It's really a bad idea to take investment advises from twitter, the format of this platform doesn't promote deep discussion or detailed posts. And it's also not a good idea to take advises from perma-bulls, they rarely explain why they make their predictions or where do they get the exact numbers, it's really just a guess. You can lose money even if Bitcoin grows if you make poor decisions like investing during a peak (because permabulls told it would grow more) and then panicking during a dip.

BCH launch price was in range of $250-500, now it trades at $250, which I think is horrible for a cryptocurrency, since it's supposed to grow in the long run. If you switch to BTC price it's even worse, it's clear that BCH or almost any other altcoin performs worse than Bitcoin.
The alt season is the only hope for altcoins to become relevant again, but there's no guarantee that it will come - we had two bullish periods for Bitcoin recently, and alts weren't following it as good as during the 2017 market. In 2017 people seriously believed that an altcoin might overtake Bitcoin because it is "old technology", but today Bitcoin's dominance is undisputed. I really don't believe that there will be a repeat of an altcoin bubble, far too many people are growing disappointed with alts, both as investors and as users.

People are speculating because it appears to be profitable, so no matter how much you tell them to think fundamentally, it's not going to change, but I think even now doing fundamental analysis is still useful, because it will tell you which coins are likely to do well in a few years. Technical analysis can make all sorts of predictions about a shitcoin like BSV or BCH, but it was always clear from the start that those coins are doomed, because their technology is bad. I would even go as far as to recommend everyone to not hold big amounts of altcoins for long term, cause it's clear that they aren't making much progress.

Since crypto is on the cutting edge of technology, or at least presents itself as such, it would make sense to move some crypto conferences to virtual reality or at least make them accessible over the Internet in some other way. Not only it would avoid the risks of the virus, it would also save lots of money and allow much more people to attend it.

I think cryptocurrency is far from the first thing that comes to the minds of government when they hear "contactless payment" - they would likely think about bank cards, PayPal, GooglePay and so on. There might some small chance that it will indeed lead to crypto recognition, but I think at times of the crisis no one will have time to think about crypto. And potential adopters might be scared off by crypto's volatility, as we see that crypto markets aren't doing well now.

I'm always pleasantly surprised when I browse some sites and I see that there's an option for Bitcoin donations. And it really makes sense to accept Bitcoin, even if you aren't a Bitcoin enthusiast, just because there's no fixed minimal fees, so when people donate small sums, majority of it goes to its destination. Lightning Network will further improve this by making transactions nearly free and enhancing privacy, which is a problem with donations because people often reuse the same address for them.

One of the most common mistakes people make is to always use the root account, which makes it easier for malware to infect their system. People should be generally using their PC with a standard account and only login as root when they specifically need it - you can read a good discussion about it here. Same goes for phones - don't root them just for fun if you don't know what are you doing, you'll risk shooting yourself in the foot in the long run.

Last year we saw something similar when Bitcoin reached $13,000 but failed to grow further and entered a bear market - now we met resistance at $10,000 so the market similarly turned bearish because of the failure to reach even the last year high, which isn't even close to the ATH. It might take some more time after the halvening for the market to recover and attempt to break key resistance levels again. So, the virus really looks like a coincidence, I'm sure something similar would have happened even without it.

Comparing Bitcoin's adoption with hugely successful inventions is cherrypicking, there's no guarantee that Bitcoin will ever be as adopted as they are, because not every new technology gets widely adopted - some maintain stable and rather small level of adoption, other just flop completely. Take something like Linux as an example - it was invented so long ago, and people were also saying that soon we will enter the era of open source software and things like Windows or MacOS will become obsolete, but still Linux has only a small share of desktop platforms.

There's no signs at all that the coronavirus can trigger some sort of hyperinflation, we don't see any big drops in national currencies, and holding fiat is actually a good idea during a crisis, as long as the crisis isn't linked to hyperinflation, but then you can just hold foreign fiat. So overall there's really no fundamental reason to think that this epidemic is somehow good for Bitcoin.

