there is a point where something has to have a use/purpose/function/desire. yes if bitcoin had no function and was just a bunch of locked assets held forever in a trust owned by a company thats only value was the investment. then prices could go to $0. because no one would have to mine something that never has to move, and has no reward for trying to move the unmovable

but because bitcoin does something (medium of exchange/buy goods & services with it) transferable. and then there is costs of that transfer and security of the asset(mining cost). then no one would sell if too cheap.

EG if mining was $1 a coin. people wont sell it for 99c but no one would buy it for premiums above $2, as they could just mine it themselves(with a little effort)

but because mining is over $30k now in every region of the planet. no one can mine it for less. so everyone would buy it if it ever went down to $31k. preventing it going to $29k because people would refuse selling it for less.

but yes bitcoin needs to have a function/use/reason for people to mine or want bitcoin.
which is why i am a very loud advocate that bitcoin should remain a 'digital cash' and not be pushed into being just a 'reserve/treasury' for custodial services.

(keeping a good reason to mine. and having a reason for users to hold, spend, transfer, invest, buy things. makes bitcoin have utility worth securing).

altcoins on the other hand. that have no real life purpose(cant buy goods) and are mined without cost(pos) can drop to zero.
and many have.
inshort dont hoard PoS coins. there is absolutely nothing supporting a bottomline value of non-zero. PoS can go to zero. PoS is no underlying value and 100% speculative emotion

if you calculate the mining cost of the cheapest region on the planet. and the most expensive region on the planet. you can gain an insight to a 'value window'

after all if cheapest cost was $31k no one would want to sell. and people would prefer to not mine but buy it if the price ever dipped. thus causing a price support to keep it above minimum

after all if expensive cost was $70k no one would want to buy. and people would prefer to mine and sell it if the price ever spiked. thus causing a price resistance to keep it below maximum

with each time someone sells(refusing to sell at a loss) the new owner has a new higher acquisition cost than previous owner. helping support price rises too. and resisting price drops

as mining costs move forward and people trade coins to new owners. bottoms increase and new tops increase

right now at ~160exa(year average) the window is $31k to $66k
right now at ~175exa(X month average) the window is $35k to $73k (which allowed for the $69k november ATH)

in short the 'bottom' is no longer $0 as long as costs to acquire bitcoin isnt zero, and there are alot of things making the cost to acquire bitcoin non-zero

funny part is.
when a new buzzword is created that is never used commonly before it trended. it then becomes the people shouting "mass formation psychosis" that actually suffer from "mass formation psychosis", because they shout it without thinking/researching to understand it, or know if its true or not.

if you think shouting "covid" is a "mass formation psychosis", then please just talk to any ICU doctor of any hospital.. but first please avoid speaking to your homeopathic herbal supplement salesperson who gives backrubs who says they are a specialist doctor

im not going to delve into the greyscale valuation as thats separate from bitcoin spot price stuff
anyways, lets look at some bitcoin price stuff

in the 'rounds' of the block halving, here are the peak prices
2009-2012: $32
2012-2016: $1.2k(37.5x)
2016-2020: $20k(16.6x)
2020-2024: $69k(3.4x)..so far
[spoiler below, scroll over to reveal 'prediction']
2020-2024: $146k(7.34x)
2024-2028: $474k(3.25x)
2028-2032: $682k(1.44x)
[spoiler above, scroll over to reveal 'prediction']


as you can see by each previous round the multiplier depreciates by ~2.+ (above 2 but under 3)

its imagined that the 2020-24 round should meet about a 7-8x of the last round (16.6/2.?)
which should be about $140k-$160k (at some point before 2024 block halving)

however right now even in the most expensive region of the planet. mining costs are under $70k right now so no one really wants to pay excessive premiums if everyone on the planet can mine for under $70k a coin

the hashrate would have to go up to have a supported good value underline(acquisition cost) to give the price a push up where people refuse to sell below

right now at 160exahash(year average).. using the electric cost(and hardware cost) calculation for range of $0.04 -$0.32 kwh electric
the window of underline value is $31k-$66k
(november 2021 seen 175exa which allowed a window upto $73k, which allowed for the ATH of $69k inside that window)

and that explains why the spot price sits inside this window

the hashrate would have to be 240exa to push the top end cost window to $100k, by which the bottom end support will rise to $47k, meaning.. just like we shouldnt see $10k a coin again due to todays bottom end being $31k. if the hashrate achieves a sustained 240exa we should start to see a no return below $45k again. and a possible launch to $100k

this 240exa, as a stable hashrate minimum is achievable within the 2020-24 round.. meaning we can see a $47k-$100k before 2024, its just not happening this month
as is a 400exa which translates to ~$160k top end of window value, but bottom end of $80k. meaning the price can be anything in between

hoarding does not cause any merit for value rise

highschoolers think its a supply-demand thing. whereby there are 19mill coins. but billions of people with fiat wanting it.

actually the 19mill coins hoarded on private keys is not the supply.. . the markets price is not based on 19mill coins. its based on just a few hundred thousand coin deposited into an exchange, whereby the market price is based on which of those few hundred thousand coin are actually on market orders.
(your not part of the market if your not on the market)

even more depth
the market orders are not based on there being hundreds of people buying hundreds of coins right this second. instead if you look at the market orders you will see small orders of 0.1 and less being 'taken'  and affecting the price

yep you dont need to buy a whole coin to set/make a market price.
if you just spend $42 buying 0.001btc you then set the price at $42,000 per btc

you dont need to sell all 19mill coins all at $42k each to then make the market value $42k

what actually sets the value. is peoples willingness to not sell if the price dips too much.
this happens when people look at the price they acquired their coin for.

if a person acquired a coin in 2011 for 10c. he wont sell it for 9c
if another person sold another coin for 20c. the first person might try selling his for 20c too

now the new acquirer has 2 coin at 20c and wont sell it for 19c each. but might sell it for 26c each.
and so as time goes by. the price rises due to not wanting to sell at a loss. and not wanting to sell unless their is a gain.
and these gains add up

so passing coin around where the next person to get it will have a higher acquisition cost to refuse to sell below.
..
another metric of value is mining cost.
if it cost just $1 to mine an ounce of gold in your back yard. using just a spoon and coffee filter. then everyone would be selling it for $1.01-$3 as the ''spot price range' of value(NOT the $1k-$2k range)

the reason gold's spot price remains over $1k-$2k is because mining costs are over $900.
no one on the planet is silly enough to sell gold for under $900

98% will refuse to sell for under $1100. and less % the higher the price
what you find is those willing to sell below $1600. if they did sell at $1600 that new acquirer will try to avoid to sell it for less than $1650+,  thus the movement of assets sets a new % of acquirers desire to not sell below a certain value

..
heres an interesting thing.
it wont matter how many coins are on a market deposit balance sheet
it wont matter how much dollar are on a market deposit balance sheet

ever all the btc sellers all communicated that as of this minute everyone should refuse to sell their coin for less than $67k.
even if only one person with $6.70 was to buy coin (0.0001btc).. thats the price the market puts as the price for btc. $67k for 1btc.

ther could be 5milion coins wanting to be sold. and 5 trillion dollars ready to buy(or make up any number of any side)
but if there is only 1 order being placed. and that order was 0.0001btc for $6.70.   then that order makes btc $67k

i predict this is next weeks story
'russia want to announce this so that they can now close the russia-kazahk border and put military at the border "to stop potential pathogens entering russia" '

i predict the story in a fornight
"russia implements shoot on sight order at kazahk border"

both stories seems to sound about right for russia motives

go cry to some one that cares, like your chums that use an altnet.

you know the altnet that are not bitcoin specific but allow channels with lots of blockchains.. you know the one its called LN.
remember.. .. oh wait are you having one of them moments where your are flipping sides again and pretending you are not a LN fan and denying any memory of ever saying such.

maybe if your tried to learn about LN rather then just follow some group speach you might understand LN better and how its not a bitcoin fixed system.

give yourself 3 weeks, your desire to advertise the ALTnet will return.. usually does after a 3 week mind flip flop event, you have a known pattern.

i do laugh when you cry victim even when evidence shows you're the one poking the bear, trying to get it to bite. hence i have no sympathy for you.

if you don't like it that i dont hug, kiss, pat you on the back and give you merit everytime you cry.. maybe you should stop getting bears to bite you. then you have no reason to cry

1. YOU and your chums jump into BITCOIN topics where people want to discuss scaling BITCOIN NETWORK
2. YOU and your chums jump into BITCOIN topics to advertise LN..
2. i didnt start the swimming pool/hosepipe of piss analogy in the topic you refer to*. im the one saying to you lot to stop talking about other networks in bitcoin specific topics

TRY HARDER

*reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378173.msg58791141
monkeyman wanted to talk about features of things on the bitcoin network
yet, MK4 then meandered into advertising LN
then bitbillo also advertised LN
then jackG then did the same mentioning LN
then avikz also mentioned LN
then o_e_l_e_o also mentioned LN

and thats just in the first 5 replies
hd49278 was first reply not mentioning LN specifically

then titular made another LN advert

i then respond at the blatant overstep of exaggerating LN features/function as a bitcoin2.0 thing advertised as where LN is THE solution

then the LN bunnies all congregate to attack me, simply because i dared to pull apart the LN advert campaign

