Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 25858. (Read 26609267 times)

ya that might take a while

i'd settle for 1/2 degree slope pointing to the moon

baby steps.

Science isn't about making models that perfectly replicate the systems they model (that would be duplicating a system).
It's about making models that work within relevant constraints, with sufficient descriptive and prescriptive power.  For instance, if I want to predict where a billiard ball goes, I can use Newtonian physics, without worrying about the quantum states of each particle that composes it.  I'm concerned with the macro system--getting a ball into the pocket, and the Newtonian model does the trick.
Or worry about modeling the interactions of gazillions of water molecules that flow past the blades of a hydro turbine to make the thing work.
Would you call that pseudo-science?  Am I missing your point?

It depends on what you are trying to predict and to what degree you are comfortable with simplifying the model. You don't need to model every fiber in the CO2 scrubber to send a rocket to the moon.

What is your point, exactly? None at all.
I think I'm starting to get you. For the last month I through you were a passive-aggressive asshole. Only now I realize my mistake! You are the grand diva of drama-queen country. All hail to the grand diva! Let her reign be long and prosperous, lets celebrate her glorious daily menstruation.

That does not counter (or even relate to) my argument. I talked about individual preference, you talk about non-rigorous vs. rigorous pursuit of a field.


Then again, I invited that response to a degree: I agree with Jorge's conclusion that there cannot be "rigorous economic arguments" in what is conventionally called a "discussion about economics".

I disagree with his idea that academic economics (or at least, parts of it) are or can become "hard sciences" in the sense that the field provides testable predictive models for fragments of economic reality.

1. I don't watch television (since 1995) except baseball games before they were available online. Just say no to TV.

2. I always avoided Fox, even though it's accessible in southern Canada. Just say no to Republican propaganda.

3. Fox is as bad as any propaganda medium anywhere. Just say no to sleaziness.

Just say no.

Well, as long as it is a 45 degree slope pointing to the moon it's okay.

This is why I think there is a possibility a 3 letter abbreviated agency may have invented Bitcoin, the monetarist have good models but they are ineffective because it is unenlightened self interest that adjust the unit of measure (the currency) , Bitcoin adds only one thing a fixed quantity of supply, this limits only the outer limits as the actual supply is manage by random individuals.

You are describing dynamic nonlinear (chaotic) systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system#Nonlinear_dynamical_systems_and_chaos

Of course, this is an English language thread, and therefore you should expect to exchange ideas in English - if you are participating in such a thread.

Like I already said in my earlier post, I was merely responding to some ideas that you already expressed in your earlier post, which seemed to be a blanket suggestion to get rid of government, which maybe it would be a good idea for you to refrain from such controversial topics in the event that you are NOT capable of adequately describing your thoughts. 


I do NOT consider describing thoughts as an intellectual conversation, but instead just basic communications.   On the other hand, since you seem to NOT like to be told or advised what to do, then you can do whatever the fuck you want in regards to whether you attempt to engage yourself in potentially controversial topics.

I doubt that your ideas would be better in dutch than they are in English... surely, you would be able to express yourself more eloquently, but that does NOT take away the fact that your earlier statement was way too broad and made a claim without any attempt at supporting such claim.. which seems to be more of a lack of logic rather than a lack of English language skills.  

In any event, I will just accept that you did NOT really mean what you said in your earlier post, and you and I need NOT further pursue this topic... at least, NOT for now.

BTC to the Moon... CCMF!!!

The problem is not that the economy is non-linear, the problem is that the system is too big and complex, and it has so many unpredictable external inputs, that we cannot build a useful scientifically sound model for it.  To have any hope of being predictive, the model would have to include corporations and consumers of all size, governments, religions, the media, greedy dishonest bankers, etc. etc.  One cannot predict predict its behavior with a few simple equations of three or four variables whose values have to be guessed.  That is not science, it is pseudo-science.

this is pretty big news

and points to extreme price stability if you ask me.

lol

your right...

this gif is deadly

adam crool 2 dogs

No you on the wrong track suppliers and consumers are a construct. You need to go back to the point you were born, it was demand (need) and supply (a loving parent) and as the relationship evolved (eating of an apple if you're religious) the earth the supply and people the need, the economic atoms of supply and demand are a fact in nature that determine the optimum for managing the limit of supply - and not accepting the limit is innovation,  psychopaths gaining control create a self managing system that is now obsolete.

3% is the threshold. If it hits 4%, the apoc begins. At 5%, no hope for a cure.

Hmm. 'verge of collapse'? where have I heard that before?

Right: URGENT, Bitcoin is on the verge of collapse !!!

Explanation

lol it was 3% last time i checked.

operation stabilize  US economy Complete!

Take the current bitcoin economy, for example (to stay on topic).  It has a single fungible "product" that can be moved instantaneously and for free across the globe, without "shelf life", etc..  It should be simple to make an economic theory for it that could predict its price, in the short or long range.

But one runs into problems right at the definition of "supply" and "demand".  The number of existing bitcoins is known and objective, but that cannot be considered the "supply" for price fixing purposes because some large holders will not sell (they say) for less than 10 k$/BTC, so it is like if those coins did not exist.  To simulate the price in the short run, what matters is the amount of coins that could be sold or bought for prices in the 200$--2000$ range.  The order books at the exchanges do not tell us that, because many traders keep their working assets outside the exchanges, and because there may be substantial OTC trading going on. 

As for demand, there is some demand for several utilitarian purposes, but we have no data about its magnitude. There is much evidence that it is dwarfed by the speculative demand for investment at various time scales.  And we do not have complete data about that either, for the same reasons above.

More importantly, the demand and supply of bitcoin can change drastically and unpredictably in a matter of hours, because they depend on the beliefs that buyers and sellers have about its future -- and those beliefs mat be radically changed by news, regulation, competition, etc..

So, what is the use of a neat and "rigorous" equation that relates price, supply and demand, if one cannot even objectively define -- much less measure and predict -- the future supply and demand?