OP is wrong
the topic is good. but his reasoning lacks...

because his whole comment is based on market cap. and he talks about it as if there is a stockpile of dollars held somewhere holding the price up.
sorry there isnt

bitcoins price is made up from a seller having coins and finding a buyer that agrees with the price. the price moves depending on the price agreed.

market cap is just a multiplication of that price.
EG i can make 5 trillion coins. sell 1 coin for $1 and have $5trill cap.. that does not mean there is actually $5trill holding up the price. there is only $1
now there is also no central holding of the dollars to back it up. the person that sold they have taken the funds and moved on.

but lets pretend there was a central store
if i tried to sell my coins. i would not get 5trillion. i would end up with 0.0000000000002 per coin ($1) if sold all the coins to get to that $1 held

in short market caps are MEANINGLESS!!!

blah blah blah
subtle way for someone to announce their altcoin/ico... nice try.

Goldmans CEO said they are definetly continuing their bitcoin plans. they said it in a interview with tech crunch
at the bottom of this pag is a video of them saying it
https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/06/goldman-cto-the-story-about-us-dropping-bitcoin-trading-was-fake-news/

funny thing is that they said this on the 5/6th of september to correct the fake news previously released that they were dropping it. yet its taken a few days for 'media' to cycle through and publicise the correct information

but in short
goldman is stil involved in bitcoin stuff and will do stuff with it. the misunderstanding between the fake news and the reality is simply that they never set a date for when they will release something related to bitcoin ecosystem that people can use

first of all and most importantly.

if you are in the mindset of thinking the only way to earn is from bounties on this forum. you need to realise bitcoin is a world currency that has many depths to it and many ways of earning that dont involve bounties.
too many new people think the scope of bitcoin is just this forum.

secondly. bitcoin core is the reference(main/core) software that controls what rules the network follows. yea you might have been told no one controls bitcoin but since 2013 a certain group of devs do make the decisions and others just follow.

there are other software around, mostly simple light/basic versions that dont hold or validate all the data.

there are a couple other bits of software that validate and hold the data. but they just follow the rules that bitcoin core set. it has become common that if any other software that does validate and does hold all of the data. if they were to set up their own community proposal list and attempt to help the community have a second option of innovating the network that is not "bitcoin core" ends up getting treated as an attack /invader.

so in short bitcoin core is the "core" / centre of the development of the network and the control of innovation of the protocol.

bitcoin cores software is known as a full node (fully featured software)
a wallet(holds the keys to make transactions)
the payment system (makes transactions)
the block validator (validates mining pools blocks)
the relay node (relays transactions and blocks)

by using the software you(your computer) validates relays and stores the data. which other people using it also do. so that the data and validation part of the system is distributed amungst all users of the software as there is no central service that does the validation/store of the data.

but you do not earn from it.

many people thought what you thought. they made their forks and are playing with them now.
but what you dont realise is this

1. the price is made up by the acquisition costs (costs of getting it) when a mining pools needs to buy equipment and pay electric of $5800 to mine an amount that equates to 1btc. he wont sell for less.
the person he sells to might squeeze the pools to sell for $5801.
the person he sells to might squeeze the pools to sell for $5802.
and so on (usually people sell for more that 0.x% profit)

what you find is over time the price goes up because people want it. they see it has purpose. there are merchants. there are goods services that can be bought with it. and ofcourse because of costs they know they can get a certain amount back when they sell it if they dont spend it on goods or services.

those silly altcoin forks that people made and are playing with because they have the mindset of why use bitcoin when they can take the protocol and start their own.. do not have the awareness and acceptance from merchants and those selling goods and services. and do not have a mass of mining hardware to protect their silly altcoins.

if you did not realise. if it costs $5800 today to mine 1btc.
thats made up of a math of it needing X miners a day to make 1800btc

now for an attacker to try to edit the blockchain from the previous block requires X miners to get the data from 2 blocks ago. edit the previous block but include the header of 2blocks ago. create the block solution of the previous block and then mine the another block to even out and then another block to over take everyone elses version.

