At first sight, yes.  However there are some factors that you don't seem to have considered:

-Exchange fees and fees for dealing with fiat.

-The amount of time that it would take each time and the fluctuations in the prices during that time.

-The spread between the buy and sell prices.

Often with less trustworthy/reliable exchanges like Cryptopia, there could be issues as well.  Often with arbitrage like this there are a lot of things which result in a big delay for you doing this, and you don't get as much profit as you expected.  However, even a profit of 5% would be giant from any normal measurements.  Good luck.

What are these claims, "alternative facts"?

7 days ago the Ether price in US dollars was ~$150, and now it's ~$220.  Meanwhile, the Bitcoin price of Ether is up as well, from ~BTC0.074 to ~BTC0.088.

This is publicly available information.  Maybe you should check it before posting.
This is true, but misleading.  The Bitcoin and Ether prices went down a similar amount and continued going up again together.

---

UASF time will be bad for the Bitcoin price in the short term and good for it in the long run.

UASF happening soon --> newbies get confused/annoyed and move to alts --> alts price rise --> FUD about Bitcoin --> alt rise stagnates as all new money has moved out of Bitcoin --> people realise that Bitcoin is now convenient to spend again --> money moves back to Bitcoin --> press stories positive about Bitcoin --> further growth

Definitely not.  There's absolutely no chance that as much as 2.5% of the population is using and/or holding Bitcoin right now.

We're still right at the bottom of that curve, frankly.  Even if you look at a terrible measure of crypto wealth like market cap, cryptocurrencies are still shockingly insignificant.

It's interesting how people who are part of something new tend to assume the best of other people because they try their best to get other people involved.  

People like to try and convince themselves that they're actually later than they are because of:

1. Their confidence in the technology.
2.  Their pessimism, and feeling like the best opportunities are behind them.

With Bitmixer, they have a "letter of guarantee" to help you prove when you get scammed.

Does Bitblender have that?

---

You could always contact Lutpin, who's running the Bitblender signature campaign.  Maybe he could help to contact them.

I don't see why they would scam over small amounts though - if I were them I'd keep running it indefinitely considering that their fees can go as high as 3%.  If I wanted to scam I'd just screw up the fee randomisation and charge 3% every time instead of directly taking anyone's funds.

If you want to do that, you might want to consider a paper wallet/cold storage.

If you're intending to use it though, Electrum is a better choice.  Jaxx is mainly just good for storing several different coins in the same wallet, which is the feature they advertise the most.  

You could also try a hardware wallet and use it along with Electrum if you want, or you could have Electrum offline.

It can, but you're playing a very dangerous game if you do.

Any potentially personally identifiable information which you give them could be used to suspend your use of the service, and they could basically do that at will.

This is even worse on Bitcoin gambling sites because they're barely regulated.  Many of them have been known to actually take users' funds when they suspend accounts for suspicious activity.  This means that if you have a large amount of money with them, they could be clamouring to find an excuse to suspend your account. 

I agree that there are problems with centralised distribution, and a country-issued cryptocurrency wouldn't "replace" Bitcoin per se, but it definitely would achieve more success.

It's easy to overestimate how principled and virtuous people are.  The answer is that they're not at all either of them.  Bitcoin is a fringe currency for now, and if marketed correctly a country-issued cryptocurrency could be extremely popular.

---

The problem is that blockchain technology is just so damn good when done correctly that a government with billions to spend on marketing and development can produce something which is extremely appealing to the general public due to its low fees and convenience.

Seems to me like you're a bit more interested in selling it for "Footballcoin"...

---

Not really subjective, is it?

"Bitcoin is rising in value"
"Nah m8, it just fell to $800 clearly can't you read?" 

The correction wasn't actually a setback anyway, it was a good thing because it makes a price of >$2000 look somewhat sane now.

Gavin Andresen's old faucet gave out five Bitcoin to each claimant.

Not quite.  Mt. Gox started in July 2010.  Bitcoin wasn't worth a lot but going into 2010 it was no longer worthless.

---

But yeah, you have a point.

Later in 2010, you would have bought from Mt. Gox.  Before that, you might have been able to buy directly from some people (or do some Bitcoin pizza, but it wasn't worth a lot.

It's more likely you would have mined with your CPU and/or GPU (and at first, claimed from Gavin's faucet).

As shorena points out, the new Blockchain.info wallet is incapable of signing messages. 

However, there's a way of getting around that which is detailed here.  Be careful.

He has a fairly significant trading history, so I would be inclined to think that he's not an alt or irritated newbie.

A couple of the pieces of feedback that he's given include extremely high "risked BTC", including another one which was 5,000 as purely retaliatory feedback.  I personally wouldn't trust this user - and I respect that the retaliatory feedback you left him was neutral and explained properly.

No.  Those are things that you ask/get told in ordinary threads about transaction problems as well, and are fully relevant to how the user is going to sort out their problems.  There's no security issue that I can think of, and being able to view people's address balances on the blockchain could be a privacy issue in some circumstances of course but it usually isn't.

---

The main reason I don't think he's lying about his thoughts though are his signature.

I feel like posting more self-referential and somewhat ironic things about signature campaigns would be spam from me... so this is my last response.

