theymos owns this website

follow only his instructions
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2385104.msg24371150#msg24371150

so series 3 was released this week. its a show all about cryptocurrencies
available/showing on sonys crackle platform/channel..... of them cough streaming sites cough that are not affiliatd with mainstream broadcast platforms

starring
dork from 'the OC'
watson from 'sherlock', he also in recent 'fargo' series and a few marvel movies
hellboy from 'hellboy'

series one was about starting an altcoin, and pivoted into ICO and blackmail and VC funding
series two was about ICO and blackmail, kidnapping and murder ending with releasing a openbazaar LN hybrid

series three begins with the openbazaar LN used as a silkroad(darkmarket) which brings in the NSA trying to get involved

this might cause a stir in the speculative market. as it was not a coincidence that just making an altcoin mutated into "ICO's" around the time of the hype of series 1&2

its not strange at all.
its called day trading

if you want to sell say 0.69 an hour or 16.56btc a day. you dont simply throw a sell order in as a lump sum.
the lump sum could create a 'wall' where other people see it and then refuse to buy into it as its a bigger lump then other orders.

so instead you calculate it down and sell in spoonfuls that way its not noticable and sales flow through without impacting the psychology of other traders.

smart traders that have $100k are not going to 'eggs in one basket' in one order sell it all. as that causes a market reaction

firstly. when they liquidate. other pools take the slice of the pie the liquidated pool now doesnt.
you can calculate that.

secondly miners have similar costs to stay competitive. as you say if they are over leveraged, they lose. so over time those that are surviving the last 4 years of asic mining are surviving because thier costs are pretty equal to avoid liquidating out
(they had 4 years to find their cost equilibrium)

yea if you start up a new farm. chances of liquidating are higher.. same with any business.. but if you can get passed the first couple years where you are smart enough to find the efficiency and get the costs to a competitive level. then youll find your at the same costs as your competitors

thats why i said its not just simple 5yo "supply and demand".. there is more to it then that.

even yourself argue that its more than supply and demand. if you actually read your own words in detail

no one can predict the price minute by minute. hour by hour. so forget this conversation is about prediction
price determination is about determining the price not predicting it

EG how do you know bitcoin is valued at the $6k(sustained/long period) range instead of $1(sustained/long period) or $20k(sustained/long period)

easy. if the hashrate this month shows the $6k range then thats the area sustained prices would return to after the corrections of speculative waves

mining is not reactive as many think smart pools have already calculated a year ahead their growth. (leased building space requirements, planned staff requirements, paid upfront contracts to buy excess electric. producing asics/purchasing asics)

miners are not ractive to OMG social drama face just said something bad, so we must turn off asics..
for miners their concern is the % chance of getting slices of the ~1800 daily btc reward cake

its all pre planned. extra asics or electric demand doesnt magically appear when needed

so when mining. if the cost of mining to get coin is cheaper done by just buying it.. they will. and if cheaper to mine it, they will

the psychology of this is pre set. thats the point.
its natural flow. if you have 2 market stands sat side by side. offering the exact same end product but standA is cheaper on a monday and standB is cheaper on a tuesday. you can already know which stand will have the action occuring more so before it happens.
what you find over time is if standA and standB are different initially, they eventually find a mutual equilibrium

the rise in hashrate that stands the test of 3-12 months causes a base value to equilibrium into that area.

EG
if mining cost only $1 a btc guess what. miners would mine it at $1 and sell it for profit at any price above $1. all the way down to $1.0X because its still profitable

but because it costs in the $6k range they wont sell for $1. thats pretty much a given guarantee before even having to look at the price chart that you wont see a $1 btc while it costs in the $6k range

and thats the point in determining the price.

the speculative (temporary) drama waves that then correct. yep unpredictable. but determining the base value that prices return to after drama events(corrections).. is possible

if you told me (given asic hardware was the same $450 and electric base was 6centskwh) and said for the last few months hashrate was in the 90exa area.. id tell you ignoring the temporary waves. the btc base value area would correct to around ~$12k

no
charlie munger called it rat poison years ago.

