Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 10:42:41 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Monthly average USD/bitcoin price & trend  (Read 116168 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
mgburks77
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
December 24, 2013, 01:07:02 PM
 #361

The energy and miners need be there (the coin economics do not work without it),

Hey RP, may be a little off topic, but can you point me to a thread that explains this more thoroughly? I think I understand why the miners need to be there - what about the energy?

Those factors exist to create difficulty in creation which turn controls the supply and distribution.

Basically it makes bitcoins rare and difficult to produce and because they are hard to produce or counterfeit they are useful as a medium of exchange. If you could mint a bitcoin by simply taking a piece of paper and writing bitcoin on it anyone could make them and would, rendering the unit of account useless for exchange.
1511088161
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511088161

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511088161
Reply with quote  #2

1511088161
Report to moderator
1511088161
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511088161

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511088161
Reply with quote  #2

1511088161
Report to moderator
1511088161
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511088161

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511088161
Reply with quote  #2

1511088161
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
bitrider
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 233


View Profile
December 24, 2013, 02:30:42 PM
 #362

Thanks for responses guys. I'm pretty sure this belongs elsewhere.

I am quite familiar with white paper and how/why bitcoin uses POW. I am trying to get to my own understanding of whether so much energy is required for the POW in the long-term. It may in fact be essential, as RP suggested. However, as we go forward the energy expenditures become absolutely massive, and something about that seems "wrong" and "unnecessary" to me. Maybe it is what a global universal ledger/blockchain requires and it will displace many other wasteful energy expenditures, but I think there must be a better way. I understand POS is another way to go, with its own challenges/limitations. Anyway I need to dive deeper.

I'll bring these questions to another thread.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
December 27, 2013, 03:29:47 PM
 #363

Energy costs money, thus adding value to the coins.
If it costs to make it is more valuable than if it is free.

That's untrue. Bitcoin would work even if no energy was consumed by mining. Look up Proof of Stake, for example.


Costing more does not make anything more valuable, it just makes it more costly.  Energy saving measures can reduce the cost, but these do not make it less valuable.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Arriemoller
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 374



View Profile
December 27, 2013, 04:24:47 PM
 #364

Semantics, if it's costly it's valuable.

Demokrati: Två vargar och ett lamm röstar om lunchmenyn.      Democracy: Two wolfes and a lamb votes about the lunch menu.
Frihet: Ett väl beväpnat lamm opponerar sig mot omröstningen.  Freedom: A well armed lamb opposes the outcome.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
December 27, 2013, 04:34:44 PM
 #365

Semantics, if it's costly it's valuable.
Wrong.
Definitions.
Higher cost, makes for less value.

Which would you pay more for: a 1TH rig that costs 1000/year to run, or one that costs 2000/year to run?

Running more expensive mining isn't what makes bitcoin valuable either.  The incentive runs in the opposite direction.  A valuable bitcoin gives reason to run expensive mining, but less costly is still always better. 

The earlier point is that the electricity costs are a part of the bitcoin cost, but that cost does not make bitcoin more valuable, it does the opposite, it makes it more costly.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436



View Profile
December 27, 2013, 06:25:03 PM
 #366

Energy costs money, thus adding value to the coins.
If it costs to make it is more valuable than if it is free.

That's untrue. Bitcoin would work even if no energy was consumed by mining. Look up Proof of Stake, for example.


Costing more does not make anything more valuable, it just makes it more costly.  Energy saving measures can reduce the cost, but these do not make it less valuable.

This is correct, it does not make it more valuable but it places a floor on the market price at which point production scales back when price drops below cost .... stickiness in difficulty complicates the calculations further than this though.

Edit: are we going to get a December update?

molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408



View Profile
December 27, 2013, 11:19:41 PM
 #367



FYI: http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

The basics are all on the original whitepaper.

What is the date of this whitepaper?

late 2008 I think.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
December 28, 2013, 12:04:22 PM
 #368

The official December update is coming at the end of December. My current trendline which is calculated from daily prices until 15.12.2013, shows that we are at $469 now. We have not yet had any daily breaches of the trendline since the latest bubblepop.

