But seriously what do you guys think bitcoin would be worth 5 years from today?

$500 within 24 hours from now is still possible.
BTC tends to bounce fast once the rally/recovery begins. 

You said we had a 50-50 ('rounded off') chance of going below $400.
And that if we did the price would end up between $166 and $366.
This isn't a prediction. It means 'The price might go below $400 and if it does it will end up below $400.'
^^^
This is for the benefit of newbies who might be tempted to take cosmo seriously. The other threads people have dug up on you tell people everything they need to know about you.

For me, I think it's time you joined igorr on my ignorr list. I believe you'll get on well together.

EDIT: for the record, bearish short term and think that $400 holding is optimistic, but it doesn't make a difference to me either way. I earn my btc and will continue to do so over the long term regardless of price. Long term I think bitcoin has a bright future. Sentiments here are based on troll moronity, not fear that the wiggly lines on the charts might wiggle more than usual.

I believe we are simply interpreting the definition of intrinsic differently (and it is open for interpretation).  This type of definition (or phrasing) is what causes so much confusion.  Just because something fills an intrinsic need now, does not mean it will always fill that need (or at least, always fill that need well).  The object that fills the need is always temporary compared to the need itself.

Stone tablets used to be an object that helped fill the intrinsic need to communicate.  Then we invented paper.  The value of stone tablets was entirely dependent on it's instrumental value.  It's utility.  It is the same way for all objects.

A long time ago, a cave would have been valuable as it has attributes that make it useful for security and shelter.  It is the idea of security that is intrinsically valuable, not the cave.  The cave is only as valuable so long as it can fulfill that need better than something else.

At the end of the day, all these objects values are relative.  The needs remain, which is why I call the underlying concepts apparent in human nature intrinsically valuable.  The objects that fulfill these needs are only as valuable as they are useful.

So I am arguing on a fundamental level that NO PHYSICAL OBJECTS are intrinsically valuable.  Only concepts can claim to be intrinsically valuable.  Everything else has instrumental or utility value, the degree of which depends on how well they fulfill those concepts which are intrinsic to human nature.

No, you're not addressing the core definition of the term "intrinsic value"  You are conflating it with totally different concepts.  Intrinsic value DOES NOT refer to its utility, utility value does. That is the whole point of the word utility!  They are wholly different concepts that you are confusing as one.

You're right, being a medium of exchange does not give something intrinsic value, and I never said it did.  I said the concept of a medium of exchange itself is what is intrinsically valuable.  Only the concept.  How well something fulfills that concept gives it utility.  And believe it or not, certain attributes are useful when seeking to use as a medium of exchange (it has to be fungible, divisible, non-corrosive, scarce, etc).  That's why cows make a shitty medium of exchange, because they don't have the attributes that fulfill that need.  Cows have value for other reasons.  Because they have utility of fulfilling other intrinsic needs.

All those aspects of gold you just described do give it value.  But not intrinsic value.  There is nothing intrinsically valuable about jewelry.  Just as there is nothing intrinsically valuable about a facebook like.  What these things do is fulfill an intrinsic need(s).

The concept of "status" is intrinsically valuable to humans because we are "pack" animals.  As is something like "love".  These are concepts that are inherent in human nature.

This is why jewelry is valuable, because it fulfills intrinsic needs in human nature.  It fills that intrinsic void.  Jewelry is a way in which we show off our status in society.  That is the utility of jewelry.  Gold then, is valuable because it has many of the properties that we value in jewelry (shiny, malleable, scarce, etc).  There is nothing intrinsically valuable about gold itself, just those traits.  If something comes along and fills the attributes of jewelry better than gold, gold loses its value.  Or worse, if something comes along and fulfills the need of showing off our status better than jewelry does, suddenly jewelry itself loses some of its value, which in turn also hurts gold.

The point being, none of these objects are intrinsically valuable, they are only useful at filling intrinsic needs.  Their value comes from their utility, which is 100000% not the same as those items being intrinsically valuable themselves.  Items, by nature, can never be intrinsically valuable, only the underlying concepts.

Consider meat.  Meat is valuable because it has utility.  Meat itself is not intrinsically valuable.  What is intrinsically valuable is the concept of energy.  We require energy to survive.  Food is how we get that energy, and meat is a useful source of food.  If however, we found a new source of food that was better than meat, we'd consume more of that and meat would lose some of its value.  The further away you go from the original concept, the easier it is to see...

Take meat and break it down further.  Beef, pork, chicken, etc.  We value each of these differently based on how well they fill the void.  What do we value, protein content, taste, scarcity (which effects price and availability), etc.  So each of these types of meat has a different utility to each of us.  If Beef suddenly became incredibly scarce, it's value would go up.  If we discovered a meat that tasted like Pork, only much better, the value of pork would go down.  etc.

Now, back it up.  Food is only valuable because it fills certain intrinsic needs (the need for energy, the need for pleasure, etc.  These are intrinsic to human nature).  If something came along and filled one or all of those intrinsic needs better (say for instance, we figured out a way to convert sun directly into human energy), food would suddenly lose some of its value.  It would have less utility.

Or what if we figured out a way to simulate taste in our brain without having to actually eat.  Oh how food would lose some of its value (especially junk food that is bad for you but tastes good).

