Topic: rpietila Calling the Bottom - page 17. (Read 45360 times)

Homeslice, I'd be down with him fitting it mathematically.

That's the beauty of Scientifisism--"not THAT far off" is always a boolean 1.
In the Scientifistic ruleset, this is derived from the Law of Almost Universal Noncontradiction: ^Almost~(A & ~A).
Powerful stuff...

You must not understand how regression works. Mind you, if he's hand fitting that, it's not the best example of a fitted regression line, but it's not THAT far off.

The value of the theft proportional to ALL value in existence is what you should be focusing on, not its percentage of total BTC. Much higher dollar values have been stolen, and will continue to be.

JorgeStolfi:
Your logic is old-fashioned and totally obsolete.  We developed an exciting new formal system, with unique grammar and inference ruleset, for today's fast-paced and competitive financial modeling.  

Behold the descriptive and prescriptive powers of Teh Scientifistic Method!



*While the pony~ and the annotations are mine, the chart isn't.  It's meant to be taken seriously, not even kidding.  Here.

NO. 

MtGOX's "theft" was about 5% of the total BTC in existence.  Tell me of a cash heist or theft that has taken 5% of all the dollars in existence at the time. 

I will be generous and even let you quote heists whose author was eventually identified and/or the cash was recovered.

What chances do you give for the MtGOX thief being one day caught, and the stolen coins being returned to their legitimate owners?

Cash still has it beat on those terms by a large margin.

It'd definitely be nice to see some libertarian, futurist billionaires invest large amounts into it because they are supportive of the concept.

lol: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL2r5dEUKac

Says the hodlers?

Of cause?
The more such illiterate fools we find in the bear camp, unable to deliver any kind of analysis, the better for bitcoin.

of cause bitcoin is going down!

Thanks OP for bringing some sense to speculation.  If BTC is $40k? in 17 months like you suggest i will be buying a castle of my own.  

Im a believer.

Did you actually read the OP?   Please revisit my reasoning. Hint: "pregnant with WorldCom" never existed.


I could tell last time. I can tell this time (within the bounds of realistic +EV such as 50/50 chance of winning 1000%, in which Kelly suggests to invest 50% of your holdings, which I have done, and you should too). Analysis is not luck. Finding mechanism for past price developments and applying them to the future is not luck. Following sound concepts from other brands of mathematics is not luck.

That a professor is trying to label my investing over the past 21 years when I started using other than saving accounts for risk management, "luck", is lamentable. It is not an indication of his very good capability in this area.

Doesn't look too good.
If we go break out of the triangle on the downside, we're good for another crash.
If we reverse and break out on the upsid, 580 is the next resistance.

The argument that some bitcoiners use to "prove" that a new Bitcoin bubble is due "very soon now" is solely that the price in log scale seems to fit a straight line.   They claim that we do not need to look for the reasons of past bubbles, the plot alone is "proof" enough that they must occur regularly, because that is how the exponential trend has been created.  And the next bubble is overdue, they say, because the price plot is falling below that straight line.

Well, the WorldCom share price too fit a straight line in log scale, even better than bitcon's.   By the extrapolators' logic, it should not matter why WorldCom stopped following the trend.

That is why WorldCom is a totally pertinent example: it shows that the past history of the price is irrelevant for predicting the future.  One must look for the causes of that past growth, and try to figure out whether those causes will prevail in the future, and be aware that  unpredictable events (like the WorldCom managers' fraud) may spoil the trend at any moment.


Did Bitcoin?  We still have to see how useful it will be.

You seem to be confusing "bitcoin" with "distributed cryptocurrency".  Note that "the" Bitcoin is to distributed cryptocurrency as WorldCom was to long-distance communications.    Even if an innovative service turns out to be terribly useful, it does not follow that a particular entreprise that provides it will be a success.


I see many shrewd businessmen investing in different ways of getting money from people who believe in bitcoin, yes.

By the way, WoldCom's market cap was in the tens of billions at its highest.  As a long-distance communications company, you can bet that there were many companies building their businesses around its services.


How can you say that, after MtGOX and the hundreds of thefts and scams that have already occurred in Bitcoin's short history, almost all made possible -- and almost all still unsolved -- because of bitcoin's alleged "qualities"?  Bitcoin attracts and facilitates scams, theft, and embezzlement like no other payment method ever.  Indeed, these "qualities" are one of several reasons why I am quite skeptical about its longterm success.

Did WorldCom create one of the most innovative and useful platforms of this generation? Did WorldCom have an arena of venture capitalists investing into different businesses built on its protocol? No. In fact:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/22/us/worldcom-s-collapse-the-overview-worldcom-files-for-bankruptcy-largest-us-case.html

This kind of situation you are correlating as a potential near-term future for Bitcoin is exactly one of many situations the Bitcoin protocol is quite capable of preventing. Prevention of fraudulent accounting. Absolute transparency for public companies, officials, records, governments, etc. Anyway, that's off topic.

The point is, WorldCom and Bitcoin have absolutely nothing in common. WorldCom bubbled and collapsed because they were fudging their books. You can stop correlating it to Bitcoin now.

I don't know whether that comment is directed a me and that old "10%" joke, but assuming it is:

I did not intend to ridicule your person (ahem, even though you wrote some nasty things about my person on another thread  ). But I did intend to ridicule your logic, "my method works because I got rich following it".

You got rich because you bought a lot of BTC at 3$ each and held most of them until now.  Period.   Your decision was certainly very profitable, but it cannot be assumed that is was wise, rather than just lucky.  Just because you used one particular reasoning to decide to hold, it does not follow that the reasoning was sound, much less that the method will give the right decision for the next year or two.  If you had used tarot cards and they told you to hold, you would be just as rich, but the method would be just as invalid, and any future predictions from them would be just as irrelevant.

You saw the WorldCom plot.  After five years of nearly perfect exponential growth, by your reasoning there should have been at least two more years of the same.  Well, there weren't.   In mid-2000, when the price was visibly below that trend, by your reasoning there should have been a sharp rise, to bring it back to the trend.   Well, there wasn't.

Will there be another Bitcoin bubble?  Analysis of past prices cannot tell you that.  The past bubbles were not caused by some mysterious Price Extrapolation Force, but by specific events that suddenly expanded the demand.  So one should ask whether similar events will occur in the future.   We just cannot tell that at this time.

I bought some fractional bitcoin today from my local gunshop's ATM. Feels good.