Topic: rpietila Calling the Bottom - page 16. (Read 45360 times)

Costing a whole lot more (3% of the sale plus ~30 cent fixed vs. ~5 cent), and being a nightmare for merchants because of conflict resolution by default going in favor of the customer.

No, and i´ve given some thought to this.
The blockchain gives a provable accountability to people who choose so. Obviously that completely contradicts anonymity. However that may be very usefull.
And yes, i´ve been trying to advocate that, but it really seems creating an alternate chain for "restricted" purchases is the better way to go.
Do you think it actually matters how much a "coin" is worth if that "coin" is the aquivalent of "allow one purchase" of "restricted good" (be it a weapon, medicament, whatever).
That coin can be signed by the transmitter. Geez, it doesnt even matter if its premined. If it just allows you to purchase things online you usually couldnt.

Dont get me wront. Bitcoin would have been a really cool thing. Well, if it had come *before* Paypal etc.. We already have an online payment system.

Then perhaps we should talk about what Bitcoin can do to "drop the stylus" and become the sexy, new color touchscreen of money! We are a long ways away from that right now, unfortunately.

Lol, the one thing those two have in common is ignoring my advice and moving away from there narrative (usability)

Bitcoin's narrative is still secure (finite and PoW) but that said I am leaning to the idea we've only just started the down trend.
Holders go'n hold and we're going to see a test of faith for the rest.

Remember PDAs?

"...I just don't see that strong of an incentive to adopt it. Not saying it won't grow, but to compare it to the 100% adoption of things that people love and make their lives better, the incentive just isn't there... "

People were saying the same thing about so called "smartphones" when I was carrying around my Palm Treo in 2001.  Most people said that they were only for geeks, and could have cared less about them.  Most women then thought smartphones were only for geeks and too big/clunky to be practical.  They were a turn off.  Which is hilarious today when I see a pretty woman with a 5" smartphone glued to her ear, gabbing away.  The whole world now embraces smartphones, the bigger and clunkier the better.

Amazing how people's views can do a complete 180 given enough time, eh?

Don't get me wrong.  I'm a Bitcoiner, I'm interested in Bitcoin and what it can do, just have a problem with "it can't fail because science!"
Also, won't lie, for a while it was a great way of making money--even for me.  Now the sandbox's full of new, smarter, tougher kids.  
I'm pretty much lost...
 

As far as smartphone analogy, I simply don't think we're anywhere near iOS/Android phase.  Don't know enough about smartphones, but if crypto was microcomputers, Bitcoin would be CP/M on S-100 bus
*Who would have thought the Gates character would come along, take it, and make billions

It's nice to compare Bitcoin to things like smart phones and the internet, but in the case of Bitcoin I just don't see that strong of an incentive to adopt it. Not saying it won't grow, but to compare it to the 100% adoption of things that people love and make their lives better, the incentive just isn't there.

In SS's smartphone example above, the iPhone (iOS) was first to take over the largest % of the next-gen smartphone market.  Seven years later, it's still with us today.  Android was the second next-gen smartphone OS with apps to garner a large market.  It's still with us too, and managed to supplant iOS in overall market share.

Sure there were other smartphone OS's before these two juggernauts above came along (e.g., Symbian, Palm, Blackberry, etc.) and others still trying to come after (Firefox OS, Windows Phone, FB phone, etc.).  But what the iPhone and Android do they do it well enough for the masses, and thus eventually dominated the smartphone market by garnering the largest network effect.

So the bottom line is this:

1. Could either iOS or Android be supplanted by something better in the future?  Sure, it's completely possible.
2. But would you want to bet against either of them in the first few years of their existence after seeing their explosive growth worldwide?  NO.  I wouldn't.
3. If BTC and LTC continue to dominate the crypto market for the next several years, will a likely third crypto option come out of nowhere and overtake either of those two in worldwide mindshare and thus marketcap?  Not likely.  Especially if a dominant portion of the financial world has consolidated on either of them for eCommerce payments transactions.

I don't disagree with that, or the following (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_fitting):


Extrapolation isn't useless. You just need to properly classify what you're dealing with.

Spot on.

I will however say this much: I consider SlipperySlope's S-curve model superior to most of the loglinear alternatives that are posted here because at least he doesn't extrapolate to infinity, as the others do (or, in SS's words: exponential growth ends eventually, which is rather clear to me).

