Noted. I had not caught up when I made my post. However, some of those variables are important.

The major difference is that increases in hashrate come about because miners, rightly or wrongly, judge that it's in their best interest to increase their hashing capacity. The halving is an an external action, decided by a slightly bemused older gentleman who likes to play with trains.

The major difference, however is to the external market which, as one of your alter egos recently mentioned is accustomed to an inflation rate somewhere in the order of 10% p.a. which will suddenly drop to approx 5% p.a.

In miners' terms, you are broadly correct though. Bitcoins don't suddenly become more expensive. It simply becomes less profitable to mine and for a lot of miners, that means switching off which makes Bitcoin cheaper for the remaining miners. If 10% profit were acceptable now, 10% profit will be acceptable then.

As you say though, tons of variables. Many of which will depend on current price, advances in mining, early pricing in, how much miners will be willing to eat a loss until the next difficulty adjustment, the color of Obama's boxers and many more. They're all important though.

Sadly not. The thing with CPU and, to an extend GPU mining was that they were being produced and sold for general use and the prices were not reflective of their being used for Bitcoin mining (though possibly on the gray market). ASICs have very much been priced according to the idea that manufacturers want a chunk of that sweet, sweet profit and so have been much, much less attractive to the general public. Now that competition is increasing, we may see that wain a little but it will still be a ways away from being dirt cheap.

More complicated than that. Increasing miner efficiency mitigates that but then there's the cost of upgrading miners to stay in the game...

Also more complicated than saying that the cost of production doubles come the halving. That is not really the same as the reward halving.

Fun & games ahead...

Oh, almost certainly Gox weren't pumping. They got in the mess they were because the price went up and they didn't have the coins that were on their books. A rising price thus meant that they were getting dug deeper and deeper in the hole.

The reason the price was going up (absent any Willy bot type input) was because they had frozen fiat withdrawals. The only way to get anything out of Gox (pre-total-collapse) was with bitcoins. Thus anyone with an ounce of sense was trying to buy bitcoins before the price went up more and before it all went south, further putting Gox in the hole.

The Gox rise was not natural exuberance (though that also played into it) but simply the largest exchange imploding spectacularly. What should the price had been? Who knows. I suspect we would not have touched 1k for a good while if Gox was running an honest ship.

Two years ago today when we crossed into 1k territory. Unfortunately, as we were later to find out, that was 1k GoxBux

I believe we're starting to see some more flakiness from the Gox server here returning old data. The cause of this was never really addressed but I have my suspicions that the Gox order book was almost entirely imaginary.

ATH was on the 29th so I'll run these every day until then.

Yes. Next?

Meanwhile, two years ago today...

No it was not you fucking bare-faced liar. I posted a chart for the whole day in the morning and it was clearly visible it was hanging out in the low 800s.

Not there any more (unless you're talking about that shitty isis link article). Link?

Dropping the hash rate seemed to help. Plus the newer version of the firmware.

Though I'm not absolutely sure I'm completely stable now. It just seemed like a humorous time to say so.

Price action two years ago today. A bit more stable than I was expecting...

Sorry guys, it's my fault. I finally got my rig stable. Of course there's no blocks...

You've been waiting months to be able to say that.

That doesn't sound correct. I believe Visa is a standard charge for merchants. Remember you're transacting in fiat, not Bitcoin.

I believe the card issuer gets the kickback (hence why every entity you associate with wants to get you to sign up for a CC) so it looks like they might be double dipping.

Which considering the low volume may not be that big of a deal.

I would likely only consider such a thing if I was receiving substantial payments in Bitcoin. I guess it might appeal to filthy rich early adopters.

What might be interesting would be a fiat CC which gave rebates in Bitcoin.

Price first. Then miners adjust. Though there are other things that factor into it like supply of ASICs and competition between producers.

The hash rate also increases due to increasing efficiency in ASICs.

If only this site had a competent owner. How did he manage to get a stranglehold on the major forms of Bitcoin communication?

Trolls work by cherry picking data. If you were buying a soda at a store with $10, until you got your change, they would say you were $9 down.