It has worked for 15 years. What I'm trying to explain is that we are dealing with a power law. I gave many links to people, please really look at the videos because there is incredibly valuable info. Power Law are stable and actually, as the system grows it becomes more stable. It is not another formula.

---

It doesn't matter if it 5.82, 5.89, or even 6.
I told you it is converging to a particular value. Also small variations in the value do not make any difference in the predictive power of the model.

Did you see the graph I posted in the previous response?
No, so please do not continue with the same nonsense.

It is a statistical derivation anyway.
Do you know what that means? We are dealing with a stochastic system so you are not going to get perfect constants, the data is messy.

You are not in a position to peer review anything because you are not my peer. I posted here in the hope of discussing with somebody who understands these kinds of things and having a constructive discussion, instead the people who replied so far seem to have no basic knowledge of math.

I don't want to insult you but it is completely evident you have no clue of what you are talking about. Again, I said it is like a flat earther discussing with a professional Astronomer.

Physicists are applied mathematicians. We are as good at math as a mathematician but we know more about how to apply it to the real world.

Everybody should know about this profound property of BTC.



[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

The links is to a mathematical proof that the value converges. You don't understand why that is fundamental to prove the model works.
Why do you argue? It is like me walking in a baseball professional team and telling them how to play basketball.

The top line is not supposed to match the highs of the market. It is evident they don't follow a trend. The decay can also be modelled but it is not what the lines are trying to do. They are trying to do the second best thing that is to identify places where the price is too high and it is a good idea to disinvest.

These are areas that show that if the price goes above 200 % of the trend line is time to sell. I tried to explain this to you 1000 times. It is a reference point. It gives a simple recipe for DCA. The bottom line perfectly indicates the bottom instead it catches all the major bottoms and in fact, the general path during bear follows the bottom line. It is stochastic again so please do not tell me a few points went below because it is completely idiotic.

I'm trying to do my best to teach you because I'm an ex-professor so I'm trying to be patient and calm but you are really really annoying.

You are simply ignorant. Hard-headed and ignorant.
In fact, I checked your other posts and it is obvious you are ignorant.

You don't even know what shorting is and you want to come here and discuss mathematical modelling.

No, the trend doesn't have to go through the middle of what your eyes says is the middle. In the graph in this thread the middle line is y=x simply. It is the line when the two prices the real and the estimated price meet. Because the black line oscillates around this middle line it shows the model price is on average (the key is average) reproducing the real price. In 5 years from now, the graph will look almost identical, I tried to explain this to you and the only reason I still address it is because some other person will read this and need to know you say just idiocies after idiocies.

As data comes in one updates the model. Of course, if they change radically they are invalid but this model is simply becoming more stable and better.

I don't dictate what the price is doing. It is very obvious to anybody with a minimal amount of math knowledge that the bottom line is determining almost perfectly the bottom prices. You just show how idiotic your comments are by insisting it doesn't. The tops as discussed do not align and there is useful information that seem to indicate they decrease with each cycle. I explained already how we deal with this information (but it went above your head).

No, not everybody can make data go in straight line. I didn't make the data go in straight line, BTC is a straight line one a log-log chart (and this is in a sense a log-log chart given the black dots is the transformation of the data given the power law formula.

You know I talked with many people and you are one of the few people (there was another one a few years ago, not sure if it is you because you two have the same level of ignorance) who is insisting on something while showing a complete lack of understanding about basic concepts and ideas. Not sure if there is an option to block you, I'm looking for that in this antequate app but you are really being disruptive and contribute nothing to the discussion. Maybe I should just ignore you.



 

---

Your estimates are not very useful because they are so wide and also they don't tell us where the bottom is or the top, not even close.
Also, do not reveal anything about the behavior of BTC in terms of deep network and fractal properties. If you are not interesting in this discussion simply go back to explain to people (wrongly) what shorting is all about.



[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

How many times I need to repeat myself? YES, BTC IS A CURVE ON A LOG-LINEAR CHART !!!! I know because that is exactly what a power law looks on a log-linear chart, that curve is EXACTLY a power law.

Here is you can see the same graph here, it curves, same equation, same model, different chart type. Learn something.

https://twitter.com/Giovann35084111/status/1746243124278804748/photo/1

When you plot the same graph on a log-log chart then it becomes a straight line. That is what power laws do.

https://twitter.com/Giovann35084111/status/1746082576337625380/photo/1

Do you get it now?

The graph I posted here is another type of graph where I calculated the price given by the model above and plotted on the x-axis and the real price on the y-axis. I know this is too difficult for you to comprehend but stop to say idiocies.

It is just 3 ways of showing the same thing.

There is nothing tweaked, there is nothing changed. These are models. If you don't understand it is your problem.

 

Also, stop harassing me, I'm serious now. Your comments are just trolling at this point and I initiated this thread. Just go and discuss with somebody else. I will look at the rules on the site and report you if necessary.

what constant/formulae did you use this time

also


you only changed things from 7 years ago (mid way)
look on the right the blue line sits at 1.5 but the blue is ~1.25
meaning not a 8% error.. but at >20% error

and thats just from chart manipulation of flattening the curve.. before even adding in extra lines for mid, top bottom

Yeah, I understand what you say, I didn't think about that, people may confuse "scaling" with network usage even if in this case I meant the scale of price (10,100,1000) and scaling of time. But I can see how this can lead to confusion. Scaling is a term we use in physics, and I was trying to emphasize that physics terminology. There is a good book by G. West called "Scale" that is all about this topic but I understand what you are saying.
Yeah, franky1 is a troll, very annoying.

 I find your work on the BTC Scaling Law intriguing. Renaming it the "BTC Scaling Model" to reflect the relationship between price scales and time scales is a logical step. Your model's approach to predict Bitcoin's growth over a significant period and magnitude using a power law framework is an innovative take in the crypto analysis space.

The use of model price as the x-axis and the real price as the y-axis is an interesting method to gauge the accuracy of your predictions. It's notable that your model aligns with the general trend of Bitcoin over an extended period, considering the volatility inherent in cryptocurrency markets.

The practical application of your model in identifying overvalued or undervalued phases of Bitcoin could be valuable for investors, provided it's used cautiously and in conjunction with other analysis tools. However, it's important to remember that no predictive model is foolproof, especially in a market as unpredictable as cryptocurrencies.

Your initiative to apply scientific and mathematical principles to financial market analysis is commendable and contributes to the evolving field of cryptocurrency analytics. I'm interested to see further developments and more detailed insights in your upcoming article.