Topic: Giovanni Santostasi - The Bitcoin Power Law Theory - page 2. (Read 726 times)

let me guess.. people dont know that this is not a power law but will now scream with glazed eyes and dreams of finding a new idol "OMG SOMEONE WROTE IN MSWord A DOCUMENT AND CALLED IT A SCIENTIFIC PAPER. IT MUST MEAN HE IS A GOD I SHOULD BLINDLY IDOLISE AND NOT QUESTION"

Giovanni, PlanG, said it was going to organize all the material in a scientific paper, meant to be peer-reviewed.

Apparently, he has been working on this:



I guess having a peer reviewed scientific paper on Bitcoin, is a considerable step forward when compared to medium post.

This is quite a controversial comment, but frankly, going back and forth here would end up in a game of definition, semantics and misunderstandings or lack of knowledge on all fronts.

I think one of the most important things that fillippone pointed out is


I have been trying to wrap my head around the Power Law Theory here, but it is tough to develop a clear understanding of the matter. franky1 has got some valid points and he is pinning it down when he refers clearly to the term "law". Arbitrarily tweaking numbers such that resulting graphs seem as they were adhering to a law isn't a particularly good way that there is a law at work.

But at the same time I get what is trying to be conveyed here in the thread as a whole and there is some agreement on my part although I have difficulties to put it into very good wording, let alone mathematical formulas.

franky1 made the point of retroactive vs. predictive and this fundamentally interferes with laws. While at first retroactively detecting a law can make sense, arbitrarily tweaking formulas to adhere putatively to a law is problematic or plainly false.

I think the term "theory" would be more appropriate here and it wouldn't really undermine Santostasi's points. His remarks could still be very relevant, it is just that the term "law" may go too far. The reason for my stance here goes back to


While there are more and more mathematical models trying to depict "the emergence of cities and urban patterning...", none of these models will ever result in a law as there is a plethora of externalities that could fully undermine mathematical assumptions. The Power of Law would have to hold universally true despite potential externalities. Bitcoin is subject to countless of influencing factors and if it seems to be following a certain pattern retrospectively for a specified period of time, it would be highly hypothetical to derive a law from that.

That's why this remark


should be carefully considered in the context of whether there are laws at work here. Whether it represents a law might rather be a "coherent theory". I somwhere read the sentence that laws usually nail something down in a very concise manner, and if we are dealing with infinitely complex matters like the development of ecosystems, puring these complex matters into laws is probably doomed to fail. Maybe it could make sense for partial aspects of an ecosystem, but it kind of undermines the whole idea when partial aspects need to be considered in isolation only to make sure they could then be following a law while in reality an isolated consideration makes no sense.

---

I find this type of discussion very uselful and I wasn't aware of the topic until now. fillippone shared a good one here! In my opinion this will remain a point of contention as there are lots of ways to attack the "law" hypothesis. I don't have a final opinion on this, but I do believe that there is something at work that is at least very approximative of laws (or Power Laws for that matter). I think one of the problems might be that the term "law" raises the bar for universal validity to an undisputable maximum and that's where peope trying to put very complex things into a law will always run into differing opinions. I think there is nothing wrong with someone trying to discern patterns and modelling those into formulas. In a world with ever-growing complexity, the term "law" itself may deserve a less confined interpretation in some contexts. If a pattern were to repeat infinitely, does it make that pattern a law?

Adoption is important and speculators are not all in Bitcoin market. They are only one component in Bitcoin market and they have their roles, contributions, capital in the market but they are not all.

Adoption is important because it brings new people and new capital in the market. With time, bigger adoption, the market will have more people, from investors to speculators and traders, they all contribute to bigger trading volume in the market. With bigger trading volume, big investors have one more reason to join it because they will have less trouble to enter and exit the market with big capital.

Adoption is important for value of Bitcoin and because you said about speculators, they are contributing to price on the market in short term. Value is for long term and more sustainable grows with time.

I agree about zero-sum game. It is true for traditional markets like stock market too.

