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.

I'm not sure what you're on about here.  There are quite a lot of topics about Japan, but the reason it's not completely dominating the whole forum is because it's not actually that relevant.

The amount of real adoption isn't going to be that high.  While Japan is very good at pioneering technology, the government has basically just legalised it and accepted that it has the properties of a currency, which could be said of a lot of things.  The way that it's being phrased by some people implies that stores are accepting it as if it's fiat, but in reality very few stores are actually accepting it yet.

If the price rises from it, it'll either be from adoption in the future when knowledge of this has matured and stores accept it more or it'll just be from speculation about people adopting it in the future (from people like you who are too optimistic).

Coinbase has a trading volume of about $4,000,000 in the last 24 hours, for Bitcoin.  It's basically impossible for anyone to make the price drop that low and if they did, they would spread it across several exchanges because doing that would make them lose all of their money.  The only realistic prospect here is a glitch, I'm sure it'll be sorted out.

I think both manual and automatic Bitcoin or altcoin trades are important to be side by side.  Any attempt to automatically trade Bitcoin with fiat would be a bad idea, and that's the key reason why this site is definitely a Ponzi, along with the fact that as far as I'm aware their returns are consistent - no real service could get the same amount of return regularly.

For altcoin trading, there are services like Gunbot and C.A.T which can sort of do it for you, but not straight away from an investment.  You need to have some awareness and control over it yourself to be successful.

To some extent it is the safe haven asset scarcity which makes Bitcoin one of these asset classes which people put their money into.  Also, since the amount of new Bitcoin that's introduced is set and can't change, that makes it a better system for scarcity than gold, which could be mined more or less often at any time.  Quantitative easing is just a factor which leads people to turn to assets or currencies which have the feature of save haven scarcity.

Unfortunately there's no other coin which is as stable as USDT and can actually be traded on most exchanges.

USDT are annoying in that they're regulated by a third party (them) and so they're not a real crypto in any conventional sense.

Your best bet is to try cryptocurrencies that are stable without being tied to the value of a specific asset.  I think the currency Xaurum is claiming to be backed up by gold - not sure if it's true but their value has been stable or going up for a while.  You could also always find a non-scammy shitcoin with very little trading volume and maybe its price will stay pretty stable low down.

It's not like Core supporters never stir up drama with their posts.  I don't support BU but it's pretty dumb to classify BU supporters as overdramatic or conflate that with the legitimacy of the cause, which is never determined by its supporters.  Also, seems like you're trying to dramatise a drop in support from about 40% to about 38%, which is really insignificant in itself.

Bitcoin won't be destroyed by any blockchain currency from banks.  It would be a centralised coin mined by banks with a huge premine that results in "stabilised" prices with its mass adoption (and inflation, for that matter).  People who are genuinely interested in Bitcoin or in proper cryptocurrencies would keep their money in that Bitcoin or cryptocurrency, especially since people's identifiers in a blockchain from the bank would most likely be very traceable by banks and governments.

Bitcoin is overvalued if you only view it as a currency rather than a store of value, but in my view it's both.  It's important that its asset-like qualities are recognised by investors due to its artificial scarcity and that will result in huge price increases which are necessary for stability and potentially more adoption in the future.

He's not a developer, just a lucky early adopter who owns like 100,000 Bitcoin and the domain Bitcoin.com.  He has a lot of money but not a lot of brains, hard work or relevance except for his influence over the market.  He always talks shit because he doesn't have anything to say for himself except that he has a lot of possessions and he's a "voluntaryist" (the anarcho-capitalist route is where a lot of rich people head, I wonder why).

You deserve to lose all of your money paying the people that you stupidly tricked people into throwing away "investing" in the most blatant scam site ever created.  Their tricks are very simple: offer a free service, don't pay saying that you need a long wait and they offer a premium service and hopefully most people pay for that.  If they don't, wait a while longer then accuse them of opening multiple accounts giving them the opportunity to upgrade again, or just ignore them.  Anyone with half a brain could have realised that, especially since it's basically exactly the same as Bitminer.

The liquidity of an exchange might be pretty low but because of arbitrage the prices can't drift too far apart so the price on all the exchanges are linked (within reason).  So overall the tiny price fluctuations on each exchange don't matter that much unless you're a day trader, in which case it's good for you.

F2Pool are very confusing.  I don't think they'll keep actually signalling SegWit and following the users' opinions, I think they might be messing with everyone like they have been for weeks.  We'll see if they keep going though.

The Antminer L3+ isn't a Bitcoin miner, it's a Scrypt miner (different mining algorithm, you would probably be mining Litecoin with it).

Monthly, you'd be returning at least a few hundred dollars, currently, but the reality is that the difficulty would rise a lot when the miner is released as loads of people will buy them, digging into your profits.  Your electricity costs would also take up part of the profit, and the Litecoin exchange rate might be lower by then.

If you're looking to mine Bitcoin, there are several other BITMAIN machines you can look at such as the Antminer S9.  You could also look at Avalon miners if you want.