the mining:market dynamic plays out that hardly ever is bottomline mining costs higher than bottomline market price.

firstly you have to realise is the market is layered

imagine it like the sea
sea level is underlying (bottomline) then above that is the waves of speculation.. market price only see's and marks the height of the waves and you really have to find the lowest height(monthly low) to find the real water level

imagine it like a bathtub with bubblebath water
water level is underlying (bottomline) then above that is the bubbles of speculation.. market price only see's and marks the height of the bubbles and you really have to find the lowest height(monthly low) to find the real water level

for instance winter 2017/spring-summer-autumn 2018 was ~$5800 bottomline value even though the price was always above that(nov 2017-nov2018)

mining is not volatile, it does not follow market.
though the hashrates of the network are not equal, its not due to a individual pool jumping up and down but different pools have different hashrates so when different pools win a block, their hashrate shows as a higher or lower number than their competitors last block solution
but none of the pools threw on 3x hash power during november 2017-february 2018.
its easy to see that pools didnt react to the $20k price jump....
...
what goes on is smart pools OTC their coins at a % above thier costs. so say costs were $5800 for most of 2018(q1,2,3,) they were selling their coin for a lil extra via OTC contracts.

it is then the buyers of thos coins that when they see the $20k number in winter 2017-spring 2018 would sell coins for profit which reacted to correct the market down

but they wont want to sell below $6k.. and the miners that had spare coins after the OTC trades wont wont to sell below the $5800 of those first free quarters. so thats why the prices never broke the $5800 barrier

as time approached q4 of 2018 (certain pools ready for testing the next gen asics) they were selling off the old asics cheap giving them more coin(free coin basically). but instead of swapping 2s9 for 1s15 (my expectation) which would have kept hashrates up. or even done a 1for 1 to raise hashrate(my hope) thy decided not to shoot selves in foot like 2013 by rushing to fast, and instead they played a different strategy. they wanted to keep hashrates low so that they were not fighting themselves too fast.
the dumb miners couldnt afford to keep running at a higher cost. so some dropped out(btcc for instance) thus leaving smart pools with a bigger slice(more blocks/more rewards) which meant even at lower network hash the pools could continue and able to fulfill their OTC commitments

pools are less caring about market prices. and more about % share of hash/block creation. because as long as they can stay around say for instance for antpool around the 13% area they are always getting around the 17-19 blocks a day which is the kind of commitment area they plan to stick around

yes antpool has the resources to ramp up and take higher % but thats just going to hurt them in regards to difficulty jumps. so reacting to market price thinking ramping up hashpower during high prices might seem good. it just going to shoot them in foot 2 weeks later, which when corrections in market happen, shoots their other foot too crippling them.

however forgetting about market price(highs)... when pools go through their plan of upping their hashrate and by the time it plays out via th OTC and then the otc buyers from that sell at profit on markets and the buyers on the market buy that, and set thier acquisition costs that third layer of buyer/seller wont sell for less. thus the markets settle to find a new slightly higher bottomline value. and it plays out slowly weeks/months. not minute/hourly.

again major mining farms do not react to hourly/daily price fluctuations (only the small basement /hobbiests that pool/coin jump do, but they are insignificant in the big picture)  

in short..
back in from 2013-2018 i been watching the hashrate and doing math on mining cost to know the bottomline costs thus knew the rough bottomline support the prices would fall to. (sorry no way to predict the spculative highs)
in august 2018 with the announcement of next gen asics my personal thoughts/hopes were another hashrate jump which would cause the bottomline support to go up. in october however i realised the pools were changing tactic by not ramping up hashrate when swapping old for new. so by the time november came i knew not to expect price rise due to a rise of support but instead a price reduction
now im just waiting for some hashrate rises that remain above a certain level for weeks to play out as the bottom line value support rise.
i dont play the games of trying to predict next ATH price. as thats just speculative and temporary drama. i prefer concentrating on knowing the lows and seeing when the lows may progress forward, as thats not volatile, not speculative and not temporary. so im hoping for the s17 or a big influx of s15 buy ups in the mining community as so far this last november2018-feb2019 has seemed to be a slow pickup of hashrate. (it's been a boring period)

