Topic: Alright, I made it obvious this time (Read 435 times)

I try for understanding what topic talking about but still confused to understand about hos words, but I appreciate with opinion by bitcoin now and obvious to explain interested with bitcoin, right now many people look understand with bitcoin can increase investment assets but they are never understand with how risk faced by bitcoin in future.

honestly, this article is not easy to understand for me in the sense of the stock-to-flow model, and I am not accustomed to seeing the graphics that you have made. maybe it could be made even simpler. but overall appreciate your work...

Mises is not from the 19th century, but from the 20th. They correctly predicted the crash of 1929, in the middle of the roaring 20ies... In any case the Austrian school of economy starts with Carl Menger and others.

This is the only group of economists that support using deflationary money (gold), devoid of any State control. for the others (currently dominating), its taboo...

Funny you bring Copernicus, he brought us Quantity Theory of Money, which Mises himself developed upon...

If it shows that bitcoin will sideways, is that not a good news, because this period off sideways is when we call bitcoin consolidation, and if the case is to be like it was in the past before the last all-time high, it was during bitcoin consolidation that many of these altcoins started increasing in value too and that is usually the time that we have been waiting for altcoin season to start.

During the time that bitcoin is going sideways, there is usually no much growth of bitcoin, because it has giving chance to altcoin to start increasing, and I hope that when that time comes also, it will not waste all the opportunity bitcoin has been giving because it still very much on the interest of investors too to buy altcoins that will be showing sign of increase them for them to get to their all-time high too.

The article is too complicated and has too much in-depth knowledge.  But it is recognized that Bitcoin will sideway long-term then continue to go up slowly.  You can share it with your knowledge.  Describe in a way that is easier to understand and simpler for us to discuss.

 - I can't take anything you wrote seriously because your writing and grammar are so poor, I can't make much sense of anything you wrote. If English is not your native language then I expect we will do nothing more than talk past each other. If English is you native language then I'll just write this: It seems like you think the number of coins in circulation on the exchanges is a better predictor of the value of Bitcoin than the cumulative number of coins produced. Well, I would write you're an idiot, but I'll be nice and I won't write that. Instead I'll just say that I don't think you understand the fundamental economic principles. I'll respond with the same thing I wrote to another person:

I like to draw an analogy: A person can fly a helicopter above a rainforest and look at the billions of leaves in the canopy, and ask the question "Why are there so many leaves? How can we predict the number of leaves in the future?" A very, very analytical person might say, "There are so many leaves because there are so many branches. We can predict the number of leaves in the future by the current growth of new branches." But that analyst would ultimately be very very very wrong! A very smart and insightful person would say, "There are so many leaves because the ecosystem of the rainforest is such that it fosters the growth and replication of trees. We can predict the number of leaves in the future by studying the dynamics of the entire ecosystem and the quality of the soil."

Doing analysis on the number of circulating coins on the exchanges in order to predict the future price of bitcoin is like looking at the branches of a rainforest to predict the future number of leaves in the canopy. Examining Human Action and quantifying fundamental economic principles is like looking to the entire ecosystem and the quality of the soil to predict the future number of leaves in the canopy.

lol. that old 'scarcity' chestnut
gotta make me laugh

1. the bitcoin 'market cap' is not a dataset of combined bank balances of all exchanges hoarding fiat to back bitcoins price.
the bitcoin market cap number itself is a flawed number. firstly its just taking the bitcoin price and multiplying it by coins in circulation.. flawed why.. because it should be called the bitcoin circulation value cap. and also it has nothing to do with how many coins are in exchanges OF THE MARKET
there are only 1.2m coins in exchanges, not 18m

look at the gold sites they total ~$3trn on gold market caps. not $7trn of 'above ground gold' cap
because ~50% of gold is on markets and 50% is used in jewelery and electronics

in 2013 it was estimated that the MARKET supply of coins of mtgox/bitstamp/BTC-e at the time totalled more supply then, than now. thus there is more demand now due to less supply on the actual markets that make up the actual price.

2. the scarcity' impact you are thinking of is not about the coins mined vs price. as explained(1) but instead the COST of mining 1coin vs price

3. but here is the real funny. the medium article:
truly funny how you actually think there is $1trn sat in bank accounts locked away to back up bitcoins price

its time you had another look at bitcoin fundamentals and not work backwards next time.
EG try not to be thinking the bitcoin price is bank account balance divide by coins.
and instead think. price of btc multiplied by market hoard
yep try market hoard(~1.2m currently) not coin circulation(~18m currently)

i say this because if you went to a gold investor showing math of 'market' data but based on the 190k tonne above ground. they'd get a red pen out and grade your work (F)
then laugh again when they see the charts with a 'step/gap' and not a curve of periodical lessening incline

You made what obviouse I am not one to just start clicking links. What is this exactly that you are talking about?  It looks to me to be a chart. If you want more opinions explain a little more and get everyones attention! Then everyone will follow your links?

 - Okay, well you did a good start but I can tell you did not do some critical research. I made another thread that provides some summary, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/an-explanation-of-stock-to-flow-and-how-it-applies-to-bitcoin-5200284. But, really quickly I will just write that your statement "Alright, Bitcoin is becoming more scarce due to halvings, and bigger scarcity means higher attraction for investors" is not precise, the scarcity is not what attracts investors, the scarcity is what attracts any rational person who uses money to exchange for goods and services.

I like to draw an analogy: A person can fly a helicopter above a rainforest and look at the billions of leaves in the canopy, and ask the question "Why are there so many leaves? How can we predict the number of leaves in the future?" A very, very analytical person might say, "There are so many leaves because there are so many branches. We can predict the number of leaves in the future by the current growth of new branches." But that analyst would ultimately be very very very wrong! A very smart and insightful person would say, "There are so many leaves because the ecosystem of the rainforest is such that it fosters the growth and replication of trees. We can predict the number of leaves in the future by studying the dynamics of the entire ecosystem and the quality of the soil."

