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.

Seems like you're delusional about what an HYIP is.  HYIPs are all Ponzi schemes, that's why they're high yield and why they all collapse eventually.

When talking about how you earn the profit to run this HYIP of yours you're also either delusional or lying, claiming that you redistribute funds to investors in the scams that you supposedly hack (which would be the moral thing to do) but you also somehow pay investors more funds.  So essentially you have no business model.

You're also delusional about what the Economics subforum is.

Your main options are:

-Some even more crap/too regulated/shady online wallet.  Blockchain is pretty buggy but I prefer it to other online wallets and trust them to be legitimate.  If you don't have much Bitcoin this might genuinely be an acceptable choice.  You could also keep using Blockchain and just set higher fees if you understand what fee to set.

-A software wallet, which is a wallet which you store on your computer.  This is the most normal way to actually own Bitcoin instead of trusting a service with it.  You could get Electrum or MultiBit for lightweight wallets, or if you're really dedicated you could get Bitcoin Core (which is harder to run).

-A hardware wallet like a TREZOR, which are immune to viruses and ideal for long-term storage.

You could also use any combination of the three for different purposes.

The community is much bigger than it should be.  Bitcoin was supposed to gradually scale, and ideally I would say the price should double every time there's a halving after a sharp increase at the start.  That would result in stability for mining revenues.  It's very young (not even 10 years), and no technology that people need to put loads of money into is going to grow without building up legitimacy first.

As for spending it, I know it sounds weird but that actually doesn't matter - people hold it and that contributes to price rises which in turn brings new people which may spend it.

Regardless, people do spend it.  Bitcoin's user base couldn't be any more than a few million, and there are billions of people in the world.  Bitcoin's percentage of users to people in the world, even as a percentage of people who have access to the Internet and do online shopping, will be much, much less than 1%.  When I think about it, I actually think it's good that they're not just removing it altogether considering it irrelevant.  Bitcoin usage accounting for less than 1% for that service doesn't mean that it's not spent by the people who use it, and the number of people who use it will increase.  People are conservative with their money and you need to account for that.

It would work in the literal sense that it would be theoretically possible for someone to go to one of those and exchange their cryptocurrency for another.

But the key difference between a physical fiat currency exchange and physical crypto exchange is that physical fiat exchanges only occur in places where people need physical currency.  When they're at the airport, for example, they're in the new country and they know that they need to get the local currency.

A physical crypto exchange would have no ideal place to be, because people exchange their fiat when they get to a new place, which is through the airport.  Cryptocurrencies are global and people wouldn't go hours out of their way for a service that they could just do online.  It would even be less convenient when they're there, ignoring the journey time altogether.

When people actually do forex trading, they do that online even though fiat is largely physical anyway.

It's very important that a legitimate service has responsive support, especially on Tor where people are more likely to be suspicious because of the high amount of scams.  If they don't, and they don't even have anyone active posting on this forum despite their signature campaign, it would be reasonable to think that they're a shady business at least, if not selective scammers.  Krishnapramod is definitely right about Lutpin though, he's a trusted member and is much more likely to be able to contact them to maybe get more info.

Seems unlikely.  These things have sort of balanced out as the panic of something actually happening soon has started to fade.  It looks like the lack of a consensus is actually lowering the amount of uncertainty, which is definitely helpful to the market.  People shouldn't be moving their funds to ETH or something, they should be balancing their funds between cryptocurrencies and using them where they can.  In reality many coins aren't being used by any merchants and are only used as a means for people to gain more money - Bitcoin also has few real uses currently but its position and the reason that it exists will be as a master currency for major transactions and a store of value.  This certainty will keep the price up.

This drop is just a correction.  It was clearly pumped, possibly due to the possibility of Litecoin SegWit which is now starting to fade as it's getting blocked - the pump is just fading away to a more stable or normal Bitcoin price.

I would say that the price is going to go sideways for a little while.  Breakouts seem pretty unlikely and Bitcoin is reaching temporary stability.

I prefer Poloniex.  It's very good at listing legit cryptos even if they're ones that get pumped and dumped often.  It also has a much larger trading volume which is better, and I rely on Bittrex a lot less (especially since they're not allowing fiat withdrawals for their Bitcoin/fiat exchange, which makes me think they're having serious trouble and something might go wrong).

Poloniex looks better as well but I can't say that that matters too much to actual trading.  It's just quite pleasant.

What a stupid headline.

This news is completely insignificant.  Jaxx already supports other major cryptocurrencies, none of which Apple approve of.  Apple do not accept any cryptocurrency as being legitimate, they just vaguely accept that they will continue to exist.  I doubt Apple cares very much at all what cryptocurrencies Jaxx supports as long as they're not random scam coins.  ZCash is legitimate in that it's not a scam, which means that it's fine that people put money into it.

What is interesting though is that Monero isn't integrated into the wallet.  A case where Apple would care is probably when they believe the currency to be used solely or largely for illegal activity, and a currency which allows greater anonymity than Bitcoin is more likely to be perceived that way.  Maybe that's one of the reasons that they don't already have Monero support.  It would be interesting to see how Apple would respond to that.

