You're misunderstanding what a "wallet" is.

The term "wallet" for Coinbase is misleading.  It is a web wallet (in this section) which is like a bank in that you are giving your coins to a third party and trusting that they will spend them for you.

If you are regularly exchanging between Bitcoin and fiat or you are dealing with pocket change, this type of wallet can be okay.  However, I would regard a "real" wallet to be your private keys (what allows you to spend the coins) and the interface which makes it easy for the user to find out information about the coins they have a right to spend.

Since these "real" wallets allow sovereignty of people's funds and are basically just a piece of software, almost none of them require your ID. 

Examples of them include Bitcoin Core (full node), and Electrum (SPV client). 

Does "no altcoin talk" apply to every single mention of altcoins, or is it acceptable to mention altcoins in relation to Bitcoin?

For example, I say "ETH's system encourages maximalism because it attempts to have all altcoins built on its platform and bring all the hype with it.  To insult people for 'Bitcoin maximalism' is plain dumb if the altcoin you're promoting directly tries to trigger it's own maximalism'".

Would that sort of post be okay and discussion about that topic?

Miners were milking the network (obviously) far more than you could say third party wallets and exchanges were.  Some of them were okay, actually.

---

Honestly, this chart is completely irrelevant. All that matters is that the fee people have to pay is now about a million times less than it was just a few weeks ago.  You can send a transaction for around 40 satoshi/byte and it'll still get confirmed in decent time.

I feel sorry for all the newbies who are stuck with wallets recommending crazily high fee to get their transactions confirmed.  The network should favour users first, miners second.

This just goes to show how a little bit of spam can push scaling through.

You could buy one for your mate, and then rely on them to fill it up with coins.  Then they could set a normal fee.

It'd still be better than the crazy >7% that most of the places near me charge.

In the Genesis block, Satoshi added the title of an article from The Times:

Chancellor On Brink Of Second Bailout For Banks.

By doing so, he was showing the crazy lengths that society is going to to uphold a system that doesn't work.

You live in some kind of parallel universe where these big transactions don't happen.  Some people have to send them, and when they do, someone will have to escrow them.  Or would you rather they tried converting all those coins to fiat before making the transaction?   

Who knows, this could be the biggest scam of a lifetime, but there are no actual "warningsigns".

USD and GBP are both currencies created by their countries' respective governments and banks.  They are only supposed to be used in the country that created them, or other places whose governments decide to make them legal tender.

BTC and altcoins are entirely free and can be spent or accepted by anyone in the world for anything. 

BTC was created for a specific purpose - to be a "Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System".  I would argue that the status of Bitcoin makes it almost impossible to be displaced or threatened by a clone.

Because doing better than Bitcoin with a clone is extremely difficult, it requires coins which have different purposes or people believe to do the purpose of Bitcoin better.  Therefore, these alts can never "dilute" the limit, because they are not the same thing.

The OP is supposed to be getting an answer to their question here, rather than a series of people telling him where the best place to get the answer.  The best place is wherever the OP asked.

---

The point is, Bitcoin's transactions are all publicly documented and you can download them by running a full node.  Full nodes enforce the consensus rules no matter what, so more full nodes = the users' power to continue enforcing these rules.

The cost of running a full node rises as more transactions are sent, and unfortunately there is no direct reward for running a node.  So the amount of data that can fit into a block is limited to reduce this strain.

However, the limited data means that the network would not be able to process a large amount of transactions.

So the main argument is whether to increase the block size or use alternative methods such as SegWit (which removes signature data from transactions to decrease their size).  Both can only scale the network to a limited extent, and a lack of consensus means that so far nothing has happened.  Hopefully this will change with SegWitx2​ happening soon.

All he needs to do is sign with the address which received funds from the Genesis block, or with another address known to be owned by satoshi.  The address is here.

It should be an extremely simple task, and if satoshi ever wanted to return they could do that in just a few minutes, provided that they still have access to that address (which they most likely do).

You know that Craig Wright was a bastard, for example, because he made providing that he was satoshi look like some kind of arduous task.  Here's what he said:
If you mined the genesis block, you are satoshi (unless their computers were stolen/hacked, which is unlikely considering that all the funds are still in their addresses).

Once they find out the fiat value of your holdings, they might start thinking about it some more...
Absolute disaster for them if they hold a lot, but it's good for us.  Decreasing supply --> scarcity --> increasing price.

The good thing is that the decreasing supply means that people tend to own less coins each and they have a higher value, so people are less likely to lose them.

Coinbase have been running in the US for a long time.  They are not scammers, but you'll find that almost no online Bitcoin service which handles your money is 100% reliable.
There is no reason to do this.

Your TREZOR is a very user-friendly way to hold and spend Bitcoin.  There's no point in passing all your funds through Blockchain.info first - you're just wasting your time and money.  