so knowing it will cost alot to do this it becomes not worth editing the previous block to reverse a transaction you mad to buy a coffee. because it costs 1800x5800 to edit just 1 previous block

now to get the speed to edit a block a few blocks ago. you need to harness even more mining hash speed. so thats even more hashpower then the network if you want to edit mine and overtake to lock in your edit. so it costs you more.

the further back you want to edit the more its going to cost you.
this is why people are happy with bitcoin because its costs more to edit out a transaction than a transaction is worth. and the more difficult it gets to mine a coin the more protected the transactions are

so if you see a coin for pennies. you will realise it only costs pennies to protect it which means someone can copy and overtake cheaply

bitcoin is not a ponzi.
EG
a ponzi a scheme that offers something that has no cost to make. no function
whereby the funds from a new person are grabbed by a Mr. Ponzi and then a small part is then given to a holder to keep them from leaving and mr. ponzi is then juggling balls keeping everyone in. while Mr. Ponzi plans to escape with everyones money

there is no Mr. ponzi holding a bag of funds juggling who needs to be bribed with small amounts to stay.
people are actually paid to NOT hold it anymore. they only get paid when they sell
no one is paid to stay

people are not just buying in either people can make goods or services to trade with people that have coin
people are not just selling out. people can trade the coin they have for goods and services others have made

people can work for companies and get paid a salary in bitcoin

bitcoin is not just a unit of measure that is magically created from nothing. it has a cost of production(mining)
miners dont get paid to hold. they get paid when the sell and not hold. and thats it. once they are not holding it. nothing thats it. no extra money to hold. no extra money after selling. all they get is what they sold it for.

bitcoin has a purpose. its also a payment system. that offers features that other payment systems do not.
i would say this though. LN is not a bitcoin feature. LN is a separate network payment system and LN will be used as a payment system for many currencies. do not confuse bitcoin with LN. they are separate.
right now there are some corporation paid devs literally screaming a false narrative that bitcoin is dead and cannot scale. purely so they can code features into bitcoin to stifle bitcoins scaling and utility (blocklimits and fee wars) and to make bitcoin easily work with the SEPARATE LN system. to make LN the payment system and make bitcoin have less utility.

the sooner we get these bad actor devs away from bitcoin. throw them into developing LN and away from bitcoin...the better
and then we can concentrate on re-innovating bitcoin to be the payment system, and thus retain its purpose, function

but even with these devs messing with bitcoins utility and trying to promote the separate payment system. that does not make bitcoin a ponzi.

as for the mining 'pyramid'
a financial scam pyramid. is about one person getting funds from a few people and if those few people get more people then the first person gets more money by just holding on and staying in.
again miners do not get more by holding. they only get paid when they sell. and once they have sold they are out of that coin they sold.

the reason why the coin production decreases is to be the opposite of inflation. and to eventually not make anymore.
thus limit the amount that can be held by people.
financial pyramids and ponzis want more people to enter and hold. but bitcoin has a limit on how many can hold and also doesnt pay people to continue holding.

EG i have held coins for 6 years and i have not got any dividends, interest or bribes to hold. lets say i held Xbtc. it has not magically become more than Xbtc by holding it.

as for the price when people want to sell. well that fluctuates. and its based on the cost to make it and the price people are willing to sell it for and someone else is willing to buy it for. its free market trading/barter. the price goes up or down.
with the cost to make it goes up and that no one will stupidly sell at at a loss. then naturally as with all things. the price goes up. but it can also go down if acquisition costs go down.. or stupidity. but thats the nature of trade/barter

the coins people have, does not have a secret pot of money held back in my their name to give them ongoing or when they sell. there is no mr ponzi promising anything. people have to find someone to hand coins to either on an exchange or in person and they only get what the new person wants to pay and what the seller want to receive. by mutual agreement.
just like anything else bought and sold in the world

as you said craig is creating a coin...... and.... nothing
coins are created every day.
the point is while everyone finger points at another coin. they are not looking at the core devs.
let him make 500 coins.. let him wear a dress and put a flower in his hair.. its just drama

