bitcoin is not the most used tech, its the most promoted tech.

take fiat
people think the dollar is the most used currency because people compare and measure oil and world economics to the dollar. but in reality only ~400million out of 7.5 billion people actually use dollar.

where as in india/asia BILLIONS of people use chinese or indian currency.

the bitcoin specific tech for mining (the sha256 hash algo) has not changed in 9 years. so there has not been any change to that.

asics. which came about in october 2013 are not bitcoin specific. they can be used on other coins too.. so you cant praise bitcoin devs for causing a price increase in october 2013. as the bitcoin devs had nothing to do with ASICs.
flipping the debate. with mning costs coming down, would you blame the bitcoin devs for this march onwards dip? nope, ud probably blame the asic manufacturers for making cheaper more efficient rigs. (hope you see my point)

..
i personally have a nice hoard of coins from as far back as 2012. so dont get me wrong i love the principles of bitcoins ethos 2009-2013. but since 2013 the innovation of bitcoin specifically has changed/dwindled/ been sidesteppd by other projects/networks.
i am not someone that does the over promoting under delivery proaganda bull crap of speculative grabbing people to cause a hype for some 10 minute ATH price drama. i am a realist. i find it better to call out faults/issues and be realistic about the situation and for people to know what truly lays underneath the tech, the price, the value.. so that these things can be dealt with

for instance. the price.. there are 2 aspects that give bitcoin nice supprt. the mining cost and buyers remorse. if bitcoin changed the mining algo to PoS or as other put it 'asic proof'. then there dies one line of support. leaving only buyers remorse .
and then the speculation of utility which causes the volatility bubbles ABOVE value(above support). which like waves can spike up, then correct itself down causing panic and drama.

so if PoS came to be part of bitcoin specifically. or 80% mining pools stopped mining because the cost increased but the utility of the network deminished because people were using LN/altcoins instead. then the support line for cost of creation would drop. because difficulty would drop and only 20% of miners could afford to carry on at a lower price

ill help everyone out. by starting with the summery and then do the explanations and ansering some points pople made in posts that need addressing

tl;dr;
real underlying support value is the cost of obtaining the coin. bitcoin uses mining. which is costly..
if it costs $6000+ to make a coin and people in general/average buy a coin above $6k then the majority of community wont sell below the cost they obtained it for.
unlike PoS coins where costs are negligable. most PoS prices are not 'of value' but of speculation of utility (bubble pricing). thus there is no 'cost of creation' support line.and only 'buyers remorse' support line

now for the general chit chat stuff that needs addressing
the OP is talking about bitcoin... not the underlying blockchain. not LN which is a separate network that many different coins will be on..

but just bitcoin features.

even the core devs deam bitcoin as limited and out dated(because they wont scale bitcoin). which is why they are moving onto LN which is a separate network that many coins will use.
yes LN is not a bitcoin only feature. LN is a separate network for many blockchain coins to use, but is just presently being tested using in their words "the bitcoin experiment" (yep core devs think bitcoin is just a beta phase experiment and not a fully fledged end product).
segwit is not a bitcoin specific feature either. its a stepping stone into LN. again somthing multiple blockchain coins have/will have to divert people away from blockchain payments and into a LN network of offchain payments. so dont confuse bitcoin innovation with blockchain or offchain innovation.

core devs admit to this so dont rebut it

so now that covers most peoples over promise, under delivery they have been taught. and you can thank the core devs for strangling bitcoin specific/bitcoin only innovation/development and then moving on to other projects.

so now the question about bitcoins pricing
its based around the support line of what people will refuse to sell below.
this is because it costs X to mine bitcoin. which creates a support line. and also those separately buying a coin at a certain price wont sell below that price(unless they foolishly panic) and so they then also add more support to a support line.

the more it costs to mine  bitcoin the higher the support line will get.

ignore the winter speculative bubble area of the ATH. and instead imagine that the price corrected it self back down in ~march down around the $6k-$9k region, where the support lines lay

at the moment from march-may there was a dip. which dropped from a $9k suport to to $6k+ support because new mining asics are being tested and to be released for public use in june. so some pools have had the privelidge of buying them as  preorders and expanding their farms as a testing phase and thus their mining costs have reduced because the mining rigs are cheaper.