Many have wondered, whether the trendline approach was able to cope with the extreme price movements of the 2011 bubble. It is true that during the move up, it was not possible to deduce anything from the trendline, which had just started to form. But during the move down, it called the bottom with almost deadly precision: the trendline was crossed down in 7.10.2011 (note: 4 months after the top) when the price was $4.29. The buy-level, which is -0.2 log units below the trend, was reached 17.10.2011 at $2.85. On a daily level, the bottom was reached 2 days after, at $2.28. At that point we were -0.341 units below the trend.

In 2013 April bubble, the final capitulation played out as follows: trendline was crossed in 3.6.2013 at $119, buy-level of -0.2 was reached in 1.7.2013 at $90, bottom was in 6.7.2013 at $69 at -0.341.

I am sure that -0.341 as the daily average of the most opportune day to buy, months after the bubble, is pure coincidence Smiley Nevertheless, it gives confidence to those who do not decide to invest all after a runup, fearing to be left behind. If we expect the final capitulation to come on the red candles' day (14.2.2014), it is still possible to buy back in between $308-$427 if the previous bubbles are any guide.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
December 28, 2013, 04:37:50 PM
 #369



FYI: http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

The basics are all on the original whitepaper.

What is the date of this whitepaper?

late 2008 I think.

Oct 31 2008
Reformation day.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Voodah
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238



View Profile
December 28, 2013, 05:08:52 PM
 #370

Would the event of skipping this final capitulation imply the trendline has to be adjusted upwards or do you consider possible a scenario where we could go through two consecutive "bubbles" and only then come back to the trendline?
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436



View Profile
December 28, 2013, 07:24:13 PM
 #371

So if this trend line is based on assumption of exponential growth phase of adoption curve has there been any consideration to modelling when we begin to approach the saturation level?

I'm just wondering what a sigmoid curve will look like on this log plot (actually I know) but want to see it plotted ... and if there is any sign that the exponential growth may be starting to level off will we be able to see/anticipate that?

rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
December 28, 2013, 09:17:16 PM
 #372

Would the event of skipping this final capitulation imply the trendline has to be adjusted upwards or do you consider possible a scenario where we could go through two consecutive "bubbles" and only then come back to the trendline?

The trendline is recalculated every time a datapoint is added. This changes its starting point and slope (kx+b).

As the recalculation happens so frequently, and adds only less than 2% of new data, the changes are very small.

The predictive power of the trendline is under constant evaluation. If the price fails to go below the trendline before enough time has passed (perhaps because of a new bubble), it is already more expensive to buy in absolute terms, even if the price later tumbles well below the trend. We are talking at most a few months of waiting that could still be profitable.

On the other hand, even after such a black swan event as the rise from 0.005 to 32 in less than a year in 2010-2011, the trendline was duly visited before uptrend resumed, and the low predicted with considerable accuracy. This gave me an entry point of about $3, which of course is much worse than in the beginning of that year, but very good compared to May-Oct

This is guesswork, but I give greater odds (perhaps 65-35) that we continue the correction now (as an alternative to reinflating the bubble). Even if the bubble reinflates, it will pop so quickly that buying at <1000 is a very reasonable chance.
bitrider
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 233


View Profile
December 28, 2013, 09:24:46 PM
 #373

So if this trend line is based on assumption of exponential growth phase of adoption curve has there been any consideration to modelling when we begin to approach the saturation level?

I'm just wondering what a sigmoid curve will look like on this log plot (actually I know) but want to see it plotted ... and if there is any sign that the exponential growth may be starting to level off will we be able to see/anticipate that?

See

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=366214.0
oper128
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
December 30, 2013, 09:13:53 PM
 #374

New interesting concept here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=392117.0
Ducky1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
December 30, 2013, 10:23:19 PM
 #375

My alternative approach - log vs log(log) from 01.11.2011 to present. Conclusion: The log-log model seems to better fit the data than the linear-log model, and according to this model we are actually slightly under the trend line. Comments?