true sea steading is not relying on mainland
1. food production
2. utilities(electric/heating/internet/clean water/sewerage)
3. community
4. employment
5. repairs

at the moment elwar has just made himself a holiday home in the ocean. and from what i seen is not ready to go full self sustainable to risk living a year on seastead.
when elwar can be at a point where he can truely say to himself he could happily do his own 'year on seastead' in the same manner as a couple done 'a year on bitcoin' documentary a few years ago. then sea steading is a real thing and not just a holiday home on the ocean. as holiday homes on the ocean have been around for centuries

elwar.
not theory but actual questioning. how do you deal with electric and sewerage. and please like i said no theory, so no providing premade vidoes of technology that could be used from some random source. how are you personally making your holiday home self sustainable. i seen no farming (food) or solar(electric) on the roof of the sea pod, nor any compost/fertiliser pile to recycle waste

think of it like from the proposition of people that make bomb/disaster shelters that they can survive in without needing to rely on the wider world. remember how your suppose to avoid causing harm to the environment (though you already thrown welding masks, canoe's, strutts and other things into the ocean, so not a good eco-start)

a prototype of a seastead would/should include the basics of a holiday home but include the essentials to be self sustainable. ive yet to see your holiday home even have the basics.

warren buffet is more of a commodities guy.. not an asset guy
if you watch the whole segment including other interviews he does

he would rather invest in a farm that makes corn with a yearly 5% profit.. but not invest a farms end product(popcorn) that makes 7%
because to him the farm can keep producing year in year out. but popcorn is an end product that produces nothing new even if you hold it for years

so to warren buffet the COIN bitcoin is like popcorn, it has a value but doesnt produce anything.. but the technology behind it blockchain(bitcoin protocol) has a value and can grow year on year

the issue is you cannot invest in the protocol

well you wont be one of them consultants/specialists.
maybe you can earn a bit from the comedy circuit as u had me laughing.

but bringing the topic back from your de-rail
guy asks about income from LN. i inform them that they need to process 100k transactions to earn 4cents..
im not the one saying average joe can earn millions from it

as for your mindset that LN will take the pressure off people wanting to be full nodes. but those wanting to run future fullnodes with LN interaction will end up actually being masternodes of multiple networks to allow atomic swaps.
so get the mindset out of your head that taking utility away from bitcoin under the pretense of making bitcoin lighter. helps bitcoin.
get it out your mindset that those wanting to run fullnodes and happy with LN will get a lower resource required node when they integrate LN.. they wont
get it out your mindset that LN will help covr any costs of running a full node for average joe
and please get it out your head YOUR exaggeration that bitcoins ntwork needs LN due to the "gigabytes by midnight" crap that a certain group uses to promote LN and promote why fee's need to go up before scaling bitcoins network and all that blah

anyway
back to my point on topic before doomad derailed the topic
to make just 4cents requires handing 100,000 transactions.

and guys dont worry about doomad he has been round the forum lately trying to over social dramatise discussions to try to get anyone thats talking less than optimistic about LN to be poked into other discussions in th hope that those mentioning LN's flaws stop mentioning the flaws.

h seems too financially/emotionally invested in LN. while happy with the attempts to stifle/halt/deburden bitcoins network of its bitcoin utility. from how he talks about LN.. his information is just some glossy promo material. he doesnt seem to understand the tech/code/concepts and dosnt seem to have yet even used LN. nor run any LN based scenario's even if run just on paper. but i do hope one day he does try doing some research and some indpendant thought as then his echo's will seem less of a yawn

try to do some research. i know your hoping to be employed by some DCG funded company by kissing certain groups asses and promoting thier agenda.. but just put your greed aside especially if it leads you to get so emotional that you have to get insulting.
a lesson for you.
no matter how much i discuss. does not change anything.
its a discussion forum. so chillout
if you dont like discussions, go watch eastenders to get your social drama fix
your emotional replies thinking that some how forum discussions can stop LN function.... is not logical.
CODE changes CODE. so get emotional over devs
like you said devs have no desire to implement a fee priority mechanism. thus its devs letting oncahain fee's go wild and uncontrolled while the devs promote LN to get returns on the investments made to the devs corporate partners