but there is still a good support line around the $6k+ region. and then. well unless the network hashrate doesnt increase to 60exahash by the time the next asics are on public batch release in june, we might see that support line change too.
..

you are soo fooled by the drama.. that you have stuck yourself between kylie and khloe kardashian.. and cant see things outside of the kardashian drama.

ver and theymos are financialy related by the same family agent. but pretending to hate each other and pretending they are totally different (jenner vs kardashian) but from the outside its all kardashian drama of one family.

its like kylie and khloe suing each other to be able to copyright "kardashian" so that their family can then mak money out of it.
the only thing is no real outside person has had financial loss due to the drama. so the lawsuit wont make anyone whole. as there is no one at loss. and the drama is just about copyright decision of who deserves the brand being decided in court

i have never defended ver. and i am not team cash.
but because you are stuck so deep in the drama you can only see core vs cash.

yes i hate cores centralisation. but that does not mean automatically im cash..

you need to learn decentralisation. declining to wish to learn decentralisation is something that is only going to affect your abilities and your understanding. so its in your best interest to learn what real decentralisation is.

i really do laugh at the core centralists who think that if anyone hates core, they must be thrown out the network and be callled part of another altcoin.. i pitty core centralists.

but continue in your core centralist cabin and chat only in the echo chamber of core fans. and never learn decentralisation. because its what appears that you are already intending to do.
your lack of understanding, and lack of research outside of your echo chamber has been very revealing.

have a nice day.

if though. in a few months. your core loyalty wanes and you decide you want to open your mind. to the whole big picture

check out the core devs, gmax defined what a bilateral split was and yes segwit split. from the old network(v20000000)
check the blockchain after block 478558 for about 2000 blocks (core network rejected v20000000 blocks to activate segwit)
yep core network rejected blocks and also ban hammered any nodes that tried relaying blocks of that old format

but im sure you wiill ignore the immutible network/tenicals. and instead scream 'but look at ver'
P.S ver is not even a coder. ver did not even create cash. thats how funny this drama is. ver did not create cash.

regulations do NOT protect customers

regulations make businesses POLICE its customers.

what lacks is the understanding of due dilegance ((DYOR)do your own research)
and consumer protection which is separate from regulation.

what people think is if a business is regulated. then is a gold star to trust a business..
(remember the housing crises that was regulated. .. that proves regulations do not help mortgage customers)

consumer protections enforced on businsses need advocacy.. not regulation

if you imagine bitcoin as the bank account(private key) wire transfer(bank branch cash transfer)
and you imagine bitpay/coinbase merchant tools as visa merchant network

then yes it can happen.

as for would it ever happen in bitcoin (the core network)
it has happened.
in 2013 there was the leveldb bug which was the most notable one.

and if everyone keeps sheep following cores software, and does not diversify by having an equal playing field of multiple software of multiple languages all running on one network (real decentralisation).. by only trusting core as the reference/core software. then if core had a bug, everyones affected

again this is not about cash vs core.

i have never defended ver. i have detested core.
learn the difference.(its about centralisation vs decentralisation)

i know you cant elequantly admit your games. or admit the propaganda agenda. but if all you can do is think if someone detests core they must be pidgeon holed into another team. is your failure of understanding decentralisation. by you thinking its only a 2 team game

..
define bitcoin in YOUR own mindset. (not using the scripted definition of 2009-2013) define it as you see it now. that way we can see are you really a bitcoin decentralist or a core centralist

try not to be a reddit script reader. as today it seems you have learned the hard way you have been pushing a script thats 7 months out of date
and ask yourself what you truly are defending. because you seem like a core centralist defender not a bitcoin decentralist.

dont turn my questions into a cash vs core. to avoid the subject
which are you
bitcoin decentralist (hoping the core team backdown a little and let others use consensus on the network)
core centralist (hoping core partners continue mandatory forced changes/social dramas)

reasons i ask.
who has the power to push out-let in anyone?
which can only be answered by knowing what people think that "bitcoin" is

seems the OP jolly good had recently been pushing a propaganda mission script that is 7 months out dated.
.. the power of reddit screams seems huge to make people like jolly good push so hard a subject thats 7 months old known as the rage quit propaganda

funnily then jolly good himself has now backtracked after realising that the ragequit drama was over back then in november. and jolly only realised this today after no longer reading the reddit scripts. and instead realised it was old.

...
anyways, the agenda of these propaganda is that ver is actually part of the same group as blockstream/bloq/coindesk/theymos/core centralists
whereby funding can be clearly seen coming from DCG.co


what i am about to say is about
what does your own mindset truly want bitcoin to be
what does your own mindset truly think it currently is

this is not about cash vs core.

those that say they are "bitcoin" supporters. what do you define as bitcoin.
yes the blockchain data is distributed. and yes private control of funds using private keys is distributed.

but the RULES/PROTOCOL of the network. where does your mindset sit.

if you were a true bitcoin decentralist. then great you wont mind anyone attacking certain devs/promoters of any group because no one should own the brand

for instance i personally have nothing against people attacking ver/bloq for that old drama.
but then theymos/core has done the same thing,  they too deserve the same attacks too

if you are a core control fan, thinking core are the best team to decide and maintain the code direction of the network. then your just as hypocritical as ver.
for wanting a team to control and own a protocol and brand

...
before replying. its best you seek deep inside yourselves. where do you truly stand
so to know for yourself if you care more about a decentralsied network as it was mainly in 2009-2013. or if you are a bitcoin core supporter. ask yourself these questions and evaluate your own mindset

1. do you believe core are the best team to moderate, maintain and decide on the future features
2a. if core devs decided tonight to rage quit/stop coding. and tomorrow there was a network bug based on core code. do you have a backup plan
2b. or just hope/trust core wont quit.
3. would you be happier if core never again be part of orchestrating with their partners a mandatory bilateral split, to bypass consensus
4. would you be happier if core did continue to do mandatory splits to bypass consensus for their features to be added to their chain
5. do you care about the control of the code. or just want a team to maintain it centrally to give it trust and ultimately push the price

guage your own answers to reveal to yourself if you are a decentralised network fan. or a core centralist fan.

unlawful, illegal... is not happening
immoral, unethical.. maybe

but its the free market. if someone has 1000 coins. but other traders only have 0.1btc each.. who's fault is that.
ys if there are order lines of 0.1btc and then suddenly people see 100 'wall' of course its going to cause a psychological change in peoples decisions.

but the question is
is it the fault of a whale. or is it that the exchanges have not matured, become trusted enough for multiple people to trust putting in 1000 coins in at a time for thre to be multipl 100 orders like we had in 2012-2013 where 100 was normal(and 2000 was a wall). or that the equilibrium of funds is not equally spread so that everyone is equally at 1btc each

.
i personally have a nice hoard but i dont put it all into an exchange. over the years i have told many people to not throw all their hoard into an exchange, more so to be risk adverse.
so is putting in a hoard about wanting to influence the market..
or
just not risk adverse and wanting to trade but.. finding there is not equal volume to cater to needs due to exchanges not being mature enough to handle the volume

each block gives mining pools a reward in the form of new coins + transaction fee's

however right now, pools dont care much about the tx fee's as its only about 10-15% extra of the new coin production. thus they treat the new coin as income and the tx fee as a bonus
income:bonus

at the moment the reward is 12.5btc new coins(income) and ~1.5btc(bonus) in transaction fee's   (12.5:1.5 (new coin:tx fee))
and so (rounded to this years average $8k), this means each block gives roughly ($100k:$12k) $112k

every ~4 years the new coin amount halves. so in
~2020 it will be 6.25btc new coins
~2024 it will be 3.125btc new coins
~2028 it will be 1.5625 nw coins..

