Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 27988. (Read 26710114 times)

That's the relevant point here, though. The "usefulness" i.e. the explanatory power, is your motivation for using no. of addresses for N. So far that worked out pretty well. There's not that much history however to test that usefulness on so far, I hope you will agree. If in 3 years it'll turn the no. of addresses was a decent estimate for the initial phase of the market, but now it is not anymore, because it inflates the estimate (or underestimates it), you wouldn't be too surprised I guess. But I see your point, also: you are not commited to this particular way of estimating N, and are willing to replace it with whatever gives the best results (while still being motivated enough to count as a proxy for user base)

Long term is at least a few years yes.

2014 will be remember as Bitcoin China drama year !

The cult has really come far.

Long term, you mean for a few years?

Do you happen to like it in the academia when somebody who has no experience on the subject that you have been researching for months, uses childish non-real world examples to prove that in some cases the model you have been researching and using with incredible precision, would give strange results?

I consider such a person a menace, but luckily Bitcoin will teach him.

For a quick buck I don't know, but for long term hold it's perfect

Indeed: what ban?

For a quick buck maybe, but I would not hold on to them for too long.

Alright... Let me be clear that I'm not gloating. I really wouldn't mind seeing a reversal either finally.

That said, the situation is starting to look pretty different from July 18 (which I guess some of us were hoping for)... Back then: bottom, sharp rally, sharp drop, found support, next rally. This time, it's more like: Bottom, quick rally, sharp drop, little support, fizzle out.

We need fresh fiat. Maybe I'll start walking around with a sandwich board in town that says 'Invest in Bitcoin now' :/

Yeah, move them to 402-412. It's going much lower eventually, but that's a safe bet.

It doesn't actually matter.  

What my model does is defines two abstract unmeasurable quantities called the "generalized user base," N and the "value of bitcoin", V.  I then define that these two variables satisfy the Metcalfe Model, V ~ N².

Everything is exact so far and I haven't made any assumptions.  Then I ask: "is this model useful?"  

To answer this question, I look for observable proxies for both N and V that are measurable.   Reasonable proxies for N include "unique address used per day" and "transactions per day excluding popular addresses," but one could also consider subscribers at r/bitcoin or users at bitcointalk.com.  In fact the more proxies for N that show self-consistency, the stronger my model becomes.  A reasonable proxy for V is the market cap of bitcoin.  

It has already been shown the the model is useful, and that it is in fact reasonable to infer that bitcoin's value grows as the square of its generalized user base.  Realizing that I am using the terms "bitcoins value" and "generalized user base" in a technical way, the task moving forward in time is to find ways to estimate N that simultaneously support the Metcalfe model without stretching the common-sense meanings of the words "value" or "user base."  If we have to stretch common-sense too far, then the model will no longer be useful.  


This is how we make progress in theoretical physics.  A good example is Newton's Second Law: f = m a.  A lot people think that this is some discovery about a "fundamental law of the universe," but it is actually just a definition.  The net force acting on an object is defined by humans to be equal to the product of the object's mass and acceleration.  You could equally create another "law" that says f2 = m v, where v is velocity and f2 is "force 2.0."  Both are correct by definition, but only one is useful.  If you calculate the "force 2.0" of gravity, you'll get a complex mess; whereas the "force" of gravity is an elegant equation.

The butthurt is strong in this one 

Wasnt there a certain some1 on here who said that we would not visit 435$ again?

Which ban? They are banning bitcoin every 2-3 weeks since December, get over it.

You're talking about Risto here? This is comedy gold!

Maybe I should remove my 425 bids

Should I?

It was just an example that I was recently impressed with. Merril Lynch and Goldman Sachs have written more elaborate analysis. I just want to express that linear regression is neither a fundamental or a technical really, it's just a statistic. Actual trendlines are the way to go if you want to show a trend, in my view, because they can be invalidated. Hell, moving averages work well too, and you can use two different moving averages for their crossovers.

China ban?