NeuroticFish and stompix moan about how they cant understand english and THEY compare it using the swimming pool water, hose pipe and piss analogies...(they mentioned those words FIRST)

i then respond using THEIR analogies and words


thanks for mentioning this. seems a small group of altnet fangirls think their altnet is talked about more then bitcoin scaling. where they believe there is only 1 person that wants bitcoin to evolve.

yes LN specific topics are few and far between which is why the altnet fangirls inject themselves into every bitcoin scaling topic to derail it into advertising their altnet,

so that wall of text is just to say you emailed your uncle in 2009-10. and you cant find the email.

if he doesnt have it. then why does it matter? just call him. say hello.
why is it so important that 12 years after emailing him you need an email about how you emailed your uncle about a blog you seen.

there were many many many blogs in 2008->october 2009 about peer to peer money.

i have the strangest feeling that the legendary user that owned 'remotemass' as of 2012, recently sold his account to a noob. and this noob is trying to start a chain of unfortunate events that somehow, eventually lead into a story implicating his uncle as being satoshi.. and this is just the first chapter.

if your just looking for the email to see if the blog still exists, just out of curiosity, or for revisiting the past..

main ones were p2pfoundation.ning.com
which is one of the places satoshi posted about bitcoin, but many other posts were about p2p money in general even before bitcoin

then there are things like the cypherpunks mailing list and.. well google search can tell you more

so whats the rule for bitcoin sats for altnet millisats

or better analogy
bitcoin sats for sidechain LBTC, Wbtc, and others(like msats)

and also, whats the rule for adverting altnets like LN, liquid or bch as "bitcoin2.0"

(and selfies) 'do not use portraits'
it is asking for a real life selfie of you. your face, today.. not some photo of when you were a kid

 (valid & colourful passports) 'do not use .. or photocopies'
it is asking for a image of your passport in live colour.. no picture of a picture(photocopy) no black and white previous copy.

in short.
take selfie of your face
take selfie of your face holding your passport
take selfie of passport, not zoomed in too much to not show edges(EG1) and not zoomed out to not be readable(EG2)


EG1
this

is a bad example of not fitting any of the requirements

EG2
this

is the good example of "showing 2 pages and edges"
but a bad example of quality camera as its not very clear to read that its james bond
may require high res camera if blurry and unreadable

https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md

worth noting that using chain_hash happens AFTER peers connect,
it can be used to then interrogate what channels a peer already has.
it can be used to ask if that node wants to/can can create channels of those blockchains
it can be used to create channels if they both want to use that blockchain for pegged value

the separate peer connect part that comes WAY before channel interrogation or channel creation. is not blockchain specific. the nodeID uses public key for its ID along with an IP/tor domain.

the nodeID is a public key(bech32) but is not prefixed to a blockchain.
EG not bc1q for bitcoin, ltc1q for litecoin.
instead its just ln1q for LN node id

when using channel creation they can then decide which blockchain they want to both be bound in for that specific channel in which they then change the prefix to the supporting prefix of their desired/agreed blockchain

nodes can have a LN node id, and then many channels within, where some of those channels can for bitcoin, bitcoin testnet segnet regtest, litecoin and its testnets segnets regtests and other blockchain networks. and even private mutually agreed tokens

never panic when the price moves below a previous price.
its a discount opportunity. that is all

if i bought an iphone for $800 and the following month i see it for $600. i dont think i have lost $200. instead i think its $200 discount if i ever want to buy another for friend or family before the price goes back up

same goes for you and your chums constant reminders of an altnet when people actually want to discuss bitcoin stuff.

you may think that showing an "open" exit door of bitcoin and having an "open" entry of the LN cabin/treehouse.. as being "open" minded. pretending its the same thing because there is a path (of many houses) leading sometimes to the treehouse
hoping people will be open minded enough to not think critically about it or hoping they are open minded to ignore the issues.