now based on a sensible price continuing and not much changing about the number of transactions per block. if we imagine that the transaction fee's remained at 1.5btc per block..
then in ~2028 the newcoin:tx fee ratio will be like for like 1:1 (1.5btc:1.5btc to be more exact)

after 2032 mining pools will care less about the new coin production and care more about the transaction fee.
this will be the time where the tx fee becomes the income and the new coin becomes the bonus (psychologically)

so if we imagine the price of bitcoin was 10x more then it is now in a decade
(1.5btc:1.5btc) $120k:$120k

but with that said in ~2028 if the price of bitcoin was $80k($120k for 1.5btc)  . and the blocks were still only performing 2000-4000 tx a block (2000 legacy or 4000 full utility segwit with the blocksize/weight remaining as it is today)
each tx would cost $60 legacy or $30 segwit
(yea ignore the 'discount' the devs say segwit will give. based on tx count the segwit will actually produce if fully utilited. and divide the $120k(1.5btc) by the 2000 to 4000tx)

with all that said.....

so the problem is not that pools will not get any funds in2028->2140->2140+.. they will. so relax..
the problem is how much it would cost each tx, to make the funds the pools would receive/need.

which is where the debate of 5 years+ ago began about scaling onchain to allow more transactions so that instead of 2000-4000tx a block. it becomes in a decade(not over night) slowly growing to be 20,000-40,000tx a block so that fee's are only $6Legacy  $3Segwit

after all who would want to use bitcoins blockchain if it cost $30-$60 a tx in a decade. when other currencies would offer cheaper tx fee's.

and please dont rebuttle about LN. because LN will not be a feature exclusive to bitcoin. the LN devs have already publicly admitted that LN will be used by other coins. thus onchain scaling has to happen in less than a decade to keep the fee per tx down to keep the ntworks utility attractive and useful.

and please dont rbuttle about 'gigabyte blocks by midnight' no one is suggesting gigabyte blocks tomorrow or this year. so it can be slow stead increases over time to nsure that the btc network stays cost effective, useful and without barriers

ha ha ha such a comedian
grabbing blog posts full of twisted buzzwords

how about read real data. like the blockchain itself
how about speak to the main devs. not the SPV wallet core fan wannabe's

bitcoin CORE, on august 1st  rejected any blocks that were not signaling for segwit.
basically bitcoin core rejected all legacy blocks.. thus bitcoin core did actually split AWAY from the past.
yep bitcoin core went in a different direction. and so did bitcoin cash.
hense it was a 2 way split. where both sides decided to go in separate directions compared to the past.
thats the very definition of a bilateral split.

and it was not a consensus upgrade because that would be where no split occured, everyone continues on the same network and no legacy blocks get rejected but new formats get accepted aswell as legacy blocks.
but a consensus event did not happen
 
core only had 35% vote under consensus.. so they gave up on waiting for consensus. and got their partners to organise the mandatory bilateral split.(again check the blockchain, check with the devs, both show it. (hint:blogs dont outrule real data))

yep.. and dont take the word of your propaganda pals. look at the data, its in the blockchain.. talk to the main devs (not the SPV wallet guys you have been hugging lately)

gmaxwell, pieter wuiile, luke Jr, etc all admit it was a bilateral split event on august first.
it was not a consensus event. so the propaganda blog you displayed is foolish nonsense of misrepresentation.

i think i have had my fill of laughs for the day,
its real funny that you been fooled into thinking that mandarorally demanding that nodes reject blocks  that would be valid under normal rules is a softfork.
windfury. if there ever was a bitcoin conference, and you become a public speaker. if you say what you have been saying recently, proper people that know whats really happened. that have been around alot longer then you. will ask who wrote your script and is your segment the comedy night part of the conference.

i think its time you go find other opinions and new script handouts away from the core defence league. because the core defense league is not the bitcoin decentralisation league. which is more reason to ensure people know about the bilateral split and how/why/when core gained controls of the network.. and why the community should name the network now empowered by core as bitcoin core.  
core should not own brand bitcoin.. no one should.

but i already know. as you admitted already you sheep follow core. so all arguments about
bitcoin decentralisation, vs core defense. you will always aid the core defense.

but dont reply until you have looked at the blockchain and done some proper research. because you are just slipping further and further away from understanding decentralisation. and definetly sounding like you are not desiring or defending decentralisation

have a nice day.

public blockchains are just called blockchain

private chains are now being deemed as distributed ledger technology(DLT) because they are not using the concept of decentralisation but instead distributed(within authorised/centralised entities)

exactly. and thats why exchanges are not banks. they do not create money to offer interest.

