Green Address involves shared access of your funds.  If you're using Green Address for convenience, you should know that it requires a signature from both you and Green Address.

You have to use their 2-of-3 multisignature wallets to have control over your funds and therefore the ability to transport them to another wallet without having to fully trust Green Address.  You can also use their nLocktime transactions to send your funds out of Green Address into a separate wallet by a certain time, meaning that if Green Address stopped their service, your funds would be safe.
Or just any wallet which allows control of your private keys.  If you're in a rush you should use a wallet which promises to support easy spending on both chains, otherwise any wallet is fine.
They fucking well do give a shit if they lose money that they're entitled to though, as in forked coins that they should automatically own.

The article itself is actually quite informative.  There is some bias but it's subtle and it's among useful information.

Certainly better than reading through pages and pages of people saying "Bitcoin Cash is just a worthless altcoin that will get dumped to zero the second it happens", "Bitcoin Cash is to stop SegWit from destroying the real Bitcoin", and other misconstrued bullshit that most people are parroting just about everywhere.

For the deposit, it certainly doesn't require that.  The point is for them to sign a message proving that the address you're sending to is owned by Bitmixer.  So as for the funds coming back to you, you can sign a message proving that you own the address that received a transaction of the same amount you send to Bitmixer, if that makes sense.

After that, the authorities can either believe a mixture of cryptographic proof and completely obvious reasoning, believe that Bitmixer stole your money and you just mysteriously received a transaction from a criminal at that time, or believe that you own Bitmixer.  I'd say the former one is the only logical way that they could go.
I don't see why not if you provide evidence that Bitcoin's signed message system is sound and you verify Bitmixer's signature.

Are you insane?  Mt. Gox and Cryptsy have already proven that exchanges are not trustworthy.  Regulations for altcoin exchanges haven't got better, and exchanges have a terrible history of being incompetent and/or running off with their users' funds.

I'm 100% certain that the coins in my TREZOR, with my seed in a bank deposit box and buried in a safe location, with passphrase protections for different parts of my funds and several hidden wallets, with the protection of a PIN which gets exponentially tougher to guess as an attacker tries, are much more secure than Bittrex.  

A promise to "try their best" is no guarantee that they will follow through, either.
They've given up on it.  Read my above post.

This is one of the most important things Bitmixer has to do.  Their domain expires in just a couple of months, so anyone registering it could scam masses of people on Reddit, Bitcointalk, Slack and basically everywhere.  They already do it with copied sites on slightly different domain names, so imagine what power they'd have on the real domain.

When you used Bitmixer, they would give you a "Letter of Guarantee" (mentioned here) so that you could prove that you sent funds to their site (signed message from their address + signed message from you = proof).

If the authorities came knocking, you could just prove to them that you sent your funds to Bitmixer, and therefore that the tied coins were not yours.

---

As for Bitmixer shutting down because they believe in transparent transactions - oh, woe is me.  I suppose I'll have to use mixers which are exactly the same as them or sometimes better.  What a shame.

Yep.  It's 100% obvious what he's talking about if you just read the two lines that he posted, but I guess you had to be pedantic and talk about the exact definition of the word "float" instead.

Personally, I keep about 0.1 BTC on my TREZOR, in a separate account to my savings, for any BTC spending opportunities that pop up.  If I'm considering alts, I tend to dig into my savings - the 0.1 BTC is more spending money for merchants and to donate to websites if necessary.

Whenever I need to do something significant though, I can easily just convert some alts into BTC or dig into savings.

Note - if you search for lgbtqicbxbxvcu on Google, you'll find that this thread is the only place where that is mentioned.  You just made it up on the spot as a dramatic straw man.
Asexuality is a real thing.  As with all sexual identities, it shouldn't require tens of years for everyone in society to become individually acquainted to the term, because it's just a word that people use to describe their identity for as long as it suits them. 
So basically, you're comparing gay people and tolerance of two consenting parties doing what they want to paedophilia and bestiality.  Real classy.

Sometimes it means queer.  Depends who you ask.  But I've always considered it more useful when it means questioning.

Bitcoin attempting to act like a fiat system in which it's dictated by small groups and isn't affected by consensus would be absolutely terrible.

There's absolutely no point trying to compete with fiat based systems, because it's not intended to be used alongside them.  What it offers is sovereignty over digital funds, removing the power of banks to create money based on debt, and the (potentially) lower fees from removing intermediaries in transactions.

It'll take as long as it needs to.

Bitcoin Cash will be created on August 1st as a 1:1 fork of Bitcoin.  You can read their ANN thread here.

Currently, the value is not real, because Bitcoin Cash does not exist yet.  Personally I would refrain from trading it until it's released, in case it doesn't happen (just like Bitfinex trading BTU futures), and in case was overhyped.

It seems likely that right after the fork, a lot of people will dump their Bitcoin Cash to try and get more BTC, and the price might go down.  This is especially true since a lot of online wallets and exchanges are ignoring it and keeping large amounts of BCC to themselves.  Personally though, I'm going to hold it alongside my BTC as a hedge.

That's not a thing that actually happens.  People don't just change their mind to something completely irrational overnight.  If you ask me, there are two things that could have happened to Bitmixer:

1.  Having made lots of profit over the years, they've decided to quit while they're ahead and take their money before services like theirs start getting regulated.