So this theory tries to tell us that Bitcoin's price is a result of some sophisticated adoption curve, but from my point of view adoption is largely irrelevant for Bitcoin - most of those who own Bitcoin are speculators, some are short-term speculators, some are long-term speculators, but everyone is planning to at some point sell. So instead Bitcoin should be analyzed as a zero-sum investment game. If more money comes in than comes out, the price grows. This growth incentivizes money to stay and wait, basically a positive feedback loop. But this loop can break if too little money will be coming in and those who were waiting will become disappointed and start quitting.

its not harrassment if i am talking about the numbers and showing the guys chart and how his numbers do not match his statements

the chart in my post(which is the guys own chart) shows his purple line does not sit as a median of the chart results even after manipulating the chart. thus the numbers are off(meandering outside of the price data) even after manipulation.. as can be validated by the yellow line which also shows the purple line shifts out of phase

meaning the guy has to change his numbers periodically to try to get things to fit.. thus its not a power law.
his numbers are already out of date

the guy is just upset that he got debunked and takes it as a personal attack rather then realise he has been trying to push his own false narrative which is the failure of the topic

debunking false narratives is not harrassment.. if a spammer keeps spamming a false narrative its the spammer causing more harm to other readers. by him continually trying to push how his number is a power law. is the error, and he cannot just take the revelation and start afresh on a different formulae that could work.. but instead keeps pushing how he feels his numbers are a law, even when they change and thus cannot be used to produce models of future results because the future results will be out of phase

You mean he is something like PlanB, who, when the data did not match what he had predicted, reformulated the theory to fit the data over and over again?


The reasons why franky1's posts could be deleted or measures taken against him are summarized here:
   
Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ

I don't particularly get into whether you or he is right, as I lack sufficient knowledge, but I doubt very much that if you report his posts in this thread you will get anything.

I can not answer it in math because the model is complicated for me but I believe Hashrate and what contributes to Bitcoin Network Hashrate, ASICs and Power, are important for Bitcoin network and its price.

The Power Law Model is not perfect, as no model is perfect, but I think the author goes with a good idea to build it.

I think it is simple to see Bitcoin future with Lindy effects. Like gold, it has been exsiting long time enough to die as an asset and Bitcoin is growing similarly.

The bullish case for Bitcoin
Bitcoin's Lindy model
Is Bitcoin Antifragile?

I am not a scientist, a physicist  or a statician, but it would have some value computing the following?

Using different subsets of data, progressively adding days, see how some quantities evolve:

• The variation of the parameters
• Hurst exponent
• Size of the state space

I mean: put the hypothesis of Bitcoin is a Power Law at a more serious test than graphically fitting a straight line in a log-log chat.

franky1,
I am not sure about the reporting harassment policies here.
If you continue to do ad hominem, attacking my professional background, my integrity, or other personal attacks I will report you. it is obvious to anybody that you are a troll and have zero understanding or knowledge about these subjects. It is not even worth answering you or addressing any of the things you are saying besides telling you that I would not tolerate personal attacks so if this forum allows me to report this behavior I will.
You even follow me from post to post just to harass me. If you want to have a scientific discussion or you want to ask questions I will answer them but again stop the personal attacks. This is the last time I ask nicely. Thank you.

its not a law or a model

its a manipulation of historic data to appear in a different shaped chart.. and thats it..
its not mathematical genius.. its basic math..
its not predictive its retroactive.. the number only works on old data, and the number has to change in future market cycles
he has already changed his numbers a few times in just 1-2 cycles
yes because there is not much coin left and so the natural log curve doesnt angle as much. so his straightening of the curve doesnt need to adjust much each time. but its not a formulae that will still work with the same number in the future. and as shown even using his image his purple line does not even go through the centre equally of each market cycle so even his purple line is already inaccurate already

he spent too much time promoting the one number for the last year that he didnt stay uptodate with adjusting his number to stay uptodate.. thus he already lost control and debunked himself by promoting a certain number for too long pretending its a law/power number..
yep time itself broke his own number and he doesnt want to admit it, instead he has shown in this last year an egotist arrogance that his number is strong even when time itself proves otherwise

i doubt he is a rocket scientist or neuro scientist. he just thinks he can manipulate data and idiots so called himself a scientist, he is more of a sociology gamer not a scientist

the work done by the professor is truly impressive, I would have the pleasure of talking to him about the topic, (Giovanni, if you're there, give it a shot ) it's always nice to see a mathematical formula in action

Very interesting. What happens is that without having knowledge of so much depth on the subject I wonder if it will not have flaws also as the S2F, which for years was the paradigm of bitcoiners.


I think it is very unlikely that this will happen but what you say is a flaw that many models have, that then there are things in the real world that happen and were not foreseen in the model.

its not a law if you have to change the numbers per market cycle

all you are doing is straightening a curve... thats just chart manipulation not anything to do with economics

yes the adjustments become less massive per cycle due to each cycle having less coins to adjust much like the natural curve becomes less wild per cycle left alone.

