So, yeah, if we are using any model, and facts are changing in such a way that had not been anticipated by the model whether it is in the near-term or further out in the model's life then we either tweak the model as we go or throw it out and substitute with a better model(s) if such better model(s) then exist.
S2F predicted $135,000 by December 2021. How can you “tweak” a predictive model if it’s wrong by obviously a very large percentage? It can’t be taken seriously after the “tweak”. This has been mentioned several times, and shows both your lack of interaction (just spouting out your own talking points over and over), and your not even understanding what the fuck you are talking about.. OK, then we should blindly follow, and believe PlanB’s Stock to Flow Model as a working Model, and accept that he can move the goal posts on a whim whenever there’s new circumstances/data that affects Bitcoin’s price. That’s a “Model” that will never be invalidated.  If you choose to NOT give the model any weight and to poo poo what it is saying, then you have a right to live in a fantasy, and it seems to me that you are ignoring a presentation of facts and logic that is right in front of you. The debate is not about me, it’s about the model. Huh? Since when have I given any shits about you? Largely my criticisms of you have to do with how you are criticizing the model and spouting out baloney... so in that sense, I am talking about your ideas not you. It was not on “my idea”, I’m the stupid one. That was tweeted by one of the most respected Bitcoiners in the community. Is he full of “baloney” too? Plus why is questioning the validity of the model be a person living in fantasy?
I have already explained. the model is correlated to data.. Of course, you do not have to agree with it, and you can give it little weight, but totally ignoring it or acting like it has no value seems to be quite detached from reality.. In the end, we are talking about various ways of framing BTC price movements where we have been, where we are at and from that, where we might be going. The model said $100,000 by December, it was off by how much?
Stock to flow model did not say that. How many times does this need to be repeated? Yes it did, https://stats.buybitcoinworldwide.com/stock-to-flow/ Plan B was always tweeting “right on schedule” before the model started to break apart, and everybody started laughing at him. Currently he goes around saying that Bitcoin’s price is being suppressed, probably the message is “I’m not wrong, the market is wrong”. Hahaha. Does a model being wrong by that much still should be considered a valid model? BUT Plan B is allowed to move the goal posts, then who is living in a fantasy?
You seem to be living in a fantasy.... and failing to even grapple with the topic that you are criticizing. So in that regard, you are both living in a fantasy and even difficult to follow about what the fuck you are talking about. Am I? |
|
|
|
|
I have had enough of my share of debates against franky1 about the Lighting Network, or anything, that many other people in the forum got annoyed because the topics ended with the both of us debating. He has been gaslighting/spreading disinformation everywhere. He always denies the fact that all Bitcoins in Lightning are actual Bitcoins, calling them IOUs. I give him an explanation why they’re not IOUs, he replies with a VERY LONG “technical” post of confusion to troll you.
|
|
|
|
So, yeah, if we are using any model, and facts are changing in such a way that had not been anticipated by the model whether it is in the near-term or further out in the model's life then we either tweak the model as we go or throw it out and substitute with a better model(s) if such better model(s) then exist.
S2F predicted $135,000 by December 2021. How can you “tweak” a predictive model if it’s wrong by obviously a very large percentage? It can’t be taken seriously after the “tweak”. This has been mentioned several times, and shows both your lack of interaction (just spouting out your own talking points over and over), and your not even understanding what the fuck you are talking about.. OK, then we should blindly follow, and believe PlanB’s Stock to Flow Model as a working Model, and accept that he can move the goal posts on a whim whenever there’s new circumstances/data that affects Bitcoin’s price. That’s a “Model” that will never be invalidated. If you choose to NOT give the model any weight and to poo poo what it is saying, then you have a right to live in a fantasy, and it seems to me that you are ignoring a presentation of facts and logic that is right in front of you. The debate is not about me, it’s about the model. Plus why is questioning the validity of the model be a person living in fantasy? The model said $100,000 by December, it was off by how much? Does a model being wrong by that much still should be considered a valid model? BUT Plan B is allowed to move the goal posts, then who is living in a fantasy? |
|
|
|
Once bitcoins enter the supply, they remain in the supply. The constant increase causes a downward pressure on the price as the supply curve slides to the right. The halving only reduces that downward pressure on price and it can't explain a 10x increase in price. But does KNOWING that the halvings every four years “reduce that downwards pressure on the price”, explain that it makes investors more positive about buying Bitcoin after every halving. Because the price, as seen in the chart, gives this impression. People know the effect of the halving long before the halving actually occurs. If that is the cause then you would see the effect before the halving. I debated about that during 2020, whether the halving was priced in, or not. I said the same thing as you, but I was proven wrong by the market. It’s the same as years 2012, and 2016. The price surged after the halving, showing everyone that it was not truly priced in.
