Monthly average USD/bitcoin price & trend

[2017orso]

@gcinc

I enjoyed your analysis. Group behavior is definately measurable.  Applied to financial instruments esp.  Speculation on potential adoption can obv render the spec line inflated for the time, until adoption ensues...find rptiela's work interesting, and slippery slope's log model convincing.

Obv it's a gamble, obv it's risky, and obv it's about making money, so what...that's how markets work and innovations come to life.

[1714831164]

1714831164

[1714831164]

1714831164

[1714831164]

1714831164

[rpietila]

I came to my own thread and.. wtf have I just read. Nice work, guys You keep on surprising me.

What I am waiting with interest is:
a) How the trendline will change after we add a point above previous trend for November.
b) How the bitcoin exchange rate will hold. We have already visited 3.3x the trend (in China, 24 hours ago). This equals to 6-7 months of trendy appreciation. I am giving 33% chance that we already saw the interim top in all exchanges. 67% that we already saw the bottom

[AnonyMint]

OMG, the dopamine spikes from the get-rich-quick-fever are running so high that the new religion is finding information in aliasing error[1].

Nice catch, but I carefully picked the image from dozens to not refer to aliasing error.

Generally speaking only if the alignment of the overlapping circles is not randomly chosen.

See the fundamental point of the Shannon-Nyquist theorem (and yes I had to argue with the Wikipedia editors to get this language in their summary) is that a signal can not be both band-limited and time-limited (e.g. if time-limited you have infinite frequencies at the start and stop points).

In short, we can't know what is random and what is not. We can only base our expectations of those fixed points which are only fixed relative to the world we perceive (shared amongst those who share the common perception). I get deeper into the math in my blog article about what the universe really is made of:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html

So therefor you make your assumptions then you place your bets on those assumptions holding for the duration of your bets.

You won't be able to rule out serendipity ever. Long-tail distributions lurk, which is the point of Taleb's Antifragility taken with the inertia of concentration of mass.

Cheers Nice to talk with someone who can (I assume) understand what I wrote above.

@gcinc

I enjoyed your analysis. Group behavior is definately measurable.  Applied to financial instruments esp.  Speculation on potential adoption can obv render the spec line inflated for the time, until adoption ensues...find rptiela's work interesting, and slippery slope's log model convincing.

Obv it's a gamble, obv it's risky, and obv it's about making money, so what...that's how markets work and innovations come to life.

Indeed, serendipity for example an altcoin comes along which allows you to exit BTC without it being a ponzi scheme, by gradually sucking value out while increasing distribution to the masses.

But in this case it isn't random relative to our shared perception, because I just told you what will happen

That is unless it disappears from your consciousness, which is quite likely I presume because you are not privy to everything I can see at the moment.

[tonico]

I'm a R n00b, is this a correct way to get the trendline in R? (just for fun)

Code:

prices <- c(
      0.005,   0.005,   0.005,   0.005,   0.005,   0.005,
      0.005,   0.005,   0.005,   0.005,   0.005,   0.005,
      0.005,   0.005,   0.005,   0.005,   0.005,   0.008,
      0.06,    0.065,   0.062,   0.106,   0.27,    0.24,
      0.39,    0.90,    0.85,    1.50,    6.38,   18.55,
     14.10,    9.75,    5.76,    3.30,    2.60,    3.51,
      6.11,    5.06,    4.88,    4.98,    5.06,    6.03,
      8.04,   10.88,   11.46,   11.58,   11.51,   13.33,
     16.31,   25.93,   58.14,  115.09,  112.81,  108.39,
     83.80,  105.80,  124.33,  156.50
)

months <- 1:length(prices)
result <- lm(log10(prices) ~ months)

plot(months, log10(prices))
abline(result, col="red")

a <- coef(result)[1]
b <- coef(result)[2]
r2 <- summary(result)$r.squared

https://i.imgur.com/DUYs1k8.png

[TheOtherOne]

I personally believe the order and laws behind all natural phenomena can be successfully extrapolated to macro environments like collective valuation of financial instruments

Well said. At least to a usefull approximation if your resolutions requirements are not to high.

[dasein]

I personally believe the order and laws behind all natural phenomena can be successfully extrapolated to macro environments like collective valuation of financial instruments

Well said. At least to a usefull approximation if your resolutions requirements are not to high.

And in the end your resolution requirements can never be high enough because of the disproportionate role of tail events that are difficult to predict and the psychological bias implicit in reduction to theory that favors certainty and denies ambiguity (because of death anxiety). In other words:

[AnonyMint]

Armstrong has coincidentally blogged today on what we are discussing here. Interesting read. You won't be disappointed.

[rpietila]

Anyone who understands what the man is talking? 

(I have been called "the greatest linear thinker alive", but even that is too much I think...)

[AnonyMint]

yes

[hamiltino]

Watch out for emunie, it may just take the crypto crown.

