Topic: Can I predict the value of BTC/USD? (Read 12932 times)

Hehe, come here so you will drink with me, macsga and your Greek numerate fan club (I partially helped to form) tsipouro, ouzo, raki and fine red wine!

Watching and will try to participate! Very interesting thread!

Hahahaha... true!

I tried the PnF crap and managed to lose $70,000+ in 2012 doubling down after getting stopped out on options. After that I started reading Armstrong and have lost any money on any investment since.

kLee was profiting quite well from following my timing calls on the Bitcoin price moves and now he decides to delete my posts that disagree with him. I guess he has to learn the hard way, such as when most of his coins got stolen for failing to do basic wallet security.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make a stubborn Greek drink.

Hello and welcome.

Indeed it's often a compulsion of mine to disagree in order to create a fruitful discussion (how on earth we'd have a discussion if we'd agree on everything?). As you may understand the matter we're talking about is far more complex than a "simplified physics" chat. So, yes; I agree with the first paragraph of yours in full detail. My thesis would've been the following though and I will try not to over-complex it:

1. Every data represents a x,y,t point within a diagram. Thus it will perfectly modelize a 3D diagram (2D representation by t=z).
2. After the collection of a specific amount of data (ie: enough to make a "chaos") you can recognize a pattern that represents a stokes diagram of a 3D differential equation.
3. The pattern represents the entropic trajectory of the chaos that tends to form a Lorentz Tensor [or more].
4. The pluralism of Tensors in question depends of the respective Chaos(es) that each and everyone incorporates or vice versa. If you check the diagram from DJ that Armstrong has on his website there's a strong possibility you get EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
5. Reverse engineering the equation. Well. That's easy... as long as you know EXACTLY the deterministic chaos initial conditions (aka:Zero point).

From all the above, step 5 requires A LOT of discussion, mainly on the fact that the "initial conditions" are pretty subjective to significant moves (ie:a whale sale / buy).

Your turn

PS: Klee is a fellow Greek and I like his way of thinking. Besides, I never turn down anything without first giving it a good chance testing it. That's the way I function.

I suspect the disagreement is only in definitions of words. I am trying to articulate that order is relative to perspective. So if you want to find order, you need a conceptualization (a.k.a. perspective) that enables to you recognize that order. I refer to that process as higher level, but that doesn't mean higher as in macroscopic versus quantum. It means higher in the sense of applying some rules on the interpretation other than the default one that rendered only noise.

Hey WTF are you praising PnF TA nonsense? Surely you know that TA does not have anything better than a 50/50 perspective on future prices moves, and worse than that if you include human emotion since one mathematical truth (of the wealth effect, i.e. mcap != capital invested) is the majority always has to lose more in the markets than the minority.

In case you need to refer to them again, I moved all the posts kLee deleted here.

Armstrong is predicting price moves correctly. I proved it again in the PnF thread.

Is this the one?

It points to a quote of you and clicking the link of that quote takes the reader to your post immediately above mine and contains the context of your argument. Is that insufficient or did I misunderstand your grievance?

I will come back some other time to read and digest what you have written here. The theoretical is a lower priority for me at this moment for reasons you may be able to imagine. Thank you for your cordial reply.

Exactly. That's about it. BTW, I've read all the links you PMd me (thank you) on Armstrong Economics (BTW, most of them I've already was aware of; never dived in detail though). I think he has gone a step further than most of us (ok, at least me). The conclusive thought of his, based on "following the pattern of a Stokes diagram on 3D" truly *TRULY* amazes me. I'm sure he has his reasons for not sharing "which is the triple differential equation that rules our world"; but based on his thesis, -more or less- this is about it.


First things first. Entropy is coming from the words "Eν τρoπή" which -in essence- means "during the process". What you're presenting here is a "burning a straw man" paradigm. But you see, on the contrary, Entropy is totally different if you change the initial conditions; as a totally different chaotic model is built. The internal perspective wouldn't fail to find a relative order since you -theoretically- could pick any single moment as a "Zero Point". Thus a new Entropic order within a specifically chosen chaos. This is pretty similar with picking as accurately as possible the initial conditions.

Further reading: Cellular Automata.


