Topic: Stabilized Bitcoin using eMunie economics - page 4. (Read 4317 times)

What you're talking about is the market dynamics during a pump (FOMO) and dump (fear), which is correct.However, you're wrong. The test is done so that the sentiments are tested, which gives a worst case scenario for the price stability mechanism. In a live testing, these extremes will be much less pronounced and hence the stability will be easier to keep. It does not invalidate the algorithm, it backs it up since it will likely not see such pressures in live environment.

Did you read what he wrote?  The $1000 trade DID happen.

If you look at what is going on in this field then I would say the more respected academics that you have to endorse your ideas the better (you think it is acceptable to have zero?).

Otherwise should we say that you and @CfB are equals then?

but by changing the trades, (making the $1000 never happen) you are changing the sentiment, which then effects future sentiment. and that is the exact problem, by not considering that sentiment will change because of your actions. you have failed to take that into account..

as ciyam said.. it wont work with live data as that involves live human emotion and change of sentiment in reaction to your model, and thus using historic data after the first day of changing it. makes all further days of historic data irrelevant

your model would only work on a centralised control of currency where you are the only exchange and hoarding environment available

WOW!

So I need to have a Professor that endorses my idea before I should present it? 

Oh, I don't know.  How about Milton Friedman (ie. The Quantity Theory of Money)
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Friedman.html

On the Quantity Theory:
John Maynard Keynes accepted the theory in general and wrote:  "This Theory is fundamental. Its correspondence with fact is not open to question."

Keep at it Fuserleer! Always nice to see something new.. 


So - accounts can have the total amount of EMU increased, to ensure that the overall price stays stable ?

I may have 10 EMU, and that is worth $1. But if the price of EMU halves, I will have 20 EMU, but still $1..  (I think ?)

Can you only increase EMU per user, and remove EMU from the Buffer ?

What happens if the Buffer is empty and you still need to remove more coins.. ? (global demurrage ?)

For a start - where is a "professor of economics" that backs your theory?
(presumably you would at least have one)

I never said that there was, it its inevitable it will happen.

Of course - but if they don't post any trades with buy prices higher than the current then the price isn't going to rise.

If panic happens then there is simply no magic that is going to stop a collapse.

well if you are not creating the supply when emulating the bitcoin historic data. then your results would fail because the historic data would be void once you start playing with orders (butterfly effect)

you cant change orders and think that the future demand/supply and orders would still exist. so im still wondering why you would think that bitcoin would be stable based on your use of irrelevant historic data.

anything after the first day of daytrading in 2011 becomes a new dimension and no longer part of historic data.

people who cant get their orders processed because your system cant find a counter order to match. would cause people to withdraw funds(affecting your buffer) or they would change their order price(affecting history and demand). which as i say makes history change. and no longer relevant to use any further data from the next days data, as it would be invalid and not the same.

or more concisely put

EG.
if you changed the winter 2013 spike of $1000 so that it stayed around the $100 level. lots of people would withdraw from your system(buffer supply dries up) to sell coins privately on other exchanges. which would mean that your exchange is then lacking supply and stuck at a false price of $100 with no resistance or no demand to sell.. what would then happen is lots of dollar holders throwing in more dollars to buy your limite supply of cheap coins that are left(by those stupid enough to not withdraw) thus they would lose out selling too cheap and the buyers would get cheap coins to then arbitrage until all supply buffer is gone.

leaving your system in a totally different dimension of value than other exchanges.

the only way your system would work is if you were the only exchange and no one had any other means of exchanging away from your system.

and so i think your system would be more suited to the fiat controlled and centralised economy. and not so much to manipulate bitcoin at the expense of people who want a true freemarket

And what about back-dated models for trading that work perfectly in BOTH environments?  Because the model is actually sound.

Should the price be rising because there isn't enough supply in circulation to meet demand, then it is safe to assume that it is wanted.

If you want to talk about assumptions, Satoshi assumed that someone somewhere would want 50 BTC every 10 minutes, regardless if they did or not.

I know, you'll state that the act of mining suggests that someone wanted them otherwise they wouldn't expend the resources to get them....sure ok, the act of posting trades with buy prices higher than the current suggests the exact same thing.

You can easily create back-dated models for trading that work perfectly on history but will fail after they work live so it isn't a valid test.

(anyone who does automated trading knows this)

Most of those claims are a post on some forum and nothing more comes of it.

I'm presenting a real test that I did, with result data that I can provide.  That's not so grandiose anymore as I've done what I said I would, and I'm simply looking for verification with an open mind.

I don't think I've ever got a structured, well formed, detailed critique to anything I've ever posted on this forum, and that's simply all I'm asking for.  Perhaps I should stop trying.

If I've missed something, then the aforementioned would allow me to pinpoint it...being told "it won't work because of China" doesn't help me to highlight where I may have gone wrong, or even to allow me to provide a critical argument in return.

Again - you are assuming that anyone actually "wants" the supply (if they don't it is just some worthless thing being created).

This is very much what BitShares says about their stuff (and it all strikes me as being rather circular logic).

Basically, think of the eMunie system as you would the IMF SDRs http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sdr.asp

However, instead of a highly-bureaucratic and political system that attempts to manage supply based on having access to imperfect information from the delayed signals in collecting, generating and distributing reports (much like the FED) and that is only accessible for use by government entities, you could have a system that autonomously identifies supply/demand in near real-time and is able to be used by all Joes/Janes alike.

And if inflation (ie. new supply) is distributed equitably and fairly across all users based on their existing holdings then the net effect on them is zero.  

There are, and have always been, 2 variables in the value equation:  Price and Qty.  While btc and nearly all solutions focus solely on a variable Price model, this isn't the only one available.  I'm guessing the reasons there has only been a focus on price variability and fixed(relative) quantity is that we have only known of one way to manage the quantity variable:  central government entities (e.g. Fed Reserve).  

However, it should be self evident above based on the initial post that there is another alternative that did not exist prior to when centrally managed govt entities were established.

The grandiose claims made by so many of these crypto projects have basically not happened (beyond Bitcoin itself) so I don't mind to be portrayed as "suspicious" (but I am not being angry nor rude so I don't know why you pick the word "animosity").

The very fact that you would label someone just questioning things as "animosity" itself is curious.

Also the fact that you haven't called out @CfB for "trinary logic" is rather surprising to myself (do really think that there is any point to it?).

Stopping trades for a short time does little to smooth out movements. It only prolongs them to when the exchange reopens. Our stability mech. allows continuous operation.