This is the debatable part.  You see, satoshi used to agree that the block size could be increased via alerts to old nodes to upgrade and a change at a certain block number.

But some people who were around at the time no longer think that.  For example, theymos has opposed it for years (since long before the drama about it began).  It's possible that satoshi may have reacted differently seeing that SPV security isn't completely trustless.

Some people oppose larger block sizes because they like a large number of nodes to be run.

Misleading.  BITMAIN are not yet supporting Bitcoin Cash and don't have control over it.  It's more to do with ViaBTC.

---

I kind of agree with leaving the name as it is.  I'm all for changing the ticker to BCH over BCC, but the name itself is fine.  It leaves a distinction between itself and the earlier/legacy chain without pretending to be completely unrelated.

It's not the same as these attempts.  Those ones required consensus, whereas BCH does not require consensus to come into existence - the ones listed there either did not exist or were just alts rather than forks of the BTC blockchain which could also be regarded as alts.  They are very distinct from BCH.

I don't really see his point.  If BTC was fully integrated into society, I'm fairly certain that it would be regulated and taxed.  It brings a path to a form of currency that is free from government, but it's not quite there yet.  It might help destroy banks' control but it doesn't really stop governments' ability to start wars.

In general the video is okay, albeit lacking in crucial information.  All it has is a selection of vague statements about freedom, and not a lot of detail or help to get started.

It's basically a video for people who are already in an echo chamber about BTC being great and just like hearing it a lot.

I enjoy the conspiracy theories about Coinbase stealing the users' BCC.

While I do think it's very suspicious that Coinbase blamed the Bitcoin network instead of creating an excuse which was actually reasonable, it seems unlikely that Coinbase is trying to take BCC considering that the users had at least a week in which they were processing withdrawals properly.

What is possible is that Coinbase is taking a while to withdraw coins from their cold storage into hot wallets for everyone to withdraw.

It's a huge shame that you can't move the future coins.  The YoBit futures price is way higher than the ViaBTC price but I can't arbitrage trade it.  If you average it I think the price is still around 0.1 BTC.

---

There's a more professional countdown on coin.dance.  Interestingly enough, it looks like coin.dance is going to have the same information for Bitcoin Cash as Bitcoin after the fork, on this page.

I'm pretty sure that's been the case since the start of this difficulty period, because BIP 91 is designed to be a method of activating BIP 141 which is also compatible with BIP 148.  

You can see that even though only 87.5% of the blocks have signalled their intention to support SegWitx2, 100% of blocks in this difficulty period have supported BIP 141, because miners are already rejecting non-SegWit blocks.
UASF has not caused a split.  The split will happen at about midday.

BITMAIN do not support BCH.  Their proposal was only for if UASF succeeds - it has, but only due to BIP 91.  While they could be doing anything in the future, they're still directing their hashrate for the New York agreement for now.
BCH does not involve SegWit.  SegWit is potentially being activated on the current chain, but not on BCH.  They are opposed to SegWit.
Good point.  I would say that after the split, some mining pools will dedicate portions of their hashrate to BCH depending on the price, and shitty cloud miners like Genesis Mining will most likely be offering BCH contracts.  If the hashrate is too low relative to the price, it's likely that people will reuse their old SHA-256 ASICs that are no longer profitable on BTC, which would push up the hashrate somewhat.

If BITMAIN were to ever change their stance and begin supporting BCH as well as possible, they may be able to do 51% attacks, but considering that it would make all mining on that chain unprofitable for them and the people mining at their pools, I consider it unlikely.

Common sense would dictate that they like whatever brings them the most profit.  Unless BCH starts filling the blocks and people are setting transaction fees, it seems likely that miners would prefer the old chain in the regard.  However, there will still always be miners on the BCH chain depending on the price anyway.
Not really.  It's not like BCH will have as many transactions sent as BTC.
You're making the assumption that the money going into BCH is "new" and that none of it just moved from BTC->BCH.  A lot of the "free money" will not be like that at all.

Right, so let's summarise this post of yours:
Why is the block size not being increased?  Because there are Chinese people with monopolies over mining.
How to increase the block size?  Get the support of the Chinese mining monopoly BITMAIN.

Now I find this whole thing of discussing "the Chinese" (as if they're one entity) very annoying, so I usually steer clear of agreeing with people's arguments and conspiracy theories that Chinese miners are attacking Bitcoin and trying to take it over or something.  Still, the hypocrisy in this thread is astoundingly obvious.

It's mixed.  Bitcoin sites require less initial capital than fiat-based gambling sites because crowdfunded bankrolls are common and your share of the original profits can help contribute to later promotion.

Satoshi Dice was an absolutely huge gambling site back in the day, but it relied on low transaction fees.  Now, Bitcoin gambling is not necessarily so much better than traditional gambling - you can still place small bets, but you have to accept that you lose a large amount of it as soon as you deposit.

---

If you want something unique, wait for SegWit to activate and LN to become used.  You can be the first gambling site to accept microtransactions through LN.