but when you do so using coercion, threats, and promises that never seem to flourish.. thats not open. thats opportunistic

yes opportunistic.
it might contain 3 of the 4 letters of 'open'. but its not the same thing

it has been a good laugh seeing you pretend to defend peoples rights to say what they want in a topic you created asking to ban someone for what they said. even when what they said can be backed up by hard data, code and other quotes

dont pretend you defend free speech while at the same time asking for a ban. its one of your fatal flaws, contradictions

my only requests of you were not to F**k off or fork off or disappear or shut up or get banned. but instead to just learn more about what you PR campaign is about, try a different style. or just word it differently so that its not trying to en-cite an exodus away from bitcoin

i do hope you have atleast learned:
LN is a different network (secret is in the 'N')
LN payments/commitments are 2of2 multisig requiring 2 party permission
LN peers communicate/handshake first.
       and then agree on which blockchain/token use as a peg to share value of
               and then fund their agreed currency locks
                     and then form the microchannel payment (promises) to actually make payments
LN payments of 11 decimals are not the same as commitments or bitcoin transactions

if you can learn the ways in which LN is different to bitcoin and blockchains in general.
      then you might finally be able to achieve a good PR campaign for its niche use-case, by explaining why its different

anyway have a good life.

i did not mention bitcoin once in my scenario.... anyways. moving on

my point is even if a blockchain has just 1 person hashing with a 2014 360gh asic. just having a blockchain transaction is safer than having a unconfirmed privately exchanged smart contract.

if a malicious person wanted to edit the ledger. he cant just delete an email or wipe his computer. he would have to buy a 400gh asic to over power the other person. and then go back and edit the blockchain and then create enough blocks after the edit to overtake the other person.. thats alot more work than just deleting a non-blockchain smart contract

yes having a blockchain like bitcoin with 1.6million asics running at 110,000gh each is even stronger.. as it would need someone to buy 2millions asics of same/better hashpower each to even have a change of editing the blockchain

but..
even the cypherpunks in the 1990's-2008 knew that smart contracting alone (pre-blockchain) was not 'good money'. it was the invention of blockchains even at just CPU mining speeds that showed more security compared to privately traded smart contracts

when LN is being advertised as a solution to bitcoin, yet LN is not fit for purpose as a solution to bitcoin because LN cant cope if everyone was to use it. (yes liquidity bottlenecks/route fails happen ALOT on LN. even with small payment value requests) imagine the headache if larger payments bigger then micro-transactions became a daily thing. LN would bottleneck more often

when LN is being used as the reason not to scale bitcoin because they say LN is the thing people should use instead of bitcoin

when LN is used to scapegoat why bitcoin shouldnt scale by suggesting bitcoin cant cope with LN transaction numbers. even thou LN average user count and transactions per day are not that much (ignoring the payments done as route, rebalancing which are just needless transactions not needed to be done on the bitcoin network). yep if you actually count the payments where LN users are actually paying for a good or service. that volume of payment count is not going to saturate bitcoin.

bitcoin does not need 100mb blocks or 2gb blocks like the altnetters suggest as their melodrama excuse to not want to scale bitcoin

their desire to hinder bitcoin scaling just to advertise an altnet, its not actually helping evolve bitcoin. its purely ends up being an advert for an altnet

i dont mind people advertising niche services for niche use cases if they explain the risks and what makes it different to actual bitcoin network stuff.. my main gripe is the promises of bitcoin scaling but then saturate posts with adverts about features, other network stuff, that ends up not scaling and just some other thing to side step people out of using bitcoin daily and into something that doesnt work 100% guaranteed without risk/permission from another party.

if you want a simple list of my issues with LN and its supporters:
1. PR campaign advertising LN as bitcoin (pretending security/feature similarities)
1.a: brand tagging bitcoin into a different network to fake trust/loyalty/fanbase
1.b: brand tagging the trust of bitcoin to hide the risks of the other network
1.c: avoid clarifying the differences of LN payments vs funding/settlement commitments
1.d: avoid explaining the permission required payments/commitments vs the permissionless broadcast of just commitment
1.e: avoid temporality of LN payments vs the immutability of confirmed bitcoin transactions

i already said many times if they're honest. they could actually use the differences as positive spin for their niche use case

2. using LN as an excuse not to scale bitcoin
2.a: saying bitcoin doesn't need to scale now LN exists, as if LN could cope with routes for large value/all value(facepalm)
2.b: LN flaws means LN nodes need to perform more 'events'(payments) even when they are not personally buying things
2.c: pretending their high 'event' count is a sign of high utility of LN of people buying things
2.d: pretending the high events is a sign bitcoin couldn't cope with amount of events if those events were blockchain tx's
2.e: pretending LN solves bitcoin scaling, and is there for all users, all value, and 100% payment success
2.f: pretending bitcoin needs to scale to Visa by this month, but cant so LN can and LN will handle Visa amounts
2.g: pretending LN is dependant on bitcoin and thus bitcoin is dependant on LN

