Bitmixer would be the confusing one here.  I think that the payouts are handled automatically (Lauda doesn't handle them, at least).  YoBit would be similar, but I believe the BTC is credited to their YoBit account so YoBit probably held the funds anyway.

Hopefully they maintain it properly and withhold payments from being too near BIP 148.

If they didn't understand why payments were being withheld for a couple of days or they started scam accusations over that, they were probably spammers anyway.  But yeah, still a good idea to clarify.

This is mainly to do with altcoins.  The smaller coins tend to get amplified market caps, because there is very little liquidity.  There are coins on YoBit where the market cap can shift by tens of thousands with a volume of just a couple of hundred dollars.

So when BTC's dominance is "decreasing", its actual dominance in terms of money that has been put in remains quite high.

Yes.  Ideally, you would have a paid VPN.  Personally I quite like TorGuard, but there are many others.  If you are not doing anything illegal though free VPNs can be okay, because you wouldn't need to be worried if they give logs to the authorities.

-You should try using the operating system Tails.
-Disable scripts to stop sites trying to track you.
-Keep your Tor window in the default size rather than enlarging it.
-Consider using software to help get rid of cookies.  Personally I don't bother with this part.
-Use a decent search engine, like Tor's default engine DuckDuckGo.
-Ideally, use Tor in a variety of locations (not essential).

You should consider running your coins through a mixer before sending them to the site.

---

Also, please PM me the URL.  I'm interested in social networking on Tor.

Transactions with higher fees relative to other transactions get confirmed faster.

When demand exceeds capacity or there is a spam attack, not everyone can get their transactions confirmed.  If everyone raised their fees at once, it would just be an endless spiral of raising the fees higher and higher forever, and there would still be people at the bottom.

The OP is talking about unconfirmed transactions in general, not just their own transaction.
Maybe because the OP is a normal person that wants to actually use Bitcoin.
You haven't been keeping up to date.  You're talking about 100 satoshi/byte.  This page suggests that even fees of 20-40 satoshi/byte can get confirmed in a few hours.  Currently fees are not too bad.

None of the above.  The capacity is the same (a maximum of 1 megabyte in each block, with a block happening approximately every ten minutes), regardless of the number of miner or the amount of computing power they dedicate to the network - the Bitcoin network automatically adjusts how difficult it is to mine a block to ensure that it stays this way.

This will most likely change with SegWit being activated soon.
It's not.  You need to actually look at the fees you need to pay, not the fees your wallet tells you you need to pay.

A hard fork is not happening.  It will happen later when SegWitx2 forks to 2MB blocks.

For now, we have SegWitx2 and UASF happening.  SegWitx2​ looks like it'll happen very soon, in which case it's all good.  UASF will have a chain split if it still has <50% hash rate on August 1st, but it's running on negligible hash rate and probably won't be relevant if SegWit gets activated before then.  Both SegWitx2 and UASF are soft forks.

---

Posts like that explain exactly why the price is dropping.  There's too many fancy terms for some newbies, weak hands and speculators to understand, so they do the easiest thing they do into lovely, relatively safe fiat.

As for alts, they just got pumped hard, so when BTC falls they fall with it.

It's not just a faucet.  Hilarious to see that no one so far even bothered to go on the website.  They could be confusing it with the faucet site freebitco.in.

This site has a faucet, but that's not the main point.  The site is partnered with the cryptocurrency Clamcoin.  Clamcoin is a Proof of Stake cryptocurrency which can be claimed by anyone who held BTC, LTC or DOGE on May the 12th 2014.  You can get the crypto for currently empty addresses.

It's unlikely that they will be worth much in the future, but freebitcoins.com allows you to receive BTC for your addresses, converted from Clamcoin.

So you're not a miner, full node user and large holder?

In that case, why are you trying to discredit people for not being all of these things?  Am I confused or are you just a massive hypocrite?