Interestingly, Litecoin does show this effect. In both Litecoin halvings, the price rose sharply until just prior to the halving. Then, the bubble popped and the price fell sharply, and it continued to fall after the halving.
It’s probably no one really values Litecoin?
I believe that the actual causes of the Bitcoin bubbles are similar, but more general. News about the halvings or other events generates interest and promotes speculation, which which feeds on itself and slowly evolves into a bubble.
Finally, if we attribute the bubbles to what people believe about the supply and not the supply itself, then the bubbles have little to do with money supply and everything to do with demand.
But the supply itself does reduce after a halving. |
|
|
|
seems some dont like blockchains.
yes there are many ICO's pretending to do projects of utopia but have no intention to actually run, where their aims are just greed.
but blockchains do have a purpose
saying they dont is like saying that cloud storage is not needed because single host FTP worked fine for years.
but here is the thing. even the single hosted FTP owners disliked when their servers crashed and all customer data was inaccessible, so even they like distributed data.
security businesses with a single database employee log-in database, want not only distributed backups, but also a way to check the database isnt edited at any of the remote sites. and ensure that no employee can edit the database without being noticed.
even international airport security want access to world wide data but also ensure everyone has the same copy where one location cant just edit their copy and be unnoticed.
there are many real cases where blockchains offer a simple extra layer of security to standard database models. and it does not require the expense of millions of 'asics'. blockchains are not limited to being asic mined. the point of a blockchain is to lock a block of data. and chain it to the previous block of data. so that any edits can be seen/checked quickly and the latest 'hash' can be compared to other sources to check everyone has same copy.
blockchains dont even need to be from genesis to eternity. there are ways that the block hash is based on just 50 blocks in length where the oldest block drops when the newest(50th) block is added. meaning a perpetual chain of only 50 blocks chained together.
For those other use cases, outside of censorship-resistant value-transfer like Bitcoin, that don’t need POW, wouldn’t MySQL databases or other open source databses available be cheaper to use, and be more efficient? Why use a “blockchain”? A blockchain without POW is just like database with an x number of entities allowed to edit the ledger. |
|
|
|
What the 90% of “traders” don’t truly understand is that the top 10% of traders, who are real professionals, WANT them to continue trading. The “traders” are their victims. Do you want to be a victim? Or do you want to simply Buy Bitcoin, and HODL? , after all if I was in their position to make a lot of money thanks to the completely mistaken ideas that the majority of those that trade the markets have then I would do the same, and I think that is pretty much a given for everyone else. It is in their right, as newbies, to lose their own money gambling with high leverage in shitcoins, but it’s also in our right to give them an opposing point of view to make them stop from losing their own salary, their wife’s salary, their mother’s salary. |
|
|
|
I believe that’s true, but doesn’t the halvings reduce currency issuance, ans therefore also reduce selling pressure from the issuers, in Bitcoin, the miners?
The change is tiny. 500,000 bitcoins are traded on exchanges each day and the last halving resulted in only 900 fewer bitcoins. Once bitcoins enter the supply, they remain in the supply. The constant increase causes a downward pressure on the price as the supply curve slides to the right. The halving only reduces that downward pressure on price and it can't explain a 10x increase in price. But does KNOWING that the halvings every four years “reduce that downwards pressure on the price”, explain that it makes investors more positive about buying Bitcoin after every halving. Because the price, as seen in the chart, gives this impression. |
|
|
|
NFT is indeed an easy way to market art, I read in the news that the street painter community in my city previously had difficulty selling their works and with NFT the sales of their works increased rapidly and they were even able to sell several times higher from the original price. At first they had difficulty accessing the marketplace, creating a crypto wallet and uploading their work, but as time has passed, they have become proficient. with NFT really changing the way they make money in a positive sense.
It's a Ponzi, and the value holds as long as the narrative behind NFTs also holds. Remove the possibilty of "easy money", do you believe the street artist would sell his work at inflated prices? I feel sorry for the last person who bought it at ATH with no willing buyer. Who would he/she feel losing his/her money? Scammed. |
|
|
|
But it was a natural-occuring Ponzi.
