rpietila Calling the Bottom

[SlipperySlope]

... The network effect is at work in every mass-adoption scenario.  It does, indeed, tend towards exponential growth.  Until it doesn't.
The network effect is not a law of nature, it is a way of explaining exponential growth when it happens.  There was an 80s TV ad for Faberge Organics shampoo:

"When I first tried Faberge Organics Shampoo with pure wheat germ oil and honey, it was so good I told two friends about it.  And they told two friends.  And so on, and so on…"

Network effect in action.
Now the whole world is using nothing but Faberge Organics shampoo.  Couldn't have ended any other way.
You use Faberge Organics?

I understand your argument, as I maintain a logistical, e.g. S-curve model, of bitcoin price data presuming that the price is correlated with the population of adopting bitcoin speculators. I use $1 million for the arbitrary, guessed-at maximum price. Likewise I hand-fit the logistic function in November 2013, and will re-fit the function sometime next year given more data.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArD8rjI3DD1WdFIzNDFMeEhVSzhwcEVXZDVzdVpGU2c

[SlipperySlope]

It doesn't feel to me that we really have 'blood in the streets' yet.  Remember what it was like after the rally to 266 when in early July we were trading in the 60's?  I don't think there's anywhere near as much despair here now as their was then....

I remember holding fiat at Mt Gox waiting for $45-50, then prices reversed at $66. I bought back in the rally. Ugh.

[Roy Badami]

Another barbarous relic, gold, has even lower transactional utility [...]

I can't resist the urge to point out that Keynes never called gold a barbarous relic; it was the gold standard - the practice of linking the value of currency to the value of gold - that he so described.

[An amorous cow-herder]

I understand your argument, as I maintain a logistical, e.g. S-curve model, of bitcoin price data presuming that the price is correlated with the population of adopting bitcoin speculators. I use $1 million for the arbitrary, guessed-at maximum price. Likewise I hand-fit the logistic function in November 2013, and will re-fit the function sometime next year given more data.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArD8rjI3DD1WdFIzNDFMeEhVSzhwcEVXZDVzdVpGU2c

So, all of 2011 has well above predicted price, and since those intervalls havent been longer than a couple of months. Hmm, maybe reality doesnt have to bend and instead you need to revise the model?

[Biodom]

... The network effect is at work in every mass-adoption scenario.  It does, indeed, tend towards exponential growth.  Until it doesn't.
The network effect is not a law of nature, it is a way of explaining exponential growth when it happens.  There was an 80s TV ad for Faberge Organics shampoo:

"When I first tried Faberge Organics Shampoo with pure wheat germ oil and honey, it was so good I told two friends about it.  And they told two friends.  And so on, and so on…"

Network effect in action.
Now the whole world is using nothing but Faberge Organics shampoo.  Couldn't have ended any other way.
You use Faberge Organics?

I understand your argument, as I maintain a logistical, e.g. S-curve model, of bitcoin price data presuming that the price is correlated with the population of adopting bitcoin speculators. I use $1 million for the arbitrary, guessed-at maximum price. Likewise I hand-fit the logistic function in November 2013, and will re-fit the function sometime next year given more data.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArD8rjI3DD1WdFIzNDFMeEhVSzhwcEVXZDVzdVpGU2c

the deviation from the curve is such that , perhaps, new fit is needed or it is not log-logistic.

[rpietila]

Another barbarous relic, gold, has even lower transactional utility [...]

I can't resist the urge to point out that Keynes never called gold a barbarous relic; it was the gold standard - the practice of linking the value of currency to the value of gold - that he so described.

Good point indeed. Gold standard truly is a laughable practice, similar to - just imagine - that somebody would tie his shitcoin's value to Bitcoin! Sooner or even sooner it is found out that Bitcoin still has value but the shitcoin is sinking just as the dollar did when defaulted from the gold standard.

Let gold be gold, and Bitcoin be Bitcoin. And people use whatever they wish.

[molecular]

It doesn't feel to me that we really have 'blood in the streets' yet.  Remember what it was like after the rally to 266 when in early July we were trading in the 60's?  I don't think there's anywhere near as much despair here now as their was then....

I remember well. I even panic-sold some coins.

I don't feel that panic yet at all, I'm quite calm in fact. So I agree: we're not there yet.

On the other hand: I haven't been an observer of markets for long enough to acknowledge as fact the necessity of blood on the streets for a bull market to start up.

[molecular]

Let gold be gold, and Bitcoin be Bitcoin. And people use whatever they wish.

epic! will use.

[Torque]

It doesn't feel to me that we really have 'blood in the streets' yet.  Remember what it was like after the rally to 266 when in early July we were trading in the 60's?  I don't think there's anywhere near as much despair here now as their was then....

I remember well. I even panic-sold some coins.

I don't feel that panic yet at all, I'm quite calm in fact. So I agree: we're not there yet.

On the other hand: I haven't been an observer of markets for long enough to acknowledge as fact the necessity of blood on the streets for a bull market to start up.

Where the hell were you guys when Mt Gox imploded, despair hit rock bottom, and the market dive bombed to $389?  Not enough blood in the streets for ya?  Need two "bottoms" to be satisfied, eh?

[Roy Badami]

Another barbarous relic, gold, has even lower transactional utility [...]

I can't resist the urge to point out that Keynes never called gold a barbarous relic; it was the gold standard - the practice of linking the value of currency to the value of gold - that he so described.

Good point indeed. Gold standard truly is a laughable practice, similar to - just imagine - that somebody would tie his shitcoin's value to Bitcoin! Sooner or even sooner it is found out that Bitcoin still has value but the shitcoin is sinking just as the dollar did when defaulted from the gold standard.

Let gold be gold, and Bitcoin be Bitcoin. And people use whatever they wish.

Actually, I disagree.  The classical gold standard involved issuing paper that was 100% backed with gold and freely exchangeable for gold. It was a device to make it more convenient to do business in gold than it otherwise would have been had it involved lumps of metal.  I don't find this practice laughable at all; these were true promisary notes, and the holder of a one pound note could quite literally withdraw the metal from the Bank of England.  British notes, to this day, still carry the words "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of X pounds", which dates back to the gold standard (although now has no meaning).

Bretton Woods, which followed it, was a very different beast and rather more dubious: the US dollar, as the reserve currency, was priced at a fixed rate in terms of gold but not 100% backed by it and not freely exchangeable for it (except by other central banks).  Other central banks in turn priced their currencies in terms of US dollars, and therefore, indirectly in terms of gold, and held dollars (and/or gold) as their reserves.  This is sometimes also refered to as a gold standard, but it is really rather different from the classical gold standard; I'd be more willing to dismiss this later form than I would the true classical gold standard.

roy

[NotLambchop]

I understand your argument, as I maintain a logistical, e.g. S-curve model, of bitcoin price data presuming that the price is correlated with the population of adopting bitcoin speculators. I use $1 million for the arbitrary, guessed-at maximum price. Likewise I hand-fit the logistic function in November 2013, and will re-fit the function sometime next year given more data.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArD8rjI3DD1WdFIzNDFMeEhVSzhwcEVXZDVzdVpGU2c

So, all of 2011 has well above predicted price, and since those intervalls havent been longer than a couple of months. Hmm, maybe reality doesnt have to bend and instead you need to revise the model?

That's where the twin disruptive technologies of curve-fitting and kludge factors come in--integral to our scientifistic method!
The wonderful thing about the scientifistic method is it's nowhere as uptight as that obsolete scientific method that Old People use.

Groundbreaking scientifistic method gives us the tools to validate any theory, or, at least, give it a lovely sheen of credibility.
Our revolutionary scientifistic theories need be neither descriptive (we can ignore the data that doesn't fit) nor prescriptive (ahm... I mean they's super prescriptive but in, like, well... you can't extrapolate from...  Granularity.).
Scientifistic theories are never wrong because they're unfalsifiable by design.

In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrast.  Thank you!

[Roy Badami]

It doesn't feel to me that we really have 'blood in the streets' yet.  Remember what it was like after the rally to 266 when in early July we were trading in the 60's?  I don't think there's anywhere near as much despair here now as their was then....

I remember well. I even panic-sold some coins.

I don't feel that panic yet at all, I'm quite calm in fact. So I agree: we're not there yet.

On the other hand: I haven't been an observer of markets for long enough to acknowledge as fact the necessity of blood on the streets for a bull market to start up.

Where the hell were you guys when Mt Gox imploded, despair hit rock bottom, and the market dive bombed to $389?  Not enough blood in the streets for ya?  Need two "bottoms" to be satisfied, eh?

That was then.  I'm talking about the bear market that we're in now.  Turnarounds are often accompanied by maximally pessimal sentiment (aka 'blood in the streets').  I don't think we're there yet (although I can't imagine we're that far off).

But another way.  There are, broadly speaking, two types of bullish money: money that's already invested, and money that's sitting on the sidelines, waiting to buy in at the best price.  That money is happy to wait the market out, until all the weak hands have been shaken out.  We're close, but I'm not sure we're there yet.  I'd be surprised if the turnaround doesn't happen in the next few months, though...

EDIT: And it's my guess that there's enough money on the sidelines, that when this market turns, it will turn very quickly, as people scamble to get (back) in...

[rpietila]

Another barbarous relic, gold, has even lower transactional utility [...]

I can't resist the urge to point out that Keynes never called gold a barbarous relic; it was the gold standard - the practice of linking the value of currency to the value of gold - that he so described.

Good point indeed. Gold standard truly is a laughable practice, similar to - just imagine - that somebody would tie his shitcoin's value to Bitcoin! Sooner or even sooner it is found out that Bitcoin still has value but the shitcoin is sinking just as the dollar did when defaulted from the gold standard.

