Topic: Stephen Reed's Million Dollar Logistic Model - page 17. (Read 123190 times)
I believe Slippery Slope in the context of this thread is a proper noun. It represents the origin of this Million Dollar Logistic Model, not the concept of the slippery slope.
The slippery slope is a fallacy in that it assumes that any line drawn will be continually redrawn to the point of absurdity. For example, "if gays are allowed to marry its only a matter of time until people can marry their pets" is a fallacy because it assumes any change in the status quo would henceforth result in a dismissal of existing ideals for anything loosely concerning the original issue.
Attempting to discern where to draw the line is thus contrary to the slippery slope fallacy because it is concerned about realigning legality based on what is currently believed to be ethical or whatever and recognizes that subsequent changes to related laws would have to go through the same due process that this change (whatever THIS is) must go through.
Attempting to discern where to draw the line is thus contrary to the slippery slope fallacy because it is concerned about realigning legality based on what is currently believed to be ethical or whatever and recognizes that subsequent changes to related laws would have to go through the same due process that this change (whatever THIS is) must go through.
Log10 delta from the trend . . .
Adjusted number of transactions, as reported by Blockchain.info . . .
May 5, 2014 Update
The November 2013 bubble continues to collapse, as apparent from these updated price charts. Because of the close fit provided by the Metcalfe Law relationship between the number of transactions and the historical price series, I have also included the corresponding chart that shows a two month downtrend in the number of transactions.
The logistic model calculates the trend price today at $1,187. Accordingly, today's price of $428 is a relative bargain. April 10 at $340 is the lowest price reached after the November peak at $1163. The downtrend has not yet been broken.
Here is the updated logistic model presented in Log10 form . . .
The November 2013 bubble continues to collapse, as apparent from these updated price charts. Because of the close fit provided by the Metcalfe Law relationship between the number of transactions and the historical price series, I have also included the corresponding chart that shows a two month downtrend in the number of transactions.
The logistic model calculates the trend price today at $1,187. Accordingly, today's price of $428 is a relative bargain. April 10 at $340 is the lowest price reached after the November peak at $1163. The downtrend has not yet been broken.
Here is the updated logistic model presented in Log10 form . . .
Quote
Siegfried explained it, we don't need more food, more roads, more houses, we need a better and enjoyable food, we need better ways to get around, we need better ways to accommodate our selves, and better in the context of the entire ecosystem not just the virtual meme we call an economy
So you (or rather Siegfried) come to decide for people what they need, right?
Easy there. Deisik and Siegfried aren't forcing you at gun point to buy "affordable" health insurance here and pay for your senators childrens college education.
They are simply claiming that they think quality is preferable to quantity in biological systems.
And that is their educated opinion based on observing the world around them.
How come you hate observation and the scientific method bro?
The crucial point here is "they think". Others may think otherwise and give strong reasons supporting their stance at that. Actually, it all depends. But it is not only that. The other part of the problem is that an educated opinion doesn't guarantee you from mistakes. And understanding this is also part of the scientific method man...
In complex systems (and before all in biological systems) such terms as quality and quantity lose their meaning in respect to "quality is preferable to quantity"!
This is a wrong frame of reference
Indeed. Now if those that have been clogging up the last page or so would take their opinions elsewhere it would be most appreciated.
Slippery Slope, I keep thinking of questions and situations to challenge / add to your model and I cannot for the life of me get one to hold up to a great deal of robust hole poking, obviously based on the idea that Bitcoin is a technology that the world wants / needs (this is not an invite to any libertarian nut bags to start banging on again). Keep up the good and very interesting work.
Their opinion is correct fact according to me.
It's also called Natural Selection. Or said another way, "what can't be sustained won't be sustained."
It's also called Natural Selection. Or said another way, "what can't be sustained won't be sustained."
I would strongly disagree. As I said before, nothing is sustainable in the long run. The sun will die eventually, and the life on Earth will die too (even without our "help", as it were), so we shouldn't take an opportunity to use solar energy or just live?
And I know what you would say in response...
Quote
Siegfried explained it, we don't need more food, more roads, more houses, we need a better and enjoyable food, we need better ways to get around, we need better ways to accommodate our selves, and better in the context of the entire ecosystem not just the virtual meme we call an economy
So you (or rather Siegfried) come to decide for people what they need, right?
Easy there. Deisik and Siegfried aren't forcing you at gun point to buy "affordable" health insurance here and pay for your senators childrens college education.