ver drama, is just drama.
there was no gun.. to use your example. his "unlimited" was never a mandatory thing. so it was all word and fear over nothing. even classic even XT. none of them had mandatory chain split code.
it was all distractions to create a fan base to put core devs onto a throne and declare bitcoin core the monarchy

the ver owns bitcoin.. again drama. persuade the sheep to put core on a throne with empty distractions of someone

craig wright and ver didnt manually code unlimited themselves. plus unlimited is on BCH. BCH does not affect btc

even hashrate does not effect things.
last week i seen the hashrate go from between 57exa to 42exa a 26% variance..
i seen the highest mempool sizes due to people trying to get in and out of exchanges
neither case was due to anything Bch had caused anything close to

miners pool skip daily.
its all just drama of distraction.

even things like wanting to fill a block header to prevent asic boost. is actually a distraction to fill a blockheader so that people cant just make easy sidechains and circumvent cores roadmap of wanting LN to be the only side option to onchain

but anyway if you follow the money. ver is paid by the same people that pay core devs and pay gavin. and also pay hearne. its all bribery to make them the face of distraction.

what i really loved.. november 2017. while the sheep were distracted by the ver middle finger. they did not see the "segwit1x lock segwit 2x blocked" event that the institutional investors paid the devs/contracted them to develop and activate. which when locked institutional money came flying into the markets and as you can see by the price mountain of november onwards.. .. well maybe most didnt see as they were too busy with social distractions of some non-coder sticking his finger up to a webcam

oh and the round tables of 2016. where developers plotted the roadmap options.. oh wait. too busy distracted by craig wright is satoshi and has some proof coming out soon.

all just distractions

the core people and cash people are both the same family..
its all drama
even those defending core devs are guilty of causing drama
look at your own words "ver wanting to take control of bitcoin".. thats you causing drama
wheres your unbiased side of core taking control. you do know that it has ONLY BEEN CORE side that has demanded and performed a mandatory 'upgrade to our code or else' event

but i also find it funny whenever i mention cores flaws people think i must be in ver camp.
sorry i dont play that game.

i called out craig wright on his scams, fraud and other bad practices.
i called out on vers issues too.

but dare i call out cores flaws... OMG thats sacrilegious
CORE actually code the core network. we need to hold them to account. other teams on other networks dont impact cores network. ver and craig dont even hands on code BCH. so they have less actual impact on the cash economy.. and by that standard as the networks are separate, even less impact on the core network

to me they are just ballerina's used for distraction and target practice to deflect people from seeing who is changing bitcoin core network for the worse

yep making a product but fundraising through a crowd is a failed model
EG making a medical/healthcare DLT but ICOing the normal common people. and not actually going to a healthcare provider to buy your product.. means it wont be used by a healthcare provider. thus dead

yep making an ICO for a DLT but not knowing the problem they are trying to solve. or try solving a problem no one wants... thus dead
ICO's have no clue. but all they care about is getting paid for a few lines of code

andreas at his origins in the community put alot of work into learning about it. and alot of his time to help others without going down the religion conventions of charging people $1000 just to touch and hear him.

he did however start falling down the rabbit hole of believing the hype of a few things too much and showing bias that certain things will be bitcoin utopia even though many seen code flaws and usability flaws.
he seems to recently be backing out of it now and actually telling people to air on the side of caution on these new things. and explaining some of the flaws. so to me he has reopened his eyes and not just followed the yellow brick roadmap.

so he is winning back my respect in some ways by looking at the larger picture again (winning but not won)
out of the 100's of people trying to become bitcoin consultants/advisers. i would put in in the top 3. but i would casually tell people which videos to skip that sound too utopian and too little reality scenario tested

EG 6:00-9:00
"he got into bitcoin because it was not controlled......"
"i got into it because of the crazy people that are involved"

last statement is opposite of his first statement because core is in control. they declared they are the reference/core and they decided the roadmap and future

"in the end its a cleared out sanitised empty database"
core devs scream bitcoin "cant scale" isnt to be used to make transactions as fee's and transactions per block limit utility....

