Real "fair pumps" are terrible because you're just going to end up bidding against people who are more experienced than you and potentially being too late or setting the wrong price or something.  About half the time you're going to fail from doing this.

Unless you can cheat the system, participating in pump and dumps is a bad idea (and if you can, you're pretty shady yourself).

The only possibilities are "next month" or "never".  If it doesn't happen within about a month, I'll assume that it'll never happen and everyone should take their funds out.  To be safe, I think people who don't take their funds out are stupid, but it's okay because their loss will just help more intelligent people take their money out before it's (potentially) too late.  Suspended withdrawals and deposits - that's not a functional exchange because it means that Bitcoin can't be exchanged for fiat anymore.  With even fiat deposits blocked, it's very unlikely it'll be sorted with the banks.

Yes.  Stocks, investment trusts and pretty much everything else is based on the value of a company or something else which either has an idea or amount of business.  These things usually have intrinsic value from that idea or business, and if they didn't, the price would be in a bubble.

Stop using words that you think are clever in the wrong context.  You use "namely" in about 90% of your posts wrongly, I've seen you on all the sig spam threads.  Anyway, if you're talking about "anything which price is defined by something else" the answer is "anything with intrinsic value".

No, I'm saying that the reason Bitcoin isn't a bubble is because it can reasonably be considered an asset as well as a currency and that's part of its value.  The reason that it's an asset is because of scarcity - the same reason that gold has its value.

I've got my first payment.

Transaction ID: 716c21348ed885af022734c5f18b1b1b22f87ed531dbf65b8baee3bf0deb1

Thanks OP.

Good.  They shouldn't have loads of coins listed.  Poloniex have always been appropriately selective about what coins that they list on the exchange so that they don't end up being like YoBit and just listing every scamcoin that comes along for the hype of getting some trading volume.  It's nice that all the meaningless pump and dumps on Poloniex are at least with coins that have a reason to exist.

A bubble in economics is when the price of an asset differs dramatically from its intrinsic value.  In theory, Bitcoin's intrinsic value as a currency is defined by how much of its value is for people who are buying it and selling it in order to use it as a currency.  Bitcoin's price, in that sense, is in a giant bubble because most of its price is a speculative investment.

However, gold's price for example is also not currently defined by anything - it's just based on its use as an asset.  I could give someone a gold ingot in exchange for a resource, but it would be expensive to take it from one place to another, and the same applies to Bitcoin.  Gold's intrinsic value is also actually lower than its price, but that's because it is something that people would reasonably put money into to protect themselves from the risk of fiat currency.  This is what means that neither Bitcoin nor gold are in a bubble.

However, fiat currency is also not in a bubble for practical purposes because it's also the case that people might want to spend it but they also hold it, and wait for things to happen to it in the future, and sometimes trade it.  So basically, neither is necessarily in a bubble, and it's very difficult to tell if a large price rise is a bubble or just an increase in confidence.  The only case when any of these things could be in a bubble is when there's a very dramatic price rise with little reasonable explanation, such as Bitcoin at the end of 2013.

"Freedom for all" is just a term we basically use for Bitcoin's decentralised blockchain and the ability to have the responsibility for your own funds by storing your online funds yourself.  Ethereum, even though its development team and systems are pretty centralised, does offer the same thing but with the addition of features like smart contracts.  I don't think that a "currency" which is actually mainly for features like app development can really develop as a currency since that's not even the main reason for it to exist.

The site looks pretty scammy.  Unless you explain how exactly you would be able to buy Bitcoin using SMS without having to reveal much more personal information, I'm going to assume it's a scam since it looks like you're just hoping to get everyone's details.  Especially since you posted the support email and later pretended that the system wasn't yours.

Super high referral commission is pretty sketchy too.

Clearly this not at all a situation in which BU can just overtake SegWit straight away again.  BU is mainly supported by the same group of pools and it has been consistently been that way for a while.  F2Pool signalling SegWit means that the support will be consistently higher than BU, just like how stable BU has been for a while.

Seems you're a bit out of date or you haven't been paying attention either.  F2Pool said on their Twitter that they would be signalling SegWit due to their user feedback supporting it.  I'm not sure if they'll stick with it or whether they think SegWit will happen either, but I know that they are legitimately deciding to signal SegWit right now and while they do, SegWit will be in the lead.

So basically, you're wondering whether the price would go up if a giant global organisation unanimously decided to screw over their own respective countries by ditching their heavily regulated fiat currencies in favour of a currency which hasn't even existed for 10 years and is only practical for certain purposes.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not happening.  And shockingly, the price would go up if it did.

Clearly you're putting money into a load of completely obvious Ponzi sites and then only complaining when they don't pay you.

What you don't understand is that a website with malicious intent - the intent of disappearing and taking the money of everyone who invested - is a scam regardless of whether or not it's paying you at that exact moment.

I wouldn't be surprised if your intent is to now post a load of other Ponzi scams which are paying and try to get people to "invest" money into it, maybe with your annoying reflink.

SegWit is leading right now according to coin.dance.  Seems that in the past 24 hours (I use recent time because F2Pool only started signalling recently) SegWit has been leading by about 7%.

To be honest I just think that Wang Chun doesn't expect anything to happen, and he's just signalling to placate all the people telling him to support SegWit.

Altcoins with a premine/instamine can be okay if they openly admit it and explain how it relates to their intentions for the coin.  If they don't explain that, it's safe to assume that they're just doing it so that they can dump loads on the market when it gets big enough for them to make a profit.