yes the old fee mechanism was not great, but to remove it as part of the plans to push onchain fee's up while not helping the wider community is a DEVS decision. and there are ways to enforce a fee mechanism that even miners cant ignore

are you forgetting the recent bips to reduce blocksize to push fee's up and cause people to want to move to LN
are you forgetting the last 3 years of devs coding has been pretty much predominately to make a txformat thats LN compatible.
are you forgetting that de-burdening bitcoin network is NOT scaling bitcoin but reducing bitcoin utility while also ramping up costs of using bitcoin network. thus making people dislike bitcoin more

oh wait you didnt forget. its just you on a flop narrative not a flip narrative

and again.
if you wanna just de-rail a topic and just rant and insult a discussion. then you are wasting your own time yet again

now go do some research
as its funny you say no one is talking about LN fee income.. in the very topic about LN fee income.. hilarious

here he goes again. poking the bear again
did you even read. why do you think nodes will own more than one channel. to maximise exposure to get as many people routing through them to double up income without revealing that the 3-5hops a user makes is actually 3-5 hops through one person. rather than having one node strained with millions of connections charging 3-5x more than others
a.*-1-1-1-1-1-*

b.*-5-*

c.*-1-*

(a)maximises grabbing users to get most transaction count
it gets the entity 5x more than users that only handle 1 hop
because (a) surrounds the major exchanges/merchants its not like many usrs can avoid such st-ups to get to th srvice at the centre
also using factories the service can fractional reserve, to need actual bitcoin funding the offchain 12decimal token balance

might be worth you running scenarios

this is the whole point of LN, the investors in devs want some return on investment. its why he devs paid by investors have spent the last 3+ years with a roadmap thats only direction has been a txformat as the gateway into this other network. its why these devs rmoved fee priority mechanisms and not instead put in better fee priority mechanisms. its why the devs have stalled actual BITCOIN NETWORK scaling because they want to deburden bitcoins utility over to other networks

its kind of like you have totally forgotton and got amnesia about the whole flip flops and your own comments of the last 3 years

if you are really going to try de-railing yet another topic to just be a social drama about "franky says this" atleast stick to one narrative

..
as for your point about saying no one has ever thought/suggested that people can make income from LN
well the topic creator of this very topic has.
a quick google search shows MANY people hoping to get income via LN

its actually only a few people trying to correct that narrative by showing how average joe wont make income because most of the routes will be done via centralised services using hubs to increase thier exposure and transaction count to get most out of the 'low fee' pretense

its the mining:market dynamics

when its cheaper to buy coin rather than mine it, people buy it. when its cheaper to mine it than buy it people mine it.
when prices get above a certain level and it becomes profitable to sell, people do that.

if a price exceeds this 'value' area and prices spike into speculation, expect it to correct back down into reasonable value area.
the only way to have sustained value increase is to have the costs of obtaining it sustainable. which for multiple years has been the hashrate. which while the whole sell off of s9's to be used on altcoins and the fresh purchases of s15(bing slow) to replace, and a upcoming(but not yet here) s17 range.. has not shown much hashrate rise to sustain and give the market higher bottomline support to encourage sustained growth

yes lightning is a separate network for multiple coins to use at the same time.
lightning is not a network devoted/dedicated to bitcoin.

when working out the numbers and playing out scenarios you start learning a few things.

such as most people wont want 100,000 connected dirctly to them 24/7.. (imagine DDoS risk) so not only for security but also for incrasing income without making it appear as increasing fee, they will set up buffer channels

