There is another way to think about the progression: 32, 266, 2211...
Here is another random set. (Time and rounding being veriable)
0.008, 0.09, 0.39, 1.09, 29.60, 230.00,
Topic: . (Read 6289 times)
I LOL'ed,
I thought you were always bang on the money.
I thought you were always bang on the money.
I find Chodpaba's posts very interesting and he/she is clearly a very intelligent individual highly skilled in their field.
However, I followed this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=269944.540 for many months and it didn't turn out to be very accurate at all.
I guess so but if you follow Codpada's low calls he been pretty accurate.
And if following the buy and hold advice you would be up.
Only sell to help the network grow, that service is well rewarded in the long run.
I LOL'ed,
I thought you were always bang on the money.
I thought you were always bang on the money.
I find Chodpaba's posts very interesting and he/she is clearly a very intelligent individual highly skilled in their field.
However, I followed this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=269944.540 for many months and it didn't turn out to be very accurate at all.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye
Any commentary, Peter Lambert?
Looks like we are about 1024 right now. I just bought a bit, and the price usually goes against me, so I am sorry if we see a sudden crash in the next couple days.
I like the simplicity of the powers of two for the peaks at 32 and 256, but I still think as we move into the future we will eventually see the volatility decrease. That might be several years down the road once all of the worlds savings money has flown from gold into bitcoins.
I know you know some shit about some shit, but LOL! Not this rally
I am saying, we have yet to see exuberance.
I am also saying—2 years.
Agreed, irrational exuberance is still not here. This will not be quite as big a deal as the Internet but much bigger than mp3s, books, moves. Entire industries will be demolished before our eyes. So scary and fascinating to watch.
I am still amazed by how much I tend to underestimate the market performance no matter how outrageous the results of my analysis seem.
I LOL'ed,
I thought you were always bang on the money.
Sorry in advance for the stupid question, but could someone be so kind to explain to me what's the real meaning of this prediction?
While at it take into account that I'm quite dumb.
While at it take into account that I'm quite dumb.
It's not a prediction really, but a statement about the nature of exchange rate growh with a supply-inelastic asset class and increasing demand. To illustrate a principle of microeconomics that is well known, but which a lot of people still have trouble believing.
I maintain that the reason for this is a fundamental limitation of human neurology. The inability to grasp exponential growth.
thanks chodpaba.
Now I got the general sense of what you mean and I'm even able to correlate to other fallacies of human being, e.g. be biased toward lower term utility maximization rather than long term one (it's all dopamine fault). Still I can't grasp the details a part from the fact you've posted an exponential formula, but I can live with that.
Actually, powers of 2 had some meaning in the digital bitcoin world. 32 = 2^5, 256 = 2^8, so continuing this would mean this rally should top out in the vicinity of 2^11 aka 2048, the next one - 2^14 = 16k.
Price minimums also followed powers of 2, increasing by 2 every year (2011 = 2^0, 2012 = 2^2, 2013 = 2^4)
Price minimums also followed powers of 2, increasing by 2 every year (2011 = 2^0, 2012 = 2^2, 2013 = 2^4)
Rather than trying to use this to strictly calibrate this episode I think it may be more instructive to think about it in terms the order of magnitude for rally cycles going forward.
Volatility increases.
I've seen you making similar statements in the past. Including the idea that btc won't be a very effective store of wealth for that reason. I'm not completely sure I understand your reasons for this assumption (it's an interesting question though, I thought about starting a thread to discuss this question), but as a purely empirical remark: in the brief history of btc trading, volatility arguably did decrease slightly.
(Note that I'm not drawing too many conclusions from that. Like I said, "brief history")
Anyway, looking at the three most volatile time periods (June 2011, April 2013, November 2013), and the sharp drop of value that followed a correction we get: June 2011 saw an immediate correction to 1/3 of the previous high, then a gradual decline down to ultimately 1/13. Difficult to compare to April and November, where the lowest point was reached much faster: April, down to 1/5, earlier correction in November, down to 1/2.
Staring at peaks and lows isn't that instructive though I believe. Bollinger Band Width is a small step up in sophistication when measuring volatility. According to that metric, 2011 saw the peak in volatility. This year/current rally isn't over yet, of course, so we might break that barrier as well.
[Daily/weekly BBW. Couldn't be arsed to read their documentation, but it looks like it isn't pure BBW, but normalized for price (which is necessary anyway when comparing over such long time frames).]
I know you know some shit about some shit, but LOL! Not this rally
I am saying, we have yet to see exuberance.
I am also saying—2 years.
Agreed, irrational exuberance is still not here. This will not be quite as big a deal as the Internet but much bigger than mp3s, books, moves. Entire industries will be demolished before our eyes. So scary and fascinating to watch.
Volatility increases.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but it looks like volatility is dying down quite a bit. If we manage to go above 1k for at least another week, it would be the most unusual rally in bitcoin history, with a built-in crash and no real correction.
Actually, powers of 2 had some meaning in the digital bitcoin world. 32 = 2^5, 256 = 2^8, so continuing this would mean this rally should top out in the vicinity of 2^11 aka 2048, the next one - 2^14 = 16k.
Price minimums also followed powers of 2, increasing by 2 every year (2011 was 2^0, 2012 was 2^2, 2013 was 2^4), although this trend would probably be broken in 2014 as I don't think we are going anywhere near 64; but bitcoin can surprise.
Price minimums also followed powers of 2, increasing by 2 every year (2011 was 2^0, 2012 was 2^2, 2013 was 2^4), although this trend would probably be broken in 2014 as I don't think we are going anywhere near 64; but bitcoin can surprise.
And just consider how much safer BTC would be then
Or would it exist at all...
x = y = 32
-x^2= -xy
x^2 - y^2 = x^2 - xy
(x + y)(x - y) = x(x - y)
x + y = x
32+32 = 32
64 = 32
-x^2= -xy
x^2 - y^2 = x^2 - xy
(x + y)(x - y) = x(x - y)
x + y = x
32+32 = 32
64 = 32
Yes, if you allow division of zero you can prove almost any mathematical lie.
I allow it.
The biggest lie in all of human history is that you can't divide by zero. I do it all the time. It's fun.
x = y = 32
-x^2= -xy
x^2 - y^2 = x^2 - xy
(x + y)(x - y) = x(x - y)
x + y = x
32+32 = 32
64 = 32
-x^2= -xy
x^2 - y^2 = x^2 - xy
(x + y)(x - y) = x(x - y)
x + y = x
32+32 = 32
64 = 32
Yes, if you allow division of zero you can prove almost any mathematical lie.
I allow it.
Jump to: