The law is not clear to me exactly, but it seems to be a variation of Moore's law. Price to time, I believe in this case?

But that also means that the price will eventually flat-line, *some time* over the next couple decades. I mean it can't keep growing in price constantly, forever like this. Moore's law itself has already flat-lined (despite chip manufacturers not wanting to admit it).

That certainly makes sense. I was thinking it would be more like the rainbow chart (https://www.blockchaincenter.net/en/bitcoin-rainbow-chart/).

I guess someone should make a calculator for this, cause interactive things make it much easier for others to understand the graph and how this thing works, I guess.

firstly the article is not about bitcoin scaling. its about bitcoin price

secondly the chart is an illusion because it depicts a straight diagonal using "log" chart to pretend price goes exponential. yet thats just manipulation of the axis
(using rough numbers from memory. not exact)

                                                                                                        low       high    low
we are no longer in the first halving cycle where the market went from $0.03 to $30 to $4 1000x max
we are no longer in the second halving cycle where the market went from $4 to $1200 $450 300x max
we are no longer in the third halving cycle where the market went from $450 to $20k $2.8k 44x max
we are near end of the fourth halving cycle where the market went from $2.8k to $70k $15k 25x

as you can see each cycle the multiplier declines. and things get less volatile
thus the chart should not be manipulated as straight diagonal exponential line. but instead natural form of a curve

if you put a knee on a weight scale (change the axis of chart) you change the physics of law and change the perception of reality

nice try, but no..

try again. you got 2 more chances to get it right before i laugh
you want to make it look exponential because YOU chose to display the data in log format

naturally its not log format.
YOU just the scaled it in YOUR chosen scale of log.

thus YOU are manipulating the results and YOU drew the lines ontop the chart to make YOUR (empty) point
however real world data is more of a curve where the multiplier per cycle DECREASES

good luck with your attempts, but dont waste too much time on it.. because ultimately you dont decide the data path..
the data does its own thing

also..
you got black chartlines outside(below the bounds) of the green min lines YOU drew
you got black chartlines outside(above the bounds) of the red max lines YOU drew

thus rendering your lines void of sticking to data mins and max's

here.. even i can use your chart and create a purple curve

which sticks more to the "max"'s than your line

(how many times does YOUR red line touch the max... once, at the end)
(how many times does my purple line touch the max... six, start to end)

goodluck
you had another chance.. but nope you doubled down..

Unimpressive. A model is cannot be made simply by fitting a curve.

The main problem with your "model" is that it changes over time. If you fit the curve in the past, you got different parameters. If you fit the curve next year, you will get different parameters. It's a useless "model".

i understand more then you know. but your choice of log scaling your choice of line positioning does not relate to the actual hard data

just check the multiplier per cycle of each halving cycle
the multiplier decreases.. thus curve

you made a chart to scale in YOUR log dimensions but that scale wont last long because bitcoin wont exponential to the extent predicted in the next cycle
i say it wont last long because your references show your straight line was using 5.84509376
now its 5.82 meaning its already slipping out of alignment and needed to change a constant.. thus no longer a constant and thats before even the next market cycle completely messes with your "math" again

also even with change.. .. the "explains 92% variance" .. previous references had it at >93%. so your slipping already
so even after adjusting you are still less accurate then before which shows the current number is not accurate even after adjusting it to try to bring it back into alignment.. because it didnt achieve its re-alignment even after adjusting the log

anyways
here is a better log chart

that was your final chance and you dug down deeper in your hole, 3 times..

goodluck with life. you will need it.
the price will not continue exponentially .. the hard data shows the multiplier is closing

..
your theory is not of the bitcoin data.
your theory is about YOUR manipulation of how YOU display data, by YOU displaying it using YOUR decided numbers that are not even EVER going to be a constant. thus self defeats math.

you would have a palatable point if you could come up with a true constant.. but you cant.

even when you say you refined the number due to added time/added data.. your refined number ended up giving less accurate results. thus debunks your theory

---

funniest part is your medium article that references a twitter that references a Reddit.. shows the Redditor actually say that bitcoin wont exponentially continue on a straight line but would actually 'taper off'

first of all

that chart in this topic YOU post is not a standard LOG
i linked a standard log which shows the curve

that chart in this topic YOU post is not a standard LOG
heck even using your variable your lines dont even match up with the market data.
greens dont touch the bottoms reds dont touch the tops

infact looking at the old reddit theory vs this topics graph.. the mis-alignment is worse now by a huge factor
in short your theory is breaking more and more

YOU MANIPULATED the log using a metric that MAKES IT STRAIGHT... FOR NOW
how ever previous time and in future that metric has to change..
you manipulate a chart to temporarily display as if on a line but cant do it using a constant. which means the theory you present does not stay on a straight line forever


it will not be exponential it will taper off..

stop pretending it will stay on that constant line where the price multiplies exponentially

just look at the real data and do real math. not chart manipulation..

real math of real price data.. not image voodoo

you made the chart image to fit a narrative.
its equal to people that photoshop to make the pictures of themselves look taller

you would only have validation if the metric you used was a unbreakable constant.. however its a variable. thus debunks whole theory

..
by being a variable that changes over time proves curve power law not line power law

..
im just gonna say
5.97    5.845    5.82   in just a few short years. shows how you have not proved a constant line. you have actually proved a curve instead
bitcoins market cycle is a known factor of 4 years.
so each new metric adjustment occurs every 4 years.
yet even one of YOUR numbers has not even lasted even one whole 4 year cycle. meaning your model deviates more frequently. whch debunks your theory

..
your theory does not show knowledge of math. it shows display of graph image manipulation that does not prove itself 4+ years later using the same manipulated numbers.