banks do have contracts. LOAN CONTRACT. loanee must repay debt+interest
same with depositers you get a booklet of terms and conditions that lay out your interest rate returns on your deposits
.
banks get loanees to hand banks more money(or suffer consequences) to then use that (loan interest) as the pot of funds for the depositor interest

if talking about the faucet is offtopic. maybe you should take it out of your OP, and i wasnt comparing it based on % i was comparing it based on the mechanism of how HYIPS(scams) get the funds to pay out, which is not via money creation



exchanges are not banks
exchanges do not create money out of thin air.

anyway.
people should learn not to treat exchanges as banks
people should learn not to expect exchanges to function like banks
people should not use exchanges as banks

people need to learn some self control. thats what private keys are for

in the fiat world
bank accounts/chequing accounts are insured and have the fractional reserve money creation and loan repayment mechanisms to be profitable and only able to do this due to depositors, so depositors deserve returns.
but in the fiat world
TRADING ACCOUNTS are not insured the way you think and are at risk of loss and do not earn interest and should not be treated as bank accounts between trades unless you day trade and its too much hassle to withdraw to a bank account and back to a trade account each day

in the crypto world exchanges are TRADING ACCOUNTS.
if you are trading daily then yes its easier to not withdraw after trading and deposit again tomorrow.but your funds are at risk between trades

for emphasisi
people should learn not to treat exchanges as banks
people should learn not to expect exchanges to function like banks
people should not use exchanges as banks

people need to learn some self control. thats what private keys are for

i dont follow ver.. which again is your failing to understand. you think people need to follow.. (facepalm)
you are so stuck in the follower mindset that you think its the only thing available. you need to learn the concept of decentralisation, urgently.
thats the problem with sheep they think if your not following the farmer you must be following the sheepdog.

what the sheep dont realise is the farmer and the sheep are working together

segwit was implemented in a few days.. with their MANDATORY consensus bypass crap on august 1st!!

prior to the august event they didnt want to admit thir power. but at a cost to them only having 35% consensus.. so instead of backing off and finding a compromise that consensus would agree with.. they instead revealed their power.

real funny part.. you cant ignore the data, as its wrote into the blockchain.
you cant denie the core devs admitting their corruption. they even made pictures of it to make it obvious..

all you can try and do is to pretend im a ver fanboy..
what a silly pointless rebuttle that makes especially when its not the case.

P.S why are you not talking about BLOQ, the bilateral split.
why are you not taking about the up/downstream filers/bridging that TRULY makes segwit not backward compatible (in a network bug event. where segwit nodes cant translate, thus the segwit blocks are not compatible with legacy nodes)

and dont bother replying with just a point finger at a ver fanclub as your answer to anything anti core

..
P.S
when core defenders cannot rebut the obvious. all they can do is pretend a core opposer must be pidgeon holed into a fanclub of someone else..
but never do these core defenders ever consider that people can be decentralsied and hate cores centralisation.. all the core fanboys can comprehend is fanclubs of x or y. centralisation is all they understand because they have not experienced decentralisation.
...
the reason i dont follow ver is simple.  i have explained it SEVERAL TIMES to you specifically.
ver is on the same team those that want core to own bitcoin. (dcg.io)

its reserve psychology..

lets try it in another analogy. because real data, real quotes from core devs themselves seems to blow right past you.
womens hair.
no one should own the brand "blonde" but one brunette bleaches her hair blonde and wants to be the centre of attention as the one true and only blonde.
she gets her sister VERa whos a red head to scream out that strawberry blonde is the new blonde. all so that friends of the bleach blonde can argue that ginger is just ginger and will never be blonde and that bleach blonde is the one true blonde.

in my eyes neither are blonde.
there is
strawberry blonde
bleache blonde
but neither should own the brand blonde. and neither should say only they are THE blonde..

