It's normal for BTC transaction confirmations to take some time since you have to wait for a block to include your transaction, and a block is only mined (approximately) every ten minutes.

If you have set a fee of over 10 satoshi/byte (with a median sized transaction, about ten cents), you can expect your transaction to confirm in 1-2 hours.  If you increase this fee tenfold for priority transactions, you can expect confirmation in the next block.

Just to clarify, "Bitcoin gold" is entirely irrelevant.  If I remember correctly from seeing the website a while ago, that website used to be a clone of BitcoinABC's website to which they added some dodgy-looking information about an ICO.  Since then, they've removed it and now have a website of basically nothing.

However, there is a relevant hard fork happening in November, which is the SegWit2x hard fork.  You should definitely be distinguishing between that and "Bitcoin Gold".

SegWit2x will most likely result in the price falling due to the uncertainty and the split of merchant and exchange support for each chain.

Stop using anecdotal evidence.  There are billions of Bluetooth-compatible devices all over the world, and loads of them are left on.

If this is a problem that gets exploited to access a significant amount of these devices, it would be a ridiculously large security vulnerability which would hinder the development of further technology for years to come.

Personally, I use Bluetooth regularly for music in cars and I have a crypto wallet on my phone (not Bitcoin).

Good films: none.
Films: The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin.

The problem is that topics like Bitcoin become controversial enough that film makers don't feel like just writing pure information anymore.  They feel like writing "Bitcoin is good, look at how cool and rebellious it is, you hate the government right?" or "Bitcoin is stupid, it's not even real money", etc.

Obviously they don't do this directly but it reaches a point at which people try to exaggerate things to appeal to the general public.

You're better off looking at more informational sources like bitcoin.org for example.

Or it just looks like a biased news article, something which you frequently see on all sides of an argument.  There's no reason to point out the obvious fact that the news article supports a specific side - rather, you could actually argue against the article.

---

Seems like their attitude is fairly simple.  If the block size gets even slightly close to being filled, it's likely to be increased. 

I suspect they'll go for some sort of experimental consensus model for a flexible block size eventually, possibly something like Bitcoin Unlimited's Emergent Consensus system.  At that point it's possible that more big-block supporters might give up on SegWit2x based on the idea that it could take a long time for the block size to be increased on the main chain.
The website is pretty unprofessional.  They've still got a dodgy stock photo of a modern city in the background.

It goes without saying that if the price rises exponentially forever, these amateur investors and amateur miners won't get a slap in the face.  But it doesn't seem too likely, does it?
It's an extremely simple concept to understand.  Over time it self-regulates itself so that it's profitable for the people who mine most efficiently and with the lowest electricity costs earn a significant profit.

It's only strange when people put too much effort into trying to mine when they're not in good circumstances to do so.

The site itself will probably be taken down pretty quickly if you report it.  However, that doesn't mean that the problem is solved by any means.  Google keeps accepting those sites to advertise and then taking them down, but there are new ones taking the older ones' places pretty quickly.

When Bitmixer was still around, there were sites like that around for a really long time.

Unless you can tell Google quite a lot of details about these sites and they actually pay attention to preventing new sites from advertising, there's not much you can do.

No it doesn't.  It's an objective fact that they are lying about the security of their wallet, therefore any other features of their reputation are almost entirely irrelevant.
No it isn't.  To produce a paper wallet you don't need to trust anyone at all.  

You only have to trust anyone if you make that choice.   It's a trustless payment system and that has no relation to the people that a user decides to deal with.
True, but hardware wallets are somewhat different because their software is usually open source.  I would not trust a hardware wallet with closed source code.

As you can see from this graph, the percentage of transactions being sent as SegWit transactions is still at 3.5-4%.  It's not significant enough to reduce the transaction fees by a lot, at least not on its own.

It's more likely that:

-A price drop means that in the short term, fewer people are going to be sending to merchants because they get a lower rate.
-Less hype means less people sending coins to and from exchanges, and hype was at least partially about SegWit which has already activated.
-Arguably that there were spam attacks which have subsided.

Yeah, I'm sure that SegWit2x supporters are quaking in their boots that "Wayniloans" has dropped out.  /s

The only major party that seems to have dropped out is F2Pool, but even they were still supporting NYA in their blocks last time I checked, so it's questionable whether they actually dropped out.

It's unlikely to cause a domino effect unless a really major group decides to drop out.

Your observation is completely arbitrary.  It has no basis in logic at all and I hope you're not trading based on this.  

By using the past as an attempt to predict the future rather than what the future actually involves, you're playing into the hands of whales who manipulate you time and time again into doing stupid things and losing money to them.
Seems unlikely unless the fork turns out to have extremely good consensus.  Uncertainty is never good.

It's impossible to tell what the "invention of the Century" is when we're less than a fifth of the way through it.  Unless of course you have a very good time machine.

By the time that it would be reasonable to have an opinion on the subject (83 years from now), most of the people commenting on this thread will be dead and their opinions will be long irrelevant.

Of course this is just another one of those "hey, you people are on a Bitcoin forum, I guess you like Bitcoin then?" kind of threads which will probably get 1000+ replies within a week because of how interesting the completely bullshit premise is.  I'd better give up having any reasonable discussion here.

Unless you're reliant on signature campaigns in order to sustain your lifestyle (which you certainly shouldn't be) or you're reliant on them to pay obligations such as debt (which you certainly shouldn't be) this wouldn't be a problem.

Campaign managers are real people, not robots.  The managers that have been robots, such as the YoBit campaign, haven't worked out very well in terms of post quality.

---

While they're out doing normal human activities, it's important that the funds are as safe as possible, so it's much better that the funds are kept at home in appropriate places rather than on their phone whenever they're walking around.  DarkStar_ paid two weeks at once a while ago because he wasn't at home, which is good unless you want the funds to actually be lost.

You don't seem to understand what theft is either.

If you were paying any attention to what crypto actually is, perhaps you'd think differently.  Especially since satoshi literally wrote a political message into the first block ever to be mined.

---

A somewhat unfortunate aspect of crypto is that having more money gives you quite significantly more power.  Nodes?  Just run a lot of them.  Miners?  Just run a lot of them.  Community?  Spoof the support and try to gain control of major media.

The network gets harder to attack as it grows but if richer people ever all have similar interests, the public could be misled into using a new chain with a raised supply or other features (or they'd lose money by staying on the old chain with much less economic support).

A ponzi scheme is reliant on a centralised ledger because it requires the "company" to manage which people it pays at which time and which money it can put in its pocket.  You're correct about that part.

However, tulip bulbs are not reliant on a centralised ledger, they are simply an object.  The benefit of having block space is that you can say "I have BTC which is worth X amount" - in the same way, you can show someone a tulip bulb and as long as they know what it is, they recognise that you own it (this is entirely decentralised, just like gold and other offline transfers of goods).

---

The distinction between a Ponzi scheme and Bitcoin is entirely objective and obvious, so it's utterly ridiculous to compare the two as it would just be referring to natural supply and demand as a Ponzi scheme.  

However, tulip bulbs rely on this same supply and demand, so to call it a similar economic bubble is subjective and there is certainly an argument to be made on that side.

Silk Road had very little effect and it recovered extremely quickly.  The bear market's biggest cause was the gradual collapse of the exchange Mt. Gox which handled the majority of trading volume at the time.  Other darknet markets tend to just replace the ones which collapse.
The Silk Road and Mt. Gox collapses were temporary problems because people can always move to a new exchange or new darknet market.  Moving to a new country where there are fewer regulations is quite a different matter.  Furthermore, people tend to ignore the November fork, which is a much larger potentially bearish event that's coming up quite soon.

There's no point trying to recognise exact patterns of events because they don't last forever.  However, I do believe that Chinese problems are just hiccups to regulation being handled properly, in which case you might have a point.
If you're running a business, you'll have to comply with all the necessary regulations in your country.  It has no relation to Bitcoin's decentralisation, because centralised companies are not the same.

This isn't about Bitcoin as a project, it's about the actual coins that are held in the blockchain and who has access to them (which we're calling ownership).
Generally, it's the top 1% that's called the top 1%.  That's in the name.

---

I would imagine that crypto is somewhat centralised in terms of holders, because getting in early meant that an amount that previously seemed trivial ended up being a noticeable percentage of a huge economy (due to the rapid price increases).

Eventually, that will balance itself out as early adopters spend, sell or do something else that brings the money back into ordinary circulation.

You're using the price to justify your positive view on Bitcoin.  That means that if the price were falling, you would not consider Bitcoin to be "bulletproof" and you would most likely think that it's terrible since you have no reasoning behind your opinion except for the price.

Also, you're trying to claim that Bitcoin will last forever based on the price, so you're incorrectly conflating the security of Bitcoin with the price.

Bitcoin will last for as long as someone in the world wants to use it, but the price is not why it survives and the price is largely propped up by speculation at the moment.

I'm expecting a bear market after this bulltrap.

Their domain was registered only about two weeks ago and they only bothered to register the domain for one year, which implies that they're keeping the costs of running their scam site to an absolute minimum.

The address and email on their whois information doesn't match the address and email on the "Contact Us" page of their site.  Also, the address on their "Contact Us" information hardly looks like the office of a professional company that has had millions of ETH transactions sent from it like they claim they have.

There are also clear typos, so it looks very much like a lazy site.  I signed up with fake info, and it says "Totala balance" in the wallet, as well as "Registration Successfully" when you sign up.

On their settings, you have a language option, but the only language you can actually choose is English.

---

So yeah, looks like you've been scammed.  If you want an online Ether wallet, try MyEtherWallet (and make sure to avoid phishing sites - the real domain is myetherwallet.com and check it carefully).

Because the systems for producing fiat money in Europe and the US are not sustainable.  Money is largely created on the spot when people take out loans from banks, and money can be created at a whim.  It's this sort of irresponsible system which caused hyperinflation in Zimbabwe, to the point at which people's money literally became worthless.

Originally fiat money was redeemable for gold, which is why the people did not mind it losing some value - they knew that at least it can't go completely ridiculous and collapse altogether very easily.

BTC is a rebellion against now-worthless fiat money, because it has the scarce and free properties of an asset while being transferable as a currency.  It removes the need for people to trust a government with their asset.