the bottom of the market is discovered by:

buyers finding that they cannot get bitcoin below X anywhere on the planet via any acquisition cost. (public exchange, private OTC, mining)

sellers refusing to sell bitcoin below X anywhere on the planet via any exit method (public exchange, private OTC)

what many will find is out of exchanges, otc and mining. the cheapest place to acquire bitcoin anywhere on the planet is from the most efficient mining cost on the planet.

so if you can calculate the cheapest mining the most efficient mining and truly calculate all costs to mine 1btc.. you will find a bottom number that then supports all speculative prices above that number

..
some will try to say that mining is as volatile as speculating on the market.. but it is not

its actually a smooth efficient running business
the true low cost mining do not have variable costs that change by the hour/day.
they lock in employment costs on 6-12month employment contract
they lock in electric costs on 6-24 month contracts**
they use hardware for 6-36 months
they use warehouse facilities on a 1-10 year lease


meaning their costs are locked anf frozen for 6 months+

as for hashrate changes

lets say the hashrage changes from 200-280exahash per year for the network

the most efficient miners are constantly mining. they are part of the 200exa minimum that never stop mining whereby its hobby miners that jump off and on randomly t change the hashrate

yes the change of hashrate changes the size of the slice of the pie all miners get because of that hash competition. but as said by locking in costs for 6 months. efficient miners do not react to daily whimsy of change.
they just accumulate for 6months+ and then tally their total cost for 7 months vs coins earned over 6 months.

so if you can see the average hashrate of 6 months+ and calculate the overal cost for 6 months cost. you find the bottom for that period

and miners are not going to waste 6 months of earning btc just to sell at a loss.
so they become part of the group that refuse to sell below X

so while the market premium of speculation floats and waves above a bottom of X(not on public exchange amount)

the market is getting support to no sell down to X

thus the market is trying to 'price discover' and test the markets bottom.

now to the most important part.
in 2022. the most efficient method to acquire bitcoin on the planet(a method below and outside of the public market). is supporting the bitcoin price above $10k
the hashrate has to drop below 200exa to cause enough hash competition change to earn efficient miners more BTC to shift their coin:cost measure below $10k:1btc

oh and a note about one aspect earlier
** electric cost
they have not yet been hit by the electric hike in cost of 2022 yet. so their next contract period will be higher, meaning costs higher meaning wanting to maintain a HIGHER price to sell at, not lower

the only big impact to lower the bottom would be if hashrate of network decline dramatically for the AVERAGE hashrate of a 6month+ timescale

you are not realising that the bitcoin network does many things to mitigate many "user software" attack vectors..

its funny how you only want to demonstrate bitcoin user problems that are about their local machine and their wife using the husbands computer.. and not addressing the many victors that are mitigated thanks to bitcoin network rules that stop abuse at the payment peer to peer process between users of the network

you wife or someone you know messing with data on your local machine is different to missing with the funds you thought you deserve/were getting which never actually arrived.. securely and guaranteed yours to keep as long as you have the key

..

now here a challenge for you.
put your confirmation bias aside for atleast one post reply
put your defend a buddy mantra aside while replying
put your ideolism and favour aside for one post

now imagine(stretch your mind)
ther was some side/sub network offering all the features you promote. where its unit of measure is the same promoted
    1:1000 peg rate
sat : subnetwork unit

but they said
"yea but um.. [scratches head] we cannot guarantee that when users want to convert their units back to bitcoins sats, um.. we cannot ensure that the peg is secure for users and if they find out they lost value. we want to just blame it on software..
..yea there is probably a network fix we can implement on our side to mitigate that risk. but we dont want to implement or discuss that, we will just say when it happens, that its the users fault or a malicious user."

now be honest.. would you trust that network

would you want to call that network secure enough to be a true good utility sidenetwork or stable coin for a mainnet asset or would you be questioning their ignorance of security

you are stuck in one delusion of trying to say a problem is the fault of something else or the problem is not what is being decribed by saying its something else..