then recently. warren buffet made a smart remark.
the interview was 'when charlie munger called bitcoin 'rat poison' when it was $100, what would you say about it now its $10k'

the smart reply was ratpoison squared
(emphasis on the squared... think about it 100->10,000) if you dont get it
100x100(meaning 100 squared)=10,000

as for the rat poison.
in wall street and londons square mile. if your in the financial life, you are living in 'the rat race'

bitcoin poisons rats = bitcoin is poison to wall street traders (think of the positive spin on the meaning)

FIAT TRADE KIlLLER THATS VALUE HAS SQUARED SINCE LAST CALLED A FIAT TRADE KILLER

"supply and demand" pfft.. thats 5year old stuff

supply is layered.
demand is layered.

once you delve into the layers you start to see the bigger picture.

plus simply saying "supply and demand" is meaningless

i have 10 bags of dog poo, and i know of 7 billion people.
there is the supply and there is the demand... see.. empty debate

the OP is at college/university level not 5year old level.

as for saying the cost of creating/obtaining an asset has no relevance to determining the price of an asset is a big laugh
EG
if it cost you $10 .. your not going to be foolish and sell it for $0.01cent. your atleast going to want $10 for it.
and then ontop of that speculate the desire/need/function value to add on (how much profit you can make (raise the price)) before a buyer thinks your being too greedy if too high or a great deal if at/near your cost

OMG
random person who doesnt use bitcoin is asked about bitcoin and the forum members suddenly get emotional

.....
imagine the euro.
OMG
random person who doesnt use euro is asked about euro and the euro forum members suddenly get emotional

reality check of what should happen
as a brit i use the pound i dont care about the euro.. .....
euro forums....... 'oh well'

my point
find a subject. find a person that doesnt use that subject. ask him about a subject. and they are by default going to say they dont give a crap
so just dont get emotional about it. find something that actually matters to talk about

another determinant is not looking at the highs or the averages of bitcoin price history.
but instead look at the LOW
you will find that if a prices BOTTOM has tested a value several times and has refused to go below that over multiple month then that becomes a support line

11 month support bottomline $5,800
3 month support bottomline $6,100

that support line helps keep the price above a certain level as the majority of traders would have cycled their coins through exchanges and services and spending habits at or above that price. and gave traders many chances to sell

so the longer prices stay above it, the majority have a mindset that the price is above that level to either have already sold if they thought it was profitable, thus the new buyer has it set as their minimum price.. or if not sold its in that persons mind that the price zone/bottom is their new bottom too, even if they bought it cheaper earlier

no one can predict the hourly/daily movements of speculation. but the value zone can be calculated.

those stats dont have any impact on bitcoin price.

try learning about mining cost


people assume one block every 10 minutes(a block has 12.6btc each)
but the timing is 2016 blocks every 2 weeks target. thats why you see the math stretches numbers out for the year then divides it down to fortnightly(/26) then block(/2016) then coin per block(/12.5). to be a lil more consistent
(you could just for instance take the kwh total /6 /12.5.. but yea it makes a lil difference $3809.52 as oppose to 3819.99 so $10.49 difference)

...

what you then find is that mining costs give a good estimate of the zone area of real value (base price/intrinsic value)

then comes the 'speculative waves' of random ups and downs.
when the bitcoin price is below the mining cost. people decide its cheaper to buy btc direct than to mine it. so the price moves up.

then if there was some speculation that made the price move up too much. mining decides to progress up too. albeit at a slower rate as smart miners on on contractual growth.
so many sudden price rises are not sustainable and correct back down (the $20k spike for instance)

wiki page views and forum views have no statistical correlation. neither does google analytics.
the stats of page views ar people researching bitcoin days AFTER a price change, due to panic media news flash and other propaganda after the fact.

so many talk about social faces opinions. but all that should matter to a bitcoiner is code

what will happen is

yea bitcoin could rise to be $1trill per coin..
but that $1trill may also only buy a loaf of bread 5 minutes ago..
     wait.
       now its a slice..
        dang it i cant write fast enough now its a crumb..

in short. the "price" becomes meaningless because once you convert it to $ the amount of good bought with it are crumbs.