On the other hand, this only shifts the problem: the maximum value SS uses ($1M) is of course pure speculation. If, say, the final valuation would be $2000 (which I don't think, but let's stipulate it), then fitting the S-curve to this max value would probably mean we're now in the "flat" part of the S (please correct me if I'm wrong, SS).

Which is of course precisely what we want to find out with a model like this anyway: will growth continue like before, or are we going to stagnate. Since this central question is answered by an assumption of the model, not the data itself, the model doesn't really help us to decide that question.

If we accept as axiomatic that world's total wealth can not continue to increase exponentially, it logically follows that the value of bitcoin can not continue to increase exponentially.¹  So yeah, that works for me.  We're good.


That's where you lose me.
What makes you think we're in the early adopters phase, and not the on-the-road-to-oblivion phase?  And how does the number of CC transactions figure into this?

  By your reasoning, the Litecoiners are also in the early adopter stage.
  And the Dodgecoiners.
  And the [__]coiners.

  Can you fit s-curves to those, assuming (as you did with Bitcoin), that each one of those is on its way up, and not out?
  Can you compare the number of Dodgecoin transactions to CC transaction, and guestimate where Dodgecoiners are on their S-curve ascent to world domination?

I agree (as I'm sure almost everyone does) that accepting your premise, "Bitcoin will become THE currency of the future," guarantees that BTC price will skyrocket.  That's almost begging the question.
The problem is with the premise itself.  I don't know if Bitcoin is on its way to universal acceptance or to obscurity.  If I knew one way or the other, I could hand out trading advice without giggling even a little.

---

1.  Assuming by "price" you mean "value," since the $, by definition, must become totally worthless if Bitcoin becomes the only currency.

I suppose that one can examine the smartphone industry and observe that the first movers are not today's champions.

Regarding cryptocurrencies, I think that they have value primarily because some people consider them valuable, in particular valuable for transactions. In the collapse from the bubble peak of November 2013, blockchain altcoins available back then, e.g. Litecoin, Dogecoin, Peercoin, Namecoin, etc. have collapsed to a greater extent than bitcoin.

What is interesting is the change in the relative market capitalization of altcoins in the last few months as various innovations are put on the market in the midst of a flood of me-too altcoins. Suppose, in some possible world, that Ecuador mandates its digital currency by making an altcoin. Its M2 is about $36 billion right now, much greater than bitcoin at $6 billion.

------

My own coin under development is meant to demonstrate a technology that I hope will one day be incorporated into Bitcoin to replace mining proof-of-work.

Nothing is going to replace bitcoin. I'm a fan of some alt-coins, but none of them hold a candle to the original.

So that means a few more crypto coins will come in the future and replace bitcoin?

Indeed.

As I said above, I plan to refit the model next year or sooner if we get another bubble peak before the end of this year. The logistic assumption anchors the origin of the graph at the first reported bitcoin price on the left. The right hand side, namely the most current prices, is most important when hand fitting the function.

The important idea that this model brings to the analysis of bitcoin price data is that exponential growth of bitcoin prices will end.

Here is a logistic model applied to the adoption of smartphones ...



Considering, how small the relative number of bitcoin transactions is compared to the number of credit card transactions, I suppose that we are currently in the Innovators stage, or at the beginning of the Early Adopters stage.

Not sure what you're saying?  Depending on how much deviation is "good enough" for U, *everything* fits.  
I'm saying that the graph is neither descriptive nor prescriptive enough to be interesting.

To be interesting, a theory needs to be:
  1.  Sufficiently descriptive to be convincing:  "Look, Bob!  A billion data points with zero sigma!"
  2.  Sufficiently predictive to act as a guide:  "You know it Ted!  Which means tomorrow's price is $1,000.  I'm all in!"
  3.  Verifiable/falsifiable:  "Shit...  But Reptilia predicted the price would be $10,000 by now, and it's not.  Which means his theory is ass."

TL;DR:  Yeah, an S-curve could be fitted to any mass adoption scenario at some point in time.  The trick is knowing where on that curve you are, and if you're still on that curve (see JorgeStolfi's slide ruler example.  There are fewer American households with slide rulers today than in the 50s.).

speculation is not science, no matter how you put it, but you can make a prediction based on the past and hope your predictions are close to reality.

It's still saver than gambling.