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.

IMO it's basically impossible for Chipmixer to set really high fees anyway.

Bitmixer only has fees of 0.5%, and some other trusted mixers have even lower fees than that.  Considering the sort of volume that the biggest and most trusted mixers tend to get, it really doesn't have to be a lot of the mixed coins as a percentage.

If Chipmixer, as a newer mixer, started setting high fees then they just wouldn't have many users.  And the amount of donations they'll get in the early stages (before they reach that trusted point) will probably be just as much as the low fees that they would have to set.

Especially considering the gambling feature.

Are you sure your wallet didn't recommend a $2.5 fee?  That would be pretty normal at current rates.  Even the smallest transactions around have no chance of getting confirmed with that kind of fee.

The difference is that if the ETH devs were inactive there would be no way out.

Bitcoin has clear alternatives like Rootstock and BU, and whether or not people like them is another matter - the point is that Bitcoin has the opportunity to change, while ETH's development is so heavily centralised that its path seems fully dictated by Buterin.

More tokens could be created in future versions for all we know, considering that they hard fork at a rate of fifty hard forks per second.

ETH is like the evil genius of the crypto world, getting bigger and more evil as it goes on.

Unfortunately it looks like the blockchain tech surge is finally reaching its peak.  To be honest it was just empty speculation - you could have literally picked any coin in existence and held it for a couple weeks and you would have more than doubled your money.  Even the most obscure shitcoins in existence have got pumped, all at the same times.

Christ, the Internet is weird.

Anyway, good luck OP.  Don't get caught up with all the high gains - they can't last forever.  And make sure that a lot of your profit is realised, in case something bad happens. 

It's a risky game you're playing.  Just make sure it's based on skill rather than luck.

It's a slowly developing system.  It's something which is made far more practical due to blockchain technology, but I would personally still give it a couple more years before I start throwing all my coins in their direction.

The low liquidity is just a side effect of the fact that they're new.  I'm sure that'll change with time and with suspicious outages from Poloniex.

Signature campaigns are just private companies deciding to advertisement campaigns by getting users that they regard to be "trusted" (those with higher ranks) to post.

The way I see it, a "rating" system which changes people's rate of pay would increase the level of spam, because it would create the idea that signature campaigns are directly endorsed by the forum, when in fact they're just an accepted part of the free marketplace.

Furthermore, anyone who is suspected of being a spammer should be banned.  Period.  They shouldn't be given partial pay because they're a spammer... just kicked out.

ETH and LTC are both listed on Coinbase.  For credit cards, that's probably the easiest choice as long as you don't mind verifying your identity.

A country doesn't "adopt" Bitcoin until a large number of people begin using it, regularly, as an alternative to fiat currency.

Allowing something to exist does not encourage it, and a few merchants accepting it in addition to fiat does not indicate adoption at all.

Any price rises which happen from this would just be empty speculation, not based on actual users.

Yep.  For that kind of purpose, Jaxx would be ideal.  You could also try depositing some Bitcoin that you bought into an altcoin exchange like Bittrex and then withdrawing from there into your wallet, which would avoid potentially high fees from Jaxx (I think their fees are 1% or something - integration with Shapeshift).

No, you're basically right.  Most of these coins are seldom used for anything other than speculation, and sometimes they die a quick death (or, let's say, drift into inactivity - real decentralised coins never die as such).

Sometimes their speculation is okay though - ETH is usually not used to buy anything, but due to the possibility that it could be used to help the creation of wider blockchain applications, its price has rose and is fairly unlikely to fall even though it's somewhat centralised.

-Cloud mining, excluding Hashnest, Genesis Mining (shady) and Hashflare.

-"UK registered" companies

-Online wallets which claim to provide anonymity

-Phishing for blockchain.info wallet users (and sometimes other users)

-Any Bitcoin mining software which is supposed to be for your PC

There are many more and the obvious Ponzi scams, but I'm basing this on the assumption that you're not an idiot.

Wirex is automatically paying the appropriate fees for your transaction.  They're not service fees (a small amount could be), but miner fees for Bitcoin transfers.

The fees are not about how much Bitcoin you're sending, they're about the size in bytes of your transaction.  So if you sent larger payments, the fees relative to them would be much smaller. 

Currently microtransactions are impractical with Bitcoin due to the clogged network, which is resulting in high fees.  This will change if/when scaling is implemented, but until then sit tight and keep it to large transactions or deal with the high fees.

Not really.  Jaxx is good for someone who uses multiple coins on a regular basis, but if you want cold storage and long-term storage you'd be best off creating separate paper wallets for each coin.  You could have the paper wallets in safes, bank deposit boxes or buried, to give some examples.

You could also try using a TREZOR with multiple passphrases including a decoy.  Then you're quite safe from 5-dollar wrench attacks, hacking and nearly any other problems I can think of.  

I'm pretty sure you can store Bitcoin and Ether in the same TREZOR, using MyEtherWallet as well as their regular one.

It all depends on the level of security you want.  If you get Jaxx it will probably be okay, but you're susceptible to viruses and you might not know if something happens since you wouldn't be accessing it regularly.

Most people are saying hold, but if you have more fiat garbage to spare then you should buy.

If you ever buy right before a dip, just buy the dip as well.  Buying 1 Bitcoin at $2000 when the dip happened would have made your average price $2250, which is pretty much what the price has just recovered to.  So then you basically wouldn't have lost anything at all.

The difference is that Satoshi created a peer-to-peer digital cash system, while Buterin utilised smart contracts to create wider blockchain applications.  ETH is centralised in terms of development.  Active development without controversy from different devs = centralisation.  ETC could potentially be a competitor so to speak, but smart contracts could potentially be integrated into Bitcoin anyway like Rootstock devs have proposed.
If it did, it wouldn't matter.  They have different niches and the market cap is not an indicator of usage or even total value.  Regardless, it's unlikely.
No, but what they could do is work with altcoins like Ethereum and Ripple, which they're already doing.  That's what happens when a cryptocurrency is centralised.

It's extremely easy to transfer your Bitcoin to an offline wallet from Coinbase.  It's just like any other transaction - you get an address that you want to send to from your offline wallet, then you just send from Coinbase. 

As for what offline wallet you get, it depends what you want to do with it.  If you want ultimate security and you don't need to use it regularly, I would consider a paper wallet.  If you need to do regular transactions, I would look into a TREZOR or another hardware wallet.

I would, however, recommend using Bitstamp instead of Coinbase to dramatically reduce your fees.

P.S: most people won't mind whether you say "bitcoin" or "Bitcoin".  Personally I just use the capital for everything.

I don't know where you're getting your statistics from, but currently only a very small amount of nodes are signalling for UASF.

It could change as businesses get on board and UASF draws closer, but for now it's only considered relevant because miners don't seem to be doing anything and the SegWit + hard fork proposal is disliked by a lot of Bitcoin Core supporters.

Clever stuff.  Reminds me of the old Ledger hardware wallets but with added capabilities.

Some of these functions are already available on my TREZOR though, like 2fa, passwords and integration with other wallets like Electrum.  How much are you thinking it'll cost if I wanted to replace my TREZOR with it?  Also, do I get a written seed for hardware failure?