So to some extent, the key is transparency.  If an altcoin or other crypto project isn't offering transparency through things like open source code (if applicable).  

On another level there's the trustworthiness of the admin - if the admin is known to have done decent projects before then it's easier to trust him/her.  Sort of within that, there's also how professional the project looks - you'd think it doesn't matter, but if they make loads of typos they probably didn't put enough effort in for it to be worth your time.

For some things, transparency can be about transactions - for example, a crypto project showing all of the transactions that happen by doing them with one public address.  That way you'd know straight away when they scam you.

I know your game York.  You make many posts in which you say a variety of things that you don't understand (in this thread alone you've misunderstood the scaling debate several times) and you contradict yourself in these posts subtly in a way that some people won't notice so that as soon as anything happens you can pretend you've predicted it.  When people check that, they look back, find the thing that you said that supports the event because they were looking for it and miss the opposite prediction.  Then they think you're great and they leave you a lovely little donation.

You can't do fundamental analysis, never mind technical analysis.

My theory is that regulations never have a significant impact on the price unless they can be genuinely restrictive because there are two kinds of people affected by the regulations:

A: People doing legal things with Bitcoin.  They'll buy Bitcoin from an exchange, probably verifying their identity, and spend it how they want to in their everyday lives.  They won't care about the regulations.

B: People doing illegal things with Bitcoin.  They'll buy Bitcoin anonymously from LocalBitcoins or something and won't be tracked by the government.  Because the government can't actually find out about these transactions very easily and people will cover their tracks with mixers, they won't care about the regulations either.

So the only effect that regulations would actually have would be how legitimate people perceive Bitcoin to be, but even so it has an audience and isn't relevant to the mainstream.  Overall, who cares?

The UK is still in the EU.  They've just voted to leave, and it'll happen in a couple of years after discussion and settlements with the EU, if they're lucky.

I don't know where you're getting that "leaked memo" from, but Bitcoin startups won't be taking nearly as much of the profits from banks as you think they are.

It'll take a long time for people to start actually putting large amounts of money out of banks and into Bitcoin.  Even by any stretched estimates under 0.1% of people in the world are Bitcoin users, and most of those Bitcoin users won't have all or most of their funds in Bitcoin.  The banks aren't threatened yet.

Larger blocks wouldn't change how feasible microtransactions are in the long term.  Microtransactions have never actually been feasible on Bitcoin because the transaction size is changed by how many payments a person has taken in order to spend that amount of Bitcoin.  Transaction fees aren't only insignificant on large transactions because they're similar to the cost of smaller ones, it's also because people who spend large transactions are likely to receive them too, so their fees don't grow very much.  If someone was using Bitcoin as a currency though and 100 people deposit 0.001 into his wallet, when he tries to spend 0.1 it'll be inconvenient as hell.

LN might change it due to the possibility of offchain transactions for them instead.  But it seems unlikely that a consensus allowing it to happen would ever be reached, and even then LN would take years to be pulled out of beta and actually be ready for widespread use or be implemented.

The conflict here is that mining really profitably and getting far with it requires a person to be wealthy.  And since miners basically have the vote for a consensus to be reached, it's a collection of wealthy people which we're trusting to vote in favour of getting less money.  Unless Bitcoin mining wasn't based on profit, which would never happen, a consensus isn't going to be reached and the system isn't going to change.

So basically, paying for coffee with Bitcoin was just a gimmick.  It was never going to be practical in the long term and people who did it thinking that it would be were just following a gimmick in my view.  My theory is that the transaction fees won't get so much higher that it's impractical to do anything, but it will change Bitcoin's key audience to what it was basically destined to be - wealthy people and people transferring large amounts of money (for example, expats sending their money back home).  There are many situations in which people who were aware enough of Bitcoin would do this and use it as a digital asset.

The price will keep rising because people who put money into Bitcoin will be putting more and more in as they trust it more.  The actual user base and practicality is unlikely to change.

There are videos of cats on the dark net, they're not illegal.  The dark net is just a kind of domain on the Internet which isn't accessible without having special software (in this case probably Tor).

The majority of things on the dark net are illegal in the jurisdiction that they're made from, but that doesn't mean that the dark net is entirely illegal it just means that the dark net encourages illegal activity by being the best available place on the Internet for it to happen.

Equally, some people say that Bitcoin, when people manage to use it anonymously (which is sometimes), is used for illegal activity.  That's true, it's more convenient for illegal activity than digital fiat.  Doesn't mean that Bitcoin's purpose is for illegal activity.

Also, not everything illegal is immoral.  There's a big crossover but a lot of reasonable dissent about governments in certain countries is expressed on the dark net where it's free.

You could try going on whattomine.com, who kind of figure that out for you.  It might be annoying switching between all the different ones though.  There's also selling your hashing power on Nicehash as amph points out, or you could mine on a pool that automatically switches between all the most profitable coins, like Multipool.

A Bitcoin address posted about a Blockchain wallet isn't going to achieve much.  I've had this problem before, the Blockchain wallet is a bit confusing about whether you have enough funds or not because their fee estimation is terrible and the wallet is pretty buggy.

There's not much to say that will help you, you can always set your own fee on advanced send and do the maths yourself to check if they're right.

EDIT: now that you've shown your address I can see that there's not a lot in it.  The Blockchain wallet is compiled of several addresses though, I get a new one whenever I receive so I don't know how it's showing that you've received so many transactions to that address.