when users make payments in any currency or any system.. a user wants security and assurance that what they get at the end of the payment is exactly what is owed to them

there are network level ways to fix a flaw where channel partners can mess around. but you are avoiding any discussion of such and instead say "its just a software issue and a fault of the user for downloading it"

in code everything is a software issue. but that does not mean there is no fix

but hey if you want to admit that funds can be abused and stolen. at the payment stage.. (and dont you dare suggest that this is the same as your wife stealing your wallet key.. you comparisons are wrong).. which is in this scenario only found out days/weeks/months later when a person finally wants to settle out and close. is a fault of the payment system

if you want to pretend that msats always convert to sats and people are guaranteed to get the msat/1000 rate of promised amount.. then ensure you have fixed the flaw which makes your guarantee false(breaks the promise)

and yes it can be fixed at network peer-2peer level. so dont just blame users software..

yes user software can trigger an abuse because there is no network security to stop it. because you fools dont wish to protect users from certain software abuses

if you cant work out the fix. then thats your problem too.. not your users

but until its fixed dont you dare pretend that LN is a network that offers a solution to bitcoin where you want to call it bitcoin 2.0 where you want to brand steal and suggest it has the same or better security level as bitcoin.. because all those claims you guys make are false

LN is not better then bitcoin

---

as for blackhats false narratives of trying to convince people that pruned is full
1. him trying to convince that "full node" does not require storing the block data
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5423213.msg61352831#msg61352831

2. here are 2 examples of 2 topics where they are both about wanting to be full nodes and asking about full nodes. and he comes along and promotes and advertises pruned while not really explaining why its not "full node" any longer
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5414284.msg60980561#msg60980561
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5364742.msg59800154#msg59800154

in second example he says being a full node(validate and archive) is a oxymoron where storing it is not essential or useful!! (facepalm)

3. here he is again muddying the waters by suggesting there is no real difference apart from storage space on someones pc.. totally ignoring the network effect of peer to peer security of a decentralised blockchain and also data sharing for IBD
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5374143.msg58645297#msg58645297

he promotes pruning as if its the same as full node.. forgetting that not having the blockchain is no any different. even though the whole purpose of decentralised blockchains is to have a distributed supply of nodes that have the blockchain. and also the whole network service of being a seed for more users to download from.. something pruning does not offer.. yet he does not want to acknowledge the lesser network service offering a peer offers when they are a full compared to being blackhats version of "fool" node

you guys are incredibly ignorant to the point of being malicious by not caring about others on the network(s) you say you love

---

responding to below
by calling LN a bitcoin solution is suggesting LN is better.
calling LN bitcoin 2.0 is suggesting its the next gen better version of bitcoin..

both are LIES

OPs description of liquid vs illiquid is in correct

a measure of addresses that are 'use once' vs 're-use' is not a factor of showing whats an exchange and whats a users self custody. nor is it a sign of liquidity

there are many users that do "re-use" and
many exchange do "use once" cold wallet

EG say an exchange has a 10k btc haul
when its time to break the haul to supply a hot wallet with 1k coin. they put the 'change' into a new address

an easier estimate.
is usually the "bitcoin richlist"
the top 3 categories
[100,000 - 1,000,000)   793,314 BTC
[10,000 - 100,000)   2,262,241 BTC   
[1,000 - 10,000)   4,630,567 BTC   


are usually the hauls of large establishments/services. not individuals
lets compare that to the start of the year

[100,000 - 1,000,000)   672354
[10,000 - 100,000)   2072651
[1,000 - 10,000)   5177623

which is a total of
Jan:  7922628
now: 7686122
which is a 3% decline of coins in large hauled addresses

its only an estimate. but based on the brackets from the start of the year to the end of the year.

