BTC gambling is already moderately popular.  One of the most popular BTC gambling sites was Satoshi Dice, which at some points took up absolutely massive amounts of transactions and was even considered an attack on the blockchain.

Due to the higher confirmation times though (or higher transaction fees, basically your choice) recently, it's become harder to gamble with small amounts of satoshi, which was one of the main benefits of BTC casinos.

There's also the fact that a lot of BTC gambling sites have started banning US customers and many of them are running shady businesses which have a questionable legal status.  Anonymity is tough because governments will typically require age verification.

So basically, it's a good idea but it hasn't worked out too well in practice yet.  Ideally some "ordinary" online casinos would start accepting it.

That would be:

-Ridiculously centralised
-Unsustainable
-Impossible for people to agree on

Basically you're suggesting conjuring money out of thin air and giving it to people.  You can't do that with BTC.
Bitpay already does this for a fee of 1% (far less than PayPal and credit cards), but why consider that when you can take everyone's money with a bullshit ICO?

---

The closest thing to what you're talking about is Byteball's planned cashback program, but Byteball's supply already exists and there is no miners so it's very different.  With BTC it's impossible.

It could become worse as time goes on, but right now there's not much risk of those coins becoming less valuable because BTC-e users have the option to:

-Run their coins through a good mixer
-Convert to an anonymous coin like Monero and back

Even if they end up receiving dirty coins, they can just show their mixer's message that they received the coins from the mixer or attempt to prove that they received the coins from a Shapeshift address.

This could change as mixers and altcoin exchanges become subject to more complex KYC procedures and governments attempt to intervene very aggressively into the space, but for now it looks relatively safe.

It's not quite correct to say that BTC is deflationary.  Basically, the supply increases by a fixed amount every block.  That amount begun at 50 BTC per block (a block being mined approximately every ten minutes), and the amount halves every 210,000 blocks (about four years).

Eventually (around 2140) the total supply will have been reached and then you could say Bitcoin is deflationary because there will be a small number of coins that are lost and become inaccessible, pushing down the supply just slightly.  But even while the supply is increasing, it's very different to the modern fiat's system concept of inflation which is for it to happen for as long as possible and pray that people keep taking out loans from banks.
Bitcoin brings financial sovereignty for digital money.  I agree that this may be a problem to the average consumer, but there's no way of fixing the problem without compromising that sovereignty.

People aren't stupid though - it's not like they could never consider the fees from credit cards and other modern payment systems.

You need to look at the site more carefully.  The site is recommending the fees that you should send to have the transaction almost certainly confirmed in the next block.

If you look on the right, you can see that it shows how long the transaction is expected to take to confirm with different fees.  When sending fees of 1-30 satoshi/byte, it says that it could take between 2 and 26 blocks to confirm (five minutes to six hours).

Wallets have been recommending very high fees recently because when the network was clogged a few months ago, there were problems with them paying too low fees.  Basically they're just being cautious, but it's perfectly fine to pay lower fees than they suggest.

IMO the best unit is "bits", or microbitcoin, because 1 bitcoin = 1 million bits.

In theory if BTC was adopted as a mainstream currency (which I personally see as unlikely), and the price was 1 million dollars, one bit would be worth one dollar and you could have two decimal places (satoshi in reality) per bit.

Bits would also be effective if the price stays roughly as it is, because one bit will be worth one US cent when the BTC price is 10,000 dollars (and right now it's worth about half of a cent).

---

Even though most of us know that "one Bitcoin" is completely irrelevant, it is sort of a mental barrier for people.

It's pretty unlikely that someone will scam you when giving you Bitcoin in exchange for PayPal, provided that you wait until the coins are in LocalBitcoins escrow before sending.

It's far more likely that the person sending PayPal will scam, considering that PayPal is reversible.  That's why LocalBitcoins sellers only sell small amounts of BTC at a time for PayPal and they add extremely high premiums over the exchange rate.

---

You'd be far better off withdrawing from PayPal to your bank account and spending that or spending cash - especially considering that PayPal doesn't actually allow you to trade with BTC - but if you really need to use PayPal, you could try using the e-coin debit card.  You can fund your account with PayPal and buy BTC from there.

If you want it to be simple though, you can just use LocalBitcoins and Paxful.

So the main goal is for the coins to be a massive BTC grab, but of course no one here sees a problem with that.
1 BTC is a completely arbitrary amount.  You should invest as much as is appropriate for you rather than working towards arbitrary targets.
It's quite unusual for a person to continue trading shitloads of alts, most of which don't actually achieve a lot, without losing money in the end.

You can delude yourself into thinking you're a good trader just because the price of basically everything is going up at the same time, but if you really don't have much money to lose, you'll be pretty badly hurt in the next bear market.  Just stay safe.

There used to be a graph here showing the percentage of SegWit transactions that were being sent.

I can't see it anymore, but last time I checked it was drastically less than 1% of all transactions.  I would say that it's not having much of an effect yet.
Utter bullshit.  The development is not currently controlled by anyone, and it will not be controlled by anyone then either.  Anyone can run whatever client they like at any time.

Seems like a "proper regulated" environment would involve banning mixers, having extremely deep KYC procedures in all exchanges including LocalBitcoins, and banning transfers into more anonymous coins like Monero.  Basically it would just remove all privacy that people ever had while using BTC.  Personally I don't think that's acceptable.
It should help citizens monitor wealth and honesty in the banking system.  For tax reporting it's not really as good as digital fiat money.
People will try their best to find a more anonymous system. Right now they have cash, without cash they would use BTC or an anonymous crypto, without BTC they would find something else or perhaps use a valuable item like gold.

