Probably my main criticism would be the presumption that the upwards slope is flattening as much as you are depicting it to do or that it is inclined to do..
I'm not depicting that the upwards slope is flattening, or presuming such a idea. Bitcoin's price has depicted such a fact, no-one else. Either that, or
logarithms are a failed form of mathematics, despite being universally accepted since the 17th century. It's been developed over the centuries but otherwise remains a relatively simplistic equation, and yet to be proved wrong. Nuff said.
You can proclaim it as maths and sciences until you are blue in the face, but I see that your chart has upside limitations on king daddy of about $280k until the early part of 2023 and your more drawn out chart does allow the amounts to continue to rise, and it is not exactly easy to read what those limitations into late 2025 and even 2026/2027 would be, but those limits seem to be quite a bit more restricted than I would consider them to be.
[...] If you were able to zoom in on 2023 to 2027, I would be interested to see those numbers more clearly, and I will bet that my opinion of our range is broader and my opinion about the upside is higher, and I could give less than two shits about your supposed math and sciences that are supposedly driving your supposed version of truth.
Ok, as requested, based on the TV indicator "log growth cruves", here is a zoomed in version of 2023-2027. As well as is possible to achieve at least.
Since it's still near impossible to accurately identify the upper band, here is the rounded data from some crudely drawn lines (roughly identified):
2022: $148K
2023: $232K
2024: $360K
2025: $558K
2026: $838K
2027: $1.29M
2028: $1.9M
For sure this log growth is only as accurate as when Bitcoin's price remains within it, as it has been the case for the past 10 years. If it were to break above or below and stay there, for example above ~$250K this year, and continue higher, then for sure it'd be invalidated. With the three touch-points from the peaks, it wouldn't be possible to re-calculate the upper band without missing a peak out, or "shifting it" as you put it.
One thing about locking in a chart would be that the chart is what it is at that particular time, but I imagine if our lillie fiend, aka king daddy, ends up performing too much at the top of the parameters in the chart, then such parameters will be shifted up in later charts.. and the same is true with the range that appears to be narrowing.. they can be tweaked to account for the subsequent data.
Not the case anymore no.
Price will remain within it until it no longer remains within it, to put it simply. Previously with only two touch-points there was no accurate log growth, as the curve could merely be "shifted" to fit such a narrative, but since the 2017 top there is no shifting left that is possible. Ultimately this is why I like this log curve, because while it may not be right forever, like Bitcoin, this curve of logarithmic growth is
immutable.
For context and reference sake, the above chart is an exact replica of the zoomed-in version previously posted:
I see it as more than possible that Bitcoin shifts away from this structured adoption and into a macro-sized bubble that eventually pops, in the same way the adoption could end and lead to a multi-year bear market, but so far I see no evidence of either event happened. It was close in March 2020, but alas price recovered quickly enough to return to the adoption trend.
Most of your descriptions are fair, and so maybe there is not as much room for disagreement to proclaim that the projection describes many of the more likely scenarios, even though I continue to have some concern about how some of the attempts to place this kind of bitcoin performance matter in terms of math does ascribe way more certainty to a variety of scenarios than they likely deserve.. as I believe I already attempted to outline in my earlier description of an outlier out performance situation that could end up playing out, but I concede it to be an outlier and the model seems to nearly completely negate it.. even your own description of the model and possibilities seems to negate it.. until it were to happen (if it did), then you say.. o.k. we will adjust the model to account for the new data.
By the way, as I already mentioned the $232k max for the beginning of 2023 does seem to have some inadequacies, as I had already outlined in my earlier response, and maybe the beginning of 2027 has similar limitations with its $1.29 million number, but even I am not going to attempt to proclaim how the next cycle might play out until this cycle progresses further along.. but I surely already mentioned scenarios in which that $1.29 million could end up getting exceeded in this particular cycle, so it would be silly considering $1.29 million as a limit for the beginning of 2027... and sure, going through BTC price performance that underperforms the various lower limits such as through 2022 and even into 2023 could also end up causing some similar kinds of concerns regarding what numbers (for the next cycle) are still seeming reasonable... and sure, there can be some value in terms of having those numbers projected into the future, but the playing out of each cycle can end up causing reconsiderations and even adjustments to the curve whether from my own attempts at modeling or your asserted mathematical and scientifically correct approach... so yeah, at some point, it might no longer make sense to talk in terms of cycles, but I am not going to stop talking in terms of cycles until it becomes a wee bit more clear about how this cycle is actually playing out and wether we might call cycles as dead if we do not end up getting a blow off top in the next 1-9 months.. or soon thereafter if a kind of outlier scenario were to play out that still might be considered to fit within a kind of "cycle" framework.