SPV client users might not have the same security that full nodes have, but they sure as hell still own their coins, and when they spend them they are being a real user of Bitcoin.

Maybe you should retract your wording and start saying "to run a properly trustless wallet, you need to run a full node".  The other stuff it seems you pulled out of your arse.

YoBit are absolute scum and no one should care what they accept.

On the subject of Bittrex, you're right that you can't deposit fiat.  The majority of people trading these altcoins are hoping to end up with more BTC, and alts are typically traded against BTC.

You can buy with fiat if you find someone to execute the trade, but there are no trustworthy services at which you can deposit fiat and buy small altcoins.

Most cloud mining services run with a fixed hash rate or with a machine.

When you buy on some bullshit cloud mining service like Genesis Mining, they give you contracts to buy X number of MH/s, GH/s or TH/s.  With Hashnest, you buy the machine's hashrate and the fees they charge are maintenance costs.

---

With some crazy crypto rallies preceding you buying the contract, I would say that it'll be completely shit within a month or two.  Regardless, Genesis Mining is a load of crap and within a few months they'll be charging you more than the amount you earn.  Considering that they try to hide how much they actually charge, you'll probably end up losing a lot of money in a very irritating and complex process.

tl;dr:  just buy.

This is about dead people.  We're talking about trying to preserve people's memory for hundreds of years.

Even if the population stays the same as it is now for ~100 years, we're talking about at least the same number of people as the population of the world.  They wouldn't all be buried and a lot of people are cremated, but the fact that they have that option is unusual.

There will come a time at which cemeteries are completely impractical, and it's already starting to come. 

If you ask me, people will just get cremated more often.  No big deal.

I honestly think you still haven't read bitcoin.org's post.  This is about a chain split happening on August 1st, due to UASF.  If you don't think it will happen, you're basing that on the assumption that UASF will have >50% hash rate by August 1st.  That is a shockingly bold claim.

Also, SegWitx2 will only have a hard fork three months after SegWit activation.  This is obviously not a warning for that.

Before writing, you just need to think "is this actually relevant to the post or am I just showing my opinion on scaling?"  There are plenty of threads to express your views on the situation, if that's what you intend to do.  Bitcoin.org's post is an important warning for people to bring their coins into a wallet where they control the private keys, in order to keep their coins safe during UASF.

Several major groups, including DCG, support SegWitx2. It's quite unpleasant to see people trying to shove their views into their writing instead of giving helpful information to the OP.

Bitcoin Unlimited was a proposed hard fork which would allow miners to increase or decrease the block size at will, based on the transactions going through the network.

Due to opposition from the current development team Bitcoin Core, opposition from more than 50% of miners, and opposition from much of the broader BTC community, Bitcoin Unlimited now seems very unlikely to happen, so they're trading mainly on speculation and I would argue that what they're trading is a worthless token, since it represents something which doesn't yet exist and has no guarantee of ever existing.

Only two exchanges are trading the token, because the coin itself doesn't exist.  The exchange is just basically saying "if Bitcoin Unlimited happens, your one token on the exchange will get you one of those coins".

So in order to be a "full user", you have to be rich (own more than 1 BTC, ASICs which cost a good 0.3-4 BTC or so, and run a full node which you are happy to be more expensive to run), and participate in basically every single element of the network.

Anyone who spends fiat is a real fiat user.  I think you're playing around with meaningless terms in order to elevate yourself above poorer people.  People who actually spend their coins on goods are the real users. Despite agreeing with you, even franky1 has corrected basically every element of your topic, because you did no research and considered no information before loudly stating your hyperbolic opinion.

I find this mentality really irritating.

Blockchain technology has an extremely large number of potential applications.  Often when trying to develop these, developers will use code from other systems which are already proven to be secure (like Bitcoin).

Patenting parts of blockchain technology is a problem for anyone who wants a free environment to work in.  To reach its full potential, it needs to be an open community where anyone can work on it.