there is less coins in cold wallets(top 2 categories) and more coins in hot wallets/those with access to upto 10k coins per address

oh angelo..
pruned node is not a full node. but ill leave you to cry and enjoy your fool node

as for LN's lack of consensus. its funny how there are ways on LN to fix issues but you lot dont even care to admit there is issues to even want to discuss fixes.. all you want is mass adoption of users to then have them lose value and you blame it on softwware

a good payment system has network security to reduce possible threats and if there are threats that can be removed via some network effect protocols. that network should use them to protect users.. by avoiding a security option says more about your lack of care than it does about people making you aware of issus.

anyways
ok the 4 lemmings want to play ignorant.. says alot about their care for their network

ill leave them to brush it under the carpet and leave them to live in their ignorance because all they want to do is shout loud how they think that bitcoin is broke and LN is the solution. yet its LN that has the major flaws and they are not even willing to discuss the problem or think of fixes, they just want to pretend they cannot understand what i am saying by avoiding the context just to troll about how im not using their preferred glossary of terms buzzwords they favour to describe their favoured system which they dont even fully know whats happening under the gui..

and thats why ill continue to call them the idiot fangirls of a broken network

have a good month. just stay on your network and stop trying to polute the bitcoin network with your subtly deceptive games to try getting people to stop supporting the bitcoin network

have fun

there is alot of conversational FOMO and social drama

but when say the 2016 halving. that seen a pre halving price of $450 turn to a post halving of $900

people are not buying more, spending more..

what is actually happening is a normal investor paying in $50 a month got 1btc before and 0.5btc after

..
check some old screen shots of market order listings in say 2012-2022
there is a noticeable difference to the decimal amount on offer

i remember in 2012 average orders were 1btc-1000btc
in 2022 its now 0.001btc - 1btc

people dont tend to "spend more" or buy more..
the instead pay regular amount and just get half as much coin per halving.. which translates to the price doubling

in short. its not where market orders are now 1btc-1000btc orders of $16k to $16m

its not buyers buying more
its sellers offering less coin

i see your point what your trying to say. but rationally..
1. i dont buy on a known high.
2. sellers want to sell more on a high
3. ATH happen a year after a halving event
halving: 2012(ath 2013)  halving: 2016(ath 2017) halving: 2020(ath 2021)

if users that DCA know that december is a high month.. they are more likely to buy before that.
thus less buyers in december and more sellers.. breaks the pattern by having a down month instead of an up month

if i was a naive DCA who JUST seen this pattern

J   F   M   A   M   J   J   A   S   O   N   D

2   5   4   4   6   3   6   7   7   8   8   8

instead of dca $1k each month evenly ($12k)

even i would do more at start of year and less at end of year

but id advise no one to do DCA (just buy no matter price just because you deposited)

nor base it on historic patterns of years ago. which are not predictive at all. just a topic of interest thing

i would instead say look at current price compared to recent average to see if its above or below average to decide what % to put in

in short 'buy low, sell high' and 'buy more on low, buy less on high'

the game many countries are trying is not a complete forever-ban.

its a ban-to-control phase

banning it alone is just saying "we dont want to be involved we dont want the risk we wash our hands with it and dont want liability"

ban-to-control:
banning then permitting(licencing), is where banning it stops anyone openly using it. and then setting a permit(licence) to limit who or how a business and its customers can then use it. thus then controlling the gateways in and out of the thing. plus they can make profit on the licence fees and penalties

the thing about history is.. everyone can see it and react to it to "never happen again"

meaning if traders see a pattern that a high happens at a certain time.. eventually enough traders plan to hedge that by selling in that historic suggested time. which then ends up with the suggested time sees less highs that due to mass sells taking advantage of knowing the pattern.. thus breaking the pattern

a pattern is only a pattern until to many people use pattern recognition trade bots to trade against the pattern

for easy viewing purposes of the changes of the four quarters of 2022.. putting the end of quarter charts side by side:

march 2022
june 2022
september 2022
december 2022

now you can see how much things have changed over the last year easier
top 3 pools went from