It takes investment to buy decent machines for BTC mining.   If you're deep into poverty, you don't really have the choice to invest in thousands of dollars worth of mining gear.

Even if you did, you'd have to convert back into fiat (probably US dollars for relative stability) in order to buy everyday goods and pay your electricity bills.

I'm not saying that BTC can't be useful in countries with unstable fiat currency - it can - but not just as a device to ultimately make fiat money.  Once the situation in Venezuela is more stable, perhaps then people will start seeing inherent problems in the modern fiat currency system.

It's a security measure from Bittrex.  When you access your account from home (or wherever you regularly access it from), you have a certain IP address which would usually stay the same.

If an attacker was trying to access your account, they would most likely be doing so from a different IP address, so Bittrex is trying to verify that it's really you who is trying to access your account.

It seems like they only added this recently.  They always used email verification for withdrawals, but since people have started manipulating funds in accounts for pump and dumps and other shady activity, Bittrex is just trying to keep your account safe.

Since it is you accessing your account, it's nothing to worry about and you should just do what Bittrex says to verify the new IP address (in my case, it was clicking a link in my email).

The ask price is the price that people want to sell it to you for.  When you want to buy, you choose the ask price.

The bid price is the price that people are willing to pay for it.  When you want to sell, you choose the bid price.

The last price is just the price that was used on the most recent trade.

It's important to note that you don't have to stick with those ask and bid prices though - you can set whatever price you want, but you just have to hope that someone fills your order.  That's why there is a gap between the ask and bid prices.
There could be two problems:

-The volume is too low in that trading pair for your order to be filled.
-You chose a different price than the bid price, so you have to hope that someone wants to fills your order

If you want your trade to be instant, take a look at the button that says "good 'til cancelled" and change it to "instant or cancel" so that the trade will be cancelled if it is not filled instantly.

The gold market is estimated to be worth between six and seven trillion dollars.

The crypto market, in total, is worth 168 billion dollars.  If we divide an estimate of 6.3 trillion by 168 billion, you can see that the crypto market is about 37 times smaller than gold.  It's also worth mentioning that most cryptocurrencies are not regarded as safe havens (the closest thing to a safe haven is BTC and even BTC isn't particularly safe).

When you consider the fact that the Bitcoin price has multiplied by about 4.5 since the start of the year, it starts looking quite a bit more dangerous and it doesn't seem like it's causing weak performance in the gold market at all.

How did you manage to get two things wrong in just one sentence?

-LN is not patented
-LN is nothing to do with lowering onchain transaction fees, that part will happen when people start sending SegWit transactions
Bait.

In the countries that I know of, BTC is already taxed when you convert it into fiat.  It's subject to capital gains tax, just like any other asset would be.  To be honest it would be pretty stupid for it not to be.
I don't see how this is new to you.  Significant personal possessions that you sell, for example antiques, would also be subject to CGT.  In some countries it's higher than 15%.

Frankly, you're very lucky it's exempt from VAT (in Europe at least, I don't know about the US).  If you want to sell it, try actually spending it at a merchant instead.

Bitcoin is not a stock and a split in BTC is not particularly similar to a split in a stock.

A split in Bitcoin can happen at any time and anyone can do it.  There is no one group that dictates when a BTC split happens, and there can be any number of splits that are utterly irrelevant because they have no support.

The only seriously bad scenario is if the new chain and old chain garner roughly the same amount of support.  I don't think the new chain has replay protection so everyone is pretty much screwed in that scenario.

When you have a famed billionaire who is respected by many thousands of people, most of which want to find out who they are, there's obviously going to be a lot of people exploiting the hype by creating lies and clickbait.

Clearly this article is bullshit.  The author has absolutely no evidence for the claims he's making.

Satoshi was hardly an idiot.  It's not like they would spend years working on a massive innovation and put lots of effort into staying pseudonymous but fail to understand what stylometry is.

Are you delusional?  We're talking about a large amount of people at real merchants paying with BTC, and they're complaining about BTC because it's not working well as a monetary system.

Somehow you're trying to argue that a large number of customers disliking BTC as a payment system would make it a better payment system.  With good money, people can do what they want, which is why physical cash is used so much for crime.

Last time I checked though, BTC is still used for the majority of darknet transactions.  I had a look at Alpha Bay a couple of months before it closed down out of curiosity, and most of the offers there were from people only accepting Bitcoin (although Alpha Bay had wallets for ETH, Monero and ZCash as well).

---

On first sight you'd think that CNBC actually knows what they're talking about.  Here are a couple of glaringly obvious errors in their article:
They imply that cryptocurrencies have "representatives" as if there's just one team that you can contact.  On the video, it just says that "Monero" didn't respond to their queries.
Bitcoin does not show the name of anyone.  What they mean is that it shows is a pseudonym called an address, which is far away from showing anyone's actual name.  Sure, people can often be traced, but BTC doesn't just reveal that information.

Yes.  You can use the same address multiple times and still receive funds to it.

However there are several problems with this, outlined in the Bitcoin Wiki article on address reuse.  You harm the privacy of others as well as just yourself.

If you do it, just make sure you understand the risks involved and the fact that address reuse is not an intended feature of BTC.  The only time when you would have to reuse addresses is when you receive payments from the same group at regular intervals and you don't give them a new address each time.