All kinds of upgrades are possible with segwit script versioning, a big one is privacy improvements. 

It is an AVERAGE of ten minutes, but the actual time between blocks is not guaranteed to be 10.

If you truly mean a wallet, look at:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.15/doc/release-notes.md#multi-wallet-support
But I don't think that is what you want.

If you mean a construct to just group addresses together per user, using a HD wallet (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Deterministic_wallet#Type_2_hierarchical_deterministic_wallet)  per user stored in a DB is how many do it.  Nodes/miners/block chain doesn't know about wallets, at root, just inputs and outputs.

Then talking to bitcoind to communicate is an option.

Btw, going somewhere stating "x is a mess" isn't usually a good way to introduce yourself to get help, imho.  :-)

Scam.  Don't do it.  No doubt they will scam some people, don't be one of them.

If it isn't a scam, ask them to borrow 100 BTC from them, then send it back to them and tell them you'll repay them in 140 days from the proceeds.  ;-)

It is interesting that they are running a pre-0.14.0 Bitcoin Core or they have the save mempool feature disabled.  Or the had an unclean shutdown. 

Agreed with that too in principle (nothing of value), but for most people the risk (jail time) isn't worth any potential gain.  The leeches will get their blood to buy people's votes and unless you want to follow the Roger Ver route and renounce your citizenship (from the US in his case), you have little choice if you want to be compliant.  And "New Bitcoin Millionaires" probably will want to be able to enjoy their gains and to do so will need to follow the law.

Just like people were over-confident in the security of TOR and were burned by either misconfigured servers, emails, honeypots, KYC/AML etc, there will be plenty of times that misusing the anonymity of Monero, mixers, Dark Wallet and the like will leak information that will enable the authorities to follow your path of transactions.  And then you'll be screwed.

Once more wallets roll out with support - e.g. Electrum - I think usage will increase particularly when people see, "oh, I can pay 1/4 (or whatever) the fees by selecting SegWit".  Kind of like the P2SH rollout wasn't instant.

Agreed.

One open question is the impact of the BCC fork since it had/has some value.  The IRS hasn't given guidance yet as far as I am aware as to how to handle it.

When do you pay taxes:
1. At the fork?
2. Converting it from BCC to BTC?
3. Selling any resulting BTC?

Probably #2, but hopefully #3.

Yes, it is definitely confirmed.  86 confirmations so far, 0.023045 BTC:
https://blockchain.info/en/tx/db4c02c63e43a284c4b9dd0ad3206f61ce6f622e825412c8bbc37567485665ca

(you even said it had 73 confirmations in your subject!)

You need to contact their support - looks like there are several ways of doing so on their contact page - this is a problem with their service or their wallet.

There may be a method of exporting the private key from that address if you are using their online wallet or app and importing it using something else (or sweeping).

It is already confirmed as shown by the link you posted. Where did you send this that is showing it isn't confirmed?  Wherever that is, you should talk to them because either they shave buggy software or are scamming you by saying it isn't confirmed.

There is no "official bitcoin client".  One has to wonder about hese "news" services when a simple fact like that is missed.

Edit: this sounds like an ESL article or a bot translated article.

Now it appears that the server is down.

Edit:
It looks like the page is back up.

Take a look here:
http://segwit.5gbfree.com/countsegwit

There seems to be a lot of hyperbole and assumptions in here that many who have a technical understanding of bitcoin would disagree with.  Including some of the following which I see as either misunderstandings of how bitcoin works or something else.  For example:

* Who predicted it would be 4GB in 2020?  Some references to claims would be nice for statements like that.  Many people imagined that the block chain would grow as it has.  Stating that no one did is disingenuous particularly since it is clear using basic multiplication that at a 1MB block size the chain could grow about 52.5GB/year (1MB/block * 6 blocks/hour * 24 hrs/day * 365.25 days).  :-)

* Things such as SegWit enable bitcoin transactions to grow exponentially, not linearly, if necessary via lightning, side chains etc.  Plus using lightning enables micro-transactions which one doesn't need to store on-chain.

* Presumably you mean a longer fork of the block chain?  Not a longer block chain.

* Accounts?  Bitcoin works on inputs and outputs, not accounts (which you did acknowledge), private keys or public keys.  Private keys allow you to spend outputs by demonstrating cryptologic proof that you are permitted to do so.  You can't send to a public key (as above), you have to create a new input or output which out kind of mention later, but referring to it as "sent to a public key" in a technical proposal is just wrong.

* You have to reference a UTXO and somehow all wallets need to know that this could change behind their back at some point and then have some method of tying the two old and new together.

* nLockTime transactions may be impacted which is problematic for people who rely on them.

* Segwit (and other solutions or those that rely on it - lightning, side chains etc) could be impacted if the UTXO set changes behind their backs.

Hopefully you can address some of the concerns that others have and update.  ;-)

I wasn't really clear about the exact question...some possibilities:
1. Given the EDA gaming happening on the bitcoin cash chain right now, the bcash chain may have its next halving in 6-9 months (or less).  And could have another one a year or less later IF the gaming continues.  Is the question whether at that point the fees per block on BTC plus the mining reward will be so much greater than the BCH chain that the gaming would have to stop?

2. Or is the question whether after the next Bitcoin halving the fees per block will be larger than the block reward (or close enough to it) and so a fork would be uneconomical because the economic activity will remain on the main chain so the combination of fees and block rewards would be sufficient incentive to mine only the main chain?

Personally I think either way the fees, particularly if segwit doubles or triples volume while decreasing average fees while increasing overall fees per block, will be a big incentive to stay on the main chain. Likewise, once BCH has a fast halving next year, the arbitrage opportunity will decrease and without the economic activity the chain's value will drop.  That is the problem with the bcash EDA, it is gamable making the chain less stable than one would hope.

SegWit transactions are going through. Not a lot yet:
http://segwit.5gbfree.com/countsegwit

What was the transaction id?   Miners can include transactions or not depending on their fee policies, but without knowing the size of the transaction, whether it depends on unconfirmed outputs etc, it is hard to say whether it was rational or not.  (e.g. perhaps it will never confirm if its outputs will never confirm).

Segwit may (and probably will, but no guarantees) reduce fees.

No.  It is miners still signaling on bit 1 after segwit activation.

Look at:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2117726.msg21179062#msg21179062

With the current version creating segwit addresses is done via command line and that may be only for test net as of 2.6.  So, it is a question of an update.  ( https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/RELEASE-NOTES )

Now 1.

A big day/night for improvements in bitcoin going forward.

Edit:
And active