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

??!
how many users got affected by true private key hard bruteforcing.. dare i say it none
how many users got affected by exchange 'hacks' (mtgox, crtypsy, cryptorush, mintpal, bitcoinica, .. list goes on).. millions

bitcoin security is more secure than exchanges

but users decision and trust are the issue where the users throwing funds at people they do not investigate, do due diligence of or research who they are throwing funds at are the problem.
thats not a bitcoin fault/issue. thats a human fault of just giving strangers funds and strangers greed of taking funds.

again even the exchange/escrow can be the thief too

bitcoin rule one:
if funds are not on a private key you have full/sole control of, they aint your coins

i have been running the math for years.

to be honest companies like bitmain are profitable because they control the manufacturing and the electric
they actually own some hydro electric and solar turbines. they also manufacture the asics and for each asic they sell gives them profit to keep atleast another asic for themselves for free.

EG an asic in 2017 retailed at $2k but could b produced for under $500. so as you can see, selling an asic made their mining literally free of costs because they could keep an asic and put funds towards the maintenance and electric also of the asic they keep.

the other part of bitmains strategy is that not all of the facilities ar run by them, by this i mean some of the blocks flagged as "antpool" are not blocks created in a facility antpool has decision control of the blocks. they simply lease out facilities to private investors and just ask for the rent, which is another income stream for them, without the headache.

so if you are serious about starting a mining farm also look into other strategies to make income. because buying asics at retail and paying out electric at 6cents(higher than most farms) and paying out facility leases and labour of people maintaining your asics 24/7 will eat into your 'profitability' far more than your competition.

right now it is better to buy btc than to mine it based on retail ASIC and electric.
the math is simple
at current average 50exa (50000000tera) thats 3571428 asics(14tera each)
even at their second hand sell off of $450/unit=$1,607,142,857.14
which if running for a year before unit replacement = $2452.90 hardware cost per btc(x/26/2016/12.5)
electric is $285714.24 an hour = $3819.99 a btc
=$6272.89
hardware and electric

yep (emphasis) second hand asics(limited supply so dont expect to get all 70k asics at this low price(numbers of your 100mw facility)
and its only the cost of the asics and electric.
once you add on the factory lease, labour the costs increase.

then you need to factor in how long it will take to actually get to be functional (building facility/delivery of material) the hash rate will rise meaning you move from having 70k asics of 3.5mill asics to being 70k asics of more than 3.5m asics so you will DROP from hashing 20% to under 20% before you even actually get to hash

so think long and hard about reducing costs, finding other revenue streams to support the business.
yes you may think as other pools think mining bitcoin is about just mining and hoarding and waiting for the btc price to ascend to cover things later.
but if you know the costs this second before even spending a penny is ATLEAST $6272(if lucky to get to capacity of second hand discounted asic prices, and while hashrate is ~50exa) just for hardware and electric
then its far cheaper to just buy btc on the market and hoard (unless you are savvi to have other supplemental income streams and cost cutting to be competitive)

firstly now your just finger new topics found on twitter rather then discussing the reality of segwit adoption

secondly no one said antpool is perfect. they do empty blocks and other things too but not as much as a certain group of propagandists think

thirdly. ya maybe some of the "antpool" tagged facilities have yet to desire to adopt segwit.

fourthly , this indirectly points out something. pools can and do decide whatever transactions they like to be included or excluded
for instance BTCC would add any transaction that came from their exchange at 0 fee but made others pay high fee's to be considered into BTCC's blocks...
for instance there are some pools that refuse to add transactions where only a couple $ worth of btc is being moved

but i say this because nothing stops pools from doing this. by this you will also find that no pool is going to be forced, made to, or coerced into  including a LN close channel session onchain. yep its just a tx. and pools could ignore it if they want. so dont expect LN to come with guarantee's of ontime close sessions or expect segwit to get high adoption.

and you will find that when it comes to adopting new tech if you dont support it you dont have to just keep mouth shut and do as core say.

conception date: before august 2008
pregnancy test confirmation date: august 2008 (domain registration)
first ultrasound: october 2008 (white paper)
birth date: january 2009 (code release)

10th birthday january 2019

yea, funny part though.
the timing of the spam was when core needed bips activated and was PR campaigning the bip will solve the spam and fee issue.
the spam coincidently stopped once cor got the bips they wanted..
wait not a coincidence once you do data analysis and found out which merchants, mining pools and mixers were doing it and then noticing who was affiliated with such mixers, pools and merchants

(thats old news by the way. and has been myth busted.. so no point windfury is there reason for you to conjure up that old PR script and try to pretend/twist the narrative back into the myth of it not being cor intention)

another funny part. segwits mandatory chain split happened first. bitcoincash didnt even make a block until hours later. .. yep segwit supporters actually used the evidence that cash couldnt make a block to activate cash until hours later as a PR campaign in itself.. also evidence that segwit caused split can actually be found by looking at block data.