Let gold be gold, and Bitcoin be Bitcoin. And people use whatever they wish.

Actually, I disagree.  The classical gold standard involved issuing paper that was 100% backed with gold and freely exchangeable for gold. It was a device to make it more convenient to do business in gold than it otherwise would have been had it involved lumps of metal.  I don't find this practice laughable at all; these were true promisary notes, and the holder of a one pound note could quite literally withdraw the metal from the Bank of England.  British notes, to this day, still carry the words "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of X pounds", which dates back to the gold standard (although now has no meaning).

Bretton Woods, which followed it, was a very different beast and rather more dubious: the US dollar, as the reserve currency, was priced at a fixed rate in terms of gold but not 100% backed by it and not freely exchangeable for it (except by other central banks).  Other central banks in turn priced their currencies in terms of US dollars, and therefore, indirectly in terms of gold, and held dollars (and/or gold) as their reserves.  This is sometimes also refered to as a gold standard, but it is really rather different from the classical gold standard; I'd be more willing to dismiss this later form than I would the true classical gold standard.

roy

If the gold standard Keynes was criticizing did not mean credit expansion, what was he criticizing then?

If the standard was just that gold = money, and may be circulated as 100% backed notes, then I'd say that it is equal to calling gold the relic, and not only the standard, considering that gold and standard are the same thing!

Please make your concluding remarks, I'll turn the discussion back to OP.

I bought a castle because I understood the content of the OP last year. Now, even though there is much more evidence that it is true, and this is a Bitcoin forum, and the text is freely available for all, still many people not only refuse to believe it, but actually ridicule me!

[Roy Badami]

If the gold standard Keynes was criticizing did not mean credit expansion, what was he criticizing then?

If the standard was just that gold = money, and may be circulated as 100% backed notes, then I'd say that it is equal to calling gold the relic, and not only the standard, considering that gold and standard are the same thing!

Yes, that thought did occur to me, too.  I think I'm going to have to search a little more as to the context of this famous quote from Keynes.  Anyway, sorry for the distraction.... :-)

roy

[NotLambchop]

...
I bought a castle because I understood the content of the OP last year. Now, even though there is much more evidence that it is true, and this is a Bitcoin forum, and the text is freely available for all, still many people not only refuse to believe it, but actually ridicule me!

Please.
You made money just like the rest of us who were lucky enough to buy low and sold during the bubble--nothing to do with your first post.
Winning the lottery entitles neither one of us to lecture on economics.
Also: humility.

[WhatTheGox]

sounds good, need more coins

[minerpumpkin]

It doesn't feel to me that we really have 'blood in the streets' yet.  Remember what it was like after the rally to 266 when in early July we were trading in the 60's?  I don't think there's anywhere near as much despair here now as their was then....

I remember well. I even panic-sold some coins.

I don't feel that panic yet at all, I'm quite calm in fact. So I agree: we're not there yet.

On the other hand: I haven't been an observer of markets for long enough to acknowledge as fact the necessity of blood on the streets for a bull market to start up.

I think we really don't know where we are at the moment and what's still ahead of us! We could go either way now. But I really believe we could go well into the $300s, and maybe even be driven below that - due to panic. And that's why I decreased my position moderately, just to be able to buy back if coins should become super cheap, or to not loose my whole investment.

[Roy Badami]

or to not loose my whole investment.

Oh, I really don't think that will happen.  The fundamentals haven't change - but bottoms are notoriously difficult to call...

EDIT: To quote Keynes again: "Markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent."

[minerpumpkin]

or to not loose my whole investment.

Oh, I really don't think that will happen.  The fundamentals haven't change - but bottoms are notoriously difficult to call...

EDIT: To quote Keynes again: "Markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent."

Of course, the fundamentals are still there, the cryptography is holding strong, the adoption is still going up, new and useful services go live every day. But that doesn't guarantee that there actually isn't a flaw in the cryptography or all western countries should decide to ban Bitcoin or whatever. It simply may happen. It's merely some hedging after we've entered a rather erratic (in my eyes) pattern now.

[randomguy7]

It doesn't feel to me that we really have 'blood in the streets' yet.  Remember what it was like after the rally to 266 when in early July we were trading in the 60's?  I don't think there's anywhere near as much despair here now as their was then....

I remember well. I even panic-sold some coins.

I don't feel that panic yet at all, I'm quite calm in fact. So I agree: we're not there yet.

...

+1, despair's still missing (if my guts can be trusted), but personally I don't feel too comfortable after breaking below 500. I wouldn't be surprised if after some further continuous decline we find the bottom in a flash crash down to those low mid 300s some people are predicting.
As a hardcore hodler you know the market is in despair when your mental attitude switches from "*hark* *hark* all those cheap coins, come to daddy!" to "oh crap better sell some now this thing could actually go down, better safe than sorry".  

edit: typo