If you want privacy, you're missing the point.  The blockchain is a publicly accessible ledger containing all transactions ever sent - this includes the transaction sent from your blockchain.info wallet to your TREZOR.  The way to remove the association between your transaction and you is by using mixers (and of course there are many other methods as well, don't expect to be 100% private unless you really know what you're doing).

No.  The miners direct their hashrate wherever they want.  The pool is just what they use to keep their income steady.

They could equally switch to a pool which is big enough for them to have steady income, has equally low fees (or lower) and supports the scaling solution that they want.

Miners act in their economic interest, and pools' hashrate can move around.

In the case of a more objective situation, like governments trying to screw around with what pools can do, a large amount of the miners would agree to switch to another pool which is not being controlled.

Admittedly there's a point at which finding an unregulated pool is hard or people don't care enough about it, if pools become very controlled.  But I don't see that as a significant threat, at least in the short term.

All you need to know that mining with PCs is completely worthless.  The damage that it does over time to your PCs outweighs the mining rewards by many times, and pools are unlikely to even let you withdraw the kind of dust that they would be producing.  Not to mention that even if there was no damage or electricity costs, it would take hundreds of years to reach ROI, at today's difficulty.

If you want to mine alts it's okay, but for BTC you need ASICs.
It's like running a specialised computer specifically to mine on a certain mining algorithm (in Bitcoin's case, SHA-256).  Nothing to do with PCs and considering how worthless PCs now are for mining, I wouldn't make that comparison.

Guys like Warren Buffet tend to avoid selling in bear markets.  People acting on emotions often end up losing money because of their fear of losing too much money, even though bear markets seldom last very long.

---

All bubbles are a bit hazy.  If everyone knew it was a bubble, the bubble wouldn't have happened.  So all you can do is ride it out, and afterwards you can say "oh shit that was a bubble, good thing I bought ages before it" or you can say "phew good thing I didn't sell during those rallies".

However, do be warned that it's very common in bubbles (and the end of bull markets) for there to be a bull trap right after a dip.  It's a return to what you start thinking of as normal, but that doesn't tend to last.

They are not preparing to strike other countries.

Just like what the US and other Western countries do very frequently, they are testing weapons as a means of defense.

While I do not agree with the concept of mutually assured destruction, a state like North Korea which is isolated from the rest of the world and is subject to US sanctions would not feel safe from war if almost every opponent to them is participating in MAD.

To pretend that North Korea is so rogue that they would randomly drop nuclear bombs is plain immature in my view, regardless of whether or not you agree with the actions of the state or their leader.

ICOs are a load of shit. 

A lot of people who get involved in Ethereum-based ICOs like to talk about the issue of "Bitcoin maximalism", and people who believe that Bitcoin should or will be the dominant cryptocurrency forever. 

However, the whole idea of ICOs encourages this crazy dominance, by:

1.  Locking up loads of coins for a long time, reducing the supply and thus keeping the price up.
2.  Eating up most altcoins by having them created as tokens on the Bitcoin or Ethereum blockchain.

It's also dangerous, because any problem with the main blockchain then affects all these "decentralised" applications.

Implementing ICOs on Bitcoin would be no more than a hype machine and a lot of fancy words.

Rootstock attempt to implement smart contracts for Bitcoin.

See their website here.

However, I see smart contracts as a small addition to Bitcoin, and not as revolutionary or essential a technology as ETH makes them out to be.

They look very much like similar sites.  Sites such as truthwiki.org, conspiracy-theory based sites with similar clickbait titles and little scientific research.  The few of them which are not like this are generally still opinion pieces (e.g. http://ahrp.org/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/

Rational Wiki details a different way of using the argument by assertion logical fallacy:

If you can give me meta-analysis for several reputable studies suggesting that 90% of information doctors are relying on (very vague sentence there, I'll leave it open to your interpretation) are incorrect, then I'm listening.  Otherwise, it looks like you're getting caught up in clickbait.

Not to mention that Natural News hate Bitcoin anyway.

Looks to me like you just came back after a long period of inactivity.

When you weren't paying attention to your holdings, they went up very dramatically in value, didn't they? 

During that time that you weren't paying attention, I can guarantee you that there were many different situations in which people were saying the price could drop to zero.  If you had sold during that time when everyone was scared, you would have missed out on a big opportunity.  The same applies this time - just don't do it.

Worst case scenario is that there's a bear market.  If that happens, you don't sell, you buy more and don't give into FUD (provided you can afford to lose it).  Ideally, you'd ignore the whole situation and wait until later.

The time to sell is when you need the money.  Otherwise, while I'm no financial adviser, I wouldn't recommend it.

Risk free investments do not exist.  

The closest thing you can get is government bonds, but those are in fiat and the returns are very little.

As Bitcoin is an investment in itself as well as being a currency, all Bitcoin investments would have to avoid switching to fiat for any of the work involved.  If you invested your coins during the time, they would have to grow the investment by several hundred percent in terms of purchase power to give you any returns in Bitcoin at all.

The risks of investing in anything Bitcoin related far outweigh the returns in my view.  I would just hold your coins.