Doing technical analysis or looking at superficial statistics to predict the future price of bitcoin is like looking at the branches of a rainforest to predict the future number of leaves in the canopy. Examining Human Action and quantifying fundamental economic principles is like looking to the entire ecosystem and the quality of the soil to predict the future number of leaves in the canopy. It is not that the superficial quantitative analysis is wrong (in the short term), it's just that it is superficial!

Honestly, I had a hard time understanding the article, because I lacked some background knowledge of the whole thing. But then I did some more research on what stock-to-flow is and tried again. And it was hard again, so I involved some other reading on the topic to get a more general idea. Alright, Bitcoin is becoming more scarce due to halvings, and bigger scarcity means higher attraction for investors. But the problem is that it's not like scarcity always means a higher price. Something can be very rare but people won't care about it, so the price in the free market (and Bitcoin's price is established this way exactly) will decrease. So the model does not prove anything. And there've been articles already suggesting that the model is flawed.

 - It is not at all incompatible with what the stock-to-flow model predicts. I have written about this in a couple articles, the market value of bitcoin has been converging to the model, and it will only take 2-3 more halvings for Bitcoin to become more valued than all fiat currencies combined (i.e. total market cap ~ $100 trillion USD). When that happens, society will naturally begin to price things in Bitcoin rather than USD because Bitcoin will have become the most valuable commodity.

https://medium.com/@AJC241469/on-bitcoins-convergence-simplified-part-1-3e521b0b1515

Your work is interesting and insightful, but I don't believe the stock-to-flow model is relevant to price. As I posted have posted elsewhere:

1. The price has gone up exponentially over time, but that is all the stock-to-flow graph really shows. The price is correlated with any data that increases exponentially, such as stock-to-flow.

2. The stock-to-flow vs. market cap graph is becoming less relevant over time. If you look at the data, you will see that the shape of the graph is changing over time, with the points lining up more vertically after each halving. After the next halving, the points will begin to form a nearly vertical line. The long term graph may still still show correlation (because market cap and stock-to-flow are both exponential), but after the first halving, the graphs between halvings show almost no correlation.

3. The stock-to-flow model predicts that the price will increase exponentially to infinity. Not only is that impossible, but the price is already diverging from the model.  If you look at a price graph, you can see that the price is increasing exponentially, but you can also see that the price is starting to flatten out. That is the opposite of what the model predicts.

I think S2F model makes an silly prediction that price goes to infinity when block rewards go to zero. The only coherent scenario that maps to that is all fiat going away and therefore BTC/USD being "infinite" in the sense that USD is valued at literally zero, which isn't happening. furthermore, it predicts ongoingly exponential returns in the coming years, but that doesn't make sense. BTC's volatility will continue gradually falling, along with the returns tapering off as the market cap gets bigger. This seems incompatible with what stock to flow predicts.

In my opinion it's all about liquidity and actual adoption. If 90 percent of the wealth is owned by 1 percent of the population, how does anybody ever expect a BTC price over $56,000? I don't think its possible, until countries start to jump in, and then it truly becomes a FOMO-type race for adoption, as a country that is now considered third-world countries suck as Venezuela is doing, who knows how its all gonna play out but i have always banked on this thing being taken seriously.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/an-explanation-of-stock-to-flow-and-how-it-applies-to-bitcoin-5200284

 - I was confused why you mentioned Copernicus. As I am a physicist, I knew about his work on the revolutions of the planets. I did not know that he also wrote about economics.

"Thus Copernicus declared that it is impossible for good full-weighted coin and base and degraded coin to circulate together; that all the good coin is hoarded, melted down or exported; and the degraded coin alone remains in circulation."

I guess we are hoarding (hodling) the good coin!

Point taken but also note, who is the one that I pointed as a true discoverer of the quantity theory of money.
People often go with 19th century scholars like Irving Fisher or Ludwig von Mises but they already forgot the pre-revolutionary father of "modern" economy, Nicolaus Copernicus. Most know about his literally groundbreaking book "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres" but what about his mathematical works as monastery steward? Basically remains unknown. I bet that if Kopernik was still alive, he would HODL some bitcoins. xD
BTW previously posted rants about you linking us to medium instead of re-posting here, where true. That's a decent article, you may have got some nice merits for it, just saying.

I also think about that on what he want to mean?  If he going to just simply tell what was going to mean it was easy to say something but not.  There are some link or too much words that everybody tired from reading so sometimes the thread become trash because of that.

Alright, I copied and pasted an explanation:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/an-explanation-of-stock-to-flow-and-how-it-applies-to-bitcoin-5200284

 - To be more correct, it was Plan B who correlated the stock-to-flow with bitcoin's market value. The article that I posted merely demonstrated that bitcoin's market value appears to be converging toward the value implied by the model.

 - Well, to be fair, the title is actually quite concise, so if you read the title then you would know what the article is about. If you know what the word "convergence" means, and you see the title is called "On Bitcoin's Convergence," then that kinda already tells you what the article is about, right? And the article starts with the picture of the thing toward which Bitcoin is converging! Seriously, you people are complaining "I don't know what this is about," well that's not my fault! Maybe you should educate yourself! I provided the link to the article that will give you the educational foundation that you need to understand the article, but instead of clicking you just respond with "I don't know what you are talking about."

Well.... sorry, I'm not going to type all of Plan B's paper into this forum. I'm really quite surprised you've never heard of the stock-to-flow model.