Well, let me put it this way.

0.2% per day is 73% in a year before compounding.  No traditional investment will promise to give you a specific amount ever unless they are a scam.  In cryptocurrency where the market is volatile, they are certainly a scam.

Now consider compounding.  Your 5 BTC will not be worth 73% more than you put in after a year because it will compound each day.  This means that in a year you will have 10.35 BTC, in two years you will have 21.46 BTC, and so on.  If you were to leave your BTC in there for 20 years (figure out how to calculate compound interest), you would have 10,776,294 BTC, more than half of the amount that could EVER be created.

Does that sound like a safe investment to you?  All the information that they give about it is that all that money comes from a "special fund".

---

It might pay you.  It might pay you for quite a while.  But sooner or later, it will steal everyone's money.

You don't see its name either.
It's not quite like that.  I think they're just trying to use Monero like a mixer by sending it around a bit and then exchanging it to fiat later.

Monero is far better for anonymity, but they could have equally hid themselves by severing the ties between them and the original addresses on the blockchain.  They could even have sent to Shapeshift from a new address (both a new Bitcoin address and a new physical address).

The first thing you should do is watch this video, which I saw DannyHamilton share a while ago.  Very good beginner's information on how crypto works and why it's secure.

Bitcoin Wiki, Coindesk and here are my main ones.  There are plenty of other valid sources, but you will find that things you read here or on Reddit are often annoyingly biased and/or unhelpful.  I said here because it's a good gauge of public interest and public opinion and it's good for understanding things as long as you're capable of critical thinking.
If you're a reasonable person, there's no advice to give.

Looks like a bad idea.
 
If the authorities take control of the market (like they did with Hansa, running it for a month), they will track the coins you're trying to mix with them and take logs.  Then there will be no point.

Also, by using the dark net market as a mixer you're automatically committing a crime, whereas using a mixer is legal (for now).

Also, you could receive some of the same coins back.

---

You might get better responses in the Service Discussion board.

No one who understands how Bitcoin works would say that.  They would say that after sending a transaction it's possible to double spend, and that as the transaction receives confirmations it becomes exponentially less likely that a user can double spend.  Eventually the chances of a double spend are negligible and you can safely ignore it.
The "assumption" (understanding of how Bitcoin works) that I have just explained is correct.  SegWitx2 makes no changes which would alter that.
Please explain how you think that SegWitx2 increases the possibility of a double spend.

Satoshi was active on this forum.  Here are his posts.

As you can see his last post was on December 12th, 2010.  After that he has given no further information.

Because SegWit was proposed far later than when satoshi left, he had no direct or official opinion on it, nor did he have an opinion on Bitcoin Cash.

---

Many supporters of Bitcoin Cash have argued that satoshi supported larger block sizes and opposed SegWit.  It's difficult to suggest that he was against SegWit, and I think that this statement is made just because people see SegWit as being against block size increases.  As for whether he supported larger blocks, it looks like he did.  Whether he knew what the implications of larger blocks would be were the network under more stress I don't know, but personally I don't subscribe to the narrative that the block size can never be increased or that it's necessarily bad.

A likely source of your information would be the subreddit r/btc.  While uncensored (with open moderation logs), r/btc is mainly a protest against r/bitcoin, and therefore most people on that subreddit are in an echo chamber of supporting larger blocks, much like how people in r/bitcoin are in an echo chamber of opposing larger blocks.

Personally I would suggest that you ignore both subreddits and simply learn about how Bitcoin works.  Most people on the Internet discussing it are too biased to give neutral or reasonable opinions on the topic and it's hard to distinguish reason from bullshit a lot of the time.

There might be 100% support in blocks, but that's just because of BIP 91 forcing miners to signal SegWit.  Also, you know perfectly well that miners don't have to represent the economy, hence why BCH has a value.

Consensus is a lot messier than just "it looks like that proposal has over 50% support, let's all follow it regardless of our actual thoughts on the matter".
Common sense would dictate that you are wrong.  The main point of the blockchain is to prevent double spending.

1.  Bitcoin is not "Core".  Bitcoin is permissionless and has more than one dev team.  If Core were to control everything forever and people supported that, Bitcoin would be centralised.

2.  A fork is not "getting it for free".  It's bringing competition into the market.  Whatever the market perceives the strongest coin to be will be the strongest coin.  If the price was high you'd call it a pump - do you really have so much confirmation bias that you would use the price to hate Bitcoin Cash regardless of what actually happens?

I'm sorry but not everything is a conspiracy against you.  Please get over yourself.

---

ICOs are a terrible means of distribution and always will be.  Mining is far better to distribute a new coin and a fork is a good way if you're trying to engage Bitcoin users, because it has the same distribution as the longest-running cryptocurrency (Bitcoin).

Bitcoin Cash are very explicit about their opposition to SegWit and they did not implement SegWit into their code.

Absolutely nothing will prevent this.

As a general rule, people who are not idiots will decide to keep their coins in a wallet where they safely control the private keys.

If they are idiots or they're willing to lose their money, they can freely store their coins on barely regulated exchanges for as long as they like.  But don't come crawling back when Bitfinex steals loads of your BCH.

You can see all the trading pairs for Bitcoin here: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#markets

However, if an exchange has a "lower price" than another, it's probably artificially created by:
-A problem or a delay with the exchange's fiat deposits or BTC withdrawals.
-High spread between the buy and sell prices.
-High exchange fees.