..... this is where i called him a utopian because he wasnt being fully open..

as for others talking about "enterprise blockchains". well they actually have their own term now.. DLT (distributed ledger technology).
and although many businesses want to be involved in al the buzz of blockchains and DLT's.. the businesses need to have fundamental things

1. does the data really need to be distributed over multiple locations while preserving that each locations data is always equal
2. and does it need to be validated by everyone involved.
3. does the data per block need to move/alter by multiple individuals.. or just seen/inspected by multiple individuals


EG business accounts. if the data is just audited by an accountant. and although the end report would get distributed to each employee. each employee wont be editing the accounts. wont be validating it. so no point putting accounts onto a blockchain. just email employees a final glossy booklet of the companies yearly results

EG a hospital where each ward needs to know where available beds are. and make a request for a bed to be moved to a specific ward. and where the ward can adjust when it arrives and when they have a spare bed to offer.. over a multi wards hospital over a multi hospital region.. then yes there are benefits to having it

find some people that knows of bitcoin but hate the ban as much as you do..
ask them if they are having trouble buying bitcoin. they can buy it off you, over a cup of coffee in a safe location where you both cant literally back stab each other while money changes hands to you and a transaction to them occurs

usually best to find someone you already know. rather than some guy you just met. as it could be the authorities doing an undercover sting industry using the same training as propositioning a prostitute/pimp/client

amount of coins held is meaningless.
amount of USER nodes distributed is meaningless.
amount of hashpower is meaningless.

here is why.
core decided they wanted segwit. segwit got activated by threatening pools that if they didnt update to cores proposal. core nodes and businesses agreeing to core nodes will reject mining pools blocks.. and it didnt matter how much hashpower they had.. if they didnt flag acceptance with a version number. they would get rejected.

as for the node. there could be 50,000 nodes. but shill nodes are ignorable. the important nodes are the ones connected to services where people want to sell/user coins (merchants and exchanges)
so if a majority of merchants agree to only accept blocks of a certain version. then people will need to use the version and transact in a way that merchants will see(get) the payments so people can spend their coins.

it doesnt matter if there is 1000 user full nodes or 50000 user nodes.
if the main 20 exchanges and 50 merchants all agree to update to a certain version. then users and pools usually folow or find they cant spend their coins with those merchants.

it doesnt matter if a merchant has 1coin or a million coins. it know if it advertises it only accepts X version. people will use X version.
it doesnt matter if users have 1coin or a million coins. in a fork. they still have 1 coin or 1m coins. but now they have it on both forks.

this is why in 2017. under normal consensus segwit would not have got acceptance as it only had 35% approval.
but with the UASF and the NYA of merchants saying yes to a version of segwit.. segwit got its mandatory split date activated in august

and it had nothing to do with how many coins was held. it was a social cleanse and a bribe the popular USEFUL SERVICE nodes nodes

citibank is no threat. because. citibanks service is not an exchange people will be able to move their coins into. users wont see citibanks node/service as part of the network effect.

i would concentrate on what is known as the BSCartel . the group of core devs and the MERCHANTS that are working together and agree on everything like a heard of sheep. where by most exchanges and retailers who offer products and service for bitcoin operate.

seems people are mis-understanding thinking that citbank custodian means normal people can walk into citibank and secure their bitcoins in the bank like an online wallet.. well no. no and no

what citibank is offering is for INSTITUTIONS not common people. to use citibank as a trust to hold and secure BTC so that institutions can then offer SHARES to investors. shares that meet financial regulations that normal OTC btc cant

also its not a sign that banks will do bitcoin ATM's of offer bitcoin OTC at the local bank branches cashier desk.. again no no no
its not going to b run by its consumer 'bank' division as that has its own regulations to only handle fiat. not btc, not baked beans and not bread. just fiat.
it will be run by its investment division

---

imagine having a service that holds reserves of 200,000 coins.
and they set that it would be 6000 shares per coin.

1,200,000,000 shares at ~$1 each
now imagine the bitcoin price never changed.

but imagine more than 1.2 million people wanted a share.