[GCInc.]

And in the end your resolution requirements can never be high enough because of the disproportionate role of tail events that are difficult to predict and the psychological bias implicit in reduction to theory that favors certainty and denies ambiguity (because of death anxiety). In other words:

What you are saying is not coming through. Black swans are quite common globally, but rare within single constricted systems. FAPP we need to take the risk to omit them - and suffer the eventual consequences without whining when we repeat that risk over and over again until the unlikely becomes nearly certain on a personal scale.

(I have been called "the greatest linear thinker alive", but even that is too much I think...)

What the man said: ...unlikely to even comprehend its cyclical complexity with linear thinking. It requires a change in the way we see the world...

Linear thinking will get you just halfway through!

That's why, from the metaphysical perspective, I'm not a fan of Taleb or some of such very usual sentiments that the likes of this forum are in bed with, with some of their very intelligent members. No offense intended, but lack of metaphysics is lack of reason.

 

Armstrong has coincidentally blogged today on what we are discussing here. Interesting read. You won't be disappointed.

The Armstrong article is excellent. (However I don't like the implication that all order is just emergence refined - saying that emergence "just exists" is not sufficient, but that speculation does not change its usability) Do you really think the article's appearance right now is a coincidence? To think so would imply incomplete understanding of what he is writing about.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Watch out for emunie, it may just take the crypto crown.

Any cryptocurrency aiming to have low volatility will have low adoption. It seems the creator doesn't understand economics.

[AnonyMint]

Watch out for emunie, it may just take the crypto crown.

Any cryptocurrency aiming to have low volatility will have low adoption. It seems the creator doesn't understand economics.

+1 Hey your name makes me think of Engelbert Humperdinck. How cool to have a name like that!

[rpietila]

Watch out for emunie, it may just take the crypto crown.

Any cryptocurrency aiming to have low volatility will have low adoption. It seems the creator doesn't understand economics.

I have also devoted some thinking to the matter. Bitcoin's parameters are the most optimal that I have seen, if the objective is to get the currency off the ground and achieve the highest 'market cap' valuation:

- Initial creation is rather centralized, in opposed to distributed. (Nearly) Same amount of old world resources must be burned to create new currency.
- Most holders by number need to acquire their bitcoins from an exchange, giving them a fiat price.
- This leads to a power-law distribution in bitcoin balances from the beginning. This is the most natural distribution and minimum amount of trades need to be made in the aftermarket to achieve it.
- This leads to stiff but predictable supply inelasticity, which leads to high volatility mainly to the upside.

Compare this to the XRP distribution, which completely disregards all economic principles and thus was an utter failure, forever destining XRP to be a trading card game, and discrediting the (otherwise promising) Ripple network in the process.

[wachtwoord]

Watch out for emunie, it may just take the crypto crown.

Any cryptocurrency aiming to have low volatility will have low adoption. It seems the creator doesn't understand economics.

I have also devoted some thinking to the matter. Bitcoin's parameters are the most optimal that I have seen, if the objective is to get the currency off the ground and achieve the highest 'market cap' valuation:

- Initial creation is rather centralized, in opposed to distributed. (Nearly) Same amount of old world resources must be burned to create new currency.
- Most holders by number need to acquire their bitcoins from an exchange, giving them a fiat price.
- This leads to a power-law distribution in bitcoin balances from the beginning. This is the most natural distribution and minimum amount of trades need to be made in the aftermarket to achieve it.
- This leads to stiff but predictable supply inelasticity, which leads to high volatility mainly to the upside.

Compare this to the XRP distribution, which completely disregards all economic principles and thus was an utter failure, forever destining XRP to be a trading card game, and discrediting the (otherwise promising) Ripple network in the process.

I agree with this post to the letter.

[AnonyMint]

I rebutted.

That, and especially the one to the long post re:if Bitcoin is a Pyramid scheme or not, are quite weak rebuttals.

I bet most of the readers believe I have the upper hand, and also I think so.

(It is possible that you are so way above me. Bell curve has a long tail. Mine is only +2.9 s.d. )

It is good we are debating this.

Lets see how the debate ends up.

[SlipperySlope]

I bet most of the readers believe I have the upper hand, and also I think so.

Indeed.

[dasein]

The nice thing about this debate is that ultimately it gets settled in cash, lots and lots of cash.

[2017orso]

I bet most of the readers believe I have the upper hand, and also I think so.

Indeed.

Indeed + 1

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Watch out for emunie, it may just take the crypto crown.

Any cryptocurrency aiming to have low volatility will have low adoption. It seems the creator doesn't understand economics.

+1 Hey your name makes me think of Engelbert Humperdinck. How cool to have a name like that!

Yeah I found it on TV Tropes in an article on inherently funny names, including Humperdinck. It struck me as the funniest, so I kept it as my own. If it were my real name...well that would be pretty fun.