If this is not an attempt in FUD, I don't know what it is - so many random statements that this is just absurd. There's nothing inherently wrong with the forks - Bitcoin is an open source project, like Linux, for example, and anyone is free to create their own versions. Sadly, it is sometimes misused to attack Bitcoin by declaring that forks are "the real Bitcoin", but this is not a threat to Bitcoin - 99% of the community is not buying it and see that it's a scam. Now, about the blockchain - it's simply a database, a ladger and without mining it's worth nothing - and Bitcoin is the most successful application of it, unlike all those corporate blockchains. Satoshi is free to do with his coins whatever he wants, and the fact that he hasn't touched them may very well indicate that he approves Bitcoin's direction or at least not going to oppose it.

People are not wrong when they say that forks are the new ICO's - it costs almost nothing to create a fork, even much less than running an ICO, since you don't have to spend money on ANN design, whitepaper, bounty campaign - and exchanges are very welcoming because more coins means more volume, and more volume means more fees - and the list of exchanges that support BCD gives a good idea what kind of a coin this Bitcoin Diamond is (spoiler: it's a shitcoin). The only advice I have to give to newbies: don't chase the hype, don't buy and hodl shady altcoins, keep your bitcoins safe and be very careful when you decide to expose your private keys to software other than official Bitcoin clients.

Is anyone seriously using altcoins? Did you ever see "Waves accepted here" sign? Have you seen any successful use for tokens, smart contracts and whatever other stuff they claim to have in their whitepapers? Because so far the most successful use for altcoins was ICO scam and pump and dump schemes - no one actually accepts them as money, unlike Bitcoin. And Bitcoin wouldn't reach current price if developers were introducing buggy, half working and highly experimental code - because when it comes to money and assets, people want stability first - no one wants to lose their value due to bugs, hacks and failures of developers, as well as outright scams.

First, you are using a very outdated software and fee estimations of even the latest Bitcoin wallets are pretty bad, so in order to use Bitcoin correctly you have to check manually the current network fees.
Multibit also stop being supported around half a year ago, so you really should have imported your seed to a better wallet. Basically, in Bitcoin it's always the best to make your research first how to do everything properly and only then starting using it - there are many things that can go wrong.
Sooner or later your transaction will get confirmed, so you shouldn't worry that it will be lost. Also, transactions are processed by their fee/byte so it's hard to tell whether your "$.81" was enough or not - if you had many inputs than you might be close to something like 1 satoshi/byte and you'll have to wait really long.

Gameplay is the most important part of any game, features like cryptocurrencies don't make a game automatically better, but they can easily make game worse. If it's easy to turn a game into a source of profit, it will attract botters, and if spending real money will provide players with advantage it will turn a game into "pay to win", which is considered unfun by most players. So, it's very likely that such game won't get any mainstream attention, will have tiny playerbase and will be barely profitable for developers in best case.

Anyone who has even the slightest understanding of how cryptocurrencies work knows that fees is a problem of all cryptocurrencies, because there's not enough space and bandwidth to process enough transactions to be used as a currency. All those coins that claim to be scalable with their 4-8 MB blocks or bigger are in fact having cheap fees only because no one uses them, so if all PayPal users switched to Bitcoin Cash, for example, its fees would skytocket to something like $30 per transaction, while the node count would drop to a couple of data centers, defeating the whole purpose of cryptocurrency.

This is absurd, you can't just tale past charts from completely different industry, apply it to Bitcoin and make any sorts of conclusions. It's not even right to take past charts of Bitcoin and extrapolate it to the future saying that Bitcoin will be worth millions in 10 years, because eventually the rally will have to slow down and the price will stabilize, there's also always a tiny possibility that Bitcoin will fail, either completely or just crash to low levels and stay there. Many people are expecting crash now, because we had many crashes in the past after big gains, but it took a few years or even a just few months to break even, so if the history will actually repeat itself, it will be far less than 30 years to recover from investing in the wrong time.

It is already possible to download blocks without the Internet via satellites, if in the future it will be possible to also send transactions, Bitcoin will become even more attractive as "survivalists reserve". Also, nuclear war isn't the only doomsday scenario, there are many other possible disasters that won't lead to a widespread loss of electricity. And gold also has it's own disadvantages - it's very likely that governments will quickly seize it, it will be troublesome to use it as a currency without coinage, it's harder to store than Bitcoin and so on.

Sure cryptocurrencies can't compete with banks at the moment because they can process only a few, or a couple of dozens transactions per second, but technologies sometimes can be improved very rapidly, so it's quite possible that within the next 5-10 years cryptocurrency protocols will get major improvements that will allow them to boost their capacity and provide new additional benefits to their users. Besides, the demand for capacity grows gradually, and Bitcoin can easily be used as currency today as its fees are quite competitive, unless there is a spam attack or difficulty manipulation due to miners hopping to forks.

First, keep in mind that you don't have to buy exactly 1 BTC, you can invest just $100 or $1000 or $20 because Bitcoin can easily be split into smaller units.

Generally, before you invest into something you study it first so you can form your own opinion where the price will go or how it will react to future events, how risky it is to invest and many other things.
If you will have knowledge you will also be able to protect yourself from hacking, accidental losses of funds, all sorts of scams, including minority forks that claim to be "the real Bitcoin" and so on.
When you will make your first buy, there will always be a possibility that it will crash, maybe for a very short term, maybe for longer, but I suggest to treat Bitcoin like a long term investment and hold it for years - trading can easily decrease your portfolio, especially if you are a newbie.