other blonde in the blonde community would get rekt and their hair forked out with scissors by the bleach blonde if they tried to say they were THE blonde. they would get told to dye off their hair to another colour if they tried to take blonde brand away from bleache blonde

so with bleache blonde now controlling the blonde community with her forks and scissor powers. we should still not let bleache blonde own the brand blonde.
and instead call the community she monarchs over bleache blonde until she backs down and declares to drop the rekt campaignes and forks and scirrors against other blondes. thus allowing othr blondes to as a community consensus go back to how things were a few years ago

more social kardashian drama to distract the sheep

meanwhile the core devs want to implement more features that can risk peoples funds, especially if people dont read the sighash/op codes of transactions to see if funds can be manipulated by others.

but it seems no one will talk about the risks of the new features but instead divert attention away from core implementing new features without a level playing field of consensus. by talking about these social drama crap that has nothing to do with code/risk

this new drama. is to try to this time give another fork the name bitcoin core.. so that people cannot call the network that the REAL core team control and own that same title.

thus pushing for people to call the network which the REAL CORE TEAM control just bitcoin. because bitcoin core is taken by a crapfork. even though core still should not own bitcoin brand..

because
CORE do control the (btc) network, and thats why the network should be called bitcoin core.(i mean btc should be bitcoin core.. not this new distraction $BTCC)
after all.. think of it this way, imagine if armoury/ btcd (other clients on the btc network) tried to suggest that they were the reference/centre of the network like core does. core would not be happy and REKT them, fork them.

other implementations are not on the same level as core so its not a level network to give it the network a broad open name like the old 2009-2017 network had

the bilateral split of august 2017 seen to it that core gained control of one copy of 2009-2017 network and another team gain (BLOQ) gained control of another copy of the 2009-2017 network. and BOTH went different directions.

it was not a unilateral split. it was a bilateral split. thus both have no claim over the brand . an no one should lay claim to the brand. so to easily identify which network is which. make it clear
bitcoin core
bitcoin cash

just like the fiat world. no country can lay claim to the "dollar" . so make it clear
U.S dollar
canadian dollar.

in common communication people can abbreviate it to just 'dollar','bitcoin' if the content of the conversations is obvious which currency/community/network they are inside. but nethier should say that they are THE dollar / THE bitcoin. because no one should own "bitcoin" brand.

if you wish to deny that core are making the claiims that core own the network. take a hard look at bitcoin.org and cores github.
https://bitcoin.org/en/development
everything points to saying that bitcoin is a core project.. and that anyone can take part by joining cores project
 
and then saying that other clients are other projects

bitcoin.org and the github are centred around core as THE project

thus the network should be defined as bitcoin core until these things happen:
core declare they will never again bilateral split or unilateral split off any opponents to cores bips.. meaning if the community do not majority agree with core.. then tough luck core, compromise and unite the communty next time.
core declare they use proper community consensus as it was intented
core declare to allow other clients to release new features and require consensus without REKT, fork campaigns.
and
when needed core and other clients work together to take a bit of feature X feature Y from the community where by the whole community CAN come to a consensus upgrade agrement where all clients, including core would include code for. to upgrade the network without rekt,fork,bypassing consensus.

but until core declare this, and denounce their monarchy. then the (BTC) network by cores own admission should be known as bitcoin core. but not let core own the brand bitcoin. no one should own the brand

anyway.. whil we all see the sheep play out thir social drama  finer pointy crap. whats happening at code/protocol level of the network the real core devs control will not get discussed and core will slide in new features which could put peoples funds at risk if they dont check out raw tx data before broadcasting.

that faucet is a ponzi

people put funds in and the faucet owner uses those funds to give other people "interest" hoping not everyone does a bank run and gets all their funds out again for the faucet(ponzi) to collapse
in short the faucet is a HYIP(ponzi) SCAM.
and shocking to see habBear advertising a scam under the pretense of a topic about exchanges.