They are simply claiming that they think quality is preferable to quantity in biological systems.
And that is their educated opinion based on observing the world around them.
How come you hate observation and the scientific method bro?
The crucial point here is "they think". Others may think otherwise and give strong reasons supporting their stance at that. Actually, it all depends. But it is not only that. The other part of the problem is that an educated opinion doesn't guarantee you from mistakes. And understanding this is also part of the scientific method man...
In complex systems (and before all in biological systems) such terms as quality and quantity lose their meaning in respect to "quality is preferable to quantity"!
This is a wrong frame of reference
This just became my first and only "watch" thread. Great job on the analysis and google spreadsheet Slippery Slope, keep it up!
Quote
Siegfried explained it, we don't need more food, more roads, more houses, we need a better and enjoyable food, we need better ways to get around, we need better ways to accommodate our selves, and better in the context of the entire ecosystem not just the virtual meme we call an economy
So you (or rather Siegfried) come to decide for people what they need, right?
No, I think everyone should be able to decide for themselves what they need in a free market, assuming all externalities are priced in. Unfortunately externalities such as environmental impact are not priced in, so there does need to be some kind of science-based rules and regulations in order to ensure sustainability and the survival of life on the planet.
Quote
Siegfried explained it, we don't need more food, more roads, more houses, we need a better and enjoyable food, we need better ways to get around, we need better ways to accommodate our selves, and better in the context of the entire ecosystem not just the virtual meme we call an economy
So you (or rather Siegfried) come to decide for people what they need, right?
Easy there. Deisik and Siegfried aren't forcing you at gun point to buy "affordable" health insurance here and pay for your senators childrens college education.
They are simply claiming that they think quality is preferable to quantity in biological systems.
And that is their educated opinion based on observing the world around them.
How come you hate observation and the scientific method bro?
Their opinion is correct fact according to me.
It's also called Natural Selection. Or said another way, "what can't be sustained won't be sustained."
You can decide for yourself how you live. I would suggest you go for quality over quantity though. But you decide, I'm not trying to decide for you. Just suggesting based on what I've seen of this world.
Fucking fedguv, now they are trying to decide what is right or wrong for you. The won't hesitate to kill you if you "disagree" to strongly. Me, I'm just a quiet voice from across the internet making a suggesting.
Quote
Siegfried explained it, we don't need more food, more roads, more houses, we need a better and enjoyable food, we need better ways to get around, we need better ways to accommodate our selves, and better in the context of the entire ecosystem not just the virtual meme we call an economy
So you (or rather Siegfried) come to decide for people what they need, right?
You can't define "getting better" in any measurable way since every individual thinks of better in a unique way. Actually, the goal of the economy is to satisfy human needs in the most efficient way... Nothing is sustainable in the long run!
I like your definition of getting better as unmeasurable and better for every individual in Economy's cant have goals, an economy is a measure of the interactions of of the individuals in the economy, to attempt to control it requires the manufacturing of consent and a controller. (there is nothing wrong with measuring predicting and acting on that information, we are now dependent on it)
I'm not talking about a goal as a concious effort of setting an aim and making plans to reach it. Actually, it was not me who first used the term here. But nevertheless, if we proceed from the fact that humans act rationally (after all this is what the whole science of economics is based on), we can talk about economy having a goal since all humans are of a kind...
You can't define "getting better" in any measurable way since every individual thinks of better in a unique way. Actually, the goal of the economy is to satisfy human needs in the most efficient way... Nothing is sustainable in the long run!
I like your definition of getting better as unmeasurable and better for every individual in Economy's cant have goals, an economy is a measure of the interactions of of the individuals in the economy, to attempt to control it requires the manufacturing of consent and a controller. (there is nothing wrong with measuring predicting and acting on that information, we are now dependent on it)
The economic system we have constructed as a constraint today, is a system some believe is the most effective way to maximize resource allocation with maximum efficiency, it isn't and they are wrong. Our economic system should be nothing more than an extension of the natural systems is depends on. It is not barbaric as many fear, if it isn't embraced we will consume the natural support systems we depend on and that will be very unpleasant but today's standards.
Siegfried explained it, we don't need more food, more roads, more houses, we need a better and enjoyable food, we need better ways to get around, we need better ways to accommodate our selves, and better in the context of the entire ecosystem not just the virtual meme we call an economy.
