tracey-sama's beautiful waifu
Did this make sense when you rehearsed it in your head? Anyways, I'm sorry for my understandable outburst. Yes, that was a non-apology.
Doom Marine said:
Oh my, was that a passive-aggressive compliment on my debating skills?
The assertive pricks bit was aimed at economists in general, who often believe their own lie: that their simplified models based on very basic maths describe human society closely enough to be able to project trends way too far into the future, when they can't even come up with reliable patterns of the past. Then, with a straight face, they present us crap like the Laffer Curve. Psychohistory as portrayed in Foundation will take us a little more time than that.
So there truly is a fuzzy filter that shaves the data down to something representable. The data set can be manipulated to fit the expected results with an arbitrary cutoff threshold like this. This isn't pure math anymore and "useful data analysis" is heavily dependent on interpretation.
Popular addresses are implicated as the ones used by bots for high-frequency trading. Suppose I have one bitcoin and transferred them repeatedly one million times between two bots in an exchange, say Huobi, the transaction rate would then be over-represented via fake volume, and now the practical bitcoin volume is one million more than it should've been. Defining the threshold of a popular address would diminish this play and better represent legitimate transactions in light of useful data analysis.
Also I assume even these quick operations have to be verified by several miners. What happens if many people decide to go speculative with short term bitcoin rates, as is usual with fiat currencies and stock? Won't bots overload the entire operations with requests? We already know there's a fixed limit to how many operations can be done per second.
Wait, does this also mean that one can stage a terrorist attack on the entire infrastructure by having a botnet and moving btc around in bogus operations? There's already a non-negligible waiting period before your transaction is processed, this could go through the roof under a concentrated DDOS.
Don't trivialize. You can use log graphs to show exponential growth, but as Looper and me mentioned, you can't use it to prove correlations, because your precision is shot to hell at high orders. Your graph shows how on average the two progressions correlate, but the squared one's variance is smoothed out in a log scale while in reality it grows exponentially. You can use the representation, but not that way.
Bitcoin's network effect has always experienced exponential growth during its 5-year lifespan. When dealing with exponential growth, logarithmic graphs are almost always used to filter out the noise of day-trading and delineate magnitudes of growth in a scalable manner, this is statistics 101 material.
While your answers are not unintelligent, they're cherry-picking only what you feel comfortable to answer and cast an idealistic haze over valid issues, which makes an intelligent, civil discourse highly annoying. And you definitely know this.
While your questions are not unintelligent, they are delivered in an accusatory manner that makes it hard to have a intelligent, civil discourse. I think you know this.
Maybe you two should get married. At a university. With Richard Dawkins reading your vows. My previous outburst was mainly triggered by this bit. How arrogant and pompous do you have to be to attribute yourself with intellectual rigor and honesty? How is that any better than my snarky insults of the fanatic bitcoin followers?
Notice that while Fraggle and I disagree on matters, because of our intellectual rigor and honesty, we are able to develop a progressive dialogue in which we can agree to disagree.
On the other hand, this made me laugh. I'm a huge Kelly's Heroes fan and I admit, I've been hitting you with them negative waves all this time.
Rather than focusing on what the chart has wrong, it might be more useful to ask what it got right or what interesting questions it poses. I understand that it makes some pretty concrete fairly near term predictions about bitcoins which may be falsifiable, — and hey, making a falsifiable prediction would put it ahead of a lot of things.
Me being a dick doesn't make my arguments any less valid and nor does using pseudo-sophisticated science-like lingo make your arguments any more right. Gotta deal with facts.
"Ah ha! it cannot work, I've found the flaw!" Right on. It's certainly invigorating to attempt to poke holes in someone's argument without putting in due intellectual rigor and without checking if one is asking even valid questions in the first place.
Right back at you, buddy. If it's a protocol, a math, you cannot use Metcalfe's Law on it, because it deals with networks. And in those, nodes (people) interact. The barriers are there, whether they've manifested themselves yet or not. Checkmate, atheists.
But to answer your question: bitcoin is a protocol, a math... it has no practical language or societal barriers, so that formula you stumbled upon doesn't apply here.
The article uses speculative claims. It was your link that introduced us to it. I'm pointing out how shallow it is. Don't insult me at parts where my objections are thoroughly justified.
So why are you complaining about wikipedia articles to me anyway? Be honest with yourself. You come off pretty immature.
I've never attacked Metcalfe's law, but the dodgy way you interpret it and superimpose it over an arbitrary graph. That is anything but rigorous, but mostly it is just yelling "these graphs don't lie" to a Shakira melody.
Metcalfe's law is mathematical and certainly verifiable, if you are good at math. Sounds to me like an excuse to try to find a random, opportunistic argument to try to debunk my point without doing the heavy mental lifting.