what then develops is people just dropping $ prices and instead measuring bitcoin direct to minimum wage/cost of living and form  stabilised living utility of bitcoin to life and just ignore fiat completely.... which is something bitcoin should have done years ago anyway

each pools has their own intentions. EG btcc used to let in tx with zero fee but only when the tx originating from their exchange
another pool guaranteed first-in (priority) if they done a API pushtx through a website portal*
another pool guaranteed first-in (priority) if they done a API pushtx through a website portal* when paying the pool indirectly
*then treating the normal network relay/mempool as second class
another pool wouldnt include transactions where the utxo is under 6 confirms(honestly, most pools should do this, as it would help avoid spam and also reduce orphan risk)

but back to the question you asked
well if you had 2 tx's both say 300bytes but one earning you 25cents and the other treated as $1 which one would you grab

if core removed the wishy washy witness scale factor *4, guess what
1. both legacy and segwit transactions can in full non stripped format all happily utilise the 4mb 'weight'
2. both legacy and segwit transactions would both be 25 cents. yep cores code makes legacy 4x more expensive. not discount segwit by 75%(thus code counters their PR adverts)

core can easily also limit the sigops/tx. that way it allows more tx per block during spam attacks. .. did you know the way core put in sigop limits that one person can make just 5 transactions and use up the block sigop limit because the tx sigop limit is so high (facepalm)
..
also by reducing the tx sigop limit, thus allowing more tx per block sigop limit also as a side effect reduces the chance of the whole linear validation delay issue.. but if core were to actually do some efficiency stuff and actually fix things, they would have no PR to say other non-blockchain networks are needed.

did you know that core could code many things. including a fee priority formula that charged people that re-spend funds more than once a day with a higher fee, thus a tx that has more aged utxos getting a lower fee.

imagine it a utxo spamming(re-spending) every block paying 144x more than someone spending once a day. which can be done with just a few lines of code.

yep. bitcoin is code and MANY things can be done. but core pretend only 2 things can be done... hense their false narative of
"gigabytes by midnight or LN"

use proper terms
"bitcoin lightning network" should be the lightning network with btc as the currency..

lightning network is a separate network that many coins can use. it is not a bitcoin network layer nor a bitcoin lightning network

too many people are falsely identifying it as bitcoin sole feature purely for fame and deceit. just like all the ICO's that buzzword in bitcoin just to gleam some fame

again LN can be used by different coins.
LN was not designed and made to be bitcoin compatible.
bitcoin was altered, as was litecoin and vert coin and other coins were altered to be LN compatible

nothing wrong with people playing with other networks voluntary, but stop trying to make out LN is part of bitcoin and stop being part of the deception that bitcoin cant scale and needs people to move over to lightning.

whats next ripple is an underskin of bitcoin. nxtcoin is again described as bitcoin2.0!?
too many people are playing around with different networks and trying to tag on some lame importance that its bitcoinX or Y

fixd that for you. as core was not around in satoshis day. satoshi wanted diversity. he didnt want to be leader and be the central point he didnt want followers just asking him.
also having just core is also as bad as having exchanges. coz just one bad line of code and bam ..full network bug
diverse fullnodes of different languages and teams all part of a level playing field is what should secure the network.
anyway apart from that little edit the rest of your comment is correct

anyway. back to the point

something does not need to have a store of value to be a medium of exchange
sea shells.
tally sticks.
fiat

their creation cost nothing. you can stare at it all day, study it under a microscope and see no store. all you can assume is a PERCEPTION store of value. EG fiat and tally sticks. because they have some recognition of being handed out originally by kings(tally) and government(banknote) that there then becomes perception of its importance

but to actually be a store. thats based on acquisition and creation cost
but going deeper. why is physical or digital item being acquired/created as oppose to something similar.. well that about UTILITY.

if something has no utility function, then no one will want it. the desire stalls out. thus the creation costs decrease due to competition depletion.

"store of value coz store of value" is an empty and nonsense argument to attempt to make for why store of value exists.
killing off features such as utility inevitably kills off its desire.

you cannot have one without the other
you cannot just have btc as a reserve without function,
bitcoin will not be a IMF reserve SDR because china(ltc) is not measured solely in it
bitcoin will not be a IMF reserve SDR because canada(bch) is not measured solely in it
bitcoin will not be a IMF reserve SDR because america(btc) is not measured solely in it
bitcoin will not be a IMF reserve SDR because europe(eth) is not measured solely in it

bitcoin needs to be a medium of exchange(utility) to be a store(real intrinsic)
bitcoin needs to be a be a store(real intrinsic) to be a medium of exchange(utility)

they mutually benefit each other and mutually fail without eachother
again killing off medium of exchange and hoping btc can be real intrinsic store of value is stupid beyond even economics a 5yo could understand.