3. saying bitcoin is broke or trying to break bitcoin just so they can say 'LN is perfect'
3.a: saying miners(asics) cant handle 'big blocks' (although asics dont even touch tx data)
3.b: saying people use 1999 tech and cant store or relay bitcoin (sorry average internet is 59mbs not 0.5mbs)
3.c: saying people shouldnt initial block download, 'its to big and meaningless', use LN phone app with an exchange channel
3.d: saying pruning is safe, everyone should do it. blockchains aren't needed. blockchains aren't part of decentralisation
3.e: saying litewallets and pruned are full network feature nodes. lite/prune still support the network 100%(facepalm)

4. not wanting to evolve bitcoin as digital cash
4.a: wanting bitcoin fees to be high with lame excuses like pools need high fees
4.b: not wanting more tx's for less fee's (where 5k tx of $0.50 is better than 2k of $1) because lower fees = less LN niche
4.c: telling people what not to buy using bitcoin "dont buy coffee with bitcoin"
4.d: telling people bitcoin is not a digital cash for the unbanked (goes against the whitepaper)
4.e: telling people bitcoin is a 'rail' / reserve network for the elite whales that can afford to use it for batching custodial tx's

i am a whale, but i also see that bitcoin should be useful for the little guys

5. even the usability of LN is not childs play
5.a: needing to lock funds but have to predict how much you plan to spend days/weeks/months ahead
5.b: needing to plan chances of route success and split funds over different 'accounts'(channels) in preparation
5.c: needing to find a channel partner you know will be online when you are to sign permission for your payment
5.d: needing to know he has enough routes/channel possibilities to help ensure payment success
5.e: needing to ensure he is not being used by others too much so that liquidity remains for you to route via him

i could go on but thats just the thoughts at the top of my head

a commodity is a raw material used in the production of a secondary product

gold-> jewellery and circuits
beef-> burgers and mincemeat
wheat-> bread and cereal
oil-> fuel and plastics

gold has 2 markets. the commodity (produce demand) and asset market(investment/store of wealth)

bitcoin more aligns to an asset market. not a commodity market

i have a proposal too

anyone advertising LN as bitcoin. as bitcoinL2 as bitcoin2.0. as bitcoin scaling. as anything pretending to be the bitcoin network. should think deeply about their advertising stance of confusing people. and then realise the N of LN means its not the same network as bitcoin, and just avoid advertising it as being part of the bitcoin network.

bitcoin-core. the reference client (which altnet groupies also love describing as the sole place feature upgrades should be allowed via) does not have code that support LN millisats nor LNs peer connection gossip protocols. nor the invoice format

and so because its not part of the reference client of the bitcoin network protocol, its not part of the bitcoin network

EG its the same as saying a exchange is not "bitcoin" but a niche service
if people cannot comprehend the simple task of separating the wording of the function of an exchange from the wording of the function of the bitcoin network. then they need to resist trying to say an exchange is bitcoin

thats why consensus is not 100% but instead majority..
i never said true consensus needs 100% agreement. i said majority.
seems doomad and now blackhatcoiner have been propagandising the misinformation of how consensus 2009-16 worked, as well as pretending mandatory activation was still the same consensus. but then contradicting to say the new consensus is different

i just said majority of true desire, is the consensus of how things get activated..
.. not threats of rejection if not flagging (new mandatory version of activation)

funny part is segwit 2016 (bip9+141) didnt reach that 'majority' all the way through to july 2017

its why they needed to brutalise consensus by changing things from consensus to 'mandatory activation'
oh and before we run back down the ignorance of blackhatcoiner and doomad's propaganda scripts, which is to say bip9+141 was not replaced by bip91+148.. i can show you quotes from theymos and pieter wuille  that say they were replaced and used. and the flags are shown in the immutable blocks.

and the bips themselves say they are mandatory activations by using block rejection to get their thresholds met

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

and if they want to continue arguing it wasnt. they can take that argument to them

hmm

ok i just wrote a transaction paying Dave some coin..
........... .............. ...........
... oh dave you didnt get it.? can you prove you didnt get it? because my records say you did.
oh wait. i didnt use a blockchain coin.. oh well seems you prefer to not use blockchains so,  guess we are settled.

see the issues with this scenario?

if someone could 51% a blockchain then that network is indeed weak. but to do a 51% attack is another thing someone has to do to remove proof from a thing that shows proof.
where as without a blockchain entirely. its much easier to remove proof of something happening. or say something happened without proof, or even just claim someone elses proof is not the most valid, true proof, but something old and now obsolete.
all done without any cost or effort