayed and sped up block times, which are nothing to do with the block size as far as I'm aware.
Bitcoin Unlimited's wallet is included on Bitcoin Cash's page, so it seems the two are at least friendly with each other.  It's important that groups supporting big blocks try to appeal to Bitcoin Cash supporters if they want to be popular, since that's where most of them seem to have gone.

Why would they ban ICOs, and why would that affect BTC?
So cash was made illegal hundreds of years ago by that logic?
So it's both illegal and regulated?  Also, how does privacy make it unsuitable for business transactions when bank transactions are completely transparent and used for most of them already?
Ripple is centralised and should not be regarded as a "crypto coin".  You do not understand the purpose of cryptocurrencies.

---

If you're going to make negative statements about cryptocurrencies, please research them.  So far it looks like you have no clue what you're talking about and you're even contradicting yourself.

To understand SegWit block size it's important to recognise that it's an efficiency upgrade rather than a simple block size increase.

By segregating witness data from the rest of the transaction, it manages to include more transactions into a block while legacy nodes still see the block size as being 1MB.  So while it's not a simple block size increase, it's an effective block size increase.

It's also not as simple as "the block size is now 4MB" either.  There may be a limit of 4MB but there's a lower effective limit.  To quote Bitcoin Core:  

So it's neither "still 1MB" nor "now 4MB".