To be honest I find this almost impossible to gauge.

It won't gain a majority of support from the BTC community - it simply doesn't have enough support from miners or nodes, or any significant publicity outside of r/btc.  Also, I do think there will be a herd effect in which most people switch back to the main chain when UASF and Bitcoin Cash don't get enough support.

However, the levels of support are mostly based on polls advertised in a biased way, and there are a huge number of BTC users that we never hear the opinions of.

So it's really impossible to tell.

Clearly an exaggeration, but it wasn't meant to be literal.

R/bitcoin has about 4,500 users online right now (biased against larger blocks) and r/btc has about 1,000 users online (biased in favour of larger blocks).  Bitcointalk's support is somewhat mixed, but I'd say there's more  people against large blocks (this has been shifting a tad to the bigger-block side over time, but is still not there yet).

If you go on a big-block figure's Twitter (e.g. Roger Ver, Jihan Wu), you'll notice hatred that streams for miles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization

The BBC is a publicly owned broadcasting corporation, based in the UK.  Google is a privately owned company based in the US.

I mean do you even think about your conspiracy theories before making them up on the spot?

The longest I've seen in real use is LGBTIQ+ - meaning Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intergender and Questioning (not sure of their sexual or gender identity).

The plus is just to indicate that people supporting these groups should be supporting any other different groups and generally be supportive of people's identity regardless of what it is.

It's obvious that the reason for distinguishing between these groups is to recognise that they are all legitimate and relevant groups to exist.  To just say "not straight" is ignoring that all these people actually have different identities rather than just being "not straight".

It's absolutely nothing like that.  You're referring to Ponzi schemes.

While the vast majority of cloud mining sites are Ponzi schemes, the ones which are "legitimate" do not promise an exact amount of money.  They promise that they will buy or produce mining hardware with your money, and then mine with it and give you some of the earnings.

This is a perfectly reasonable claim, because the cloud mining operators can still make profit.  In the case of HashNest (run by BITMAIN), they produce a miner and mine with it, while taking maintenance costs and a few for their profit.  It's fairly similar to any normal investment.

There is a difference between a bad investment decision (cloud mining) and a scam (Ponzi schemes).

I thought Hansa stopped accepting new arrivals when AB closed down.  That's why loads of new-ish accounts were being sold at high prices, because of AB "refugees" being desperate to get on Hansa.  They were attempting to move to Hansa, anyway.

Bitcoin can be alright if you use it properly.  I don't know about Hansa but on Alpha Bay there was wallets for BTC, ETH, XMR and Zcash. 

Still, vendors could choose what they accept of course.  Most just took BTC.

I seldom spend that amount either, but the LN will open reasons for all sorts of people to use Bitcoin.

If a newbie wants to claim from a faucet (Yay! "Free money"!) then they can do so and it could actually make sense to do so.  Once they find out what BTC actually is because of this, they can start using onchain transactions later.

If there's a neighbourhood hipster who loves anything that seems slightly alternative, they'll start using LN transactions to pay for their coffee every day by opening up a channel with their coffee shop.  I'm sure there'll be a fair number of places in big cities that start doing this to attract the "definition of gentrification" types.

As for whether I would personally use LN, I'd prefer to use onchain transactions when I can.  But the LN is exactly what's needed for "coffee" transactions.  If you need full BTC-blockchain-style security (you're spending relevant amounts), you go onchain.

Is there a decent Chrome extension for that?  I've been going through a couple of them and they look like they're either paid, spyware or both.
For all his vocal support of hard forks, he doesn't seem to have figured out what they actually are yet.

Because they'd like to see a chain with larger blocks.  Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin ABC have all basically failed, despite all the hype they each had for doing the same thing as last time, so the only solution is to fork off without a majority of hash rate.

Major groups backing BU/EC have decided that a compromise is necessary, but they've decided that they want their own chain to play with.
You could equally argue "why did they start Clamcoin if they weren't going to take over BTC?"
I'm not sure I subscribe to this rhetoric of just bashing the people.

This is absolutely a self-fulfilling prophecy, because Roger Ver is not a coder.  He's just an opinionated public figure.  So by bashing Roger Ver rather than big blocks, you're keeping yourself from joining the "big block" side.  And by doing that, you're stopping any "good" people from moving over to that side, and keeping the majority of people annoying.  It's like when people avoid going vegan because they don't like vegans, or avoid using BTC because it's used on the dark net.

So more than anything it's an echo chamber of everyone else's construction.

Yeah, well I say there's not enough bullshit tokens made on the Ethereum blockchain, so we need a decentralised dark net market on it.  We should raise about $100 million dollars for the ICO, then mysteriously disappear under the guise of being taken down by law enforcement.
A large amount of BTC adoption is on dark net markets.  It's not all of BTC's adoption, but that's the only major place I can think of where everyone accepts BTC and no one accepts fiat.

---

The "war on drugs" doesn't work anyway.  All this means is that more people move over to Dream Market or something.  Then if Dream Market gets taken down, they'll go somewhere else.

If the situation for dark net market users becomes so dire that they have to leap between markets ten times a day, that's when a decentralised market will pop up.  I'm sure it's possible if people are desperate enough.  In the meantime, dark net markets will just be losing credibility because of states seizing everyone's coins.

People who hold their coins in Coinbase and pay less attention to their holdings (use the "Coinbase Vault" for example) might not notice the warning.  Regardless of what happens there will be a huge amount of funds kept in Coinbase and Coinbase will potentially have access to a not-insignificant amount of UAHF coins that their users who didn't withdraw.
I think Gemini's stance on this makes more sense:
To not even commit to your users' needs like this is quite insulting, especially when they never bother to respond when people have their accounts frozen.