start               end
   |           to    |
   \                 /

top  17.5%        26.07%
2nd 13.51%      20.85% \_ antpool and f2pool flip ranks
3rd  13.48         14.22% /

i suggest for 2023, the OP stick to the same colour scheme/source via taking data and putting into his own chart tool to keep consistency should sources change their charts
so that people can easily reference his 'reports' and see, view, compare charts easily

those predictions are less about the markets and more about the users revealing their buy in and exit plans

most users have a 2x in mind to exit out and a date they want to exit by

its why.. when the price went to a $50k amount after the ATH and stuck around there for a bit. people buying at $50k wanted a $100k exit within a year

those buying at about $17.5k want a $36k exit

they are just trying to suggest their exit and hope someone will tell them "yes your exit number is possible in a small timeframe of when you want to leave by" just to ease their mind

lets address another failure of economic understanding.. by banks!

actually if they bothered to do a economic research investigation of the market of say 2012-2022

they would see that the price difference of $6-$16k is not because large whales are buying whole coins by spending 2666x more money

its actually where average joe in 2012 was spending $400 a time to get 66btc and now spending $400 to get 0.025btc

the markets are not filled with majority orders of 1btc requests.. but instead thousands(majority) of 0.0xbtc

its simple math
if you spend $1.60 for 0.0001 it converts the "price" to be $16k for 1btc without having to buy a whole coin
if you spend $320 for 0.02 it converts to a PRICE of $16k


bitcoin is not like shares where you have to buy a whole share for a share market to show a new price point on the share market.

..
also (mentioned in previous post) the banks tried to assume real value is measured in market cap

yet even they should know real hard value is not a market cap or a company share cap

when someone enters an investment deal. (watch shark tank or dragons den as examples)
where they have a business and they are asking for $100k for 10% of a company..
real hard money of only $100k swaps.. yet the company cap becomes $1m. everyone knows a company does not have the hard cash of a company cap to back up the cap amount

everyone knows not to value a company at those caps. its just a multiplier number based on current price vs shares/tokens/coins in circulation.. nothing more

even a bank should know this basic economics 101 point

market cap is a meaningless statistic. and does not show real value.
market cap is not only meaningless in crypto.. but also a meaningless statistic for company shares too

they call company market caps "valuation" but real economic minded people know thats a lie
if an accounted was to raid a company and read the accounts of a company they would not find a hard cash value amount in the company that matches a companies cap(valuation)

and banks that employ(or should be employing economics majors) should know this stuff

speaking of legal vs illegal use
i have been around bitcoin since 2012 and my usage has been legal. ive bought transportation, goods and services and many things that are all real and legal. i dont do drugs and i dont do crimes.

funny how they are stuck in the past where news(media) promoted silkroad in 2011.. yet many people were buying cupcakes and alpaca socks and beer and pizza and many more things

if they were economic researchers.. they would see
https://www.wired.com/2013/10/silk-road/

4% drug use in a community.. is far les than the drug use in say detroit, chigaco

lets compare community drug use of say the UK (5.9%-12%)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/united-kingdom-drug-situation-focal-point-annual-report/united-kingdom-drug-situation-focal-point-annual-report-2019

they are very selective about their wording. to avoid many aspects that actually are involved

take this paragraph

funny how bankers that meant to be economic trained professionals cant tell the difference between 'value' and 'price'

the value. is not the market price or the market cap

even hal finney in 2010 knew that price was based on an understanding of underlying value set by the mining costs that need to be recouped ( part of the value proposition), where the "price" then markets above value

the value is derived below the market price. based on the cost of acquisition at a base rate no one wants to sell below or no one can buy below.  thus forming a wall/support where the value becomes non-zero

the most efficient mining on the planet is near that base number. (the lowest acquisition cost of coins)

mining has a real world cost. and requires real world spending to recoup costs.