yea some monarch/government. can do percieved store. but thats just the fake crap of fiat/tally sticks
again store coz store is empty of real logic. and thats why fiat is bad(popular but bad)

bitcoin was created to not become fiat

you have less clue than the usual tribe of core supporters
its funny that its the same group of people supporting core devs but not the bitcoin network
if you think the bitcoin network is dead and cant scale. thats you failing to support bitcoin.

so you can play games being a dev supporter all you and your buddies like. but im more interesting in supporting the bitcoin network

maybe its you that should go play with another separate network that the same devs support. its called LN.
P.S LN is not a bitcoin feature. its a separate network the devs love that any coin can can use, as long as that coin has been manipulated to be compatible to it

now stop getting emotional because bitcoin CAN scale and you hate the idea that it can as it defeats your dev support system of wanting another network to be the "killer app" of multicoins

ask yourself why are the fee's high
1. devs took out the fee formulae years ago,
2. devs increased the dust/minrelay instead of reducing it when deflation occured
3. devs avoided increasing the real transactional data space
(dont be fooled with bitcoin cant scale. thats the devs not wanting to scale. 256gb storage is the size of a fingernail not a server rack)
(dont be fooled with bitcoin cant buy coffee, yes it can. but instead of locking $50 of BTC into LN channels you just buy a $50 starbucks card using btc and know you can have 10 coffee's)

ill give you a hint. bitcoin did not fail devs.. devs failed bitcoin.
bitcoin can scale. but devs seem to have put their hands in the air and just said no, they wont develop it onchain

to be a reserve is to lock it up and not be a common currency  (IMF SDR is not common dollar. much like canadian is not american dollar)
to be a reserve some entity has to secure, hold and control the reserve because left in the hands of common folk makes it unpredictable/volatile

so trying to start the reserve. many are saying bitcoin has failed being a common currency.

i will now leave you to your research on the depths some will go to make bitcoin not useful for common use. and instead a locked up custodial reserve.

i hope you can realise my own "reservations"(excuse the pun) about why i do not like bitcoin to become a reserve. as this topics title and your own inferred idea of the end result in such a situation

the fact that more people are using custodial services is just like what happened with gold in the 16th century.
people putting gold in kings control and then kings giving using tally sticks (mysql database balances)

next evolution is eltoo factories. which are like bank vaults and fort knox where gold gets locked up in a factory's multisig(fortknox requiring their permission to get out)

those factories then hand out 12decimal un-chained unaudited transactions (promissory notes(bank notes)) which people then use as proof of value inside channels(accounts) and they co-sign ownership of who deserves value of these 12 decimal values.
which to get out real 8 decimal bitcoin back to blockchain transacting needs sending the 12 decimal transactions out of a channel(closing) and then offchain sending it back to a factory and requesting the factory to withdraw a 8dcimal transaction

many people dont realise the issues of the plans LN has. and if bitcoin devs keep making bitcoin less bitcoin onchain friendly (stalling onchain scaling and removing fee reductions to cause people to beleive handling real bitcoin is bad, heavy,, expensive (yea they call block size 'weight' for a reason and they multiply the transaction size by 4 to be 4times the 'weight' for a reason. to make people follow the 19th century plan of throwing funds into a fortnox and playing with promissory notes and not want to handle real bitcoins.

and we know what happened in the 20th century where the gold standard changed and those promissory notes became less promising (look how tether turned out.. no longer 1:! as an example of how quick things change)

alot of people say dont worry its voluntary to use LN. but if you watch all the advertising PR overpromising and actual code changes done purely to make LN look better than just using the btc network. you can see how things are moving AWAY from satoshi's vision

but now expect the usual crew that love the idea of LN and want LN to rule. to come swooping in with insults and fun about how LN is great and how im just wrong because im wrong... (facepalm)
P.S LN is a separate network that is not a pur bitcoin feature. but a separate system for multiple coins that have become or may become LN compatible (LN was not designd to be bitcoin compatible... bitcoin was altered to be LN compatible, same with LTC and other altcoins too

...
nowwith all that said. if bitcoins protocol keeps getting changed to sway people that using bitcoin onchain is bad, useless, slow, expensive, heavy, not scalable etc... then yes bitcoin has lost its path that satoshi set