Bitcoin has been moderately centralised right from the beginning. However, usually the centralisation is from groups like mining pools - if miners decide that the pools are acting in an unethical way, they can move to a different one.  To have power, Bitcoin's public figures rely on support from the BTC community, and they would lose it if they attempted something shockingly bad.

Now though, it's probably less centralised than it's been before.  We're no longer talking about being terrified of ghash.io getting >50% of the hashrate, there are shitloads of (non-listening) nodes, and there are a lot more users.

So to blame a crash on it now, of all times, would be absurd.

Of course if the price goes down everyone will claim that it was because of centralisation, but that's not something that everyone suddenly decided was a huge problem after several years.  They're just making up reasons for a drop in price, when really it's just about speculation.

It's called Bitcoin Cash, and they have the support of Bitcoin ABC.  It's basically the "UAHF" that BITMAIN were talking about.  bitcoincash.org.

I do respect that they're phrasing it like it's an altcoin and their development of BTC.
The price is absolutely no indicator of anything right now.  It's just random and irrational speculation about Bitcoin's future and it makes no sense.

The users of Coinbase should have a right to their "Bitcoin Cash" in the same way that they should have a right to their ordinary coins.  Otherwise, it's just glorified theft from Coinbase.

F2Pool are absolute trolls.  When they were going to signal SegWit a while ago, Wang Chun said that SegWit would be a "disaster" then started signalling really soon after under the guise of following the public.

I wouldn't trust that they'll follow through on it until the last minute.  

Christ, these mining pool operators have so much power.

Zebpay is most likely not closing down.

They're warning you of upcoming chain splits on August 1st - BIP 148 and "Bitcoin Cash".  

While I personally think that neither of them will amount to anything and that SegWit will be activated via BIP 91, it's definitely good practice to bring your coins to a wallet where you control the private keys, for at least a couple of weeks after that date.

It's hard for an online wallet to manage those multiple chains and provide you with a good user interface.  The purpose of the warning is to keep you safe so that you own all the chains and can use them if necessary.

You should read theymos' post about this here.

Yes it does.  They produce Tether tokens when they can be backed by a dollar that they hold, and they can do that when the tokens are bought on exchanges (well they can produce when they like, but they're supposed to be backed).
Equally dumb.  Yes it does.  Increasing volatility, fear of an upcoming bear market and confusion about the weeks ahead is pushing people into USDT for the next few weeks.
Big players almost never go into USDT.  USDT is not safe due to the price fluctuations, and a Tether "cryptocurrency" does not work.  They would convert back to fiat rather than be at the mercy of Tether.

When USDT becomes a "safe haven" in its current state, it really makes you think about the state of volatility right now, doesn't it?

No.  Governments are needed to maintain who owns the property.  In a libertarian society, I can go and trespass on your land and shoot you.  Then I own the land, and no government is going to tell me otherwise.  It means that with modern communication and equipment for war, it can be a giant war-fest.
Corporations have the incentive to produce cheap products.  Consumers have the incentive to buy cheap products.  With no regulation or consideration of labour rights, you have shit like employing child slaves to make chocolate.  Pretending that this is some kind of land of freedom, when it just encourages people to create their own slavery, is absurd.
Apart from this weird fringe ideology of American libertarianism, all anarchists have been left wing.  There are systems like anarcho-syndicalism, in which unions have greater control over the economy.  None of these systems seem to make much sense, nor do the right wing systems of "anarchism".

The age of consent to produce pornography is 18, because of how 16 year olds could be manipulated or pressured into it and the fact that other work is more readily available to adults.  Under that age is considered child porn, and I think that's the relevant age here rather than the age of consent for sex.  However, I still can't see the user directly saying that he downloaded child porn.
Well done.  You're a fucking genius.
If the person is a paedophile, you should not help them by doing trade deals with them.  That sort of scum is not to be trusted.
 

Spoetnik"The user in question" has done a variety of moderately shady things as well.

He claims to have received a PM from the account "Spoetnik[TheUserInQuestion]IsFucked", but if you do a search under Members, the account doesn't seem to exist (I don't think there's a way to delete a forum account, unless the OP contacted an admin).

He also values his account rank far too much.  Whenever talking to a newbie, he refers to them as NOOB and ignores any arguments that they make.  So any claims that removing his negative trust would be opposition to hierarchy is bullshit.
That's the fucking worst comparison I've ever seen.  Child porn is TERRIBLE.  It is a moral ABOMINATION.  People who listen to rock music can have any moral values and it's COMPLETELY unrelated.

---

However, I haven't seen Spoetnikthe user in question directly admit to downloading child porn.  I've seen him condoning being perverts to underage girls, which in my opinion does warrant negative trust, but I still can't see him openly admitting it.  Also, your quotes seem to be a tad out of context and strung together in that fashion.

A lot of financial bubbles and excessive bull markets have crashes and recoveries before fully entering a bear market.

Actually, it happened in Bitcoin with the 2013 bubble.  The price dropped to about $700 and then recovered most of the way up before resuming the bear market.  It's quite likely that this will happen again.

I wouldn't say that BTC is looking very bullish right now.  Keep buying all the time is my advice, because I consider trading pretty much futile when the market is this crazy, but while you're at it just make sure you're not spending more than you can afford to lose and make sure that you're willing to hold it through a bear market if you have to.