First of, it's not bad for someone to admit his myopia. I believe we have a doctor here for these kind of cases, I hope he will give me a nice price fixing my 13/13 vision (joking)...

Second:
I disagree. Order DOESN'T exists ONLY at higher levels of conceptualization. There's a mathematical proof for this. To put it on another perspective; Chaos incorporates Entropy from its very beginning. Otherwise entropy would've been non existent in the first place. That's why we are here and be able to talk about it. BTW: I'm not a personal fan of Anthropocentric Model, but some times like this one, I truly struggle not to.

Third:
I must admit I gained a lot of info from your links (thank you, once more). I must also admit I'm a bit impatient to learn more (ie: how he normalizes the abnormalities, while choosing to leave aside "minor details"). Such a model is a true gem. I have more questions, but I don't think littering a place like this with an off-topic matter like "prediction of entropic morphemes within a chaotic model" is something I like to do... (This is sarcasm)

PS: my other egregious attack on knowledge points to a link that I have not posted anything... Do you want to fix it / correct it?

But due to chaos theory we can't predict that the sun will rise tomorrow  

(this is satire)

Implicit in your point is that we can not specify initial conditions with exact precision due to Planck's constant (which is intimately related to that the speed-of-light is finite and also conceptually related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

That is all fine and dandy, except it is irrelevant to games of chance in real world outcomes. If it were true that no order emerged from chaos, then entropy would be simultaneously infinite (internally) and 0 (externally) and nothing could exist from an internal nor external perspective. The internal perspective would fail to find any relative order (no point of reference with which to make an observation) and the external observer would observe a void.

Order exists at higher levels of conceptualization. And this is your myopia on our disagreement about Armstrong's computer model and your other egregious attack on knowledge. I encourage you to delve into the links I gave you upthread to Armstrong's writings about his model and chaos theory wherein he explains that moving to higher dimensions can extract order that is hidden in lower dimensional conceptualizations similar to your myopia here.

P.S. you are correct that the existing stochastic models employed are one-dimensional and thus don't have the scope to pull order out-of-chaos. Armstrong developed a multi-dimensional entropy stochastic model which extracts hidden order.

Before i sleep, some links:

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aarmstrongeconomics.com+hidden+order

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10890931

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9566419



See also his entropy model for a stochastic momentum model.

JayJuanGee, you have absolutely right on the second point presented. Indeed there's a great difference to have a financial cushion in a case of an emergency situation. My point though, was not this. It was a rather philosophical aspect of life and its consequences as they're presented by the factor "pure luck". You see, nearly everything we do, is 50% based on luck.

I recently (last year) had a family member threatened by imminent death due to some very nasty biochemical reaction of a drug she was using. She was able to get through and outlive it "by pure luck". No doctor was able to find, what I was able to foresee from the very beginning, which was based on Michaelis Menden enzyme kinetics diagram**

I previously thought that we were able to live our lives via our decisions. That we live in a deterministic universe that we are able to control our lives via our actions, our mental abilities, our strength... and it may be right. But only for the 50%. The other 50% is pure luck. What is the definition of luck you might ask. Well, what I know for sure is that it can be described by a triple differential equation; or a double pendulum with non standard initial conditions; or a Lorentz attractor.

As a scientist, I present myself to the inner circle of mine as "a-religionist" so I will write this here only for historical reasons. What my grandmother used to say about luck was this: "My boy, luck is the will of God"

Hmm...


**Michaelis-Menten saturation curve of an enzyme reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelis%E2%80%93Menten_kinetics

Either scenario, it would be good to have a financial cushion.  

In the good scenario, your cushion does NOT need to be as great, if there is some fortune in that the BTC portion of your investment out performs expectations.  So maybe you withdraw only enough to live each month, but the remaining portion continues to gain value.. and yes, if you foresee price movements (whether they are above or below what you reasonably believe to be the trendline), then you can act accordingly to sell and/or to buy back in.

We should NOT delude ourselves into any kinds of thoughts that there are times in which money does NOT matter.   There are many variations of the bad scenario, and if shit really does hit the fan and you become debilitated or disabled in some kind of way, it could be a very good thing to be able to hire someone to perform home care services for you, rather than to drain other family members with some of these sometimes exhausting and time-consuming duties.  