banks give interest because- edited for realistic numbers
when 10 people deposits $10,000 each for a year ($100k) offering 2% return for example
a bank is allowed to create $90k as "credit" (90% of deposits) that year to give out as a loan demanding 5% APR

thus from the time the loanee signs a loan until they spend it. they bank has $190k on its accounts(assets). AND $90k debt(liability)
it does not want depositors to remove all $190k in one go(bank run) because it puts the bank into minus $90k and the bank is dead.
so only allows customers to withdraw ~$500 a day from ATM's per day to prevent mass bank runs of full deposit removals.(amungst other tactics)

back to the loan signing
the liability is then put into the loanees name
the loanee would have $90k to spend.. AND $112500 DEBT(plus interest) to repay ($90k ex interest)
so would have to pay back (pen and paper math) $10k+$4.5k in the first year($14.5k)
the bank draws down the loanees debt by $14.5k(or $90k to $80k ex interest) thus destroys the $10k ex interest liability

and from that $4.5k 'profit'.. the initial depositors would get $200 each (if their deposit account offered a 2% return)
the bank keeps $2.5k as PROFIT

thus although deposit interest is 2%.. loan interest is 5%.. inflation($2.5k generated money retained) is only 2.5%
......

but here is how bitcoin is completely different to banking
in bitcoin no one can CREATE new bitcoin based on deposits or individual credit agreement.

so to offer interest. the initial depositers funds would need to get used to pay other people.(ponzi)

and so the scammy faucet habBear is advertising
without any contractual agreement for the funds receiver(faucet payout) to re deposit anything +interest to then repay the initial depositor
the faucet is a ponzi because its then a end game for those that initially deposited if no new depositers keep the ponzi alive

---

anywahy. back to the exchange "interest" part of the topic.
people should only deposit funds into an exchange for more then a day. if they are to use the exchange daily to trade for profit. because withdrawing and redepositing each day becomes a hassle.
but if your not trading each day. DONT treat a trader 'account' (exchange) as a bank/wallet.
its like stocks and shares. your not suppose to use a trader/exchange as a bank account. your funds ARE at risk and you can lose them. in bitcoin and in fiat its the same thing.
a fiat trader account does not have the same 'depostor' insurance as a normal bank account.

so only use an exchange if you intend to use an exchange for its purpose.. to exchange.
and the 'interest' part of the argument. well bitcoins dflationary nature (2016 >$300, 2017>$900 ,2018 >$6000) means youll get back more that you initially had, even without having to use and exchange.
then if you want to risk your funds for more greed. then day trade for a few percent.

in short
dont trust third party services to hold your funds and have them give you empty promises of profit, while you do nothing but just leave the funds in thier possession. rmember they are probably just as greedy and lazy as you. and would happily take your funds and leave you without.

follow.. like a sheep
nah

much better to have a open network of multiple node implementations of all different languages and all offering features on the same network which if they dont get consensus alone quickly they accept that not everyone likes it and then they all discuss in the community a compromise where they all can agree on a bit of this and a bit of that and a bit of the other.. then all produce software for all their implementations that the majority can agree on..

none of this follow one team centralised bullcrap you have decided to defend
you seem to stuck in the mindset of, if you dont like teamA go walk sheepishly over to team B

since you are a post 2013 bitcoin user where the only thing you have experienced is civil war.
many of use remmber the times before 2013 when there were more then one node type and there was no battle..
when decentralisatin and consensus was truly used

but anyway.
"to follow" now thats the comedy punchline that made me laugh today..
one day you will see the big picture

you will find many coins people term as crapcoins. because they are premined/not mined. no cost of creation. their purpose or function is not proved.
99% of coin announcements and ICO (initial coin offerings) are in this 'crap coin ' category

next is to look at which coins have stood the test of time of sustainability. look at what they do, how they are used and by who. the three main functional coins that have purpose are bitcoin litecoin and ethereum.

bitcoin and litecoin are more like currencies and are MINED (actual cost to create)
ethereum is more like contract agregators/ escrows for other functions.. ethereum is moving to PoS(costs to create are going to be near zero)

..
i wont go through the whole list of coins as there are 1500+ of them and 99% of them are crapcoins as i said,

---

next would be to look at the prices of the coins. if you dont want to do the maths of cost of mining. the simplist thing would be to IGNORE the all time high(ATH) price of a coin first.
and instead when looking at the charts. take any period length.. EG 6 allotments if only a couple years of chart-12 monthsallotmnts of many years of charts
and find the all time LOW of each period and draw a line between each of those ATL's .
there you will find good indication of where 'VALUE' is. because no one is foolish to sell for less than it cost them to obtain it.