Why do you want to argue with somebody who uses math for his daily work?
I don't get it.
The chart has been explained over and over. It is just another expression of the relationship of the log10 of price vs the log10 of time. I gave you links to the reddit post where the relationship between log of price and the log of time is shown. I'm the author of that reddit post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/18z04kp/15_years_of_btc_power_law/

The chart here is EXACTLY the same relationship but now time is expressed in terms of the predicted price.
It shows how the 2 prices agree in average.

If you plot Price=A*days^n in a log-linear chart will taper, if you plot it in a log-log chart it will look like a straight line.

I still don't get what you think has been manipulated. Listen I don't want to discuss any more with you because, notwithstanding my attempts to educate you, it doesn't work because you are as arrogant as ignorant.
It is a waste of time.

---

Are you a physicist or an astronomer? I'm.

I tell you that in physics we make models all the time by simply fitting data. If you find a relationship between y and x that is a model. It is a mathematical model. Here the modelling assumes that the behavior of BTC is a power law. The R^2 shows that this mathematical model can explain 92 % of the behavior of BTC.

I gave you a link so you can learn about power laws and their significance in nature. Just discovering BTC is a power law is an incredible discovery that changes everything about the nature of BTC.

The title of the video is:
Why do Power Laws Work so Widely?

Watch it and then we can discuss maybe, you will learn something anyway. Here is again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYQT9_ymsVY

If you listen to the video it is said over and over that physicists create models of power laws by fitting data. Most of these power laws are not understood in terms of what causes them (because these systems are so incredibly complex) even if there are some attempts to do that. Nobody knows exactly why metabolism rates in animals follow a power law but it is a model of how metabolism works and it can be used in biology to make a lot of interesting inferences.

When Kepler discovered the power law that governs the motion of the planet he didn't have any idea what caused that but it was not useless. It could be used to predict eclipses and other important things. They are called laws for a reason.  Imagine you saying to him it was useless because it was just derived by fitting.

He had the idea of using logs which at that time was revolutionary. His discovery lead eventually Newton to find the law of gravitation. Yes, finding a deeper cause is what you do in the progression of understanding how a phenomenon works but it starts in making mathematical models of the process itself.
But one can learn a lot of things by knowing the system will behave in this way. It would be great to find out why BTC is a power law and what is the underlying cause but that is extremely difficult in the case of networks like BTC. Maybe eventually somebody will figure out, but they would have to start from recognizing it is a power law.

I made a prediction 5 years ago about BTC moving along a power law and this has been true since (in fact from the start of BTC history).

Again another person arguing with me that 5.94 is different from 5.82. IT IS NOT for god sake! Just people who have no clue on how statistical models are created will say that.

First of all the n value I calculated 5 years ago was just after a local peak and the outliers of the bubble skewed a bit the value, second the difference between the 2 predictions is insignificant for example with n = 5.94  we get after 5500 days that the nominal price is $62K with the value of n = 5.83 we get $59 K that is 3K difference, lol. Do you realize how stupid that remark is?
It doesn't matter much at all in particular given the entire idea is to focus on scale that is what we care is rounding to the next magnitude so even 80 or 90 are basically 100 in this exercise.
How do you know the parameters are not converging did you do the math? No.

Here is a graph on how exactly the parameter n is converging as you add more and more data. It is stabilizing. Most of the oscillations are actually due to the bubbles. One can eliminate them by using methods like RANSAC (look it up) and it will be even more stable. Here the graph showing how n is converging (going flat).



A power law model is all about understanding how long it will take to go up by a factor 10 and the model tells us BTC is a scale-invariant system and tells us exactly how long it will take.
Please watch the video, google power laws, and try to understand something if you care about BTC.

Also, this model allowed us to tell the bottom in November. I made public posts telling everybody we reached the bottom of $16K. Tell me again how useless this is.

Not just that but if somebody had used the model to buy at the bottom indicated by the area of discount in the chart and sold at the the areas of premium, even with an updated n (that is exactly what you do when you work with mathematical models, you update them with new data) you would have a strat with 99 % success rate and 950 profit factor (as I programmed it in Tradingview given it can only use past data when you do backtesting). USELESS? LOL.

Why do you insist on discussing this with me as you want to teach me without having worked on these models of BTC since 2014? I do this for a living.
I don't get it.

Not sure why people come here and debate with somebody who has a Ph.D. in Physics and worked in science for 30 years, modelled BTC for 10 years, with such arrogance without understanding what they are talking about. I don't want to appeal to authority but if you discuss things you don't understand with a professional you should have a little bit more humility and be open to try to understand by asking questions instead of making useless claims.








[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]