there is no set cost. there is a range. however if you go by the minimum cost and use that as the bottomline where everyone is sat above thus everyone would refuse to sell for less than cost. that bottomline becomes very apparent

EG if you have 5 houses. 3 houses cost $350k another cost $400k and another cost $500k
you can agree that all 5 house owners will not sell for less than $350k because everyone is above $350k

so the market value of the street becomes $350k+

its actually more about hobby miners mining in their house.
they cant just buy more rigs to stay competitive. as the electric usage goes up. as ther is a physical amount of room issue and the house has a limit on power input due to capacitors and fuses and other residential wiring/fusebox limits.

home hobbiests drop off first. leaving the real serious miners (farms) with a bigger slice of the pie/pizza because a few people no longer come to the party

there was neveer $1 trillion of real wealth
i can make a 5trillion altcoin and with just $1 make a cap $5 trillion.

this does not mean that there is was or will be $5trill of real wealth.
nor does it mean bitcoin ever lost $1trill of real wealth.

bitcoin is just buyer to seller
if a seller has 0.1btc then a buyer pays $400
that trade had $400. and once it passs hands its passed.
that money is not all hoarded where there is a capital account to back all bitcoin
there is no big money pot of cash.

i feel that btc-room101 just doesnt understand bitcoin as proven by his lack of understanding of the basics.

whales have already sold.
they are just waiting for the lil shrimp feeding off the back of whales to sell so the whales can eat up loads of cheap shrimp

160+ posts and many still squabbling

the value is the underlying cost.
the utility (which some call 'values' note the s at the end which means its a different word& definition) is better to be called desire to separate desire/utility 'values' from financial value.

yes if bitcoin had no utility, there would be no desire and no one would want to pay a certain price for it.
so this is why bitcoin cant be a store of value(fiscal) without also having desire values(utility)

however the desire/utility is decided above the cost. which in different people view is a different level of desire dependant on how much they want/need(demand). vs how much is available to meet that demand(supply).
this desire(values) in short is the speculative layer ontop of the acquisition cost layer(value)

there is a symbiosis. that plays out. if something has utility it has desire to use/want it. it then has a cost to acquire it. and then the price is the temporary drama layer above the cost layer that people fight over depending on demand/supply

bitcoin cant be just a store of value simply because of store of value. it needs utility.

bitcoin has a underlying value layer below the price. which is the support layer

people will always try finding the cheapest way to get something they desire. so when its too costly to mine it, they buy it. when its too costly to buy it, they mine it.
there is a market/mining dynamic that builds up a underlying value

unlike PoS crap coins that have no cost to mine it... crapcoins like PoS have no underlying true cost thus they rely purely on speculation. which is why their PRICE is always so much lower than PoW coins

something wont be a store of value unless it has utility.

for instance. people think something just needs 'rarity' to have value
1. my dog does 1 bowel movement a day. and will live for ~15 years
thats ~5500 bags of dogs mess that will ever be made.
want some? only $1 a bag...........
...... no? i thought not

2. there are many coins that have no function/utility and so they have no value. even when their cap may be less than 21mill

3. bitcoin (not locked btc where unconfirmed unaudited transactions are played with on other networks) but real bitcoin network utility needs to keep utility to have value.

take gold. the VALUE of gold (how many loaves of bread it can buy) would be worth more now if it was not for banks fortknoxing it up and making people play with paper money.
golds value now is just playing against the cost of obtaining it. plus a bit of speculation due to the industry utility.
again gold would have had more utility as 'money' if the last century of bankers didnt stop that.
god would be worth more loaves of bread value WITH medium of exchange utility as 'money'

if bitcoin had no utility desire. then people wouldnt want it. thus no value

shouting store of value purely because store of value.. is a foolish mindset
shouting store of value purely because medium of exchange utility.. is a smart mindset

thus bitcoin needs to have medium of exchange to keep it having a store of value.

enrolling in courses is a waste of funds

just ask questions for free and get answers for free
yes you have to weed through the newbie spam of fud and panic. but you can also find fud and panic going through some of these 'courses' which are set up by people that dont know better and are just after grabbing your funds by pretending to offer you insight.

in short. those that charge you for information are unsuccessful earning money from knowing what blockchains do.
those that offr free info are successful thus dont need to charge people for info that can be freely gained

its something that always has happened for nearly 10 years.
there is no rule to fix it at 10 minutes.

its a 2016 per 2 week rule not a 10 minute rule
the 10minutes is just an average, not a fixed time

blockchain rules are not 1 block every 10 minutes

its 2016 blocks every 2 weeks. coded
which only in the human brain but not in code calculates to AVERAGE 1 block ~10min

this means there are times a block can arrive in 2 minutes and another block can arrive in 18 minutes and on average thats 2 blocks in 20minutes thus still being ~10mins each

in the last 24 hours ~144 blocks should have been produced.
24 hours ago block 552871 was made
at time of posting 552994
123 block mined
=5.125 blocks an hour = less than 12minute average

if you check th other blocks before 552994(current block at time of this post)
552994    51 minutes ago
552993    1 hour 2 minutes ago (11 minutes before ..994)
552992    1 hour 6 minutes ago (4 minutes before ..993)
552991    1 hour 16 minutes ago (10 minutes before ..992)

so ask yourself before panicing.. why were you not screaming celebrations of the 4minute block?