Kraken has a blog post here telling people that they will credit their users with an equal amount of Bitcoin Cash to their Bitcoin holdings.

They make "no promises" though, so it still seems like a dangerous game to be holding BTC in an exchange during the fork.
If a service like crypto-games.net can be neutral and make it easy for people to deal with their BCC, why can't most exchanges do the same?  Are they just crooks?  

They don't have to enable trading to give people access to their funds.

WARNING.  This is a phishing site imitating bitblender.io.  Do not mix with any links from there.

---

There are two mixers which I find particularly interesting:

1. Chipmixer - lets you increase anonymity by using "chips" which were created days before you deposited.  The "chips" are actually private keys to Electrum wallets with predetermined amounts.  There are no fees unless you donate or use their gambling feature.

2. JoinMarket - uses CoinJoin transactions to mask who is sending a transaction to who.

3.  This might be subject to high fees and it's not a mixer, but if you want you can use Shapeshift and convert from Bitcoin to an altcoin like Monero, and then back to Bitcoin.  Make sure that you change your IP in between transactions.

Bitmixer was a large mixer which handled reasonably high volumes.  It's extremely unusual for them to suddenly come out with an irrational statement that they hate anonymity all of a sudden. 

I don't know if they were tied to the Mt. Gox coins, but it seems like they were definitely part of the US government's new attack on the dark web and illegal BTC-based services.

Either they were under direct pressure from the government or they were scared of coming under direct pressure from the government in the future.  Either way it's a bad sign for all BTC services which help to bring anonymity, whether it's mixing services, exchanges or dark net markets.

Only if they decide to have it.  People haven't got that full control over their money until it's out of an exchange - until then, the exchange still has full control over your money.

It's important to note that customer protection can still exist in cryptocurrency exchanges.  Cryptocurrency opens up plenty of opportunities for decentralised exchanges to be created, and that will happen in time, but a lot of people will still be drawn to centralised exchanges if there is significant regulation for them.  BTC-e was not regulated properly to deal with US customers, and they got burned.

The lesson is that if you want to use centralised exchanges:

1.  Check whether the exchange complies with your country's regulations and has the correct financial licenses
2.  Deposit fiat only a part at a time and withdraw the coins before depositing more fiat.
3.  As you go, withdraw very quickly.  Coins should not be in exchanges for more than a day at a time.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

That was a company which set a share price.  Bitcoin is an open source project which uses a consensus model and the price is set by a collection of different exchanges which are in no way tied to the project itself.

If you consider it to be a pyramid scheme, then gold is a far bigger pyramid scheme.  The only difference is that Bitcoin is far easier to send, far easier to move in small amounts and has a much better system of scarcity.

It's quite obvious what's going on.

A quote from the Wall Observer thread:
Some market manipulators are playing on people's confusion by trading massive volumes back and forth.  "Crash", "recovery" - all of that stuff is meaningless bullshit at this point.

pyramid scheme
noun
a form of investment (illegal in the UK and elsewhere) in which each paying participant recruits two further participants, with returns being given to early participants using money contributed by later ones.

Therefore, by the literal definition, cryptocurrencies are not a pyramid scheme and anyone who claims that they are is either a liar or influenced by extremely strong biases.

As for it not being "real" - their scarcity system is better than gold.  When people say "an infinite number of cryptocurrencies can be created", it's true, but it's not like there are no other precious metals and resources that people could be speculating about other than gold.

With the majority of major exchanges not accepting it, the volume would probably be pretty low for BCC as whales are unlikely to trust their money with unknown exchanges.

You can expect any price movements and even if BCC got very high, the price would not be justified and it would not last.

If the volume is high, it's likely to be people dumping their coins and treating it like "free money", in which case the price will drop drastically.

Well it does have a correlation to the success of altcoins.  No one mines Bitcoin with GPUs anymore so for Bitcoin it's completely irrelevant, but it's a good sign for altcoins.  It shows that enough people are investing money into the long-term future of the coins by buying equipment that will take >1 year to ROI, which is a better sign than just buying in as that can be a more short-term investment and it's subject to panic.

Also, you don't understand what a correlation is.  What you're trying to argue is that it doesn't show the success of altcoins, but there is certainly a correlation, because the difficulty goes up with the price and the price goes up with investment.
It's not supposed to have that effect.  Blocks are mined roughly every ten minutes regardless of the amount computing power dedicated to the network, which is why difficulty exists.

It wasn't really directed at you.  It was more to do with the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars are being stored in exchanges with very poor regulations that could be extremely irresponsible with people's money.

Personally, I try my best to look at topics on this forum, Reddit, Steemit and anywhere I can to find out whether an exchange is trustworthy before I consider joining it.  Even if they are not particularly trustworthy (no altcoin exchange that I can think of really is), there are plenty of exchanges that are functional and process withdrawals properly now.  In my case, I decided that Bittrex was the altcoin exchange I should use if I want to get withdrawals out, and fortunately I was right.

As for trading P2P, unfortunately the margins can be quite high.  I tend to avoid it too.