Anything outside of that gets arbitraged to death very quickly.

Cash is already being used and is far, far more anonymous than Bitcoin.

When you spend cash in a shop, do you think that no one is tracking it on their databases?  Do you think that you're not paying VAT or any other taxes on it?

When people used cash, even though there was some tax evasion, people at least typically declared their main income and the biggest purchases.

That user does not know what they are talking about.  I'm no expert but my understanding is that private keys are a number, and that the amount of possible private keys that there could ever be is just under 2^256.  

If you want to understand just how safe that amount is, please refer to this video, which will explain just how long it would take to calculate the private keys with the greatest supercomputer ever.

Now what you need to understand is that when you have a ridiculously large amount of possible numbers that could ever be created, there are also very small numbers.  An example of a very small number is 1.  People can use any private key to access their coins, and therefore people with poor wallet software or people who created their private keys themselves could use the number 1.

Any normal wallet software will randomise your private key, which extremely close to 100% of the time results in a crazily large number that no one will ever calculate.  The chance of that not happening is so low that you can safely ignore it, as can everyone in the world.

---

The first page on directory.io is showing the private key numbers 0 to 127.  Because those numbers are extremely low, someone has decided to use them as their private key, either as a joke or because they're extremely dumb.  Of course people know those private keys, so they steal funds from them and the balance is 0.

What you don't understand is that directory.io is in fact not a database.  It just generates the private keys' addresses when you go onto each page.  But you can never go through any noticeable amount of the pages.  

---

Security test:  type in an extremely large random number (for example, 947184818258275825772489752923525971841411113849).  You should put it into the domain like directory.io/947184818258275825772489752923525971841411113849.  Now look at the addresses.  Have any of them been used?  No.  No currently existing computer would find funds created using decent wallet software, ever.

Bitfinex stole a significant portion of their users' BCH holdings.

Several exchanges didn't bother to deal with BCH at all, namely Coinbase.  Some didn't give a very good warning about it either.

Even if your chosen exchange happens to follow through on their agreement, it doesn't negate the importance of keeping your coins where you control your private keys.  Bitcoin is a trustless system and you should not trust a third party for any longer than is absolutely essential.

It seems that BCH's price is dropping.

Coinmarketcap is also excluding some of the higher prices (including Bittrex, where the majority of volume is happening), which may have had an effect, but mostly I would call this a pump and dump.

Still waiting for Bittrex to handle deposits and withdrawals so that we can say what the market actually thinks Bitcoin Cash is worth.

The problem is that you can't actually dump it yet.  Most exchanges still haven't actually enabled deposits and withdrawals of it, including Bittrex last time I checked (wallet maintenance).  The clients for it are also pretty buggy and people are finding it difficult to split their coins.  It's understandable considering that BCH basically just popped up over the last few weeks.

So I do expect at least some kind of dump after BCH is easier for people to deal with - it's still being treated as "free money" by many considering that it hasn't really caused the BTC price to drop at all - but regardless, I'll be HODLing it along with my BTC.

It's basically a massive hype machine, so I would regret selling it a few years from now when there's a massive pump and everyone thinks that it's the greatest technology ever created.

Anyway it's no threat for BTC.  It's worth nothing in comparison and is accepted by about zero merchants. 

To be honest we won't be totally out of the drama until around the end of the year, and even then there might be some more to come. 

---

You can expect a bear market sooner or later.  Everyone is convincing themselves that $2700 is a price "drop" and that is a really bad sign.  With the hype of a 2MB hard fork with moderately low consensus, there might be a lot of confusion as well.

It's also possible that BCH will get dumped when Bittrex allows deposits, or that there will be FUD years in the future about whether BCH is going to "take over".  Perhaps both could happen.

It's not surprising in the slightest considering that Bitfinex stole money with their stupid tokens system.  It really is shocking that people still keep their coins in exchanges despite Mt. Gox, BTC-e, Cryptsy and other exchanges to a lesser extent.
It's possible.  Considering that Bitfinex decided to only take a part of their users' BCH holdings instead of all of it, it's possible that they're trying to avoid causing any noticeable dents in the market.  It's possible that they're going to slowly release BCH into the market like whales have been doing to IOTA (due to the ICO).

If there's one thing that could cause a severe price drop though, it's Bittrex allowing deposits and withdrawals.  As it is, most whales left their coins off exchanges and therefore the only people who can sell are people who already had coins on Bittrex.  Everyone else can only buy.

They almost certainly will.  ViaBTC is dedicating a large amount of their hashrate towards it.

More importantly though, the difficulty of BCH decreases by 20% if no blocks have been mined for it in 12 hours, as shown on their ANN thread, so that the chain is not very badly affected by dramatic changes in hashrate.

This is a very frequently repeated lie.  BITMAIN are not directing their hashrate towards BCH.

Notably though, SegWit required majority support to activate through BIP 141 and thus it would automatically be Bitcoin when activated (and there would be no chain split when created).  If it was activated through BIP 148 with a minority of hashrate, its support would have been more subjective and thus it could have been called an altcoin.

SegWit itself is just a proposal.  It could or could not be called an altcoin depending on its status at the time.

However, I don't think that we have to treat it as black-and-white, nor that we should be using the word "altcoin" as an insult.

I can login, but all my limits have changed.

I used to be able to withdraw 1 BTC per day with my unverified account, but now the limit has changed to 0.025 BTC per day because my account was created after October 2016.

I'm having to verify my account to get through this shit.