Lately, Giovanni has been overly active on Twitter, defending himself from a cohort of users, accusing him of being a copycat of other authors, namely,
dacoinminster (J.R. Willett, the Mastercoin guy) and Trolololo.
Lol, some of these accusations were also made here on the forum (
here, reported also
here), so the Bitcointalk echo chambers still work!
On Occtober 1st Giovanni posts a
long disclaimer.
His points: people have spent years hunting for someone who described the power law before him; before 2015 the price data could not statistically separate a power law from competing models; he had already found power laws between price and addresses, transactions and hashrate, where the signal was cleaner; his claim rests on more than a decade of work rather than a lucky chart or one spreadsheet regression (this was the claim by dacoinminster); and the yardstick should be evidence and mechanism, not who digs up the oldest screenshot. (classic Giovanni, quick-tempered character).
Various other authors enter the dispute, and even Kepler analogy was put in place....
Santostasi has previously acknowledged Trolololos 2014 logarithmic regression model, describing it as containing the mathematical ingredients of a power law (which can be rewritten as one algebraically) and referring to it as an important early contribution or grandfather intuition regarding Bitcoins scaling behavior. He distinguishes this from fully identifying the relationship as a power law, developing a multi-variable theory, or providing a mechanistic explanation. He frames the broader issue as one of scientific standards versus retrospective claims based on early charts or single regressions. In his view, a discovery claim should rest on evidence, consistency, mechanism, and sustained contribution rather than simply the earliest screenshot or spreadsheet fit. He states that he intends to defend his position on having identified the multiple power laws in Bitcoin and on having developed the associated theoretical framework through cumulative work. Santostasi also comments that some of the pushback appears driven by personal dislike or incentives to challenge a visible figure in the space, while reiterating that he welcomes genuine scientific criticism and better evidence.
The point can be reduced to the meaning of discovery: what is a discovery? Is the mere path recognition, or the study of a complete theory around it, supported by enough data?
To me, the nice part is that Bitcointalk never forgets: both threads are still here, timestamped, for anyone who wants to make up their own mind.
