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.

It is both a "Bitcoin fork" and "altcoin".  Either term would make sense and anything else is just the subjective opinion of the reader.

It could be reasonably called an altcoin due to the fact that BCH transactions can be sent without simultaneously spending on the BTC chain (BCH is protected against replay attacks).  The two are separate.

It could also be called a Bitcoin fork because it was originally based on the Bitcoin blockchain and has continued going from there.

If BCH were ever to get decent consensus, it would be reasonable to begin calling it Bitcoin, as it was still based on Bitcoin.  If this happens, the terms "altcoin" and "Bitcoin fork" would still be correct at the time that we used them, and "Bitcoin fork" would still be correct even if it had very good consensus, but we would begin calling it Bitcoin just as we have begun to call this chain Bitcoin despite past splits.

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.