1. Marginal miners continuing to mine has no positive effect on the price. If hashrate doesn't halve, they have to sell proportionally (to the block reward) more Bitcoin to pay expenses. So while the main argument for the price increasing (other than expectations of investors), is the halving of the annual supply of coins will be available for selling from mining, some of that could be offset by increased selling as more marginal miners become cash flow negative. So the initial effect could be an increase in selling while marginal miners try to stay afloat hoping price will rise. This is entire consistent with the V crash followed by a slingshot rocket up, which is what I stated is possible.

2. Marginal miners won't shut off their mining once Bitcoin becomes unprofitable for them, instead they will shift their ASICs to Bitcoin clones. Another Litecoin (formerly the GPU switch) is out there right now, waiting to be beneficially. Is it Vcash? What Bitcoin clones are out there?

3. I don't think the DEX demand via mining is entirely price inelastic. At some price, it is more profitable to mine an altcoin, then trade it for Bitcoins (after pumping the price of the altcoin by mining out the float and doing manipulation).

The game theory is much more sophisticated than your simplistic one.

There was a -40% price crash of Bitcoin about 3 months before the last halving, so that would correspond to roughly this May:

http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg1460zczsg2012-04-23zeg2013-01-22ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply#Projected_Bitcoins_Short_Term

Also the price rise in 2013 followed not only the halving but also the first ASIC miners:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/40944/when-did-the-asic-mining-era-begin

So another possible theory is the ASIC miners had such lower costs, that more and more Bitcoin was being held and not sold to pay expenses. And thus leading to the 2013 bubbles.

Whereas, the opposite economics this halving, in that more miners will have their costs increase unless the price doubles, thus more Bitcoin proportionally being dumped on the market until those marginal miners exit and go mine an altcoin.

Anonymint, I don't know how you can fall into the beginner trap of saying the halving is "priced in".  For something to be priced in, it would imply there is some form of equilibrium at hand, meaning the price goes up, minining power doesn't increase with it, halving occurs, then mining power stays the same.  That isn't what happened at all though.  The price went up and more mining power joined the network, raising the price floor months ago and it has been shown to be pretty stable at the higher price.  Now when the halving occurs, the price is either required to increase a lot, or lots of miners will have to drop out.  There is no form of equilibrium at hand.  Tidal waves of cause and effect have to occur.

We also know that ASICs require lots of R&D investment and capital.  Since people have already invested millions of dollars in mining farms, there is no way in hell they are going to turn off their 16nm, state of the art miners.  Current process node miners simply do not turn them off ever.  They always mine at a loss or buy coins off the wall to dollar cost average before doing that.  Even if you did think the Bitcoin price was unsustainable (it's not, market cap is still small), it's inevitable the price would spike higher before any unsustainable reality could set in.

The act of mining is also a decentralized exchange while Coinbase is a centralized exchange.  Supply is being cut in half on the DEX while demand remains the same because miners are simply not going to be turned off.  Centralized exchanges are forced to follow the price action.

They don't want Andrew Jackson on the US $20s anymore...

Halving is not priced in ... it is now being and will be, eventually.

Think of it like the 6,3,2,1 month discount interest rate future pricing mechanism on money markets.

I responded to this in the Monero Technical Discussion thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1139756.msg14610651#msg14610651 I should point out that without a tail emission or something equivalent (for: example demurrage) to secure the coin I would predict that the coin will fail.

Demonstrating my research on programming language (type) theory:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/high-order-function-with-type-parameter/3112/8

[...]

Or in short, why we probably don't need higher-kinded and higher-ranked types, but we do need first-class disjunctions and inversion-of-control ad hoc dispatch.

I'm not aware of any, but in any case, now there is one more.

Formal education is the way we perpetuate our mistakes forward. When I hire, I do not look at fake degrees. I look at the person and their thinking process. Samuel Butler (1835–1902) the iconoclastic Victorian-era English author, defined genius as “a supreme capacity for getting its possessors into trouble of all kinds.” If your child does not do well in school because they are bored rather than incapable of understanding such subjects, then they may be what people call a genius. Geniuses are often misunderstood in classrooms and are typically poor students whom teachers dislike because they are non-conformists. Studies at the University of Chicago and the University of Minnesota have found that teachers smile at children with high IQs and frown upon those with creative minds. When we had young people coming into the company who had to take their Series 7 exam, they would ask me questions. I quickly responded, “Do not ask me anything for if you do as I say you will flunk. Just memorize the answers, put them down, and then forget them and we will begin your REAL education in markets.”

The intelligent yet uncreative students accept conformity, never rebel, and complete their assignments quickly and perfectly. The creative child questions everything and accepts nothing. They are much more manipulative, imaginative, and intuitive growing up. They will often play one parent against another. In school, teachers dislike them because they will harass the teacher with questions that expose the illogical dogma they teach.

These genius children are often viewed as wild, naughty, silly, undependable, and lacking in seriousness or even promise. They even said that of Albert Einstein. Their behavior is typically distracting and they will often appear lazy, bored, and lacking any effort to try to advance, but in truth, they are absorbing everything around them. Such children will also give unique answers to banal questions because they are connecting the dots around them. Other children who are linear thinkers will typically reject these children which can cause them to be loners.

Ellis Paul Torrance (1915-2003) was an American psychologist who studied this subject and found that 70% of pupils rated high in creativity were actually rejected by teachers when picking a special class for the intellectually gifted. In a Stanford study, M.G. Goertzel, V. Goertzel, and T.G. Goertzel concluded that teachers would have excluded virtually everyone we consider to be a genius from Einstein and Edison to Picasso and Mark Twain. There is even a book on this called “The Price of Greatness: Resolving the Creativity and Madness Controversy” by Arnold M. Ludwig (1995) which explores the lives and achievements of over 1,000 extraordinary men and women. This book sought to answer the age-old questions about the relationship between mental illness and greatness. It also goes into factors that predict creative achievement in people. You will find a long list of very colorful stories about some of the most eminent artists, scientists, social activists, politicians, soldiers, and business people of our time.

Formal education is terrible. More than 60% of graduates cannot find employment in their field of study. Degrees are only useful to get jobs in brain-dead institutions that lack creativity themselves. Encourage your children to see the world dynamically and look for the connection between the dots. In ancient times, the key education was apprenticeship where you learned the field from the people actually doing the work rather than by those who lack experience. As they say, there are those who do and those who teach. I have been asked to teach at three of the leading universities. The problem is that I have no time. Those of us who really do things would find it boring and unfulfilling to simply stand up and teach a small class of kids. I might as well be a rock star singing the same song for 40 years (which is why rock stars need drugs to constantly do the same thing until they die).

i sense a decline in the quality of posts since generalizethis went to (one or more of)[bed | movie | toilet | snuff-den | Dash g-string pump up doll rendevouz at the Dash Dalmation dog soda vending machine]+

Re: Why Duckfeld fails decentralization

i thought sprouts DEV was AWOL?
Chinese dev?

The only uncertainty is bitcoin. If there was no halving I would get the fuck out, but its here and its coming and everyone is talking about how crazy the rally will be -- this alone isnt a great indicator though. And  can it really go high if there isnt the media bringing fresh blood to give it fuel ? Will the miners be able to manufacture a rally by themselves in order to make the price above their mining price ? At what point is it safe bet to be in crypto again ?

I wonder you often talk about early 2013 where all the signals were green.

Right now we only have the upcoming halving. Shouldnt it be enough to bring us near the previous ATH and then we go back down HARD like you expect ?

Do you mean the profiting part?

The deadcat bounces are almost done. Prepare for the (more and more likely) fakeout crash V bottom slingshot:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/basic-concepts/central-banks-are-trapped-higher-interest-rates-the-only-answer/

The halving looks priced in to me:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159221.msg14603897#msg14603897

I suggest you make another poll in the Bitcoin Discussion forum and ask who is holding for the halving. The poll linked above started in August 2015.

I ate hamburgers (beef) for the first time in several weeks today and immediately it made me fall asleep. Then I felt strong tonight when I woke up from that afternoon nap, yet a different sort of more intense pain in my lower abdomen area. Strange change to feel stronger yet more pain. I ran and felt very strong through the run yet more painful in my gut. So something is changing or going on down there that is new. I don't know if that is a sign of a cure coming or just more health bullshit ahead. Sigh.