Bitcoin Halving Multiple - (Research)

[andybb311]

After stumbling on the Bitcoin Halving Multiple in the beginning of the year, I am finally ready to release the 1st stable version of the dynamic site to the public. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

paper: https://bitcoincalc.org/bitcoin_halving_multiple.pdf
site: https://bitcoincalc.org
twitter:https://twitter.com/bitcoincalc_org
email:forthepeoplebythepeople@protonmail.com

[odolvlobo]

Your paper says very little.

    ( h 2 | h 3 )
m = ————————————
    ( h 1 | h 2 )

What does that mean, specifically the "|" operator?

Comparison of prior halving multiple(s) will establish a reliable metric to gauge bitcoin’s past trends while applying the multiplier(s) for predicting future values when trends are reasonably equal.

How?

[andybb311]

| = division per fancy math when I was searching how to write fancy formulas.

It takes time to digest. Its very deep but wanted to keep it to its simplest form. Check out the 'raw USD' data tab to see detail of every halving, even copy and paste into your own spreadsheet for further analysis.

If the next halving multiple is greater than the last, adoption is growing faster than before. If less, than it is dropping. Its more of a macro indicator since it uses 3 halvings data to print the multiplier. Hope this helps. Sorry for the confusion

[Rizzrack]

| = division per fancy math when I was searching how to write fancy formulas.

Math is not meant to be fancy, it's meant to be exact.                                           -

What exactly are you dividing, because "h1 = halving event 1 " doesn't say much... Is it block reward, average price, average price per block,  per unit, per sat.... what ? 

[NeuroticFish]

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

I've stopped reading after the "fancy formula".
* You should make the formula clear and exact, not fancy
* You should use established operators. For now | means OR and the horizontal line is division. If both mean division, then the formula is worthless.
* You could write something like UsdPriceAt(h2), to make users understand you're not dividing dates.
* Maybe an example won't hurt
* Maybe you'd explain how does this apply for third, and fifth, and sixth halving...

[bitmover]

After stumbling on the Bitcoin Halving Multiple in the beginning of the year, I am finally ready to release the 1st stable version of the dynamic site to the public. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

paper: https://bitcoincalc.org/bitcoin_halving_multiple.pdf
site: https://bitcoincalc.org
twitter:https://twitter.com/bitcoincalc_org
email:forthepeoplebythepeople@protonmail.com

I am sorry, but your website and project is basically showing misinformation and wrong speculation.

By your website, in 2064 each bitcoin will be worth 27 billion usd.
By 2068, just 4 years later, you predicted 104 billion usd. Lol 4x from 2064

This makes absolutely no sense and unless you have a very clear and strong claim, you should  just remove it..
Bitcoin won't be making 10x every few years like in the past.


This is a very apocalyptic scenario where usd won't have any value and bitcoin rules the world.

[odolvlobo]

It takes time to digest. Its very deep but wanted to keep it to its simplest form.

You do not explain how you arrived at your model, so there is no reason for me to believe that it works.

[andybb311]

Very good points, Rizzrack! This is exactly the kind of constructive feedback I was looking for. I will make the suggested changes to the calculation presentation as follows...

Math is not meant to be fancy, it's meant to be exact.

1)Replace '|' with '/'

What exactly are you dividing, because "h1 = halving event 1 " doesn't say much... Is it block reward, average price, average price per block,  per unit, per sat.... what ? 

2) Reword "h1 = fiat value of 1 bitcoin at halving event 1" also sequentially w/ h2 & h3


Do these changes give the calculation presentation more clarity? Thanks so much for your insight!

[andybb311]

Good stuff NeuroticFish! Thanks for taking the time to itemize your feedback
The first 3 points you've suggested will be implemented & outlined in response to Rizzrack's suggestions. I agree w/ you, if the syntax is not correct, the formula doesn't work. Clear, precise, yet simple to understand is my goal.

* You could write something like UsdPriceAt(h2), to make users understand you're not dividing dates.

Do you think the rewording of "h1 = fiat value of 1 bitcoin at halving event 1" resolves this in the presentation context? Or should I rewrite the formula presentation such as m = (UsdPriceH2 / UsdPriceH3) / (UsdPriceH1 / UsdPriceH2) to eliminate the need for explaining each variable afterwards? To me both methods are the same, but which one is clearer??? Note- I removed the parentheses you suggested for variable clarity, not to be confused as a multiplier.

