Explaining ‘Price Follows Hash’

Yesterday, JP Morgan Chase & Co released a note on Bitcoin’s intrinsic value.

Their analysis suggests Bitcoin is overvalued at $8000, citing a deviation from the costs of production.

BTC is overvalued, but not because miners are making a profit.

This argument has been floating around the Bitcoin space for a while. The position JPM takes is that “price follows hash.”

It’s also called the Labor Theory of Value and has been popularized by fans of Karl Marx.

The Labor Theory of Value opposes common sense; products are not valuable because they take effort but because they have demand, which implies utility.

Why Price Appears To Follow Hash

Price and hash are strongly correlated, but few take the leap of suggesting an increase in hashrate causes price to increase.

In March, Eat Sleep Crypto newsletter subscribers learned the mechanism behind the seeming causation.

Many Bitcoiners recognize a relationship between price and mining power (hash). The debate has been reduced to “price follows hash” vs “hash follows price.”

As usual, the truth is nuanced.

In a bull market, hash follows price. Miners choose to mine the most profitable coin.

In a bear market, price follows hash as miners with different costs undercut each other.

BTC dropped from $6200 to $3200 during the BCH/BSV hash war in November. The drop from $6200 to $5600 saw 30% drop in hash rate from the network. At the time, 70% of Bitcoin miners were in China.

It was logical to conclude the 30% became unprofitable and switched off, leaving the rest to sell at whatever price buyers would negotiate. I’d read that the cost of mining in China was around $3200 and placed my bets accordingly.

BTC bounced at $3150.

This was a confirmation of my theory and spurred further thoughts on how to fundamentally value cryptocurrencies.

During this time, we also saw refutations of competing theories – namely that “price follows hash,” or Marx’s Labor Theory of Value. Both Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin (SV) saw a surge in hash power, yet both of their prices decreased over the hash war.

Excerpted from the ESC newsletter, 3/27/19

In a bull market, hash follows price. In a bear market, price only appears to follow hash.

This framework explains the seeming correlation of price and hashrate in a bear market. Hopefully, it puts Bitcoin-related discussion of the Labor Theory of Value to rest.

If you enjoyed this article, check out the rest of the articles in the cryptocurrency valuation category.

Who Is Mystery Miner ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’?

Mystery miner ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ appeared on the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) network and has amassed ~37% of total network hash in the past several weeks.

The appearance of this unknown miner is concerning to Bitcoin Cash community members particularly because Bitcoin Cash has its first planned hard fork since the BSV split in November coming up on May 15th.

The timing, and the moniker itself have some speculating that Calvin Ayre and Craig Wright are behind the hash power and planning to disrupt the fork.

We’ve examined data from the BCH chain and compared it with circulating theories behind the miner’s identity and intentions.

BCH vs BSV Hash Rate

We first wanted to know where the hash was coming from.

One theory which surfaced on Reddit was that hash from BSV had moved over to BCH.

Source:https://sv.coin.dance/blocks/minerhashrate/linear

While there was a decline in hash on BSV in April, it wasn’t enough to account for the increase in overall hash on BCH from the Satoshi pool.

The decline in hash (largely from SV Pool and later CoinGeek) in April was in step with BSV’s price decreases following recent delistings.

For what it’s worth, Calvin Ayre has explicitly denied responsibility for the ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ pool.

BTC.TOP

Looking at Coin.Dance graphs of network hash rate, it appears that BTC.TOP’s total contribution decreased while ‘Satoshi’s’ increased.

Source: https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/minerhashrate/linear

This doesn’t necessarily mean BTC.TOP’s miners went to the Satoshi pool, but it’s one possibility.

Varying Bitcoin Cash Clients

Varying version numbers indicated in the block headers of blocks mined by ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ indicate varying clients and suggest that this is a mining pool, not a single entity.

The pool’s hash rate as a percentage has remained relatively constant, which suggests it’s profit-oriented, not malicious.

Bitmain

A rumor has been circulating that this pool is operated by Bitmain, testing new equipment.

The version numbers in some block headers of ‘Satoshi’s’ blocks bear exclusive similarities to version numbers of the BTC.COM pool’s blocks, namely in the fourth through sixth characters: fff.

Source:https://cash.coin.dance/blocks

BTC.COM is owned by Bitmain. Still, the rumor remains just that.

Conclusion

‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ appears to be a standard pool pursuing profit, not a malicious entity.

We hope this analysis puts the issue to rest so the Bitcoin Cash community can continue promoting BCH as an optimal medium of exchange, fulfilling Satoshi’s true vision of peer-to-peer electronic cash.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section and discuss ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity with others in the Bitcoin Cash community, and share this article on social media via the icons below.