EG
instead of the network being like below where blue is sender green is reciever and purple is you

oooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooo

it would b more like
oooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooo
where by the red is also you. thus
taking less direct connection pressure off if your main purple node as your red nodes will be doing the main work
(much like how town banks do most the work so a HQ bank just plays with the rserves of each of their own banks)
expanding your connectivity to cover more routes
when blue connects to you. you get 1millisat(left red) 1millisat(green) 1 millisat(right red)
now you can get 3millisat instead of 1 millisat while having the network still proclaim that the avrag fe per hop is 1 milllisat

...
this then moves more onto the centralisation of larger factories/ having hubs as the buffer. which then have watch towers as another buffer. so that they can reduce so many direct connections but still have more route potentials and thus more income
whihc looks more like this


where the green orange and blue are the users
the purple is your main masternode(bankHQ/factory fortknox)
the yellow is your main hubs/buffer(cloudflare DDos protection/regional banks)
and the red is you watch towers(town bank branches)

with LN being 12 decimal
0.000000000001
and people believing that fees per channel hop will be
0.000000000001

to make $~0.04 means you have to process 100k transactions
to make $~0.38 means you have to process 1 million transactions
to make $~3.8 means you have to process 10million transactions
to make $~38 means you have to process 100 milion transactions
to make $~380 means you have to process 1 billion transactions
to make $~3800 means you have to process 10billion transactions

so to make 4cents on LN you need to have enough funds to shift 100k transactions(cups of cofffee)
think about it...

(this includes running scenarios of how often youll need to do independant close/open broadcasting to shift funds(costing onchain fees))
(this includes running scenarios of how much you will have to lock into a factory(fortknox bank) to avoid broadcast when close/open funds shifting))

what people are not realising is average joe will NOT be getting rich from being a full node route channel for LN for these reasons
LN's nich will turn out to be a way to atomic swap between altcoins without as much registration KYC pressure. these nodes end up being masternodes monitoring several blockchains. thus the funny part is saying running just bitcoin is 'expensive' as the ruse to get people excited by LN will backfire, as being a full LN nod will actually require more hardware. thus defeating the initial hyp reason for LN which was to deburden bitcoin

'hype' is temporary. its just drama that is not sustainable. its just 2 sides of people fighting each other, one optimistic one pessimistic. and they just day trade off each other just hot potatoing coins between each other to get some profit, like like most day tradrs. not really taking coins out the exchang to lock up for years.

however actual coin purchasing and then taking the coins off the public markets to then use as ETF reserves. is different

imagine it this way. each day on one exchange there are only say 5000 actual coins and thy are day traded back and forth at 20 oppertunities a day to make 100,000 volume
the coins are still available and the following day still there being traded. thus no REAL lasting impact.

now imagine a company NEEDING 100,000 coins and actually taking 100,000 coins out of circulation to hold for ETF reserves.
then imagine in another month another company NEEDING 100,000 coins

it requires far LESS THAN 170 companies to take all coins (well we know not all coins are/have been available on the market)

so 'hype' is just playing with the same coins day in day out. where as ETF fresh applications requiring reserves upfront require actually grabbing coins and taking them out of public exchange circulation

think deeper

the companies applying for SEC acceptance wont cause market changes, as these companies would have already bought their 'baskets' of coins months/years ago. they have to for audit/liquidity reasons of just bing able to apply
but...
once the first ETF gets accepted. it then becomes the precedent/prototype. and then many other new companies will have a template to follow to get easy quick acceptance because they know the first one got accepted for the same thing

thus new companies not yet filing will grab coins, use the first mover as the template and bam its the second movers that will cause a market shift.
this is why many companies are waiting for news of a first mover before doing anything. as its way cheaper to get others to do the hard work, and then just copy the success

its much like an olden times armies. a general sends its first line troops onto a mine field.. stands back and waits for the path to clear, and then follows footprint for footprint only the tracks of the guy that made it to the other side

they done alot 2012~2015
much like bitpay 2011-2015
but then the whole regulations KYC, tax reporting, transaction limitations. policing its own customers became a big deal

people need to learn they are only gateway services in and out of currencies. and not to be viewed as the asset/crypto system itself

not really new news.

