Bitcoin is even more useful for the transfer of small amounts of money due to the bitcoin not working on a flat fee plus percentage model.
 Paypal charge around $0.30 per transaction plus 2.9%. That means for a $100 transfer you're paying around $3.20, but to receive 100 $1 transactions you're paying $33.90.

I don't use a new address for every transaction, but I do change my address regularly. If you use Coinbase I relieve that it will automatically update your address to a new one, but the old address remains associated with your account so you can still receive any funds which are sent there in future. Of course Coinbase will still know of the link between your accounts, so it's not 100% evasive but harder to track through the blockchain.

The way I look at is that changing addresses is good for privacy, but unless you have a specific reason to try and evade tracing then just changing regularly is more that enough

I don't think it will become the norm by 2022, to do this the volatility of bitcoin would need to drop significantly. However, as it starts to become more widely accepted I would think that the price would become less volatile (ie if you could buy a coffee for 0.005btc then you've got a constant reference point for what it's worth) and as people learn more about it the price should start to stabalise.

Perhaps the banks concern isn't that you are buying bitcoin, but that you could be buying it and reselling it without meeting any local Anti-Money Laundering / Know Your Client requirements with each sale. In some jurisdictions it could be argued that if they suspected this were happening but didn't look into it that they may be an accessory to the crime. Similarly, a Credit Union might not want the risk of being associated with Bitcoin due to the media attention BTC has received in the past regarding links to crime.

Although you are just building your BTC savings, the bank don't know unless they ask. If they cause too many hassles then it might be worth considering 'voting with your feet' and banking elsewhere .

In my opinion, cloud mining or rig rental doesn't make economic sense. If the owner of the rig was charging you less money for the rental than the bitcoin the rig would be expected to generate, then they would be better off just mining for themselves. The only real benefit I can see to rig rental is a way to test out how specific hardware actually performs if you were contemplating a purchase.

This is an interesting concept - essentially the loyalty coins would be mined by the company providing them and consumers could use them for purchases. There would be the benefit that the coins could only be spent at participating retailers as opposed to giving out bitcoin that could be used anywhere, however I'm note sure that there would be sufficient benefit of using a bitcoin style protocol as opposed to the current systems they are working on - the individual user of loyalty programs has no vested interest in confirming that all prior loyalty purchase transactions are valid, nor would they be likely to value anonymity given the limited use of the coin (further, it's doubtful that corporations would want them to be anonymous - collecting user data is a major benefit for loyalty programs.

The main benefit I could see would be that users could potentially trade loyalty points amongst themselves - for example, if you pick up my dry cleaning on your way into the office, I'll send you enough Starbucks Points to buy yourself a latte.

Someone could definitely steal your list if recovery words if they really wanted, but really you shouldn't be writing them down on a piece of paper with the header 'my bitcoin wallet recovery words'. For example - What if you were to number specific words in your dictionary? Sure, someone who knew what they were looking for could still steal it, but the vast majority of people wouldn't realize what it was even when looking at it. Security isn't just physical - it can also be obtained through obscurity and storing data in an unexpected way.

Payment received thanks - I'll check back later and see if I can contribute further.

Just an idea, but would editing out bitcoin addresses on the site after payment is made be worth considering? That would prevent visitors from wondering why a lot of comments have Wallet addresses randomly at the bottom 

There is an investment tidbit that 'time in the market beats timing the market'. Very few people an accurately and consistently predict price movements in the short term. There are only a handful of stock investors who can  provably time the market on an ongoing basis, so what makes bitcoin any different? We don't know what events could unfold tomorrow - bitcoin could be accepted by major retailers (boosting demand) or world governments could find a way to track and tax bitcoin transactions (lowering demand). Major accounts could be comrpimised and the risk of BitCoins being stolen could increase. I'm not saying either event will happen, you can only bet on what you think is likely.

The fact that people have made significant profits doesn't mean we should dismiss the concern of bitcoin being used for illegal activities. I'm sure that the early sellers of cocaine probably made a fortune off of it, but that doesn't make it legal or acceptable. The anonymity of bitcoin can certainly be a legitimate tool to enhance the lives of those living under censorship, but we can't prevent it also being a tool for facilitating illicit markets, terrorism or other illegal activities. That doesn't mean we should ignore this risk just because w are making money.

In my opinion, the key difference here is that it would be extremely difficult for a large percentage of the worlds cash holders to not spend any cash, whereas it would be possible for a large percentage of bitcoin holders to not spend bitcoin. The average cash savings rate in the US averages around 5.7% (https://ycharts.com/indicators/personal_saving_rate), and even in extreme cases it's rare for the savings rate to exceed 80%. In contrast, I would think that over 10% of bitcoins in circulation may be held long term for investment purposes.

