@prof7bit
[...]
I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n y-axis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 y-axis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.
If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.
No. Adding a constant before taking the log of an exponential function distorts the curve. You would only add a constant if the exponential was starting from an offset (to counteract that offset).
If there is an offset in the bitcoin price (unlikely but possible), there is absolutely no reason to assume it is $1.
I never said you should add a constant to the value. I was talking about the equivalence of mapping to a log n and log n+1 chart. And that part is certainly true.
EDIT: I see the problem now. Damn sloppy notation :) you're talking about 'x', and I'm talking about base 'n' in log_(n)(x).
My point was, since the entire discussion between the two was sort of messy and unstructured, I'm not entirely sure what the claims of each party are, and I though at some point the two were arguing whether the above matters.
Anyway, unless we start doing the mathematical part of this discussion in a more systematic fashion, I'm afraid we will keep misunderstanding each others' points.
Let one thing be said, though: whether sarc's graph or method was entirely accurate or not, the prediction
"in the range of 30 USD" seems to be the one you get in fact, if you do a simple regression on the entire historical data.
This is not due to some massaging the data by sarc or a mistake in his method, but simply the result of that particular analysis. Whether that type of analysis is actually predictive of the future price is a different matter.