just check out the owners portfolio
https://dcg.co/portfolio

cambridge blockchain
Chainalysis
civic
cognito
Elliptic
norbloc

dont expect much.
seems the SEC has only just unlocked its doors and got back into its offices recently after its january-february vacation (which they dramatise as 'government shutdown')

they only just appointed new people into roles. so dont expect their cogs to be turning super quick this week

do some research
core devs call their users sheep by saying how their followers dont need to choose options due to "compatibility" "inflight upgrades" "consensus bypass" masf uasf and all the other buzzwords THEY invented for a controversial fork

im the one saying users should not be. and that bitcoin should be diverse
by the way. if you done research you would know it didnt take a mass community adoption of nodes doing the cull, to cause the cull...
.. which is another thing your not understanding.
you keep thinking that the cull pre activation would only have happened if there was a majority adoption for a cull..
seriously do some research


and before u dredge up more mis-understanding meanders from your past scripts. .. no compatibility* does not mean a node is a full node after activation while not having to upgrade. its a node set that it will accept pigeon english stripped data as valid oxford english without doing a full grammar check.
hint the data a 'compatible' node gets is not the same as what a fullnode gets, they are just set to just blindly accept.
why do you think the bahavior of 0.8-0.12 is so much different to 0.13-0.14 and why nodes released after august 2017 are treated as a whole different tier to the others.

*(compatibility, stripped, filtered, downstream, no witness, signature validation bypass... whatever new sweep under the carpet buzzword core devs use to mean the same thing)


blockchain data, CODE, stats =in my favour
stories, narrative flip flops, social drama = in your favour

if you dont wanna do independant research, dont want to listen to opposing discussions. then there is a ignore button.
just quit your flip flop social drama meanders. as its not just boring. but not original.

trying to blame me and others who have not activated code on the network as if non devs are some how some malicious attack force is the most hilarious part of your arguments. especially when you get emotionally insulting about it.. but after time, your jokes do become stale
bad code gets wrote by bad devs. so when there are controversial things that people yars later are still fighting to get resolved. then obviously there is an issue.
EG the reason people think LN is the only solution is because thy have just given up thinking core devs will sort bitcoin out. so the only optimism they have left is that some other network will do something different.

psychology: people want to find the cheapest way to obtain bitcoin.. meaning the 2 main methods of getting coin.. market:mining have a link

maturing: mined coins are not spendable instantly. so its not like mining can spend coins as soon as a market changed. so miners had to plan ahead atleast a day minimum their cost/profit. (100confirm maturing). so miners didnt just react to daily changes, they preplanned for the future

math: markets were speculative and volatile and usually have a certain amount of bubbles above the waterline (margin/profit/speculation/premium/extra) so markets PRICE are near always more than the cheapest mining costs. so the mindset was more so on mining to get coin cheap. and sell the coin for profit later to get fiat. thus mining price was mor important upfront and market react to it later

logistics: mining cant just react instantly by the minute. so its not like if a market jumped 50% today that there would be enough ASICS to react.

planning: mining is reliant on electric, and electric companies supplying farms cant just ramp up electricity capacity in seconds without risk of local brownouts. so smart asic farms preplan expansion, upgrades and switch-overs MONTHS ahead

personally i was hoping to see the october s9 sell off/s15 'testing'. to cause a increase in hashrate. thus give positive market pressure for november-february. but it seems they not only didnt want to sell off s9's to replace them 1-for-2 (1 s15 for every 2 s9 to stay at same hashrate).. but they let the hashrate slip.. thus hashrate went down when 'beta testing' the s15's thus not giving support for a stable price to stay above the (pre october) $5800 bottomline support

so with ASIC companies gathering loads of coins from selling S9's
so with ASIC companies gathering coins from mining
did not hit the market the same day as they were mined/gathered. (check blockchain data of coin rewards. they were not sold instantly at 100 confirms)
thus the markets didnt react until november

again throwing nodes off and doing REKT's BEFORE an activation..
try to stick with one narrative

anyone can code what they like. they can write code on paper, . they can use their finger and write it by pushing their finger through the dust on their computer desks. they can hand write it, type it, draw it..