By growth economy I was referring to, is driven by the goal of more. Fiat has done it's job it's time to move over.
The new economy working within finite constraints will evolve the goal of better, scientific progress will be unimpeded.
The new economy working within finite constraints will evolve the goal of better, scientific progress will be unimpeded.
I don't really see how something being constrained could be growing. What you say can be reduced to saying that the goal of economy lies beyond human needs, wants and desires. Which is obviously flat out wrong...
Think of growth as getting better instead of getting bigger. When we talk about personal growth we usually mean learning to paint or play the piano, not eating 50,000 calories per day and injecting ourselves with steroids. You won't survive long if you do that. The goal of the economy should be to satisfy human needs, wants, and desires in a sustainable way. If we ignore sustainability, we will soon perish.
You can't define "getting better" in any measurable way since every individual thinks of better in a unique way. Actually, the goal of the economy is to satisfy human needs in the most efficient way... Nothing is sustainable in the long run!
The growth economy will die, can we save some capital before it does I hope will we. In this metaphor the competition are the cryptocurrencies. Industry has been corrupted with fraction reserve banking, and is serving the fiat masters.
And due to the said scientific progress, new resources would evidently come about (as it happened with natural gas and oil in the 19th century or uranium in the 20th, despite the fact that all of them had been known and used previously), so the growth economy should actually go on...
Helium-3 looks the most promising in this aspect that we can now think of
The new economy working within finite constraints will evolve the goal of better, scientific progress will be unimpeded.
I don't really see how something being constrained could be growing. What you say can be reduced to saying that the goal of economy lies beyond human needs, wants and desires. Which is obviously flat out wrong...
Think of growth as getting better instead of getting bigger. When we talk about personal growth we usually mean learning to paint or play the piano, not eating 50,000 calories per day and injecting ourselves with steroids. You won't survive long if you do that. The goal of the economy should be to satisfy human needs, wants, and desires in a sustainable way. If we ignore sustainability, we will soon perish.
Bitcoin definitely consumes less energy than the traditional fiat financial system as a whole, so maybe the Energy Charter Treaty could be used to compel governments to adopt Bitcoin. Unlikely, I know, but the argument could be made.
How do you know for sure that Bitcoin will consume less energy than the fiat financial system in case it grows to a scale comparable with the latter? Also, what do you mean by the whole? The cost of all transactions taken together?
There was a great article about this on Coindesk recently. The fiat financial system energy cost includes energy for all of the physical bank buildings and computers, transportation for millions of bank employees, production and transportation of massive amounts of paper and plastic, etc. All of that could be eliminated by Bitcoin. The only energy demand in Bitcoin is mining. While the energy consumption of Bitcoin mining will increase, it is inconceivable that it will approach the level of the fiat system today.
The growth economy will die, can we save some capital before it does I hope will we. In this metaphor the competition are the cryptocurrencies. Industry has been corrupted with fraction reserve banking, and is serving the fiat masters.
And due to the said scientific progress, new resources would evidently come about (as it happened with natural gas and oil in the 19th century or uranium in the 20th, despite the fact that all of them had been known and used previously), so the growth economy should actually go on...
Helium-3 looks the most promising in this aspect that we can now think of
The new economy working within finite constraints will evolve the goal of better, scientific progress will be unimpeded.
I don't really see how something being constrained could be growing. What you say can be reduced to saying that the goal of economy lies beyond human needs, wants and desires. Which is obviously flat out wrong...
The growth economy will die, can we save some capital before it does I hope will we. In this metaphor the competition are the cryptocurrencies. Industry has been corrupted with fraction reserve banking, and is serving the fiat masters.
And due to the said scientific progress, new resources would evidently come about (as it happened with natural gas and oil in the 19th century or uranium in the 20th, despite the fact that all of them had been known and used previously), so the growth economy should actually go on...
Helium-3 looks the most promising in this aspect that we can now think of
The new economy working within finite constraints will evolve the goal of better, scientific progress will be unimpeded.
The growth economy will die, can we save some capital before it does I hope will we. In this metaphor the competition are the cryptocurrencies. Industry has been corrupted with fraction reserve banking, and is serving the fiat masters.
And due to the said scientific progress, new resources would evidently come about (as it happened with natural gas and oil in the 19th century or uranium in the 20th, despite the fact that all of them had been known and used previously), so the growth economy should actually go on...
Helium-3 looks the most promising in this aspect that we can now think of
Jump to: