It's most likely that they're just crap, not a malware site.

Generally advertisers that are related to Bitcoin will respect the privacy of the advertisers far too much, groups like Anonymous Ads and coinurl.  That will result in dodgy ads and malvertising regardless of the service.  It doesn't make the advertiser a malware site, it just makes them annoyingly  unregulated.

Usually for ads fiat advertising services will be better for now just because of the nature of Bitcoin advertisers.  Just for being interested in Bitcoin I get a lot of ads from Ponzi scams anyway.

I doubt PrimeDice find it hard to keep their bankroll funded.  A few thousand Bitcoin isn't much to these guys, they get thousands every month bet on their casino.  I'm sure they get a huge amount of ROI.

Bankroll investments would give a reasonably good idea of how profitable it is, since casinos often give investors over 50% of the profits just for putting their money into the bankroll.  Crypto-games.net have a tracker on their profits so you can find out how profitable it is for those investing in the bankroll and therefore how profitable it would be for a casino that funds it themselves (considering that investors get 70% of Crypto-games.net's earnings).

Bitpay in that case is just used as a payment processor.  I've bought games off Steam before and it's not a problem.  Obviously Steam and Gyft understand that not everyone can pay through one service.

True.  However, every new cryptocurrency has different use cases and different situations that they're practical in, unless they're a shitcoin.  Monero, for example, has better anonymity and therefore is used by a lot of criminals.  Bitcoin will never be quite as good for that even though it can be anonymous if you know what you're doing.  Therefore, alts don't "have chances" against Bitcoin, but they do have chances to be legitimate parts of the cryptocurrency ecosystem and to help progress by innovating new solutions to existing problems without requiring experimentation or forks from Bitcoin.

It's not about Ether, it's about desperation.  Bitcoin.com don't care how many clicks they get, Roger Ver is so rich the ad revenue will be practically worthless to him.  Bitcoin.com like to pretend that the situation with Bitcoin is more desperate than it is and therefore if Ether does get pumped then other people do the FUD for them believing that all Bitcoin.com did was present the facts.  Then what happens is that people with a lot of money get desperate and give up on their preferred scaling solution to cause a high consensus hard fork.  That's the main reason Bitcoin.com makes that kind of article.

I've actually never had any problems with the Blockchain wallet, but I'm generally told that it's not a very good choice due to frequent bugs and issues.

If you're sending to the wrong address, that's extremely unlikely to be Blockchain's fault and you might have malware.  If you do have malware, I would suggest running several virus checks before you download a software wallet, because Bitcoin in software wallets can be stolen by malware pretty easily.  

When you know that you're safe, you should note that Bitcoin Core is pretty hard to download - you'll require a lot of disk space.  It's the official wallet run by the current development team and you're essentially downloading the entire blockchain to run it, which is called a full node.  The Electrum wallet is better for convenience and probably will be best in your case.

To figure that out you have to consider what YouTube's motives are for running AdSense ads currently.

YouTube is owned by Google, as is AdSense, so that means that any ads shown on YouTube will be earning Google money in addition to paying contributors.  So the main motives for paying contributors will be to encourage people to make content good enough to encourage people to view it, making Google money.  By making it voluntary they make themselves appear like a better or more morally acceptable currency and encourage people to use AdSense on their website, as people do on their channels.

Therefore, the chances of them letting people run different ads is about zero.  However, if you were really against Google's scraping for money, you could try and get people to pay you to put ads in the actual video or in the description instead, and note why you were doing it.

Despite the terrible syntax of that sentence, I think I sort of get what you're saying.  People find it difficult to spend Bitcoin online because major retailers don't accept it yet.

But I think the major retailers know what they're doing.  They're only going to accept Bitcoin if there are legitimate business reasons for doing so, which I would argue there are not.  In reality, they would get very few payments in Bitcoin and I doubt it would be particularly viable for them, especially when they're afraid of the risks associated with it, such as volatility.

I don't think they would accept Bitcoin while it's as volatile as it is because it would accept complex monitoring of exchange rates and instant conversion to fiat since in reality they're not dealing with Bitcoin and earning profits in it.

There's no reason why they would focus on your private key specifically.  They'd have to be right there in your face and some kind of real threat if they wanted to actually get it.

What sort of safeguards are there to prevent a criminal from attacking you and stealing your real wallet?  Far less, and they're far more likely to do so even if Bitcoin was mainstream.  People are unlikely to be able to recite their private key by memory accurately anyway, and the thief would have to be able to locate the wallet if they wanted to actually get the private key, which would be hard.

People practically give away their private keys anyway by putting money into exchanges and online wallets.

That's okay.  Let me give you some tips as to see how outrageous something is.

Firstly, let's think about what 7% per day would be worth if you left in that money for a year.  7% multiplied by 365 would be worth 2555% of your original investment.  If you put in $100, that means that it would be worth $2555 in a year.  That's completely ridiculous.

But it's not like that.  How it would work in practice is that you would do compound interest - this means that you reinvest your earnings so that they increase more in the future.  Not bothering to do the maths myself by using a compound interest calculator, your money would be worth $ 5,309,808,459,797.19 in a year (five trillion dollars).

Now you understand how ridiculous it is.  No bank offers you more than about 5% interest per year in most countries - why would another service give you much, much higher for doing literally nothing?

In future, try finding out about casino bankroll investments and also go to the Securities subforum in the marketplace.  You can get ~10-15% in a year with good investments, or if you're an expert trader and put work in, a lot more.  Bitcoin is an investment itself though, it's gone up by over 50% in a year and you shouldn't expect people to pay you too much interest on top of that.

