Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 113. (Read 907229 times)

If that were true, doesn't it support my thesis even more— the distribution is abnormally inequitable and thus the coin's market cap can't rise to lofty levels.

If I am not mistaken, the best R-squared (least error from the data points) would be an N-degree polynomial for N data points such that the curve passes through every point.

Thus 'best fit' may have no correlation to predictive power.

Quants always fail eventually because as Armstrong points out their data sets do not encompass the long-tail events from a plurality of completed case histories going back 1000s of years.

Bitcoin is not just a new technology being adopted : It is fundamentally money, and the reflexive dynamics of profit apply. When you start looking at assets which trade in a profit pursuing environment, standard relationships and theories are not helpful (they are likely to be 'proven' wrong as soon as they are recognised)

I don't know much about chasms. Usually new technology adoption is drawn just like smooth S-curve. Are there real-life adoption curves where the chasm is visible? Would be interesting to compare with our graphs.

Micropayments need to be off-chain until they reach a threshold which would be time or value based, then a summary transaction gets done on the blockchain.

I don't know much about chasms. Usually new technology adoption is drawn just like smooth S-curve. Are there real-life adoption curves where the chasm is visible? Would be interesting to compare with our graphs.

I can't see traces of this in the chart. Maybe because it's "excluding popular addresses"?

This is NOT decentralised though - problem is that we need micropayments in a networked economy and BTC is hostile for this.

This has probably already been mentioned at some point, but have you given any thought to 'the chasm' that is inevitably encountered during adoption of a disruptive technology?

This feature (unique to disruptive innovations, in contrast with sustaining innovations) occurs after the innovators and early adopters (who, in total, account for the first 16% of total adopters) and before the early majority jump in. It appears while the innovators and early adopters revel in the adoption of a change agent, the early majority are much more comfortable using existing tools/methods and hesitate before adopting something that requires a fundamental change to their current operations. This hesitation forms 'the chasm'.

Using 2.1 million as the value of current adoption (taken from My Wallet), and assuming we have reached the chasm, that puts the future total number of Bitcoin adopters at approximately 13 million. (Granted, this value does seem a little low, especially considering it is only 9% of PayPal's current users.)

Anyway, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this...

Wary.
Don't forget that SatoshiDice started in April 2012 and kept growing until it was doing about 70% of the volume a year later. Each bet was a transaction pair in the blockchain, and some people were even using bots! Fee increases and SD internalization got rid of most of its volume by about July 2013. So the growth since then is much more of a "real world" business flow. Still, some spam-like volume coming from betting sites.

Fair point, but I will counter that if there are real txs where parties can trade their balance with any other person in the universe, then off-chain is not the same jungle nor the same network effect.

The tx's weren't killed. They were internalized within SD, off-chain, how it should have been done at the start. GDP remained and SD was sold for 120,000 BTC.

The tx's weren't killed. They were internalized within SD, off-chain, how it should have been done at the start. GDP remained and SD was sold for 120,000 BTC.

One person's doggie poop is another veterinarian's GDP. Imo, when we start killing txs, we've lost the plot (of the internet paradigm).

Wary.
Don't forget that SatoshiDice started in April 2012 and kept growing until it was doing about 70% of the volume a year later. Each bet was a transaction pair in the blockchain, and some people were even using bots! Fee increases and SD internalization got rid of most of its volume by about July 2013. So the growth since then is much more of a "real world" business flow. Still, some spam-like volume coming from betting sites.

This has probably already been mentioned at some point, but have you given any thought to 'the chasm' that is inevitably encountered during adoption of a disruptive technology?

Did you ever calculate the market cap of bitcoin with a 2000 dollar value?
That would be a current market cap of 24 billion dollars.
Such a small market cap cannot sustain any real economic transaction value, where banks, businesses and consumers use bitcoin for all kinds of offline and online financial transactions.

PayPal’s net Total Payment Volume for 2013, the total value of transactions, was $180 billion, up 24% year over year on an FX neutral basis.

Agree. For example, it is reasonable to suggest that "pregnancy" is shorter for early adopters and longer for general population. Then it would be steep curve in the very beginning, then less and less steep later on. Something like this:



EDIT: It's real data

Wary, you find evidence of a log-logistic effect.

Love that avatar:

If we ever hit $5000/BTC... I give you legal ownership of my left kidney.

I like my kidneys... so what I am saying is that will never happen. Not next year. Not ever. Merry Christmas.

I could see $1500-$2000 in a bullish scenario.

Too many new players, too much regulatory bulls---, no Willy Bot, reduced black market presence, newbies getting Wall Street raped, etc., etc. Just because new adoption has, historically, been at a certain rate does not mean that this new adoption will continue out into the future. The baseline for the forecast is off.

It's, logically speaking, not terribly far off the rationale that banksters and credit agencies used in assigning inflated ratings to what were truly junk bonds -- the price of housing had not historically gone down and there had not been such a batch of foreclosures in prior history (and that sample size was much larger). However, the situation had changed... you had different people buying homes, different underwriting standards and down payment requirements, the perverse incentives created through securitization and derivatives, and balloon payments that functioned as a ticking time bomb.

Here, the dynamic that has changed is different, but the result is similar... adoption rates increased more dramatically when the price was still psychologically affordable. Now, simply having seen so many people profit, a lot of new users know that they are late to the game and that the odds are higher, now, that they'll be left holding a bag rather than profit. Tack on the fact that we went pop (moved away from black markets and towards regulation, taxation, and Wall Street) and have, resultantly, lost our hipness and appeal. Yea, this s--- is going down man. I'm not saying your math is wrong, but the application is off base.