You're not in business.  Bitmixer is a business and you are not affiliated to them.  Furthermore, the main aim of a business like Bitmixer is to appeal to the consumer - by openly insulting other groups using arguments with no actual merit, they would lose credibility, and thus profit.  It's a good thing that you don't work for them.
You're right, you didn't.  And Lauda is the person who moderates your posts, not Bitmixer, which was my point.  Thanks for confirming that, mate.

It would say that you don't go shitting on threads for no actual reason.  Capitalism promotes selfishness, but you're not even being selfish in a scenario where it's necessary.  I feel like you're the type that would start loads of threads yelling "I told you so" if these guys scammed everyone, and go eerily silent if Bitmixer did.

This paragraph, on an objective grammatical level, makes no sense.  I'm genuinely confused, you could clear that up for me and we could get back to real discussions about the mixer.

Like, "And my point is to know how can I send several transactions to chipmixer and some body else some where else on the planet which already has given an address to me and is waiting for a specific amount to that address?"  You're descending into gibberish.

It's likely that a split (which is seeming increasingly likely now), would be confusing for most people and wouldn't be quite as smooth as we like.

Personally, I'd expect a bullish sentiment leading up to the solution, and a dip in Ether, but when the split actually happens, far more bearish.

Once the actual situation is behind Bitcoin for a week or two and transactions start getting back to normal on the majority chain, that's when we go for the moon.

You're not really working for Bitmixer though.  Your signature campaign manager is Lauda, and Lauda is independent from Bitmixer.  Lauda should be the only person checking through your posts, and no one should care whether or not you're promoting Bitmixer. 

Regardless, the point of a campaign isn't to be an arse to everyone, nor to promote the service in your signature directly.  If everyone did that, there would be plenty more gambling addicts on here...
Once again, Bitmixer do not care if you specifically are getting paid, unless they think that the campaign is rampant with spammers.

---

The point is to prevent blockchain analysis by removing all ties to anyone except the mixer.  You receive a wallet directly from the mixer instead of a payment from it, so it changes the mixing process.

I can't see a lot of Bitcoin mixing service users scrambling to give their identity to the authorities...

"You're brainwashed!"
"No you're brainwashed!"
"No you're brainwashed!"
"No you're brainwashed!"

...Am I really the only person here who thinks that everyone doesn't have to be brainwashed?

25hashcoin is here basically saying "why not open your mind and accept that this side is 100% right and everyone else is brainwashed", and mindrust has the same twisted mind.

I really despair at what arguments on the Internet have come to.

They need phone verification, which I just never give to Bitcoin related services unless they're heavily regulated (basically none).

It wouldn't prevent spam, it would just move people to verify their account with fake and/or paid phone numbers.  I don't get why they bother.

There are many good potentially widespread applications for the blockchain.

The problem is that money is very easy to have because it only needs agreement between two parties who regard the token to have value, whereas with most other blockchain applications, it requires a large company to give their trust to a new technology (which never happens, making it a speculative asset in the end).

I'm sure that ETH and especially ETC will help to prompt more blockchain applications in the future and blockchain systems will have more widespread use.

That's exactly what I mean by "living in an echo chamber".  You're trying to talk in absolutes.
The way I understand it (I could be wrong):
-If 51% or more of the hashrate signals for a soft fork by that point, it's safe (ish).

-If less than that signal for it, there will be a chain split (which is the main function of UASF).  At that point there will be some blocks mined on the new chain and some on the old chain.  Unless most companies decide to accept payments on the new chain at the same time, there could be enough economic support for the old chain for miners to stick to their guns.
Err people can't just ignore what's going on if you want UASF to have "zero risks".

So you won't even read something because it doesn't confirm your preconceptions?

It doesn't give r/btc ad revenue or anything, it doesn't support them in any way... so all that avoiding r/btc would be doing is trying to stay in an echo chamber.

That's the same mentality that r/btc and r/bitcoin both have of staying in their respective echo chamber.

---

Jonald, I get your point.  However, I think most people on here as well accept that UASF is risky.  I would argue that if it has nearly universal business support (which it doesn't yet), the miners would move over.

It all depends on what companies move over.  In any case, if business support is mixed it would be a complicated split which could last for a while.  The thing is that this means a compromise from SegWit doesn't have to be going far to pull a few businesses away from UASF, which would in turn make it very difficult to complete.

---

I think it's a good thing that Core devs recognise this though.  It shows that they're not one giant evil organsation standing in their nuclear bunkers watching over us all like a halk.  It doesn't mean that UASF has to be impossible - they're just not deluding themselves into thinking that it's completely safe.

LocalBitcoins' built-in escrow is just LocalBitcoins holding the funds for you.  It's exactly the same as anyone else holding your funds and LocalBitcoins could run off with a huge amount of funds.

The difference between LocalBitcoins escrow and forum members' escrow is that it would be much easier for LocalBitcoins to selectively scam.  If the escrows on here scammed a single person, that person would be all over the forum proving their PM conversations and that the escrow hadn't paid after the deal was completed.  No one would use their service anymore.

People have specifically trusted thousands and thousands of Bitcoin with these escrows.  OGNasty has escrowed around 20,000 Bitcoin, including many very large transactions at once.