2.  They're under direct threat from a government to close down their service.

Anyway, let's just hope that the run to the mixer is as dramatic as the run to the signature campaign.

Bittrex has resumed deposits and withdrawals.

If you look at your Bittrex account, you will see that next to the BTC deposit and withdraw buttons there is some information telling you that they will now require 6 confirmations to credit your transaction due to network disruption.

Altcoins are irrelevant.  The chain splits that happen in altcoins are not related to what happens in BTC.
Altcoins are exactly as safe as they've been the rest of the time that they were on Bittrex.  When not trading you should always keep your coins off exchanges, but I don't see how an event in BTC affects your altcoins.

1.  This does not prevent a hard fork.  A hard fork is supposed to happen to increase the base block size to 2MB in three months.  That's why it's called SegWitx2.

2.  Soft forks can also cause chain splits.

3.
Bitcoin Unlimited support a hard fork which will happen on August 1st, creating "Bitcoin Cash".

Mining pools just represent miners.  If miners thought that their pool was particularly damaging, they could switch to a different one.
You are just an FUD factory.

The authorities openly said that they had control over Hansa Market for a month.

When Alpha Bay closed down, Hansa stopped accepting the creation of new accounts, but large numbers of unused or barely used accounts were being sold on Reddit.  So it's possible (not proven) that the authorities were trying to market to Alpha Bay refugees, either to dig out as many personal details from them as possible, to gain money or both.

There's no solid evidence that they did this, but there's certainly logic behind the theory.  It's not completely unfounded.

That's an oddly confident statement to make when you know that Bitcoin Cash is happening on August 1st, and that there will most likely be a block size increase to 2MB in three months due to SegWitx2.
Those hard forks required consensus from miners.  Bitcoin Cash does not, and SegWitx2 is part of a broader agreement.*
This is tinfoil-hat level bullshit.

*Miners could break the agreement, but it seems unlikely.  Regardless, there will be at least one hard fork and also a chain split from UASF.

The seized coins are quite an insignificant amount really.  Also, when governments sell those seized coins, they tend to do auctions instead of selling them on exchanges, so they don't affect the market directly.

If you mean that the price would fall because of the emotional impact on dark net markets, it doesn't matter.  Everyone is running off to Dream Market next, and after that they'll just go to another one.  If a decentralised marketplace is needed it'll happen - when multisig is needed it'll be used.  Frankly, the authorities have very little power over people on the dark web despite all their bravado and tracking.

The fact that the price didn't have a quick crash like it did after the collapse of Silk Road either shows that BTC is no longer as reliant on the dark net as it used to be, or that dark net users have matured to governments shutting down marketplaces.  Either way, it's bullish for BTC long-term.

The Lightning Network needs to make a really good impression from the beginning if it wants to be used by a lot of the skeptics for small transactions.

That means a lot of work on testnet before end users can start using it on mainnet.  It's not necessarily a huge step forward to rush and put it on mainnet.

All that matters is that LN wallets look very convenient and simple, and the concept gets shown to Bitcoin merchants in the cities as soon as it's possible to use.  There could be such a huge market for people who like the concept of BTC but don't like waiting up to 10 mins (and more if they pay a low fee) for confirmations.

That doesn't mean that they're 100% altruistic or generous.  By offering a free service, they:

-Draw attention to the bet feature, giving them an expected 3% average fee from people who use it
-Draw attention to the donations feature, and commonising the amounts.
-Gain a positive reputation among the majority of users.

A lot of businesses do promotions in which people pay less. 

You spend an onchain transaction.
Or maybe you could just spend an onchain transaction.

I don't think you understand what LN is.  It's not just eliminating onchain transactions altogether.  If people want the greatest BTC security, they send onchain.  That's quite obvious.

The testnet wallet Eclair on Android allows you to spend onchain transactions.  Even if those wallets didn't, you'd just send as much to it as you need for regular microtransactions.

In order for your Poloniex account to be compromised with this security, the attacker would need to either:

-Compromise the passwords of both Poloniex and your email provider;
-Brute force your passwords using a computer (possible if you use a weak password);
-Infect your computer with malware such as a keylogger.

If you add 2fa, the attacker needs to do the same things as before, but also find and reach your physical location.

Unless there's a problem with 2fa, that's how you stay safe.  The majority of attackers will act just online.
Malware from dodgy BTC sites is common when BTC is such an appealing thing to steal.  Be careful.

Considering what's already happened on Cryptsy and Mt. Gox, I'd say that keeping it on the exchange is about a million times riskier than just sending out to a safer wallet at any time at all, not just near forks.  Sending it to the wrong address has happened but it's a negligible risk if you triple check.
It's not clear because it's essentially the exchange's decision.  Coinbase, for example, has already said that they will not be giving their customers the Bitcoin Cash/UAHF coins and that their users should withdraw if they want those. 

It's important to understand that when storing coins in an exchange the exchange is holding them for you, and all you have is a promise that you'll get them back.  That promise didn't include "in the case of any chain splits, we'll give you all of the different coins through a lovely interface and you can do what you like with them".  So to avoid shady or confusing activity from exchanges, you should withdraw.

---

Pretty sure it is.
Anyone could create a fork of BTC.  Anyone can also create an altcoin.  Does that mean that the 995 coins listed on coinmarketcap are all going to become the biggest cryptocurrency?