Whenever you hear about Bitfinex fraud. you never hear it this way: If you issue 700 million USD of some currency, and that currency is on the exchange, surely that 700 million affected the Bitcoin price.  Probably raised it.

Whenever you hear about how much of the world's electricity Bitcoin is using, you never hear how that affects bitcoin price.  Probably pushes it down.  After all, miners have to pay their bills somehow.

For the first, you can watch a whole 60 minutes of video on youtube about it, but the guy will never mention that that made up money will feed into the bubble. Only the fear of how will its collapse cause the price to drop is talked about. Also, once USDT gets on the exchanges and in people's hands, it can never leave.

This leaves me to the third point.  It is not possible, by definition, for everyone to "exit" the bitcoin.  Yes, one can sell it, but that just means somebody else has it now.   Or, a whole group, like "smart traders" can sell it, but, when looking at all the people in total, there is never any "leaving bitcoin" happening.     The same is true for USDT, and surelly that 700 million USDT played a huge part in this rise from 1k to 16k for Bitcoin.

Are you aware of the feedback loop that exists between bitcoin price and how much it spends on electricity?

Brakes are built in:  higher the price, more mining as measured in electricity used.  Miners have to sell Bitcoins to pay the bills.  So, higher the BTC price, more selling there is.

At 10,000, we are already at the 500 million per month for miners.  So you need that amount (more like 50% of it) of fresh money per month to enter exchanges just to keep the BTC price stable.

At BTC one million, we are talking about 50 billion dollars each month.

Given that in history, nobody could resist the temptation of giving himself free money when having the power to do so, I think we have finally found somebody worthy enough.  Thus, printing USDT is totally legit.

Looking at the 30 minutes chart on bitcoinwisdom, for Bitstamp and Bitfinex, if you look at the volume bars, they are very similar. Aren't they supposed to be two separate exchanges?  There is never a volume spike in one that is also not present in the other.  What is gong on?

Bicoin's price rise makes sense if you create 700 million USDT with a stroke of a pen, and then buy BTC with that made up money.

So, you are incapable of imagining:  "Imagine that the market reprices BCC 100% higher and BTC 10% lower.  What is the expected distribution of hash power now assuming short-term profit-maximizing miners?"

Having a price on an exchange implies there is somebody willing to buy.  Your argument is invalid, nice try.

Excellent analysis.  You have just proven that with maximally exploitative mining strategy, you can't have two parallel coins that would work smoothly.   Since 100% of miners would switch to the more profitable one, the other would be paused.

It would not be the slow adjusting difficulty, but the more frequently updated exchange prices that would govern this process.

Yes, that is "da law".




It's been like that since the beginning.  What exactly do you think was unstable?

Where 51% goes, the other 49% follows.

I see you are assuming that there is a logic to bitcoin price in the first place.

When I sell, sometimes there is a gap between my hodling and selling, and sometimes when I sell, I still hold for a little bit after I sell.

It currently stands at $460 BCH  / 2700 BTC at Kraken, and $720 BCH  /2700 BTC at Bitterx.   Such a high price is definitely unexpected.

Lets say there is a miner underground movement to recompile the client with 8MB block limit.  They can do it, and they don't even have to tell anyone.   However, the first ones to do it are risking it, because their big blocks will probably not end up in the longest chain. 

However, if more than 50% do it, we get a hard fork, and small block miners are forced to switch.

And, believe me, exchanges would be first ones to switch, as they have most to lose.

Miners can then just recompile with one constant changed.  In practice, they would have a hard time organizing, and finding someone trustful enough to create a new version and compile it for them,  so, "current state" always has a huge advantage.

But now that this has been done, it would be really interesting to see what would happen if majority of miners switched, even if for no other reason but because they are all Chinese.

Then 51% can go to war and hope to get lucky to create the longest chain, and this is one of the basic Bitcoin facts, longest chain wins.

This is almost exactly what is going on right now, but with 10% of hashrate instead of 51%.

Lets say that 10 million BCH have been traded in the next week, and price ends up at $5.   At this point the selling pressure will stop, and it could be a good moment to buy.  After all, all those 10 million did find somebody interested in buying them.

As for actual value,  there is no other value other than somebody willing to buy them from you, and this is true for both BTC and BCH.

Your node (financially heavy? Say what?) can reject blocks and transactions however it wants, and this will have zero effect on what blocks miners create. 

So, you are not aware that in any BTC/BCH trade, the number of both BTC and BCH stays exactly the same?

So, there is no such a thing as "half of the BTCs are traded for BCH". 

Sounds like you are saying that users (other than the miners) have any say in what blocks get accepted, and what blocks get rejected.