again for emphasis ignore the ATH (bubble price).. look for the ALT(value waterline)

then that will help you guage comparing ATL of most recent period, evaluate if all periods are on a upward or downward movement.

then compare the most recent ATL to the current price
and then comparing the current price to the ATH price

you can then see if the price is at a nice discount (near value) or if its way too much of a premium(near ATH)

first i think you need to learn the basics of finance.. excuse any sarcasm.. its meant as humour not arrogance, so smile while reading what im about to say.

traditional currency redeemable for gold? .. umm.. hello 1930's where have you been?
....
'intrinsic' value. is based on the labour needed to own it..
EG cost to mine gold/btc/crypto. and also its function or purpose adss some intrinsic value to the currency held.

for instance traditional currency. USED TO (generations ago) be backed by gold which value came from the cost to mine gold.
these days traditional currencies intrinsic value is only backed by minimum wage. EG US/UK min wage is ~£$7.50 meaning a £$10 bank note is intrinsic value of 1 hour 20 minutes of sweat laabour.
where by law if you do 1 hour 20 minutes of obvserved/provable labour (employment) you will get £$10 atleast
....
yes in traditional currencies, and in gold markets the PRICE is not exact and fluctuates. but that is called speculation..

speculation is the bubbly bit of foam ontop of a value waterline. speculating can inflate or pop which is why PRICES change, but the underlaying VALUE is more stable
this is why at times of massive speculation. they say something is in a bubble period. because there is more bubbles than underlying value (price is more then double value)

...
a bubble does not mean a currency/property/market is fake. it just means the PRICE is over inflated.
houses are real and houses have and always will have value. but the housing market has had bubble periods
..

what you will find is that in crypto's HOW the coin is released to the community shows its intrinsic value and gives you a good starting point to calculate it.
periodic release coins are not all thrown out in one go. they are released slowly. giving it value as there is not a full supply right from the start
pre-mine coins are a term where the coins already exist befor public release and literally thrown out to the community. usually worth less value because of it

mined coins. involve actual computational work to be done. this can add costs like electric, equipment and time.. which usually means value would be higher(imagine robot labour) we call it (PoW) proof of work

stake coins. involve no 'work' as such. just proof of minimum investment to then be trusted to sign/validate. whereby its not labour lost but if the signer makes a mistake they lose the investment they used a proof. usually this means the coins value is less because the labour/cost is small. (imagine pre-nup/divorse papers, cheat and the wife takes it all) we call it (PoS)proof of stake

then there comes the featurs and utility.
some features are defined as unchangable(indelible, natural, esssentia) set in stone features. such as the coin supply(scarcity) which can add to the value.

but then there are features that can change and that then starts going into the speculative 'foam on top the water area'

anyone can have artisitic freedom of the symbol. after all take a look at the many different versions there are for the UK £


but with that said, here is an idea.
to stop the squabbling between those that want to evolve the symbology, vs those that dont..

leave the BTC generally as is.
but because the valuations are getting large. many people will move to 'bits' (100 satoshi / BTC0.00000100)
so how about think of what the symbol for 'bits' should be as we still are not quite at a overall utility of bits for it to be much of a change

i thought the same about the OP when i first read his post.
typical trend anals trying to sound good and create buzz about something thy have yet to understand.
(i call them trend anals because they are not looking at technical data, just trends.. and they are anals.. not analysts)


i too laughed at the OP's numbers too.. against typical trend anal frsh off the stock market boat
anyway, it doesnt even need that many coins.
its called arbitraging.

imagine having 10 coins. convert them to an alt like litecoin. sell litecoin for dollar. use dollar to buy bitcoin
repeat this process again. convert them to an alt like litecoin. sell litecoin for dollar. use dollar to buy bitcoin (val=20btc)
repeat this process again. convert them to an alt like litecoin. sell litecoin for dollar. use dollar to buy bitcoin (val=30btc)
repeat this process again. convert them to an alt like litecoin. sell litecoin for dollar. use dollar to buy bitcoin (val=40btc)
and so on

you can create alot of 'volume' without having to have that amount of volume as actual coin total.