To perform fundamental analysis for Bitcoin you need to take into account things like it's current and expected adoption rate, roadmap of technical improvements (for example, Lightning Network might significantly boost the price, or maybe we're having current rally thanks to it as it is already priced it), economic situation in the world, Bitcoin's legal status and some other things. In Bitcoin the magnitude of effect is extremely important - not so long ago people panicked like crazy because "China banned Bitcoin", but the trend quicky reversed and the price now is more than 2 times higher. This means that the influence of Chinese exchange closure was not strong enough to crash the market and other factors were stronger. But in general, I believe that any Bitcoin analysis is very weak in short term because the price is influenced by speculators and very rich investors, so it's quite unpredictable. It's better to follow the long term trends like general interest in cryptocurrency from population, especially as currency/store of value and not just speculative investment.

Scamming is not the only problem of ICO's, because essentially they are startups and startups have very high rate of failure in general, although it's not 90% like many people believe - on average it is closer to 60%, but during the dotcom bubble it was 80%. Scams contribute to a a big portion of ICO's failure rate, but without them it will still be very high, because blockchain can't be easily applied to everything and improve it - blockchain has it's own downside like being far less efficient or requiring strong decentralization and mining to actually enable its security. Plus, there's still very few working blockchain apps - Bitcoin is quite simple and still it took many years to polish it, Ethereum's smart contracts are still buggy and lead to big losses of funds sometimes, so actually implementing blockchain for some complicated project would require some very talented people.

Connecting people from poor countries to global markets is already a great achievement of Bitcoin, which often gets unnoticed because people from first world countries rarely think about the other parts of the world. I'm sure that this forum and Bitcoin freelancing platforms have already helped many thousands of people to get  much better living conditions than if they were going to their typical day job in their country. So, if anyone will be saying that Bitcoin is useless, remind them that the ability to send money to any part of the world, bypassing all borders, fees, conversion rates, taxes and regulations can be extremely valuable, because there are places where no traditional payment systems like Visa or PayPal can reach.

This is just a FUD and masked altcoin/hardfork propaganda. To say that Bitcoin can not succeed because it doesn't have centralized development is the same as saying that open source projects are impossible, and this is obviously wrong, since there are thousands of successful projects that has been around for many years and even decades. It's also a lie that there's some "civil war" going on in Bitcoin community, as big blocks supporters are just tiny minority - it can be proven by the fact that Bitcoin's price remain stable and growing despite all the forks that happened recently, low node count for those forks and the fact that there's very few real users who support forks - most of them are just shills with fresh/farmed/bought accounts.

Bitcoin is still very volatile and much riskier than traditional assets like gold - and even though the last year it showed astonishing performance, it would be extremely risky decision to but a whole budget of a country on Bitcoin. Things like public healthcare, education, transport, law enforcement and military and many others are all funded from national budget, so it will go up and down 10-20% in some days it will extremely destabilize the whole nation. The only way to make it work is to put only a small fraction of country's budget into Bitcoin - just 1-2%. This way it will be possible to accumulate some big gains in the upcoming years without taking too big of a risk.

More and more people started realizing that most ICO's are just scams, so it is even expected that altcoins and tokens might crash soon. As of recently, we've seen almost no influence on Bitcoin's price from ICO's - when they were banned in China and other countries, the price of Bitcoin was very stable. People no longer buy Bitcoin to participate in ICO's, because all ICO's are run on Ethereum these days, so ETH is the coin that is the most likely to dip due to negative events on ICO market.

Well, it is very unlikely that Roger Ver will face any legal consequences over this blatant fraud, because Bitcoin is so unregulated (which is good!), so it is our duty, as community, to warn newcomers and unexperienced users the dangers of visiting places like Bitcoin.com. This should be brought to attention on social platforms like this forum and twitter, as well as on popular Bitcoin blogs, Facebook groups, etc. It's a serious issue, because sooner or later people will lose their money when BCH will crash and die, which will happen when people like Roger Ver will decide to stop supporting their coin for any reason.

Sure, if someone from those agencies made such a statement, Bitcoin's price would suffer in short term because speculators and newbies will panic, but unless that statement will be backed by moving some coins from the early blocks, it will be viewed just as FUD and manipulation attempt, just like it happened when Craig Wright claimed that he is Satoshi. But it's really unlikely that it will ever happen for two reasons - if it's false, those agencies wouldn't bother damaging their image by making false claims and if it's true, than they would do their best to keep it secret so more people will keep using Bitcoin. But since in 8 years no one found any backdoors in Bitcoin, it's extremely unlikely that there are any.

Yes, compulsive price checking is another bad habit that is popular among newbies, but also season Bitcoin users. It's much better to create a strategy for yourself like "I'll sell Bitcoin when it will reach X or drop to Y" and then just check the price no more than 1-2 times per day. Checking price too much leads to additional stress and sometimes people might make rushed to decisions known as "panic sell" or "panic buy" - and in many cases panic-induced prices are very short-lived, so people who panicked find themselves in a loss, especially if they have sold (with buying it's a bit different because if you are hodling for a really long time it doesn't matter much what was the price at the moment of your buy).

They can't just decided to switch to another altcoins, because they have to mine on the chain with the most rewards to stay profitable - otherwise they will quickly go bankrupt. And if they would switch to other chain, it doesn't mean that it will automatically gain enough boost to its value to make it profitable - users don't care about it, they want security, decentralization, immutability. If the situation was as you described, Bitcoin and all cryptocurrencies would die years ago because it would mean that they can't deliver their promises.