Giovanni has not invented or discovered some magical economic formulae that predicts the future,, he just worked out a way to straighten a curve of the past(inaccurately but close enough to then draw a line through it).. but then needs to alter the number in the future. thus not a law

if you were to use his old numbers then you will see how things change and dont fit the new numbers

but lets see him scream back how he is master of numbers coz "rocket science" and to just trust his number now are best for now cos "rocket science"

and wait 4 years for him to change them again and say "trust new numbers coz rocket science"

---

screw it.. lets just rip him apart now instead of waiting for him to chest beat his ego


yes he has a set of numbers to bend a standard log from curve to flat-ish of historic data.. thats not rocket science.. is just chart manipulation. even high school kids do that
but look at the purple line and the yellow diagonal-hump-diagonals he added as a overlay

the purple line starts at 20% of market peak and by 3rd cycle is crossing through 50% of peak and using his own yellow diagonal-hump-diagonal it shows the purple being above peaks

meaning the purple line is not centering all the markets at a 50% mid point. nor is the yellow humps (ath) going to be above his purples. which means it is inaccurate and shows no pattern of staying within range of anything he created.

all he has managed to do is manipulate a curve of normal log into a near but inaccurate straight-ish line.. but will need to change the numbers so its not even going to stay straight forever if he just stuck with the same numbers forever

Thankfully, I have a good understanding of the mathematical and scientific aspect of this theory and I must say I found this read most fascinating as it sure puts an ease to my thoughts on the future prospects of Bitcoin. When it comes to power laws, Giovanni sure took his time to make his findings and arrived at his conclusions.

From my perspective, Giovanni has done good job having presented his power law model predictions of Bitcoin and his highlight on Scale invariance which to me, also means that if any or all of the columns is rescaled or resized by dividing or multiplication, the results won't change the power law predictions of scale invariance.

This explains just what and how the halving will happen upon division and still the value of BTC remains intact and keeps growing.

I had an extensive chat with Giovanni.
I added a few materials to the OP based on this conversation, and I am going to dump even more material in the coming days.
I have been literally overwhelmed by his enthusiasm.

I understand hi has quite a unique approach to the subject, which is also quite in contrast with many things we learnt in the past years. So, a lot. to digest.

You my dear have come up with one of the most captivating and theoretical explanation of the Bitcoin Power Law all I can say is a big thank you, I’m no physician neither am I a mathematician nor a statistician but after reading your wonderful thread, I quoted what stood out for me which also for me the main message of this thread.
I’m glad with everything outlined here I was able to pick up some knowledge I’d always keep in mind and apply daily.

This is Giovanni.

It is astounding to me that people do not realize what this is all about.
It is a full theory of how Bitcoin is, how it works, and how it behaves. The predictability of the price is really one of the least interesting things besides the fact that being scale invariant it is predictable.

The Theory is consistent in almost all kinds of questions you want to ask about Bitcoin. For example, answering your question. No, it will not be banned because Bitcoin survived as a scale-invariant system for 15 years.

It is anti-fragile, it is flexible and resilient. All the qualities that people use words to describe Bitcoin are actually proven mathematically (besides being scarce) in this Theory.
And it is a Theory, not a model. A full Theory, the only one I know in existence, of what Bitcoin is.

The Theory tells Bitcoin is not an asset, it is more like a living organism, a living being, a city, a mountain.

An important missing part of the previous post is to show the universality of power laws, how they can describe natural phenomena, social phenomena, and how cities grow.

Every single Bitcoiner should know the Theory and they should try to understand it. If it is true, and so far all the evidence points to be true, then it is the most important discovery about Bitcoin ever.

Saylor can use analogies or metaphors about Bitcoin, the Theory uses science to show what Bitcoin is really about.

It is amazing and weird to me that is it not viral or well known and discussed by everybody, not because I created it, but because it tells an incredibly beautiful narrative about Bitcoin and it is not a bunch of made-up words, but it is based on scientific evidence, logic, math, and physical arguments.

I know it is early and most people do not have a scientific background but it is still amazing that the significance of this discovery is not yet understood by most.
Hopefully, it will happen soon or later.

Congrats on making such a long and informative forum thread. I'm not interested in science, statistics and mathematics, but the theory of this Italian guy makes sense.
OK, so the Bitcoin price will keep growing in the future. So what? This is a Bitcoin forum and most people are convinced that the BTC price will keep growing in the future. Maybe you should post this in a forum full of crypto haters and skeptics in order to convince them about the future of Bitcoin.
Will this mathematical model work if some external factors influence the BTC market? What if Bitcoin gets mass banned globally. Does it mean that the Bitcoin price could still hit 1 million by 2033, even if Bitcoin gets banned?

This morning PlanG (let's call him this way) posted a new update:  





Someone asked a relevant question in the comments:



Lol, I asked a further question about this. I will post an update when I have an answer.

EDIT:
It was quicker than expected:


Here a full preview of the attached image: