The price of Bitcoin increases as the fork date approaches as people want to get free coins to sell for a profit - so if you want to invest before the fork, you should do it weeks or months before it. Depending on the fork, you can expect to sell them from 0.01 to 0.15 BTC - that's 1-15% of BTC value after the fork.
Then the price might slightly decrease right after the fork as a reaction to lose of potential to get free coins - so you can buy it like 5% cheaper than before the fork day.
So, it's better to buy before the fork, but it comes with a risk of going through fork which might be disruptive and have negative impact on BTC short term value, you will also have to either deal with untrusted software to claim forked coins or keep your coins on exchange - so there's some risks of losing your coins if you are not an experienced user. Those risks might be small, but the negative impact would hurt a lot.

I think in that context he meant that people think that altcoins are or can be better than Bitcoin or that Bitcoin has to be a widely adopted currency to succeed. So, people underestimate Bitcoin by ignoring that it's one of the first and the best digital stores of value, "digital gold" if you like. Altcoins don't have this property because they are highly experimental at best, or have only promises for some future developments, while Bitcoin has proven itself to be very stable, secure and reliable. With this property Bitcoin is suitable to be a base layer for systems like Lightning Network, used as national reserve currency as well as used for saving by population.

They couldn't kill it completely, but they can prevent mass adoption by simply outlawing it. Most people wouldn't risk getting fined or imprisoned just to use an alternative payment system, so Bitcoin community wouldn't be able to grow to any significant size. And the second problem is mining - right now it's relatively centralized and draws huge amounts of electricity - together it makes it easy to shut it down. Without mining Bitcoin's price can't freely grow, because mining protects the network from double-spending attacks, so when hashrate is low the network becomes less secure, meaning it's cheaper to attack it, so it can't sustain above certain amounts of value.

Regulation simply means you have to follow the rules or face charges. It doesn't mean that the government has direct control and can do whatever they want - so they can actually create laws to regulate anything. The real question is whether those regulations would be successfully enforced to strongly discourage any unregulated use - and this is a very valid question for cryptocurrencies. To rephrase it - how many Bitcoin users would pay taxes, use licensed exchanges, follow any additional rules like providing their transactions logs, declaring cryptocurrency ownership when they cross borders and so on. Because it's very possible to avoid doing all this and still using Bitcoin just as those who comply with regulations.

This fork had some minor and very short term effect on Bitcoin's price - at first it boosted it since people wanted to get airdrop, then the price started falling down after the snapshot of the blockchain has been taken, but now Bitcoin's price is rising back, so there's almost no effect on Bitcoin and its hodlers.
Developers of BTG premined 100,000 coins so it's obviously good for them.
Some people will sell their airdrop while the price is still high.
But the people who will buy and hodl if will get burned when the price will crash, like it happened with BCH.
Moral of the story - don't buy and hold shitcoins.

Because Internet connection bandwidth is the bottleneck for blocksize, which has nothing to do with the Moore's Law.
Some time ago Luke Dashjr, one of Core's contributors, made a proposal to decrease blocksize to 300 kB and then have it slowly and automatically increase - you can read it here if you want.
But this kind of ideas is pretty bad because it's essentially betting on how technology will be improving in the future, and if you overestimate it you will risk damaging Bitcoin. If you underestimate it, than community might decide to fork from this protocol, just like it would fork without it. And anyway no realistic blocksize would allow on-chain scaling, so it's better to keep the main network stable and secure and build second level solutions.

Many people think that any economic, political and military disasters in the world will always fuel Bitcoin's price, but time has proven that in reality their effect is almost non-existent. We would need something like a new global economic crisis to actually feel some effect on Bitcoin's price, and even then it's not guaranteed that it will be positive, as some experts argue that Bitcoin might suffer too because people will have less money to buy it. If you want to base your Bitcoin trading on news, the news that mention Bitcoin directly should be more important than some general news.

Even if most of the countries will regulate ICO's it won't stop them, because they are unstoppable just like the cryptocurrency itself. Sure there's a problem that most ICO's are scams, but it's a very valuable element of decentralized economy, and it's the duty of crypto community to expose scams and keep it safe for newbies.
But those proposed AML and KYC checks seems rather odd, because instead of targeting ICO runners to make sure that they at least won't vanish as soon as their ICO is over, they target investors who are not in position to do any harm. Laundering money through ICO without any cooperation with its owners seems very risky and there are much better ways to do it.

Well, that's a solid advice, but I could extend it to don't voice your opinions publicly on things you don't understand. It really looks like the author didn't bother to learn more about Bitcoin and instead just gives typical arguments about "no intrinsic value" The argument that people invest in Bitcoin because they don't like stocks is not very convincing, because Bitcoin is a new technology and people would like it regardless of what's happening with other assets.

Forks can only work (meaning they become the Bitcoin) if majority of users agree with them - without support from users any fork is just an altcoin, and usually a very weak one, with no real innovation that could have made it valuable on its own. Besides, the effect of every new fork should get lower, because people to some extent base their predictions on past outcomes, and so far no fork was able to seriously compete with Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has a public ledger, so it's much less hidden than some offshore bank account. Ability to trace transactions has been around for quite a while and criminals are moving away from Bitcoin to more privacy-based cryptocurrencies like XMR.


Bitcoin is backed by community and it's better than being backed by some government, as there are countless examples of rapid devaluation of national currencies.

That's not the point, the fact that there are so many possible attacks makes it harder to use Bitcoin, and that hurts its potential for mass adoption because average users do download cracked software, click on random links, visit pornography sites, etc. In the future people will be more computer literate so maybe trivial attacks would be less successful, but some new attack might emerge. So, I'm thinking how to address this issue better, like how to make Bitcoin wallets more secure, or how to make antivirus programs detect malware that targets Bitcoin wallets, or how to get more coverage for security on popular Bitcoin resources.

From time to time people here post their stories how they got their coins stolen and there are many different kinds of attacks - exchange accounts get hacked by taking over mobile phone number, people get infected with clipboard viruses that replace addresses, there are trojans that steal wallet files and passwords, phising sites on google results and so on. And sadly, the common response from community is to blame the victim saying that it's their own fault.
However, it misses one big point - money are supposed to be easy to use in order to get adopted by the masses, and it seems like the entry level for Bitcoin keeps rising - now it's no enough to download a wallet and go to exchange to buy coins - everyone is required to have some knowledge about security, know how to verify SSL of an exchange site, use Linux instead of Windows, get paper wallet (inconvenient for spending), make a cold storage to sign transactions offline (requires a dedicated always offline PC) or spend $100 on a Trezor (which is a pretty big sum for thirld world countries) and many other precautions.
In my mind, this all can be very hard for an average Joe, especially because there's no resource that teaches everything they have to know about security. And the amount of effort for securely using Bitcoin can just discourage some newcomers from starting.

1. Move your coins from any online wallet before the fork.
2. Try to not send or accept any transactions during the fork.
3. Use Bitcoin Core client - SPV wallets may be vulnerable to SegWit2x attack.
4. If you are installing a new wallet, make sure to verify the source, since there can be maliciously modified wallets.
5. Don't hurry to claim you forked coins, learn the correct procedure first.

It's easy to regret about lost opportunities, but if you think back it was very unclear that such opportunity existed - when BTC crossed $1,000 last year many people though that that was the top and it's better to play it safe and wait for the dip - now that train is gone. This happens because buying the dip is actually a strategy for traders - they are speculating on the price and sell/buy frequently. Investors on the other hand should buy and hold for years. Many analysts predict the price to reach $25,000-50,000 in the next few years, so if it will be true people will be posting here how they regret not buying at $6,000. But the best way to make a decision about Bitcoin is to learn more about it to judge by yourself how much it can be worth instead of listening to other people.

In the light of upcoming events, you could make some infographic that explains Bitcoin hard forks to newbies to clear out any possible confusion - what is going tohappen, what should they do/not do, what is the support for different chains, etc. You can also do the same for Ethereum.
The other important topic is the types of blockchains - right now you can often hear that banks and governments want to adopt the blockchain technology, but it's important to distinguish between decentralized blockchain protocol of cryptocurrencies and so-called private blockchains.

Some of them might find a long term success, but many other will fail due to lack of fundamental developments in blockchain technology, since it is still in its early stage. Take the DAO for example - people invested 50 million dollars worth of ETH in a token that was meant to be a decentralized funding platform and it got immediately hacked and required a hard fork for the whole Ethereum network to undo the damage. A lot of token sales (aka ICO's) are just scams that don't actually plan to work on anything - they just have whitepapers and well-designed ANN's to lure investors. So, in general it's a bad idea to hold many tokens for a long term and hope that they will increase in value.

Around August 1st many mainstream and crypto journalists were saying that Bitcoin will split in two and that its value will be divided between two chains. However, it turned out that it's not how it works, because investors usually don't sell BTC to buy a new fork - they do it with their BTC so it didn't cause any direct damage to Bitcoin's price. It's also not true that forks drive new investors away from Bitcoin - forks are altcoins so they compete with other altcoins. So, on economical level forks on their own don't posses any major threat. On a technical level, Bitcoin protocol was designed to withstand any attacks, so if you are running a full node any fork is just invalid chain and can't harm you. There may be some problems if you run online or SPV wallets, but they are not part of Bitcoin's original design,  so users should use them at their own risk.

Obviously he didn't use a single address for mining, instead he used a new address for each new block. Due to this it's hard to tell for sure how many coins did he mine because there may have been some other early miners. The theory that Satoshi owns around 1 million coins is based on alleged pattern in mining that can be noticed in the first year of Bitcoin mining.
If you want to read the full theory, you can check it here - https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/

You understand coins correctly - they are created with a purpose of being used as money. With that in mind, it's easy to define tokens - we can just say that tokens are any crypto (or blockchain) assets that have purpose other than being used as money. Tokens can represent some property or some digital goods, they can be securities or used as internal unit of value of some network.

Here's a good image from reddit that sorts some popular cryptocurrencies by their types - https://i.imgur.com/SJMeCBU.jpg