It's a problem for the same reason that SegWitx2 having a closed source testnet is a problem.  Open contributions make everything work better.

OK, fair point.  However, poorly interpreting (or being hyperbolic about) your wording is not the same as actually lying and acting like Lauda said the exact opposite of what they did.
Offchain first.  It doesn't mean people should do all of their transactions offchain, it just means that for microtransactions offchain transactions are necessary, and that it's important to be as efficient as possible before raising the block size.

It was never actually practical to walk into a coffee shop and do a zero-confirmation transaction.  You can either do that zero-confirmation and have the merchant risk not getting their money, or you can stand there saying "hang on, just a few minutes", until your transaction gets confirmed.  That's the scenario that needs offchain transactions.
Not at all comparable to altcoins, nor is raising the block size through a hard fork IMO.
It's the same cost to spam the same amount of space.  Neither SegWit nor block size increases would actually mitigate spam very well.  If they wanted to fill the whole block I recognise that it would be more expensive, but it's still not very expensive to do that.

The point is that a higher block size means there's more space in which it's possible for someone to spam and put strain on node users.

It looks strange to me as well, but Cryptsy and Mt. Gox have proven me wrong in that regard.  I mean Cryptsy were a pretty serious exchange but they just almost-scammed people for a while, then straight-up scammed them later.  Poloniex is currently almost-scamming people, it seems - whether or not they will actually pull an exit scam I don't know, but it doesn't exactly look very safe as it is.
The trollbox is disabled.  I would argue that the main reason for it is that it was completely full of complaints about not getting withdrawals or support.  This way they're not so accountable for their actions and people can convince themselves it's okay.

Quite reminiscent of Cryptsy's clever tricks to avoid paying their users, which happened a month or so before they vanished.

To be honest I doubt the intelligence of anyone who has read through the many recent complaints about slow withdrawals from Poloniex and still thinks it's a good idea to keep their coins in there.  Unfortunately, most people won't have had the opportunity to read those threads, and could have some serious problems if Poloniex goes 100% to shit.

If you can get through the agonising process of contacting support without even having a trollbox for them to be vaguely accountable, I suggest Bittrex, or ideally a decentralised exchange.

Banks should not be the only people running nodes.
Quote from Lauda just three posts before yours:
Please read the thread before posting.

Transaction fees should be approximately 20 cents right now.  40 satoshi/byte or sometimes even less is good enough when the network isn't undergoing a spam attack.

In my view, there's a fine balance.  The first step should be offchain scaling or alterations of onchain transactions like SegWit - the second step should be onchain scaling, when there's no other clear options available.  The bigger the max block size, the more space that's open for long-term spamming and eventually node centralisation.

Oh look, it's a shill article for Etoro, the extremely shady platform for people to copy others' trading.

They play on people's greed to try and get them to invest stupid amounts of money in Ether, or whatever the hype of the time is.  During the ETH pump and all the way up to $400, they were showing ads all over the place saying "will ETH follow Bitcoin"?

Meanwhile, their Trustpilot reviews show just how well they're handling their users' money.

I hate how some sites make articles like this talking about your investments decisions in order to lure you into giving them money.  Just stop talking about this shit already, we all know we lost an opportunity.

Mt. Gox started in July 2010.  The price of BTC back then was still extremely low, but not the crazy proportions they're talking about in this article.

It's hilarious that you promote UASF so passionately, and yet don't realise that this post is about the chain split that UASF would cause with a minority in hash rate and economic support.  It's actually about a soft fork, not a hard fork.  Segwitx2's chain split would happen three months from SegWit activation, rather than precisely when SegWit activates.

Did you actually read the post?

---

The chances are that the UASF chain will be irrelevant, and it's likely that SegWitx2 will happen before then.

However, it's always good practice to keep your coins in a wallet where you can export the private keys.  Also, if UASF does become relevant, your coins might just be legacy coins when kept in web wallets and exchanges, so it's definitely a good idea now, as a precaution.