 
 
           ▄████▄
         ▄████████▄
       ▄████████████▄
     ▄████████████████▄
    ████████████████████      ▄█▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄████████████████▀   ▄██████████

  ▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄     ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀                   ██
▄█████▄▀▀▀▄██████▄▀▀▀▄█████▄     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀        ▄█▄          ▀██████████████▄
████████████████████████████       ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀          ▀█▀                        ██
 ▀████████████████████████▀          ▀██▄ ▄██▀             ▀██▄ ▄██▀     ▄█▄     ▀██▄ ▄██▀                                       ██
   ▀████████████████████▀              ▀███▀                 ▀███▀       ▀█▀       ▀███▀      ▄███████████████████████████████████▀
     ▀████████████████▀
       ▀████████████▀
         ▀████████▀
           ▀████▀
║║


║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
║║


║║
wachtwoord
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


View Profile
December 30, 2013, 10:37:43 PM
 #376

My alternative approach - log vs log(log) from 01.11.2011 to present. Conclusion: The log-log model seems to better fit the data than the linear-log model, and according to this model we are actually slightly under the trend line. Comments?







Let me get this straight: we've been going super exponential all this time?  Shocked

Could you draw this out on a log(log) chart as well?

marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436



View Profile
December 30, 2013, 10:42:46 PM
 #377

My alternative approach - log vs log(log) from 01.11.2011 to present. Conclusion: The log-log model seems to better fit the data than the linear-log model, and according to this model we are actually slightly under the trend line. Comments?




Wow ... that's some wild-ass result you got!! ... but hard to argue with the math, the fit looks good (just eyeballing but some best-fit stats would be nice) if we are indeed in the super-exponential phase (vertical) right now.

wachtwoord
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


View Profile
December 30, 2013, 10:50:32 PM
 #378

My alternative approach - log vs log(log) from 01.11.2011 to present. Conclusion: The log-log model seems to better fit the data than the linear-log model, and according to this model we are actually slightly under the trend line. Comments?




Wow ... that's some wild-ass result you got!! ... but hard to argue with the math, the fit looks good (just eyeballing but some best-fit stats would be nice) if we are indeed in the super-exponential phase (vertical) right now.

If he's right we've been going super exponential from the start. That's the point.

Voodah
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238



View Profile
December 30, 2013, 10:52:08 PM
 #379

My alternative approach - log vs log(log) from 01.11.2011 to present. Conclusion: The log-log model seems to better fit the data than the linear-log model, and according to this model we are actually slightly under the trend line. Comments?




Wow ... that's some wild-ass result you got!! ... but hard to argue with the math, the fit looks good (just eyeballing but some best-fit stats would be nice) if we are indeed in the super-exponential phase (vertical) right now.

If he's right we've been going super exponential from the start. That's the point.

That's uber-bullish, but can exchanges currently handle that rate of growth?
Ducky1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
December 30, 2013, 10:54:24 PM
 #380

My alternative approach - log vs log(log) from 01.11.2011 to present. Conclusion: The log-log model seems to better fit the data than the linear-log model, and according to this model we are actually slightly under the trend line. Comments?




Let me get this straight: we've been going super exponential all this time?  Shocked

Could you draw this out on a log(log) chart as well?

It may be just a fluke, but super exp. at least fits best for this time period. Here is a log log chart. The blue lines above and below is drawn by hand. The actual price in log-log space have been added manually to the left right of the vertical axis. The chart was not really meant for publication so a bit rough.





 
 
           ▄████▄
         ▄████████▄
       ▄████████████▄
     ▄████████████████▄
    ████████████████████      ▄█▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄████████████████▀   ▄██████████

  ▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄     ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀                   ██
▄█████▄▀▀▀▄██████▄▀▀▀▄█████▄     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀        ▄█▄          ▀██████████████▄
████████████████████████████       ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀          ▀█▀                        ██
 ▀████████████████████████▀          ▀██▄ ▄██▀             ▀██▄ ▄██▀     ▄█▄     ▀██▄ ▄██▀                                       ██
   ▀████████████████████▀              ▀███▀                 ▀███▀       ▀█▀       ▀███▀      ▄███████████████████████████████████▀
     ▀████████████████▀
       ▀████████████▀
         ▀████████▀
           ▀████▀
║║


║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
║║


║║
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!