OK, no-one has still bothered to state what 'n' stands for (I'm assuming p = price) but it all sounds highly plausible.
I wrote that upthread. Here it is again.
It is the number of unique addresses from the blockchain.info chart. And Peter R showed that n^2 correlates with price p. This is Metcalf's Law and Reed's Law.
I had explained in an upthread post that if we use a ruler on the n chart along the bottoms since 2012, then should currently be at 100,000 yet it is currently at 150,000.
Also there was a divergence since February where p declined but n rose. That divergence must be resolved. Will p rise or n decline?
If n must drop by 33%, then p price could drop to 0.67 x 0.67 = 45% of recent p (hard to determine which recent p to use $450 - $600).
OK, thanks.
But here you are saying unique addresses....earlier Aminorex was saying 'active' addresses.
Now, I just went onto a couple of exchanges and created half a dozen new addresses. But I'm still a single user.
I won't pretend to know the math but my wife (soon to be sold for BTC
) is a scientist and I know from her that all source data has to be analysed for standard errors, Cronbach, GLAs etc...its all beyond a thicky like me but the one thing I have picked up is that using 'raw' data is problematic. So, do these calculations take into account this sort of thing?