In the end, objects are only as valuable as they are useful.  Gold is useful for lots of things because it has qualities that fill the needs of lots of different intrinsic concepts.  That doesn't mean gold itself is intrinsically valuable.  When something comes along and does it better than gold, gold loses a little value.  Same with anything.

I've argued it before and I'll say it again.  No items have intrinsic value.  Concepts have intrinsic value.

The concept of a liquid medium of exchange, aka money/currency, has intrinsic value to humans.  It is a necessary part of the human experience.  These intrinsic concepts (there are many others) create voids that need to be filled.  They create a set of attributes which have utility value (money needs to be fungible, divisible, non-corrosive, scarce, etc).

How an item fulfills these qualities gives said item it's utility, aka value.  Gold, paper money, bitcoin, all have value because they combine certain attributes that make them useful as a medium of exchange.  That is their utility.  There is nothing intrinsically valuable about it.  What is intrinsically valuable is that concept of a medium of exchange.

That intrinsic concept creates a void.  And how items fill that void gives them their utility value.  They are only as valuable as they are useful.  When something comes along and fills the intrinsic void better they lose value.

This is demonstrably incorrect: It is the intrinsic qualities of bitcoin which give it value.  Those qualities make it better for exchange purposes than any other commodity.  That is intrinsic value, value deriving directly from the intrinsic qualities of the thing.  In this case it happens to coincide with the properties which make it useful for exchange.  Other commodities have relatively poor intrinsic qualities for exchange.  Their intrinsic qualities relate to other forms of utility.  But exchange is very much a real form of utility.

If people value something, it has value; if people do not value some­thing, it does not have value; and there is no intrinsic about it.

I hope you make a lot of money.   Im not here to criticize your system.   Im just skeptical as an options trader. Im a firm believer in random walk in short term (minutes) ,  technicals in semi  short (hours,  days)  term and fundamentals long term (days,  months) .   Most of my trades are delta neutral.  I sell premium 45 days out on IV spikes.   I do have spec long positions that are 6 mos to year out

2 problems I foresee trading BTC

1.  The slippage on BTC  is huge.   Probably  cause theres no liquidity.  I looked on bitstamp and coinbase and the bid/ask can be $5 wide.  Lack of liquidity also makes difficult for intraday trading if you cant get in and out of position

2.  Theres no easy way to short BTC so you can only trade bullish direction.   In options you can trade up,  down,  or sideways

Even if you improve the preditions and add more functions into your website, there are always people arguing about it, instead of looking for solutions to improved it themself.
Most people who have seen your work are positive.

Just curious how do you trade these predictions?  You just buy and sell if your target is hit?

If your target doesn't hit what do you do?  Double down? Swallow loss?

Confidence intervals don't work like that. If the data exists then you don't state a confidence interval. You never know the data when you state confidence intervals.

Here's why your error is a poor stat. One, your error makes a time series itself. Condensing it like that and keeping all the historic results in the current error is not useful. Your error tells the user very little about recent applicability. Secondly, you don't make any effort to tell the user how your mean varies. The minimum is zero and the mean is 1.3% okay, but how about the variance? What's the tail look like? That's a very important piece of information that anyone who is more than slightly curious will miss from your site. Listing a mean with no variance or other info is meaningless when the underlying distribution is largely unknown.

I know very little about the method used to generate your model. I know nothing about AI. I'm a mathematician I spend all my time modelling. You shouldn't condense 24 time series (error) into one number with equal weighting like that it isn't a relevant statistic to anyone but you. That means your predictions for the price 2 years ago are as relevant as your ability to predict yesterdays price as far as your error goes.

The vast majority don't understand the error at all. They just don't look at it long enough to understand it or simply don't care or know enough to see why its flawed.

PS there are confidence interval methods for neural network models. Your method for calculation is an innaproriate statistic, no matter how many people 'understand it'.

In your example, your confidence interval would be a measure of how sure you are the function really looks like that over the next 60mins, based on historic info.

I'm fed up of arguing about your definition of error and your inappropriate simplification and presenting only a mean. It's a bad measure of error for the data you are presenting, and an inappropriate statistic on it's own. As it stands, the data you present is meaningless to everyone but you. It doesn't matter how many people visit the page, if they don't have any mathematical background then they won't understand the flaw in your 'average error' statement.

Lastly, thanks for the caps, but I'm not a child. I never mentioned humans being able to 'see' patterns in datasets. But humans can 'understand' patterns, in many cases. Bitcoin prices make a timeseries, and there are many, many, many ways to find patterns in time series (& judge how likely they are to 'really' exist) and understand exactly what they mean.

Then you need to make that clear. Because right now it appears that you mean 1.3% over 24 hours. But in effect it is this between datapoints. Over the 24 datapoints, it can be off by 30% or so...

Just reread your post. That method of expressing error is hopeless when your predictions update hourly. It just doesn't make sense to take an average of errors like that. You need to explain better exactly how you calculate the error when (in the 24 hour case) you are really making 24 predictions per hour. You look at the error from all 24 predictions, square them (or take absolute value) and add them up? So you're adding 24 positive values up?

Your errors are also meaningless in terms of current prediction, because the errors you list are purely historic and are independent of the current prediction.