* Maybe an example won't hurt

Brilliant! Which is exactly why I created the site, bitcoincalc.org to showcase the multiple dynamically. It will be easier to initially visualize. I will add the variables of the 1st multiple for example to the calculation presentation section.

* Maybe you'd explain how does this apply for third, and fifth, and sixth halving...

One of my early drafts went into great length on this but I removed it bc the paper was getting to bulky and seemed too soon to go down the rabbit hole of linear projection vs reality. I'm now thinking maybe an abstract sentence or 2 would help. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[andybb311]

I am sorry

I accept your apology bitmover, lol. In all fairness, due to the linear nature of the projection, further time has elapsed the less probable the results become. I have not specifically mentioned that as of yet. The 1st multiple of 3.88564134 was the result of the prior 3 halving prices and yes get multiplied to each subsequent future halving. I will update for clarity and also plan on providing graphs and charts for further simplicity.

Here's an example based on price of the next halving in 2024...
If the next halvings price is $34,276, the 2nd halving multiple will be the same as the 1st.

bitcoincalc.org is a great way to showcase bitcoins deflationary mechanics against fiat for everyone, not just the crypto community

Nonetheless, I appreciate the constructive criticism.

[NeuroticFish]

Do you think the rewording of "h1 = fiat value of 1 bitcoin at halving event 1" resolves this in the presentation context? Or should I rewrite the formula presentation such as m = (UsdPriceH2 / UsdPriceH3) / (UsdPriceH1 / UsdPriceH2) to eliminate the need for explaining each variable afterwards? To me both methods are the same, but which one is clearer??? Note- I removed the parentheses you suggested for variable clarity, not to be confused as a multiplier.

The fact you've removed the parentheses may be even better, I'm not perfect either 
While I find the names like UsdPriceH2 clearer, if you prefer the shorter h2 I cannot argue, since no matter which one you choose, I think that you should explain the variables, that's the correct and nice way to do it.

* Maybe you'd explain how does this apply for third, and fifth, and sixth halving...

One of my early drafts went into great length on this but I removed it bc the paper was getting to bulky and seemed too soon to go down the rabbit hole of linear projection vs reality. I'm now thinking maybe an abstract sentence or 2 would help. Hindsight is always 20/20.

If you keep it for only 4 halvings then:
1. it cannot be tested for past halvings
2. it doesn't look like a generic formula that can be applied for the future, although the website does that

I also think that the formula is overly optimistic in some areas. The price increase is smaller and smaller with every cycle and you may have missed that; getting to billions during our lifetime is quite unlikely.

[andybb311]

Thanks for the continued critiquing NeuroticFish! Analyzing is def a hobby regardless of sides, I know I'm strange like that. My wife lets me know everyday

The fact you've removed the parentheses may be even better, I'm not perfect either 

'Two heads are better than one'- in a heavy, french-canadian accent. Was a phrase used by one of the most influential, (self educated) leaders during my career managing large construction projects. Brought back good memories. He's been retired for 11 years but will reach out to him to see how he's doing. Thanks for sparking that lost memory

If you keep it for only 4 halvings then:

I was debating this very idea as well bc as history has shown, progression of anything over a set time period is anything but linear. Over time I came to the conclusion to publish the site w/ the influence of using the last, 33rd halving as the set time limit even though I originally had the ambitions to include the influence of transaction fees during the 33 halving events as well as an additional 140 years beyond. Decided to separate from the halving multiple and tabling for another day. It's only inevitable the halving rewards will be surpassed by transaction fees at some point during our lifetime.

1. it cannot be tested for past halvings

Ability to see previous halving prices is essential to the new/non crypto community like my friends and family.

2. it doesn't look like a generic formula that can be applied for the future, although the website does that

Thinking out loud, maybe I add an appendix to list out, itemize how each subsequent halving multiple will be achieved?

I also think that the formula is overly optimistic in some areas. The price increase is smaller and smaller with every cycle and you may have missed that; getting to billions during our lifetime is quite unlikely.

I'm not certain and do not know what the future holds. What I do know is if Bitcoin continues the same rate of adoption over the selected time period as it has since its inception, it certainly will become very likely. Sticking w/ a factual based approach to produce a narrative instead of finding an approach to fit a predetermined narrative is generally how I approach everything. This project is no different.

[NeuroticFish]

Thanks for the continued critiquing NeuroticFish!

I think that you're the first thanking me for criticizing 

I've looked now into the pdf. It looks much better (I am not great with the terms, but I think that Bitcoin is not deflationary yet, since the number of coins in circulation is still increasing.) However, you're on the right track.