Wouldn't be good for the crypto community.  Doesn't mean that it wouldn't be adopted by them.  I don't think that miners have as much principle as you think, especially when a takeover would result in more adoption from people who potentially have less principle themselves.
Bitcoin can't be an altcoin, the literal definition is an alternative cryptocurrency (alternative to Bitcoin).  It's impossible.

Wang Chun says on his twitter, "Bitcoin can't fork and won't fork", but he also thinks that SegWit would be "damaging".  So I don't think he'll be signalling either for a long time and views Bitcoin as more of a digital gold/HODL investment.

There's no real possibility except being DDoSed or hacked (or an error of some sort on their side).

Potentially, a gambling site.  People pay thousands for gambling and lose loads all the time, playing until they lose in a lot of cases even if the house edge is very low.

Dating sites can't charge very much to their users for any subscription service, so in reality they're just talking about ad revenue which is never that significant even if they have a lot of traffic from losers on the site.

Alts aren't against Bitcoin, they're developments on Bitcoin (except for copycats).

Most businesses which accept altcoins are accepting both Bitcoin and altcoin payments.  Bitcoin should be viewed as a pioneering currency, which doesn't necessarily make it the best in existence.  However, Bitcoin's long-term purpose will be very different to its current purpose.

Even with scaling solutions Bitcoin will never be as convenient as newly developed and regularly forked / less immutable alts can be.  For that reason, Bitcoin will be seen more as a "master currency" while others are traded with Bitcoin and savings are held in Bitcoin.

Seems pretty unlikely that any significant project would be going on from anyone without a specific agenda.

The only incentive anyone would have to spam the network is to make the situation appear more desperate than it is and pressure Bitcoiners to reach a consensus.  That could be from BU or Core supporters, but in either case it's not representative of the solution's overall supporters.

The ideal way of making yourself look as legitimate as possible would be to sign a message from an address which you will be using for all transactions related to this service.  Then you create a spreadsheet showing all payments to the address and their respective transaction IDs and Bitcointalk users, as well as the payments back to them.  Then every payment made to and from your service can be proved to be real just by talking to the Bitcointalk user in the spreadsheet, and as soon as you're late paying anyone it'll be visible and people will stop investing.

Depends if the announcement itself was something that would have long-term repercussions.  If he was saying that Bitcoin is useless and he doesn't like it for whatever reason, the market would forget the news quickly.

If he was saying he was going to treat Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme or make it illegal in the US, it would be permanent and have lasting impacts.  So basically it all depends on what he had to say.  Not that I think he would consider an announcement about Bitcoin to be relevant enough for something as publicly accessed as a tweet.

They should be able to get it.  The best traders should have reasonable financial incentives to reveal their strategies.  They won't tell you specific tips about what they do because it would saturate the decisions and systems that they have and make it harder for them, but telling them the details of how to do a specific strategy should be completely normal.
Experience is something that you get over many years, but understanding is something that you should be able to gain from anyone.  It's annoying when people tell others to find things out for themselves when they're clearly trying to find openly (or paid) available information.
Analysis and understanding of trading is hard, but it's easy in that you're just sitting there and not doing physically demanding work.  It depends on your work ethic and what you put into it, but the nature of trading isn't hard, it's just that successful people put a lot of work in.

While I think that the risk of "investing" in Ponzi schemes is significant and morally the decision would be in a grey area, I don't think you get the concept of these forums.  Nearly everywhere on the forum will know that all of these programs are scams and they are not trying to trick you necessarily; the chances are that users who are on there just intend to put money in early and get it back as soon as possible with added interest if they can manage it, knowing that the scheme will turn into a scam eventually.

I don't think HYIP insurance is necessarily a scam though, it's just when a HYIP owner gives some money to an insurance service so that people will feel confident investing in the program until the insurance expires as they then expect it to continue paying for as long as the insurance lasts.  It could be a scam but isn't inherently one, even though it's "investing" in scam programs.

The price going up won't result in the fees going up.  The only thing that'll result in fees going up is an increased transaction volume and total size of transactions being added to the blockchain.  If the price goes up, mining revenues will rise because the number of Bitcoin they get as a block reward is set - if the block reward is still 12.5 and the price doubles, the revenues will double, meaning that miners no longer need to receive as much of their revenue in transaction fees.

Bitcoin's fees won't actually get that bad because the transaction volume will decrease as investors store larger amounts of money in it because of the bad fees, making Bitcoin accessible to less people (thus decreasing the transaction volume, but potentially keeping the price the same or even raising it).  So if Bitcoin isn't scaled, there will be a middle ground in which transaction fees are high but not unbearable.

Yes.  If anything Bitcoin can lead to corruption much more quickly than fiat in its current form, because it makes some people huge profit which makes them corrupt and it's also much easier to control a significant amount of the network because of the reasonably low current price.  Jihan Wu has control over a huge amount of the total network hashrate despite not being one of the richest people in the world.  It may seem insignificant because banks control all of digital fiat, it means that he personally owns a huge amount of the new income in the network.

There can also be corruption from developers, which loads of people, rightly or wrongly, accuse of corruption in many instances.