but the ACTIVATION that affects the network. should not be that CORE can activate anything they like to affect the whole network but other groups cant.

no one disagrees that writing code is/is not allowed.... so stop trying to meander the discussion to be about the writing of code.
its about the method of activation my point has always been about the method of activation and how a certain feature that only garnished 35%, didnt just get sidelined and then cor went away and re-wrote new code that could be (without controversy) more universally acceptable.. instead of listening to the community.. they decided to use force and threats.. PRE feature.. to fake vote for a feature, just to activate their feature.
in short
if core stuck to bip 34 or just bip9 for thir sgwit1x they would have lost.
but their 148+NYA+bip9 that is NOT the same as 34.. is what core group done to bypass and twist and force their code onto the network.
and now as you say because nodes are following core. those core nodes can now EASILY kick out any opposition thus not giving much/any hope of diverse groups from forming to offer something that could be a true opposing free choice option in the future.

for months you have been poking at me when i have discussed cores method of activation. and you have always meandered it to sound like core deserve and have the right to dictate NETWORK rules. and then hypocritically then said how your happy that anyone not core has to seek permission.

anyway. mr flip flop. you have kept up your flip flops for months now and not progressed your research or understanding one bit. yea there have been times it appeared you finally cottoned on to the reality.. but days later you flip back and pretend the opposite occured.. hense why im saying instead of spending yt another 6 months of YOU flip flopping. please take a step back have some coffee, do not go reading your usual reddit/twitter sources and instead do some independent research, learn the cod, learn what bitcoins ethos/innovation/creation was about 2008-2013. for get the social drama of 2013+ and learn what tru bitcoin was before core. and truly have a independent thought about what, why and how bitcoin was initially created for.. then go pick a narrative of either your flip or your flop that fits the CODE, the network stats, the blockchain data..(not the social drama opinion groups) and stick to a narrative that fits whats important to the network(not core social group mantra)

then and only then will i find you less of a yawn, having to correct your core centralist mindset.
i know you wil always disregard my corrections by just throwing a bottom of the barrel personal insult.
hense why i just simply say dont take my word for it, do your own INDEPENDENT research.. but so far you just reply back with the standard scripted echo chamber remarks that dont sound independant at all.
(in short, you have become a boring echo chamber sounding off the same remarks as people like icebreaker, carlton,lauda and that group of core centralists.. even shorter.. nothing original)

lastly you keep implying that CW is some influencer.
you also seem to get emotional that when i say my opinion, that you think i am some revolutionary force trying to trojan horse the network.. what you dont realise is bitcoin is code. so unless you see code, dont treat it as an issue.
this forum is not bitcoin code. (something you need to learn in context of your recent meta category post about this forum)

the point being. stop spending months on social drama and concentrate on the code and those that write code. which in bitcoins case is core.

so yea you will continue to see me poking at core because these last couple years its been the core group that have been writing the code.. it doesnt magically appear. its not some self typing AI.. its wrote by core and lately only core. and thats the problem. lately only core.
emphasis: no diversity/decentralisation away from the core roadmap of 2015 that only want to lead things to stifling bitcoin to promote other networks to take over and "de-burden" bitcoin of its utility

so before pressing reply to have yet another social drama meander/flip flop.. try your darn hardest to chill your emotions, take a break, have a coffee and do some research. try to talk about the bitcoin network, not the core defense strategy. because i got your point months ago you want to defend core. even though they have admitted many things you 'pretend' your defending that they didnt do(further proof you lack the research of the group your even trying to defend)

again please take some time and think about "bitcoin a decentralised diverse network". and less about "core needs defending"

lastly, if you want to reply saying im insulting you, you waving the victim card will fail. people can read your post history and see your whole history of actual pokes and insults and social drama every time people dare to even question core code. so remember who is the instigator. hint: you

anyway.
i hope doomad drops his flip flops for a few months and spends the time just researching, learning and gaining a few independant thoughts beyond the reddit scripts he reads of 2015+

but as for CW
he is not a influencer and not important to bitcoin so best to just not treat him as important. let him sizzle into the background