you keep avoiding one point by presenting another point to attempt to evade running scenarios to find out your first point falls flat. you have done this many times now.. evaded one scenario by trying to play dumb and try to raise another scenario to then evade that scenario by taking it in context of another scenario
so lets make it clear
if your only scenario result you want is a market crash attempt, lets fully delve into that scenario
firstly when adding another 50% of network hashrate. it means the honest network has double the competition. AND EMPHASIS: half as much reward and double the cost of mining due to higher difficulty due to the competition..
this pushes up the basic value:premium window which then causes all those assessing the acquisition methods of btc to then have a higher speculative price expectation which means all those wanting btc would be more willing to buy higher and the sellers wont sell for less but instead only willing to sell for more.. this would cause the market to go UP
[...]
Suppose that I am a car factory that produces 1000 cars at a cost of $50,000 apiece, and suppose then that it turns out that there is, say, a security flaw (faulty steering or whatever) that almost kills the demand for the car, and that people do not want to buy the cars for more than, say, $20,000. Then I can't just wait for the demand to magically increase to allow me to sell them for >$50,000 at some point. Instead I will be forced to sell them at $20,000.
It's not fair of you at all to say that I'm evading this economic discussion of the supposed lower threshold when we have discussed this very topic for quite a while now,
and you are even quoting my latest reply in this discussion in your very same post. (!) How on earth is that fair even one bit?
I've been very keen to try to answer all your points, and I'm not trying to evade them. If you at any point that you feel like I've skipped one of your arguments, please just point that out (e.g. by posting that I've missed that point and just quote yourself), and I will answer it.
Suppose that I am a car factory that produces 1000 cars at a cost of $50,000 apiece, and suppose then that it turns out that there is, say, a security flaw (faulty steering or whatever) that almost kills the demand for the car, and that people do not want to buy the cars for more than, say, $20,000. Then I can't just wait for the demand to magically increase to allow me to sell them for >$50,000 at some point. Instead I will be forced to sell them at $20,000.
heres where you go wrong
if there is a real world physical limit of material cost across the globe that the cheapest new car on the planet can be built for is $50k in q3 of 2024
it doesnt matter that people prefer to want a new car for $20k.. they wont get it. car dealerships wont sell a car at $30k less than material cost.. thats just bad business
what you find is that there is across the globe a different material cost of manufacturing cars of $50k-$300k dependant on region and so if there is a low demand for new cars or where people want to pay the least possible.. the MARKET price will be around the $60k-$75k for most of the period and occassionally try to test the bottom of $50k where only those in the special regions willing to sell AT COST of lowest COST are still selling
when demand rises then the price can go premium upto $300k
yes if no one buys any cars, then the manufacturing gets affected and slowsdown(hashrate drop) where the material cost could go down due to less demands of materials(less asics) thus the cost can go down, which could then cause the dealership(market) bottom to go down. but this is a lengthy process in of itself
but there would need to be some fatal flaw that stops all trades and causes manufacturing to drop its material cost competition
Well, this is exactly what we are talking about in this topic: If it turns out that Bitcoin has a fatal or near-fatal flaw that makes it vulnerable to a particular kind of 51% attack, then its price will drop severely.
Maybe I went to low with the prices in my example, so to really underline the point, imagine instead that the cars cost $190k to make, and it turns out that their motors have a risk of exploding, or something like that.
If it turns out that there is an attack vector on Bitcoin where attackers can keep stealing money and profiting as long as its price doesn't crash, then Bitcoin will crash (i.e. unless the attack vector is mitigated). You have to agree with this, don't you?
(And if you do, then we don't really need to discuss this specific topic anymore in relation to the overall topic of this thread, even if we still disagree on some points: We could do that in another thread.)