yes the market price above that is speculative. but VALUE is not at the market price speculative layer
its below that

EG bitcoins price from summer 2022 wiggled around the $24k-$16k area
but the underlying VALUE is about $13k-$15k where the value does not move as frantically as the market

they want to pretend the market of $0-$69k is just 100% hype/hope/speculation.

lets take gold
golds value is not the market price. the market price is the premium people agree to pay above value
the value is about $900.. the premium(price) is currently ~$1.8k today
..
bitcoins PRICE speculates at a premium above value too. where the value is NON-ZERO.and this year its value is about $13k-$15k and the premium(price) has speculated $16k-$69k in the last year

this base value of bitcoin is not a daily wiggle speculation change. its a more smooth transition that is tested periodically over a 6month-4year cycle, where it increases over those periods

---

the funny part is
they try to say bitcoin does not do x/y/z for common man citizen
yet common man citizen can use bitcoin

yet the ECB have many products like derivatives and behind the scenes 'darkpool' markets of banker produced product that common man citizen cannot use

its as if they are trying to say all bank activity is open and free to use and transparent.. yet THEY say bitcoin is closed and not accessible to common man to make money(profit) on. where transactions do not occur and value does not transfer between users(flow)

hmm winfury avoids looking for hard data outside the storybook narrative of his buddies to see if bitcoin can scale or not..

shame he didnt spend the day actually researching to realise hard drives and internet plans of 2022 are better usage and better priced compared to 2017 and 2013

---

as for windfuries social drama reply that contains no data

a. so since 2017 winfury thinks less people want to use bitcoin...
(facepalm) funny how windfury tries to make bitcoin sound like a dying network that is not fit for use and shouldnt grow even if it was fit for use.. hmm i wonder why he is against bitcoin but over promotes and over promises another network and thinks the other network "is bitcoin"

b. i used their word a few times and then went back to calling it a hard fork
yep they wanted to call it anything but a hard or mandatory fork. they wanted to pretend it was soft. and mutually agreed.. and al that crap

a true soft fork is where there would be true majority acceptance to not need to do any large scale orphaning/reject process prior to activation(to cause an activation)
a hard fork, contentious fork, mandatory fork.. is the opposite of soft

certain people would not even want to discuss the fork unless i called it by a name they decided to call it. so i used that name they wanted just to progress their avoidance of discussion into actually getting them to discuss it

and as for you pretending it was not a hard/mandatory fork or contentious. where you pretend it was all smooth and non event..
you are ignoring all available facts.
even the blockdata which is immutable proves you wrong.
go check the facts.. not the narrative your buddy story told to you at night to ease you to sleep

heres the thing...

in the digital world, made of code..
EVERY bug, flaw, attack vector could be blamed on "malicious software"
you know.. because its.. code


but in a network of users of software. where there is a broad network protocol each users follows to stay inline with each other. where there is a modecome of trust that the network secures value so that payments cant be faked, frauded, stolen..

if users across the planet are using a network where that network cannot guarantee someone is going to get paid right.. guess what. that is not a guaranteed payment network. its not a system that protects users

especially if there is ways to prevent it but idiots dont want to fix it at network level and just cry "blame the user" "blame software"

if at network level you do not have a rule to seek/avoid such, (which can punish or ban users that try to run malicious software).. its a no longer 'just' a software problem. its a network problem if that problem affects different users across the network

bitcoin. for people paying and receiving in bitcoin on the bitcoin network there are network rules.. that prevent many many payment attacks