1. they cant just raise the share price to tempt some to sell or due to high demand. the share needs to be fixed to a 6000th of a btc.
2. they cant just dilute the shares(add more shares per btc) because then if they wanted to double shares. suddenly each share is only 50cents

what will happen is that the trust has to buy more btc. where for every btc gives the trust 6000 new shares to offer.
(it was something i learned in 2014, forgot and remembered)

so although ETF are not letting investors buy bitcoin direct. if all 1.2mill shares are bought the trust cant dilute or raise price of share but can buy more bitcoin privately to add to the trust to add more shares

which unlike gold and forex etf/dar's bitcoin ETF can INSTANTLY get audited at no cost. with a simple publishing the bitcoin address of the trust

the drama is drama

its all a distraction to take peoples view away from the development struggles on the core network.
craig wright is a scammer
roger ver is not a code
both are not coding in the bitcoin core team..

so in reality.. they can dance around in twinkling ballet outfits with glitter makeup on.. it wont affect bitcoin.. so why even fear/scream/mention/dramatise them...

if you actually follow the money. they are actually deep inside the pockets of the team that envisioned and created the core road map...2015

anyway lets go into a coder that is inside the core team that has more questionable thoughts.

we have cores Luke JR attacking bitcoin cores network by saying it cant scale.
translation.. the blockchain invention is broke and wont innovate

we have him also helping with the UASF to show that consensus technology is also broke
first by saying that consensus broken because something can be slid in without a hard fork.
translation if segwit didnt need consensus or a hard fork. it would have got its place by december 2016

and then by mid spring 2017 that a hard fork doesnt need community consensus
translation his buddies managed to threat and fear the community to adopt a 35% voted segwit codebase. which without the mandatory threats and gameplay would not have got accepted by the deadline
yep he proved consensus can be bypassed.. although needed a hard fork to do it. but tried calling it a soft fork to sway the sheep to sleep about his hypocrisy

luke also helps attack bitcoin core by moderating proposals to stop random people from proposing code changes.
translation. proving its not open, proving its not random users able to add their part
thus keeping bitcoin core on the roadmap that the barry silbert portfolio really want.

yea barry silbert faked a segwit x2. but thats just another way to push the roadmap to commercialisation

but while actual changes are happening to the protocol to change it into something for commercial benefit.. all you will hear is drama about a hand full of guys not even coding core. thus not affecting core.. but hey.. look look ver craig don this. look at them ignore core devs actions look at ver. please sheep look at ver (note sarcasm)

now for the serious message. stop looking at the drama distraction and concentrate vet, review and hold those that can change core to account.

power plants do regulate. and at night they do shut down some generators.
but they do try to keep some excess between produced and consumed.
it does take 30mins-1 hour to restart a generator. so they like to keep a gap. and they also like to sell some of that excess to other countries**  that have less of a gap and suddenly had a surge of consumption that was unforecasted.
**OR INDUSTRIES hint hint

yea. they forecast extra TV use during super bowl and even forecast even further consumption at commercial tv breaks when people warm up a coffee or microwave some popcorn.
but sometimes. when there is a big news event which on a normal day wouldnt see many people with TV on, suddenly turn on their TV's. that unforeseen event is why they have the excess.. to prevent brownouts


before you made your reply. and as part of my post with loads of maths i was going to add a sarcastic comment to the reddit propagandists who scream "china 51%"

so here goes
lets imagine out of the 20.7twh that 50% was just in china (10.35)
china consumes 5683
china produces 6529
=836 difference (13% safety gap)