..
dang windfury. your PR scripts someone hands you are so out of date and bust.
maybe best to check your sources before repeating the propaganda. as its becoming too obvious now.

your just repeating old 1-3year stuff

windfury has gone way overboard advertising segwit and LN lately. im starting to wonder why. especially with lack of stats to back it up

the reality is this
1. fees now are MORE then they were when segwit was conjured up as a solution that could lower fee's. so its not actually lowered fee's. it just hiked them up pre segwit and then offered just a modest discount to bribe people to use segwit (ven hough after discount fees are still higher)
by this i mean in 2015 when blocks were approaching 1mb limit the fee's were cheaper before segwit than fees are now even when blocks now are not full

2. blocks are not full, not due to segwit solving anything, but because there are less transactions per block.
yes less people are using bitcoin

3. i know he will spin around and say mor % are using segwit. but if you start selling 2500 banana's where 0% are green
and then start selling 1500 banana's and of the 1500 banana's 10-40% are green.
that does not mean that they are selling 250-1000 green bananas(using old normal utility)
that does not mean that they are selling 2750-3500 bananas

they are only selling 150-600 green banana.. meanwhile 1000 people stopped buying bananas altogther because the price to even touch a banana has gone up

.. all it takes is a good look at the statistics can show this

he is trying to say the unconfirmed tx is due to more transactions and more than 1mb
yet. all he is showing is unconfirmed transaction count.. but that has NOTHING to do with segwit
.. when you look at the block data there are LESS data per block
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2years
and less transactions in general
https://i.imgur.com/hYz5NuG.png

because less people are transacting. and yet FEE's are HIGHER than 2015

now then
bitcoin actually was planned to REDUCE min fee/min dust/min relay when btc price rises.
EG when prices went from $600 to $6k or $100 to $1k . the decimal of min fee/min dust/min relay SHOULD HAVE dropped to counter deflation.

 but the group pushing to promote segwit actually pushed UP the min fee, to cause a fee war and then spam the network to get the feature they wanted.
and since then the fee's are stil higher than before segwit.

lets put it into context
even if segwit was not adopted.. if the btc core crew reduced the min fee by 1decimal to counter the BTC price.when BTC went from ~$600 to ~$6000...
then based on transaction counts fee's would have been the same as 2015

but what happened though. is core DID NOT reduce the min fee by 1 decimal to counter the btc price rise. but they also done their witness scale factor trick

this is why it feels like data for data. price equilibrium makes it a 40x fee hike compared to 2015
hense why the half penny of the past is now ~$0.20 average at best. which segwit then trickery gives segwit a $0.05 fee as the bribe to use segwit.
even though thats still 10x more then 2015 of similar data position.

im guessing he may rebutt about the data of a segwit transaction....
well, take a transaction of lets say 2-in 2out of full validation data of a transaction, both legacy and segwit
you will find segwit actually uses more bytes than with legacy



maybe its time windfury done some research rather than just PR
i would give windfury the benefit of doubt that he simply was not around in 2015 to know what really went on in the community. but seeing his latest efforts of PR. im starting to doubt that as his reasons for promoting segwit, even when the real stats show overwise.
(fee total $ per day 2015 $*k 2018 $***k even though prices only went up 10x(yea he cant even twist it into blaming deflation(pricerise) because i mentioned above  ))

title should read
news circulation can cause normal ups and downs, but is it people that get emotional and call these normal ups and downs 'drops/crashes/panics'

anything less than a 10% movement is normal daily/weekly waves of action.. get used to it and surf the waves

moved by $100 is not a fall. thats just another expected up and down wave that happens daily/weekly

OP move your chart out of the 10minute zoom and look at the 10 month chart. things will look different and will not frighten you as much.

posting reports of where the price is compared to an hour ago changes nothing for public knowledge but will definetely affect your personal health if you are getting emotional about such movements.

10% is considered normal non-emotional movement... which at the average price would be a $630 movement.. so a $100 movement is only a couple percent

..
in short calm down. zoom out your chart and see the big picture

"and worse still how segwit is being used in the real world"

so by you mashing in legacy data to fudg numbers and make presumptions and inflate numbers.. positively affects how segwit affects how segwit is being used in the real world

..
sorry but only a segwit UTXO (whether p2wsh or p2wpkh") affect how segwit acts in the real world
no fudging in legacy data and calling it segwit can twist that.

anyway.
have a nice month
p.s if you are interested in facts about segwit. and the now 3 year "onchain scaling" debate that this all stems from

find out how many TRUE FULL bytes of data a legacy tx of 2-in-2-out tx uses. and compare it to a 2-in-2-out segwit uses
then do the same for a legacy 2 of 2 multisig vs a segwit 2 of 2multisig

again non of the stripped, filtered, downstream compatible vbyte wishy washy stuff.. i mean FULL TRUE BYTES of full true validation transaction

then ask yourself. if they just removed the witness scale factor so both segwit and/or legacy could all happily utilise the 4mb weight, without the wishy washy nonsense. which transaction type would use less bytes per tx