EG
 if different people were to pay a user of 0.01btc (recipient uses say electrum)
an electrum server cant fake that to make the electrum user only get confirmed 0.0000001

however in LN of nodes where recipient of funds is d
      x    y
      |     |
      v     v
A->b->c->d

where abczx was to pay d.. C can abuse d's receipt and d ends up with loss

...
if the problem is about one users interaction, where the problem is not about the payment but the users storage. where the risk is his own wife using his client.. . then that is a local software problem

as for capslock

if users across the planet can abuse another user somewhere else, by fake paying them 1xx,xxx,zzz amount that
look as being paid 1,000sat at a network set rate of 1:1000 yet the user settling up only gets 1sat

its not a rounding error(remove the z)
its a conversion error(zx total is divided by more then 1000)
emphasis
1,xxx,xxx,zzz msat
dividing by more then 1000 = more than the z being cut off

oh and there is no network enforced rate. because the network is not enforcing it. instead its advising/suggesting software use that rate. but has no rules to enforce it. .. but could, but chooses not to have a sanity check mechanism

your way.. i had time
J   F   M   A   M   J   J   A   S   O   N   D

2   5   4   4   6   3   6   7   7   8   8   8

enjoy

he is not the victim

he is trying to say his ex girlfriend(alameda) is the fraud/theif/bad investor. although HE owns alameda too.

he is trying to pretend he had nothing to do with alameda and he is a victim for not getting involved.

HE did not have security to limit how much alameda 'supposedly' took(or probably better worded: how much he gave over to alameda with an emoji)

its like he is saying also that alameda didnt take customer funds but done a margin call to 'loan' those funds as a customer of ftx.. yet any loan officer would be doing a credit check and ensuring he knows how much is being loaned per customer.

he is trying too hard to play dumb and ignorant and victim. when he knows he is the CEO and founder of both companies that screwed over customers

we seen funds shuffle about after the bankruptcy filing although what should have happened is a halt on all movements and let the administrators come in look at the books and then find the funds.

he shuffled the books and assets after bankruptcy to try to put funds into ftx.us to try to make the US entity look whole so that he can avoid US criminal charges.. then try shifting all losses onto alameda(japanese) to shift blame away from the bahama's entity.. to escape any wrist slap/criminal charges of the bahamas .

seeing as he had the ability do to these games the week of the filing. means that he isnt dumb and isnt an outsider that had no control. he had control. but abused it and then trying to shift evidence to hide any crime

ok i did a bit of maths

grabbing the chart data of 2011-2022 from blockchain.info

i then took each years low and high, and then done

(low + high) / 2

to get the average price per year

then i looked at the prices per month of each year and seen which months were below or above that years average

and the results of how many months were above average

J   F   M   A   M   J   J   A   S   O   N   D

3   3   3   2   2   2   2   3   3   2   4   7

............... 5 years on..
still waiting for the extra tx on chain capacity segwit promised


so what are you thanking segwit for exactly??



ok you wanna poke some social drama rather then discuss the "resource" debate at hand in this topic

ok YOU poked the bear again. so the bear bites. dont cry. you had your hand out

you do know that the 2017 fork was a mandatory fork performed by the those supporting the DCG corporate roadmap that wanted segwit. and that the word "bilateral split" is not my buzzword..... i only used it because the person that first used the word was so angry when i didnt use it.. that just to even discuss the topic i had to start using their word just to appease them
(much like how grammar nazis avoid a topic unless you use a certain level of grammar, where they just want to argue 'cant you even form a sentance' rather than having the brain to comprehend the context of the message and realise the elegance of diversity of the english language is beyond their narrow scope)

so how about you do some research and stop the social drama

try to find out:
a. what is acceptable data in 2017
b. what year you live in today.
c. what happened in the past FACTUALLY by readong code and blockdata. so that you can learn from mistakes to stop mistakes in the future.
d. not research via your spoonfed buddy group
e. work out how much internet speeds have changed in 5 years.
f. how much hard drives have changed in 5 years.

note for (f)
find out the price at retail of a hard drive in 2017(when 4mb was deemed safe) and then take that price and see what it can buy you now

and lastly.
g. work out that its 2022 now. not 2007 (in regards to this years resources

its funny how you have the time to scroll through pages of post history just to poke some social drama but you never have time to do real research on actual data of blocks, blockchains and code..