you mean supply and demand have nothing to do with it.
I figured that with a high demand and low supply the price went up until they equalized.
and when fewer people were wanting to sell their items the price went even higher.
then someone decided to stop hoarding because they wanted to buy something else put their items up for sale increasing the supply others found that since the supply was higher, they had to reduce their asking price if they wanted to make a sale.
Once the buyers had their fill and wanted no more, the sellers still had some left but had diminishing sales. reducing their prices, attracting sales at a new lower equilibrium point.
It's all difficulty and price?
Damn my econ teacher!
Your major mistake here was not recognizing that the miners
are the original suppliers and the primary issue they fight with daily is the difficulty rating. To this end, difficulty determines the psychology of the individual producer - while it certainly doesn't change the number of total coins available, it changes the number of coins available to each individual seller and therefore the resource becomes scarcer
to them and so they demand more money. Resource scarcity is at the heart of supply and demand and it is not absolute - the scarcity of a resource is not simply a matter of "how many of thing X exist" but also "how many people must share the resource pool of X" - as more people must share the pool, the scarcity per capita increases and as so the value does as well.
Scarcity per capita, market depth, production cost and rate, investor demand, end-user demand and much more go into the price of a bitcoin. I'm saying that everyone who is taking some tiny corner that they perceive to be the "supply and demand" at the heart of bitcoin is wrong. There are many factors affecting supply and many factors affecting demand and they are interwoven in a complex and tangled hierarchy. The hierarchy as a whole tends to follow certain rules, such as "price is proportional to difficulty" because the factors built into the network conspire to make it so: more participants means more scarcity per capita and it also means more miners; value rises with difficulty. Neither is the cause of the effect witnessed in the other. They are both caused in this case by a simple increase in the market size without a corresponding increase in resource availability. In some examples one causes the other, in other example neither is the cause but are actually effects of some tertiary cause.
You are all over-simplifying things. If economics were this simple we'd all have to be quite stupid not to have been billionaires long before bitcoin existed.