There's actually not that much factors that affect Bitcoin, it's mostly just pure speculation, which is just unpredictable, and occasionally it does react to news, but only when they concern Bitcoin directly, like when some important country bans it or legalizes it. Yesterday the price was $9,000 and today it dipped all the way to $8,200 without any big news or reason - that's just how it is, Bitcoin was always volatile, and it's important to realize it and stop looking for sophisticated explanations.

So, when a chain split is detected, nodes "disassemble" the blocks and put the transactions back in their mempool, right? Or do they just keep included transactions in mempool for some time after they were included in a block? Also, is this limited up to certain block depth or is there no such limit?

You can't forge Bitcoin transactions, because they are built on strong cryptography, but transactions can be erased as if they never existed if a fork occurs - this means a transactions was included in a block, but then a different chain was mined on top of some earlier block, and that chain got more proof-of-work then the current chain, so it overtook it. On practice it's (almost?) never happens, but still the risk is there, and the more confirmations you have, the more costly it would be to erase that transaction.

People were saying that Bitcoin will soon™ replace fiat 3 years ago, 5 years ago, and pretty much as soon as Bitcoin started. But adoption is still low and grows very slowly, there was countless number of events in the recent history that were hoped to boost Bitcoin adoption - wars, economic problems, political turmoil, epidemics and so on, and still nothing happened. Why should this time be different?

The scamming will continue for as long as there will be naive newbies who believe that they can invest in "good project", and it seems there's still plenty of such people. Nowadays most people know about the dangers of shitcoins, ICO scams, pump and dump and so on, but somehow they believe that they posses the skills to avoid it. and this is where they are wrong. My advice is just stick to Bitcoin, it can't be manipulated in the long run and it's the least risky coin in this whole market.

Bitcoin doesn't need to replace fiat wholly to be considered a currency, even if only a small number of people use it, it's still a currency. Todays transaction fees don't stop Bitcoin from being a currency, and we don't know just how high they will be in the future, since it depends on Bitcoin's popularity. But even then we have the Lightning Network which tackles scalability, so Bitcoin can easily be used by millions of people. And being a currency or a store of value don't contradict each other, Bitcoin can be both.

Isn't it weird to talk about marketing in context of decentralized open-source software? Marketing is usually done for companies, and companies are centralized, so it's not a coincidence that coins with strong marketing like TRON or EOS or XRP are also very centralized, while the most decentralized coins, like Bitcoin, have no marketing at all. If a cryptocurrency needs marketing to be successful, then it's a poor cryptocurrency in the first place, because people would have found and used it on their own.

Going from 10k to 9k it a 10% loss, and it's actually similar to what the stocks are experiencing, because they are also in a big bull market, so maybe the virus just triggered and amplified a correction that could occur even without it.

This isn't to say you are wrong, in fact you are very much correct - there's no strong mechanism for this virus to hurt Bitcoin, so any perceived effects on price are just a coincidence or a short-term panic. Bitcoin's own market cycle and things like halvening are much more important for its price than real world events.

Be careful what you wish for, economic crisis is in no one's interest, think about it, in the very best case your BTC investment will go up, but you and your family will probably lose your jobs, the prices will go up, etc., so overall it will be a net negative for your life. And there's no guarantee that Bitcoin will react positively to a recession, there's no proof that Bitcoin is a safe heaven, it's most likely not correlated at all, so all you have is just volatility.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/who-we-did-not-say-that-cash-was-transmitting-coronavirus-2020-03-06

Cash is such an insignificant vector for the spread of this (or any other) disease, there's no need to panic about it, just was your hands after handling cash and you will be fine. We won't see any big increase in BTC adoption because of the virus, people will use credit cards more if they'll have to, but otherwise everyone will keep using cash. And you overestimate how much regular people care about this virus, most people in the world don't even wash their hands as much as they should.