Regarding March 2020, for sure we could have ended up having a 6-12 month sticking at the bottom of the range and below the range.. and then all kinds of shit could have happened to either cause the BTC price to either quickly bounce back into its previous range or go above its previous range or even go into a lower orbit of a range.... so yeah, maybe that could have ended up like a shifting of the curve.. and the model has difficulties accounting for those various scenarios so in that regard, there may well end up being less utility in terms of needs to be prepared for extremes, even if there may end up being scenarios where we revert back to the mean... but in the meantime, everyone of those who had relied upon the model are dead because they did not adequately prepare for a scenario or set of scenarios that were foreseeable but almost completely not contained in the model.
OK, 9mo is Oct 1 3:30pm now, indeed.
Apart from this, you just want to weasel out, do you?
You don't even have the funds or the courage, so fuck off or take 4:1 odds (which you implied) like a man (whatever).
Well, it could be 0.31 from you and 1.24 btc from me if you want this.
...I am going to enjoy it (taking about half of your s-t).
no other terms and no terms about your 30-65K betting bullshit.
take the odds in your favor or stfu.
I already stated my various concerns, way better than your various absolutisms. You are not even close to trying to stand behind your previous BTC price assertions for the coming year, which was largely the issue that I was challenging... You don't even seem to believe what you post.. not even close.
I never came out with such bold-ass bullshit like you, even though I am more than willing to stand behind my numbers within the variance that I had already stated..... but I had never made bold assertions, as far as I can tell... anyhow, part of my motive had been to attempt to hold your feet to the fire a wee bit moar better in terms of some of the outrageousness that you were proclaiming, and you are not even close to being willing to stand behind your nonsensical claims of 1% odds that BTC crosses over $200k in the next year or even some variation.. which I attempt to give you some wiggle room to get out of.. but like any of the disingenuine trolls, you try to put the whole burden on me.. which again, I don't consider myself to be making outrageous claims. even though I mentioned that I would likely need to have a 50% variance for myself to feel comfortable in terms of taking a bet that is for me to stand by my numbers; however, it seems to me that you stubborn lil fucktwat only want to get a 25x variance on your earlier asserted claims or some thing that is way off into ridiculous land and shows that you have nothing even close to conviction regarding your earlier nonsensical assertions.
By the way, I do like my 25% numbers with a 50% variance.... and even if I took my earlier assertion of 29%-ish.. my 50% variance would still allow me a 14.5% to 43.5% range.. which helps me to think through what kind of a odds that I would want to have in order to feel that I am working through my variance too... so that makes my comfort even better regarding how to frame a bet with some dweeb like you that I would be willing to take. hahahahahaha.. so at least you helped me to think through that idea, you otherwise nearly worthless dweeb
(#nohomo)... haahahahahahaha
Of course, none of us should be completely locked into our numbers, and surely I was attempting to consider my comfort levels with some of the numbers that had foundations
on December 16 when I made the assignment of probabilities post for various price ranges and timelines... At some point I will be updating my numbers, and surely if we were to get close to framing any kind of a bet (which does not seem that we are even close to that), I might well want to update my numbers, even though in some sense I am tentatively thinking that my numbers have not really changed too much from December 16, even though I know there has been some deflating of bull bubbles since December 16 and even a certain amount of depression from some of the bitcoin bulls in regards to how the BTC price has been failing/refusing to get back above $52k since December 3... so some dispiriting short-term aspects have been developing, and there could be some needs for me to reconsider some of my December 16 projections at some point.