Saving bitcoin isn't 'anti-bitcoin' but at the same time liquidity is a key feature required by currency.

This is definitely fake - why would anyone who stumbled across a way to cheat a gambling site post how they did it on youtube? That would only bring the attention of the site owner who would then close the loophole and 'ruin' the exploit - in turn costing the person who discovered it the future profit they could have gained by quietly cheating without raising any attention to themselves.

The instruction document linked in the video also has a dead giveaway that it's fake - it states that you need to withdraw your winnings without refreshing or reloading the page (which would cause the script to stop running). Once the funds were won and in your account, what would it matter if you were to refresh the page before cashing out? My guess is that the script will end up recording your password so that they can later drain your account.

As opposed to renting a safe deposit box at the bank to store your wallet information, many banks offer a 'secure document' or 'secure packet' service where they only store an a4 envelope of documents for you at a much cheaper cost. You can use this service to store details of your wallet information, but also copies of your Will, any power of attorney documents, your passport and your insurance policies as well.
You could then leave this packet to your heir in the event of death, or alternatively you can arrange for your heir to be able to sign the packet in and out of the bank by themselves - this might not always be the best option, but if you've got unconditional trust with the heir (for example, my wife can sign out my packet, but we also have joint bank accounts and live together so it's not like she wouldn't have access to my information or assets anyway!).

Regardless of the fact that no government would allow for fiat currency to be disbanded in favour of bitcoin, bitcoin also has a significant disadvantage in that it requires network infrastructure which physical cash does not. In the event of prolonged blackouts (such as those caused by cyclones or floods), there is already an issue with stores not being able to accept credit card payments - an issue that would also apply to bitcoins assuming that internet connections were down (or if your digital device with your wallet ran out of battery!). Because of this, I think Bitcoin will remain an alternative payment method as opposed to replacing fiat currency.

There will always be negative events in any financial market. 'A Bad year for bitcoin' isn't defined purely by one or two negative events, or the fact that bitcoin values haven't grown as much as you would hope (which is still around 39% since January 1st - an above average result for any financial market).
Considering that bitcoin is becoming more widely accepted, 2016 could be seen as a success regardless of the change in bitcoin value - for example, you can now spend your bitcoin at Dunkin Donuts. This is a massive win for the acceptance of bitcoin into society.

'Paying yourself first' is a great concept for saving for a goal - every time you receive your income, set aside the amount you want to save and then only spend what is left. If you spend what you want and then try to save what is left you will find that you often won't have enough left to meet your goals.

I also recommend avoiding credit. With the exception of a home mortgage, avoid debt where possible. If you can't afford to fund a purchase now, then you probably can't afford to fund the purchase plus the cost of interest later. I still use a credit card to gain reward points, however I pay it off in full each month.

Thanks for the offer TraderMan - I've made a couple of comments on posts I think I can meaningly contribute to. Always nice to put my economics degree to use
My username is different, but my wallet code (195g9N7Brzuq1DV9UVJwoMdTcmHjWTPGEx) is on the bottom of each post.

If there was a backup available, we could recover - however in my previous post I assumed that backup copies would also be included as nodes which would be destroyed. Assuming a backup did survive though, this would lead to an interesting issue where we would have to take that backup as gospel, however without any independent verification how would we know that it was accurate. Even if multiple backups survived, collusion between the backup holders could result in the opportunity for fraud. We would lose the decentralised nature of bitcoin up until that point.

Even with the torrent file available, what good would it be without any seeders? Presumably all of the seeders copies were destroyed also?

I expect that a lot of the value of bitcoin may actually be derived from its use in darknet marketplaces.
The administrator of Silk Road was arrested on 1 October 2013, when the price of Bitcoin was $US133. By 29 November 2013 the price was $US1132. This can be explained by the masses of media attention which was received for Bitcoin over this time, however the bulk of this was in relation to Silk Road. If people learned about Bitcoin by it's association with drug markets and the price grew exponentially, it's reasonable to assume that at least a portion of this growth was due to people looking to buy bitcoin so that they too could participate in illegal markets.

If drug deals were being paid for with Jelly Beans, and after the media covered the story the price of Jelly Beans exploded, it's pretty safe to assume that a portion of people are buying them with the view to buy drugs.

I'm purely speculating here, but as each node stores a copy of the blockchain, if every single node was destroyed I would think that all data surrounding bitcoins would be destroyed along with it - the same way that if every bank were destroyed (along with every copy of everyones bank statements) we would lose all data surrounding bitcoin. However, in reality this would have an extremely minuscule chance of occurring. I expect copies of the blockchain would be stored on some pretty secure servers, along with non-networked nodes (which may not have the up to date blockchain, but at least may have some data).

If every node which has blockchain information is destroyed at the exact same time, we probably have bigger issues than what happened to the blockchain (namely, what caused it).