10 vs 800 excess.. = no impact to residences lives

mark bevands study was out dated. even in january 2018 he was using ASICS of 2+ generations old.
my numbers were based on the last 12 months. using the 2017/2018 generation miners.
i even broke the costs down to the daily level of the hashrate of the day. worked out asics costs of the day etc.. and then added up the total electric.. (yea i got super anal with the details)
as i showed the OP's source done 54thashrate(54210peta) *365 (yet last week, last month we were not at 54thashrate so his electric use would have been off by alot)

as for the domestic amount per household.
you said
"0.3 kWh per household seems a strange figure ... I guess it's per day, but it seems too low for a day but too high for an hour"

are you saying 300w an hour is high?
...
i just grabbed UK stats
google "Average kWh per day. The average electricity usage per household: Electricity: 8.5 – 10 kWh per day".
8.5/24 = 0.35416kwh     10/24=0.4166kwh
now remember thats just the UK other countries have different amount.  yep many countries use even less electric than the UK (world bank 12.6% of houses have no electric)

america do love their bigger houses AC, gadgets and techy stuff.
google: "average American your monthly read 911 kilowatt hours (kWh)"
911pmonth*12/365/24=1.2479kwh (as i said america love their AIRCON)

where as other countries have smaller houses less techy stuff, no AC... did you know aircon is the biggest electrical drainer in most households..
many countries dont have it. so many countries use alot less electric

 which backed up by a few stats sites showed the world average was 0.3 per household.

but yea mark bevand using the previous gen asics which were 2-3x less efficient would get a result 3x more then my numbers. but both me and him got numbers below the OP's 1% figure.
yea

in short if mark used todays gen asics and done th maths per day and added up each day.. he would see we are at 0.1% so his math is good. but just outdated.. where as the OP's source 1% math is meant to be recent. but just wrong in many places

the 1% figure had too many flaws to ignore so was worth the time calculating

ok i looked at the digiconomists chart

"Implied Watts per GH/s   0.154"
=154 watts per terrahash  (simply x1000 math)
=2156 watts per ASIC (simple x14 math (asic do 14th)

yet we all know an asic is 1.3kw... not 2.156
so that chart is wrong before even looking at the other implied "estimates".

screw it lets do it

---

Bitcoin's current estimated annual electricity consumption* (TWh)   73.12
Bitcoin's current minimum annual electricity consumption** (TWh)   54.77[3]
Annualized global mining revenues   $4,728,978,787
Annualized estimated global mining costs   $3,656,073,069
Current cost percentage   77.31%
Country closest to Bitcoin in terms of electricity consumption   Austria
Estimated electricity used over the previous day (KWh)   200,332,771 [2]
Implied Watts per GH/s   0.154
Total Network Hashrate in PH/s (1,000,000 GH/s)   54,219   [1]
Electricity consumed per transaction (KWh)   896
Number of U.S. households that could be powered by Bitcoin   6,770,506
Number of U.S. households powered for 1 day by the electricity consumed for a single transaction   30.28
Bitcoin's electricity consumption as a percentage of the world's electricity consumption   0.33%
Annual carbon footprint (kt of CO2)   35,830
Carbon footprint per transaction (kg of CO2)   438.98

---

54,219,000 terrahash    (remember an asic is 14terra)
54,219,000 /14=3872785.714285714asics (remember an asic is 1.3kwh)
3872785.714285714*1.3 = 5,034,621.428571429kwh

electric over a day. thats simple. multiply the hour by 24
5,034,621.428571429kwh *24=120830914.2857143

so [2] should be 120million not 200mill

next. lets look at [3] which is based on the hashrate and assumption of using the s9 asics (14thash that im using)

the 120m kwh per day or the charts 200m kwh per day. can be converted to terrawh per day easily(h/1000=m..)
(kw/1000=mw..)120830914/1000=120,830.14megawattdays
(mw/1000=gw..)120,830.14/1000=128.83014gigawattdays
(gw/1000=tw..)128.830.14/1000=0.12883014terrawattdays
then days to a year is a simple *365
0.12883014*365 = 47.0230011 a year

now. thats lower than [3]
but note the wording of [3] bitcoins minimal
... um sorry. the math of my 47twh a year is based on onday multiplied. so there is an issue
the charts [2]200kw (converted to tw and multipled by 365) is 73.12 .... so there is an issue
the issue is that the estimates are that the electric and hashrate has been the same for the whole year

but BEFORE TODAY hashrates and thus electric used were lower.
so for the last 365 days. the electric/hashrate per day was LOWER
anyway. its harder to write out the daily electric for the last 365days. so i used excel and just displayed the end result