Okay, you made me do some research. A natural occurring Ponzi is a term that was coined by Noble prize-winning economist Robert Shiller. Here is the definition of this kind of scheme that can be found in his book called "Irrational Exuberance": “Ponzi schemes do arise from time to time without the contrivance of a fraudulent manager. Even if there is no manipulator fabricating false stories and deliberately deceiving investors in the aggregate stock market, tales about the market are everywhere. When prices go up a number of times, investors are rewarded sequentially by price movements in these markets just as they are in Ponzi schemes. There are still many people (indeed, the stock brokerage and mutual fund industries as a whole) who benefit from telling stories that suggest that the markets will go up further. There is no reason for these stories to be fraudulent; they need to only emphasize the positive news and give less emphasis to the negative.”This term was also mentioned by World Bank that criticized and attacked Bitcoin back in 2014: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2014/07/17/world-bank-report-bitcoin-is-a-naturally-occurring-ponzi/As far as I understand, "a natural-occurring Ponzi scheme" is another way of saying "a bubble driven by natural laws of supply and demand", which is basically correct because bitcoin has always been the product of a free market. The problem with the word "Ponzi" is that it implies malicious activities of some kind and sounds very negative. Natural occurring malicious activity sounds no better than a Ponzi scheme. I think that this term is mostly used by those who want to attack bitcoin and make others into incorrect thinking. It is misleading and dangerous, and doesn't help much to explain things. It's you who subjectively believed that the term implies malicious activities. I was merely talking about the function and the process of why Bitcoin was a naturally-occuring Ponzi scheme. But for the sake of the argument, remove what the term implies, and let's stay with the function and the process. |
|
|
|
I believe they will definitely expect something they truly expected, and they have seen it before during bearish market cycles. The late “investors” will lose money, but the early “investors” will actually make money. What do you call that? It starts with the letter “P”. |
|
|
|
I’m asking about Bitcoin before it was used as amedium if exchange, before the Silk Road. How did it have the value against fiat, if not from a group of people buying and selling it from each other, which grew, and therefore the value grew. I believe you, and I cannot answer that because we were not there.
This is how I look at it. There is a difference between a speculative demand for bitcoin and a "transactional" demand for bitcoin. The speculative demand is when buyers and sellers meet and exchange bitcoin for fiat back and forth for the sake of temporary profit. The transactional demand is when people use bitcoin as a medium of exchange not because it has some value in fiat terms but because bitcoin should be used and seen as a medium of exchange. It is a sort of demand that is driven primarily by ideological reasons rather than economic ones. People would send bitcoin to each other and exchange it for different services and goods so that they could prove that bitcoin actually works as unstoppable electronic cash without authorities behind it. It is natural that they wanted other people to recognize the significance of Satoshi's invention, and that is why they spread awareness that bitcoin exists and works. It was not a Ponzi scheme because the motivation to spread the word was different from that driven by greed and profit-seeking. It was to convince other people to use bitcoin as a medium of exchange. Obviuosly, they didn't succeed and only attracted speculators who don't care about the transactional value of bitcoin. But it was a natural-occuring Ponzi. Bitcoin accrued value through buying and selling, and which it should have a willing participant to buy it higher from a participant before the willing participant. But it’s not a scam. There was no central entity scamming the users, the “Ponzi-process” was simply a necessary function to bootstrap the system. Is it a Ponzi today? No, because a circular economy has been building, and developing behind it. But it started as one, a natural-occuring Ponzi, not a scam-Ponzi. |
|
|
|
Fear is low, will take another 20-30% correction to get the panic selling started. Lots of people got in on the bull run and really think the total crypto market cap can double or even triple in the coming months.
But it actually can double or triple as well Easily. Plus if we zoom out, it can actually do more than double or triple too. Bitcoin requires a very low time preference as an investment. It’s not as exciting as fast surging shitcoins, but Bitcoin will remain a good investment than the shitcoins. In 10 years shitcoin networks will die, Bitcoin sill remain to be a robust cryptocurrency for Store of Value because of the design decisions made by the Core developers. |
|
|
|
So, yeah, if we are using any model, and facts are changing in such a way that had not been anticipated by the model whether it is in the near-term or further out in the model's life then we either tweak the model as we go or throw it out and substitute with a better model(s) if such better model(s) then exist.
S2F predicted $135,000 by December 2021. How can you “tweak” a predictive model if it’s wrong by obviously a very large percentage? It can’t be taken seriously after the “tweak”. This has been mentioned several times, and shows both your lack of interaction (just spouting out your own talking points over and over), and your not even understanding what the fuck you are talking about.. OK, then we should blindly follow, and believe PlanB’s Stock to Flow Model as a working Model, and accept that he can move the goal posts on a whim whenever there’s new circumstances/data that affects Bitcoin’s price. That’s a “Model” that will never be invalidated. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin always hit its ATH every after halving...
That statement is not correct, or it is too vague or needs too many qualifications to mean anything useful. End of story. But Bitcoin always did go to a new ATH as a path to price discovery after each halving cycle. Probably because of the halving itself, and probably because of a few other circumstances, like BRRR-money printing and other inflationary policies by the Federal Reserve/Central Banks. . Bitcoin has gone repeatedly gone to new highs regardless of the halvings. The idea that the halving causes an all-time high is a self-perpetuating myth based on confirmation bias. - The times between halvings and all-time have typically been very long. Only the 2012 halving was followed soon after by an all-time high.