infact lets look at a few more blocks. knowing 6 blocks are average an hour... yet an hour before ..94
552994 2018-12-08 06:50:47
552984 2018-12-08 05:50:52

means 10 blocks were made in an hour. thus the previous hour before ..94 blocks were being made in ~ 6 minutes

they are not going bankrupt. they are preparing for the late december batch delivery of next gen asics.
they just dont want to shoot themselves in the foot too early by pushing up hash/difficulty too soon. as it would just leave them limping for a year.

instead they are very well calculated. they have planned out the next 12 months already.
its only small hobbyiests that are crying

hashrate hit 32exa
using my calculations of mining costs. which are between a 104-117 multiple of exa(to make it easy calculation)
3328-3744 respectively shows mining is still majority profitable
as those with higher costs would have already been receiving income for a bit to have less to pay out
EG
if you bought an asic 6 months ago you have already received enough income after electric costs to cover hardware. so all thats left now is electric

i did not alter the 117 down to account for now just electric cost mining as i prefer to leave things as the cheapest cost and most expensive costs to have the range. but doing math on the ones which are older batches. they are doing better (cheaper) mining than 3744 costs because now they are only paying electric.
in short there are not many at the 3744 worse case costs but alot at the bottom end(profitable)

so those that have been mining for 6 months+ can use that hardware allotment they have paid off by now to buy the next batch.. and so they are just waiting for delivery. while not wanting to put too much pressure on the hashrate right now to shoot self in foot before delivery.

what you dont realise is that those smart miners are OTC contract trading a year in advance. when its not profitable to mine to get btc because the price is low.. it means the price is low so cheaper to buy it.

they get steady contracted in OTC funds to effectively manage the cheapest way to accumulate coin for the otc partner so that the otc partner doesnt need to do the hard work of physically buying equipment or flipping to buying from markets. they just sit back and receive the best rate coin OTC for their fiat

screaming to short a month after the price dips is too late. thats like telling a gambler to bet on a horse coming last after the race has started. the odds get worse the later you leave it to make a bet

the market dynamics are about to flip to where its cheaper to buy direct than to mine it. so there is going to be market pressure to buy instead of mine it. thus push the price up

its the old saying
when someone informs you to sell. its because the informer already has.. and now want others to follow so that the informer can buy in cheap.

selling at a loss so a informer can buy in cheap means the loser is the follower, not the informer.
the informer is not doing the followers any favour

better advice dont short hoping and waiting for large % and hold out for a period. if anything if you are going to short. do it for small % on small time scales and repeat. as quick as you can. dont short hoping for 10-100% shorts over a 2-12 month contract.

instead take 1% as quick as you can(daily or sooner) and repeat, you will if the market remains shorting end up with more than 10-100% in 2-12 months. without the risks
then if the market stops dipping. you have no risk and just stop shorting and go long.

most gold miners dont make profit.
if everyone was guaranteed mining profit, everyone would do it.

imagine a party
those going to a party all chip in to pay for a 12.5inch pizza to be delivered every ~10 minutes if there were 50 people fighting for it. but it was not enough to feed everyone. people leave the party saying "F this im not spending X labour work to provide the party with my money, just to get such a thin slice"

and now there are 20people at the party. so then there is bigger slices of the pizza to go around without having to increase the size of the pizza.

if bitcoin is still not profitable enough for hungry miners to have the party pizza. then they wont go to the party. instead they realise the price is so low they can just buy their own slice of pizza

thus pushing up the market price of pizza because there is now more demand for pizza
and there is less people at parties demanding fat slices because they are getting fat slices so getting well fed.

there is a dynamic market/mining equilibrium

people love pizza and will always find a way to get a cheap slice. if its not cheap to get a slice at a party. they will buy it.

smart people continue going to parties while also separately buying their own slice direct from the market.
thus sustain the support for pizza to be at a certain value
dump people give up going to parties and just cry in their basements that its too expensive to go to parties. but also then scream out about it. but not realise they can for less money just buy pizza direct from the market

if you are the one sat in your basement without any pizza just crying its too expensive to go to parties to get pizza. then just buy some while its cheap

because very soon the dynamics will flip and the market price of pizza will go up when other people realise they can just buy it direct off the market for less than going to parties.

what can be done is just make a IRC freenode link.
EG
webchat.freenode.net?channels=chatbox

then for any topic you create you can just change the bits after ? = to customise a room for specific topics

if cor developers want to offer a new transaction format, and worry that opposers will replay attack. then its actually foolish to demand that opposers change code and change the transaction format.

opposrs wanted to stick with the same code and transaction format of 2009-2016
core wanted to change the transaction format.
so core should have changed the transaction format to be incompatible..

segwit should if they loved segwit so much when they done their mandated split. enforce people used segwit so that opposes cant replay transact as segwits enforcement would have been the replay protection.

again trying to say "if you want to stay with legacy you need to change the tx format to not be bitcoin legacy" is wrong on many levels..
.. but to be expected by those that loved segwits mandated and demanding principles

just wait until they start mandating people use LN

prime example of flip flop

doomad pretends nothing happened


then admits one happened

flip flop flip flop

he cant agree with himself if a split was avoided or occured.....
maybe he should take a few hours out, sit on a sofa with a cup of coffe and argue with himself until he can agree with himself if one occured or not. before getting into social drama trying to prove then disprove one happened to other people

meanwhile blockheight data of the chains, code and even dev quotes and even devs own buzzwords which THEY advocate. prove a split happened

you can spend years arguing with yourself about if a split happened or didnt happen. all ur doing is arguing with urself.

meanwhile the reeal debate is HOW and WHY
which goes back to the mandated, compatability, nya 3 card trick

consensus is suppose to be where the network opt-in and agree a new feature if wanted
compatibility is where a feature is added without opt-in
the mandated date is the attack date with no opt-out while remaining on the network

i can guarantee you that if a non-core dev team done the exact same thing. you would cry how its an attack on the network

but you can continue flip flopping in and out of consensus and non mandated. to then compatible and mandated  for th next 30 years.
but the data is what the data is.
might be worth you spnding time reading it.

as for "anyone who ran UASF"... those were the trojan army of segwit. not the native community.
calling a horse compatible and just let it roll on in. from august 1st or else is not letting people have free choice.

but anyway. carry on with your social drama. but data is data. blockheights, code and even th devs themselves are literally telling people that they done what they done but actually coming up with terms like bilateral splits(gmax).. luke is happy with his inflight upgrades

he spend months and months saying how things can be done without a vote.
yet august 1st still happened where blocks were rejected, and peers relaying those blocks got banned.
a fork did actually occur on august 1st.

i find is so strange how you are denying such obvious things.

anyway waste years of your life defending devs for reasons unknown to me, and probably unknown to them because they admit what occurred.

i meanwhile will highly things that affect the network. i dont care about kissing a devs ass.. dvs are temporary. they get old, they retire they move on to other projects. there is no reason to treat them like immortal kings..
to me bitcoin network is the immortal thing we should defend. not developers

but you carry on with your blurred vision that devs are immortal and that they should own the network and do as they please to the network

but it doesnt

so while doomad spends his life flip flopping with his chums
lets address this topic

the whole point of this topic appears to be
some group of people that cant read code and are defending developers that dont need defending because the developers are happy to admit their involvement.

this same group are then pretending code doesnt exist. and then when shown it does. meanders the conversation to talk about a separate function that is named something. but does not achieve its namesake

all to social drama meander away from the point that:
on august first a split did happen. theres code. theres even blockheight data proof
the name bilateral split came from the mouths of the developers (gmax buzzword) not me.
the developers are proud of their trojan
they are proud to have bypassed objectors

thus all this lil social drama group has done is caused social drama
all while the developers have now got a back door way to change the network as they deem fit.

LOL

read it properly
just because someone puts a //comment called splitprotection
does not actually protect nodes from splitting.

also the first part called splitprotection
if { segwit split protection threshold is met & segwit not locked in and not active then reject non segwit blocks }

your chums were saying there was no bip148 code.. so thats why i shown bip 148 code, which basically is

bip 148
if ( date is after august 1st and segwit not locked in and not active then reject non segwit blocks }

both are saying to reject non segwit. and both are 2 separate functions.
you can tell by the {} which make the separate

what you fail to understand is that the "self protection". rejects
what you fail to understand is that the "bip 148" is the bypass to reject even if threshold is not met (b making it date prescribed reject)
they are 2 separate things.
your group of chums wanted to deny the existance of bip 148 code. so i provided 148 code.

now your flip flopping to the meander of trying to now talk about a different function outside of bip148, a different function that is commented as being called splitprotection but does not actually mean split protecting


again elsewhere SEPARATELY you will find the way they kept the abstainers inline and not split off the sheep side with the "compatibility" you dont get a vote trick..
so here is the hint again --iswitness
where you find that reference is the area you need to read specifically how that 'call' also has a part where nodes that dont call it get stripped data.(the bypass)

however objecters/opposers that wanted to stick to old rules.. would get split off..

but it seems you cant even read and be able to count {} to realise splitprotection function is a separate function to 148.
.. once you understand that. then you can go read more and realise that both function reject blocks.

you cant avoid a split by rejecting blocks, as thats how splits are caused.

again you can spend 30 years with your social campaign to pretend things didnt happen. but they did.
the code shows the date of august 1st. even you have it. so you cant deny it now either

but i do find it funny how you think naming a function split protection means it magically protects.. yet just a few lines down you read the actual actions cause rejections.

..
how about you go learn something and go social drama some noob where you might get a chance to pretend you know something

its like asking

bank account data is saved on databases.
can databases survive without a bank involved

yes
data within a blockchain does not need to be financial
data within a database does not need to be bank records