the actual electric consumption for the year is 20.7  not 47 not 54 not 73

ok so i googled "electricity consumption"
and got this
Electric energy consumption is the form of energy consumption that uses electric energy. Electric energy consumption is the actual energy demand made on existing electricity supply. The total electricity consumption in 2012 was 20,900 TWh.
i checked may other statistics site for 2012 and also found domestic consumption at the 19,000-21,000 area

i also looked at newer stats for more recent years. anyway

100/20900*20.7=0.099% ... ok. so on previous pages i done one way of working it out. and this time i done it another way. and both ways resulted in a 0.1%.. so im happy and i double proofed myself.

in a fiat financial collapse. $10 goes from buying 10 loaves of bread. to only buying 1 loaf of bread.
(look at zimbabwe dollar a trillion dollars buys you a bread crumb)
or to flip the mindset a lof of bread goes from $1 to $10+

what will happen is bitcoin will go up to trillions of dollars. but the purchase value of goods, assets or services wont match the amount of goods or services 1btc can buy today

this is why we need to start measuring bitcoin against cost of living.. or even just a 'bread loaf value' to detach away from the dollar so we can see a real btc vs goods value

as for people waiting to buy at or below $5k range. bar a temporary fluke of stupidity where a whale sells at a loss.. i dont anticipate a sub $5800. and ill explain why

firstly. if a miner that mines to hoard. is happy to spend $6.1k mining. if they see the market drop to under $6100. they will just divest some of that electricity money and just buy btc from the market and save themselves a couple hundred dollars and ofcourse time.

since november 2017 (retested end of june2018) the community has had 10 months to sell below $5800 .. ample oppertunities. and they havnt taken up that option.(thus market community acquisition cost consensus =$5,800+)
ontop of that if you do the math of mining costs of a BTC. that too sits at over $5,800.(thus mining community acquisition costs consensus =$5,800+)

this basically makes the market and mining both support the rational consensus to not sell below their costs (not stupid to sell for a loss)

i would have said the maths of september is more like $6100+... but its too soon to say that, because 5800 was only a couple month ago so too soon to raise the bottomline to 6100 without giving the community ample option to test. so im cautiously sticking with $5800 for a couple more months

1. i sold a paper clip. it cost me 1penny i sold it for 3 pennies.. YAY 3x
2. that was yesterday, today no one wanted another paper clip..

lesson. it may happen once to a certain asset. doesnt mean it will repeat every time

1. i had a blue chain of paperclips this time. i sold 1 for 3pennies YAY 3x for every new paperclip ICO premine day one sale
2. that was yesterday, today no one wanted another paper clip..

lesson. it may happen once to a certain asset. doesnt mean it will repeat every time
most ICO's are boring no-utility, over hyped PoS(no cost to create) crap.

bitcoin has (so far) got merchant utility. got a known presence and has an actual underlying cost of production(PoW)
so bitcoin if you ignore the cubs and calves(the small bulls and bears) and look at the long term view.. yep that means zooming out of daily/wekly charting and look at the 3 year chart

2016: >$300
2017: >$900
2018: >$5800
bitcoin is a 6x BULL so far this year.

have a nice day

just Y water is not a problem...
heres your problem.. screw it ill draw it for you

(imagining a its a year later... and had a year drought you'll se an empty reservoir, right)


heres my solution


its called re-use.. recycle. after all if you can pee out of your urethra to turn a paper windmill. does the water vanish.
if you direct it right and your standing above a container. the container is now a new bladder.
now pour that over a paper windmill... now i should have sparked your imagination positively
repeat repeat repeat

water turbines are not a one use and its gone forever..... Y water is not a problem
as for z height to have space/capacity for a second bladder/reservoir. well it doesnt need to be a container of a years supply of rain/pee..
so

so now as of day 3.. the same water that fills the main reservoir gets reused 3 times.
production: so thats 3x electrical production
capacity: reservoir + 2x 0.003~ of a reservoir to hold and reuse the same water twice to get the 3x production