My point is merely that having a financial cushion can make a considerable difference no matter what the scenario that plays out... and that seems to be a fairly large justification concerning why your plan should attempt to contemplate ways to live off of the passive income and NOT touching the principle as long as you can..  (or maybe only touching the principle when you can reasonably foresee that you are likely in the last 5-10-ish years of your anticipated life).

What most people don't think is "how long will I be here"? You know, as human beings we tend to believe that this thing we call "life" will last forever. Well, it won't. Let me explain with plain 5th grade math how this "prediction" of 50BTC will be more than efficient for a "life".

I'm in my mid 40s now. That means, I have ran (with high probability) about 5/8 of my life so far. I will probably have about 30 years of "quality" life in front of me with a strong possibility this goes extremely off-track when/if a chronic disease hits me (there's a 15-25% probability for this).

The good scenario.
Where I live a person can live with about $1000 per month if he/she doesn't pay a rent (add 200-250 monthly for a small apartment). I mean not lobster for dinner, but I don't mean beans everyday either. Here you have the ability to have your chicken, goats and a small garden that you can use to feed yourself off pretty healthy. A small car, a bicycle can help me live perfectly fine, me and my wife for this lot per month.

So: 1000x12=12K per year or 30x12K= 360K for the next 30 years of my life. For this to happen, BTC must land somewhere north $7200 within the next bubble. I wouldn't laugh at this just yet, but it's not 100% sure either.

What I'd propose is to spend "as much as" every year. To simplify this, I'd propose to sell that amount of BTCs you need in order to achieve the lifestyle you want. This will have the drawback you will miss the high value some year(s) but if you're monitoring this, you'd know exactly when to liquidate a-priori. That gives you an advantage over the traders.

The bad scenario.
Well, it's this scenario where every disaster that you wish for not to happen to you, for a strange whimsey of life, lands upon your head. Well; in this unfortunate scenario you'll realize that money or assets you have at your disposal don't really matter. Whether you have money or you don't, fate will always find its victims. What matters most, is you to manage to give the most to those closer to you and let them know that you *REALLY* cared for them all these years.

In this [un]fortunate scenario you will also realize that the most precious things in life are not the ones you can buy with money, or BTCs. Actually, they're no "things" at all.

Cheers.

If you retired, you are not tied to your job anymore, so you can move to a cheaper place/city/country.

Actually, we get into a few complications and speculations here; however, I also like to use $1million in liquid (or quasi-liquid) income generating assets as a decent target to aspire to. 

If you have $1million in liquid assets then with traditional investment models, you should expect at least be able to employ a 4%  per year withdrawal of the income without undermining the principle.  That would be $40k per year and $3,333 per month, gross. 

However a few things could change those variables regarding how much to draw.

1)  if you are able to achieve higher growth rates with your assets, then your withdrawal rate can be higher.

2)  Another variable can be if you are ready to start shrinking the principle, then you can start to draw into the principle and have a higher income but to expect that it will not last forever, that depends, usually on life expectancy and potentially the running into other income sources.

3) people are going to come to differing judgements concerning regarding how much they need to live, whether it is $1k per month or $3k or $10k or $20k or higher... Many times with current USA averages, $3k or more can be adequate in today's dollars (but maybe a little bit tight).

4) regarding inflation, we can probably project that inflation will continue to cause the amount needed to go up and even double by the time you need it (expect halfing of the value of the dollar every 10 years). If you think you will need it in 1 year or 5 years or 10 years or 20 years, the inflation should be accounted.  Also, If you live in another country the amount may be more or less than the american amount too, and those values are going to change over time and change relative to one another.  And, likely a world of bitcoin will affect these values, and affect decisions about where you would like to store your value... or how you would like to diversify your assets.

Well, I guess you will have to wait a couple of years more then...

Dude my annual rent is more than $10k  (and it's not like I'm living lavish or anything, it's an apartment).

Agreed. To live comfortably after retirement age one should have around a million. Which is why it's so important for the average person to begin saving as soon as they start earning income of any sort. Unfortunately we see the opposite more and more, at least here in the U.S.