There are two main factors that would stop arbitrage traders from stopping these inefficiencies.

-A high spread (gap between buy and sell price) which would decrease the profits.

-Fees from converting Bitcoin to fiat and back again, along with exchange fees, removing the profits.

It's probably a combination of the two.  BitFinex has a much higher price but they're not currently allowing USD withdrawals so it doesn't really count.  It could also be that there is some inconvenience with withdrawals/deposits on either exchange which outweighs the benefits.  The chances are that at least two, possibly all three, of these factors apply.

Even without arbitrage trading it's a good way of finding which exchange to buy on or sell on when you're buying or selling large amounts.

Bitcoin is supposed to be pretty much immutable, barring some very high-consensus decisions like fatal bugs.

Unfortunately there's not much chance of Bitcoin ever reaching a serious consensus on something that's really debatable like this decision because there will always be corruption on both sides and hashpower, even from monopolies, will be from people on different sides.

Biased question.  Mass adoption definitely isn't happening yet.  The majority of the current price is based on speculation and investors rather than adoption as a currency - the adoption hasn't increased very much since 2013 and yet we've been playing with the 2013 ATH for ages up high because of investors.

I'm sure lots of people will vote Japan, but a country accepting that Bitcoin has properties like a currency doesn't mean that it'll achieve mass adoption as if it's legal tender, just because a chain of technology related stores will accept it.  Some people need a sense of scale.

Several different trading styles can work.  Long-term and day trading can both work in different ways and people who have concrete plans based on reality tend to succeed.  You claim that the majority of traders lose but the money in it will be equal losses and gains, and in forex for example many of the losses will not be perceived as such; people trade forex when a bank screws them over with the exchange rate when they go abroad, for example, but all that they understand is that they have the right currency and they can spend.

Often short term trading can be successful if you're good at it and you understand the basics of it.  In crypto investments I would argue that it can be easier than that if you can do fundamental analysis of the coin.
Looks to me like this is a crappy self-help book and no one should care.  Traders have different strategies and people are not stupid.

I'd say that Bitcoin just transfers the responsibility from the banks to the user.  Digital fiat is very inefficient anyway, sometimes it takes a very long time for the transaction to actually get confirmed it just appears convenient to the user.  Bitcoin is for those who want to have real control over their money, and that carries responsibility as well as benefits but it doesn't make Bitcoin suck as money, it just restricts certain people from wanting to use it.

The unconfirmed transactions in the mempool don't really show how Bitcoin is as money and it doesn't show any inherent problem in the network.  Solutions are proposed and SegWit increases the transaction capacity.  Jonald seems to think that the LN is the only part of SegWit but the LN is just a development which can happen.  The network only needs an increase for now, it doesn't need such a huge increase in potential capacity as BU right now, just more than the current capacity.  The LN is just a good addition which will come later.

Capitalism gives an incentive for people to be arseholes, so Roger Ver isn't going away anytime soon and he'll have big influence because he has big influence over the market.

People often say the market has power over the price, but with all currencies it's going to end up with some people owning loads of money and having much more influence than everyone else over the market.  Roger Ver is just a random person who likes money, if he didn't have it someone other arsehole would instead.

It's irrelevant whether you can withdraw your principal.  A lot of legitimate investments won't let you either, and a lot of illegitimate investments will let you.  Doesn't mean that you can actually pull your money out because it's not like they'll give you a warning saying "we'll stop paying on this exact day, so make sure to take all of your money out before then".

Huge amounts of Bitcoin investments are Ponzi schemes.  There are thousands created all the time, and anyone who has even a hint of intelligence will say which ones are Ponzis with 99% accuracy in a heartbeat.  The list of Bitcoin scam sites doesn't even contain obvious Ponzis like this, just because you should recognise it from looking at it and not give any arbitrary requirements for the site being legitimate.

I'd say it'll have healthy growth like it did in 2016 and rise by a few hundred dollars.  

I'd be surprised to see it anywhere over $2000 or under $1300.  Since it reached an ATH near the ETF I think that >$1300 is easily possible and Bitcoin will steadily rise in value due to lots of people storing value in it and not using it as a currency very often.

So really they didn't help them, they just had bad regulations which allowed it to happen.

Generally banks don't have much incentive to support money laundering, just to allow it to happen since it makes people put a lot of money into their bank.  The problem is that since those transactions are so traceable people who do this are very likely to get caught eventually even if it happens all the time, which is why people turn to alternatives including Bitcoin for money laundering.

Bitcoin is convenient for money laundering.  That doesn't mean that it's Bitcoin's fault because it's just a side effect, but it also doesn't mean that everyone should pretend Bitcoin is perfect.  We recognise its pros, and we have to recognise its cons as well.

I don't know a lot about Ethereum but I'll answer about Bitcoin.
Yes, the blockchain contains a log of every transaction.  In theory, holding Bitcoin involves downloading the blockchain, and users who run a "full node" (a node that follows all Bitcoin rules) basically download the entire blockchain on their computer, so that's where it's stored.  It's impractical for everyone to run a full node as it has to be active nearly all of the time to keep up to date and broadcast information to other full nodes, so therefore many users just run a lightweight node, which is where a third party basically keeps the copy of the blockchain for you but you control your private keys and therefore still properly own the Bitcoin.

For people who do want to download a full node, you just have to download the most recent version of Bitcoin Core.  Currently, it recommends that you have 125GB of storage space to download and various other requirements.
I think it would need to fully synchronise, hence why running a full node is impractical for most users.  Satoshi predicted that there would be under 100,000 nodes, probably less.  It's fine though since lightweight wallets are practical for people.