- There is no correlation between halvings and all-time highs. There were two all-time highs between the 2012 and 2016 halvings, and two all-time highs since the 2020 halving.
- The 2011 all-time high occurred before the 2012 halving.
I believe that’s true, but doesn’t the halvings reduce currency issuance, ans therefore also reduce selling pressure from the issuers, in Bitcoin, the miners? I’m not questioning, or debating you, or saying you’re wrong, merely trying to learn. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin always hit its ATH every after halving...
That statement is not correct, or it is too vague or needs too many qualifications to mean anything useful. End of story. But Bitcoin always did go to a new ATH as a path to price discovery after each halving cycle. Probably because of the halving itself, and probably because of a few other circumstances, like BRRR-money printing and other inflationary policies by the Federal Reserve/Central Banks. |
|
|
|
So, yeah, if we are using any model, and facts are changing in such a way that had not been anticipated by the model whether it is in the near-term or further out in the model's life then we either tweak the model as we go or throw it out and substitute with a better model(s) if such better model(s) then exist.
S2F predicted $135,000 by December 2021. How can you “tweak” a predictive model if it’s wrong by obviously a very large percentage? It can’t be taken seriously after the “tweak”.
Right now, we have some pretty damned good models and stock to flow is amongst the best of the models in my opinion
OK, then until when, or at what point, will you admit that it has been invalidated?
Snip
It’s now hard to take you seriously. I thought you were one of those people we can learn from. |
|
|
|
I made this topic during 2018, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5056991.0I believe what the government of El Salvador is doing has its equivalent to that standpoint that I was illustrating during that time. Those users will truly learn “not your keys, not your coins” the hard way. |
|
|
|
The difference in leverage trading of $5000x1 and $100X50x is your funds, you can invest only $100 instead of investing $5000, the benefit of leverage trading is starting with low funds no need to start with $5000 but as you know if leverage will high then liquidation soon and if leverage will be small then liquidation will be late and stop-loss can minimize the liquidation if you know about it then always use stop loss in leverage trading then no chance to liquidate your funds.
That would be gambling, not trading, my good ser. A pleb like you and me’s probability of long-term success will be very low, in taking that kind of journey. Use that $100 to save instead of gamble. Save $100 a month, and in 10 months, you have $1,000 to buy the dip and HODL. |
|
|
|
Personally I love concept of leverage trading, it is really very dramatic. Your money is in loss or profit in very short time. As I have coverage myself leverage trading and sports betting these two program is not going to suit many people around world reason they can't control the emotions of getting big money in short time. If you are a patient trader then you can give a go to market and enjoy your ride.
Leverage trading is not for newbies because they don't understand what will be happening to their account when it starts going down. It is for well experienced traders who can also bear the risk. Leverage is good when on profit but if you start losing then you are on a free fall that you see you are empty. A small leverage is better than using high leverage and I don't advise newbies for it in any way. Two words: risk management. Dont risk more than 1% per trade and no more than 5% per day, more leverage means more risk. newbie lost from future trading due to not using stop loss. Using that strategy, would a simple, inexperienced pleb like you or me outperform the basic strategy of buy the dip, and HODL? Bitcoin would profit you more than 10x from March of 2020, more if you bought the right shitcoin, but many leveraged traders either do not outperform, OR lose their money through liquidation. |
|
|
|
But how did Bitcoin start to have value before the Silk Road? It didn’t start with investors coming into the system to bid, and holders to sell, and as new investors came in, the market and the value of the coin didn’t become larger?
You said that Bitcoin stopped being "a natural occurring Ponzi scheme" once it was recognized as a currency in the dark markets. Why did they recognize bitcoin if it never hadn't been used as a currency or a medium of exchange before? The thing is that it has constantly been used as a medium of exchange since its very first exchange, which was a situation where a guy bought two pizzas (real goods) for bitcoin. According to the definition you provided, that was the turning point when bitcoin stopped being a Ponzi scheme and started its development as a currency. But before this happened, no one was trading bitcoin for real goods or other currencies, everyone was just mining and casually sending useless transactions. No one was expecting to become rich from hodling bitcoin or selling it to others, so there was nothing there that indicated any signs of a scheme. I’m asking about Bitcoin before it was used as amedium if exchange, before the Silk Road. How did it have the value against fiat, if not from a group of people buying and selling it from each other, which grew, and therefore the value grew. I believe you, and I cannot answer that because we were not there. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
