Your numbers are great for your little scenario but if it were to cost a miner $500 to mine a coin, selling it for less would be stupid. Ergo if the price is lower than the cost to mine: the available supply is likely to deminish.
LOL, what a failure to argue logical and rational.
The supply of new Bitcoins mined remains constant.If the cost of a miner is $500 to mine a coin then
he will simply turn this older miner off and the supply shifts over to miners with newer and
more efficient hardware.
There is NO POSSIBLE SITUATION, even in theory, that the constant supply of new BTC will be reduced any time in the near future. The next reward halving is not for years. Thinking "the available supply is likely to deminish" because the supply shifts from one seller to another is not reasonable.
"if it were to cost a miner $500 to mine a coin" then
mining it would be
stupid and miners with basic economic understanding will simply turn their miners off.
I'm not retarded, and the supply of new coins does
not remain constant, the system merely self-regulates to converge on an average rate of 3600BTC/day. Further you assume a rational actor (miner) when that is absolutely not the case (See:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anyone-else-losing-money-but-still-mining-765706). Read the comment by Mobius where he implies that the poster should keep mining and hold on the premise that the future worth of the mined coins would outwiegh the mining costs
today.
It would be absolutely ignorant to assume that whether a miner holds or dumps his new coins is irrelevant to the available supply when the high percentage earners are dumpers and the smaller percentage are holders. Hence my point.
