Quote from: thefunkybits on April 03, 2014, 05:03:26 AM

Quote from: tabnloz on April 03, 2014, 04:59:53 AM

Do you have a source to say that Rickards is a former covert agent?

Who cares, we should all stop quoting this fool (Anonymint)

I have read that numerous times. I will go dig up the link about that recent relevation where Max Keiser says Rickards was. Come back to read this post again...

thefunkybits, what proof do you have that I am a fool? Accusations without evidence is for the foolish. As if not quoting me would change any reality. Are you really that consumed by the power of politics. Actual reality is dictated by the economics of technology. Period.

Edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=543076.0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Rickards#Biography

Appears his insider position comes from being a legal advisor to the intelligence community and DoD.

Quote from: aminorex on April 03, 2014, 04:02:56 AM

Quote from: AnonyMint on April 03, 2014, 03:43:47 AM

I am very confident because I have history and rationality on my side.

I would be cautious of normalcy bias. We are dealing with iterated expansive maps. Such systems can diverge rapidly.

Agreed there can be in rarer cases a divergence to chaos which means disintegration of the inertial frame (structure), e.g. a disruptive technology from a competitor.

I know of no cases where an inertia produced its own disruption to (re-)accelerate its own (de-)acceleration. The disruption may be seeded by the inertia, but that actual inertia is by mathematical definition of its structure incapable of looking outside of itself.

Feel free to correct me with examples.

Quote from: aminorex on April 03, 2014, 04:02:56 AM

It's a new technology and will introduce novel system dynamics. Very few external analysts foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Your example appears to support my point above.

Quote from: aminorex on April 03, 2014, 04:02:56 AM

There is strong self-similarity in the price curve. The manias seen so far may be higher order.

And how often do very large scale movements (e.g. Communism, adoption of modern central banking, adoption of Paypal or Face~~hook~~hole) have these bizarro higher order components? Any historical fact checking?

Appears to me on cursory interaction so far that you are based solely in math (and very good at it), but perhaps your weakness is you don't take the time to go tie into historical significance. Thus you could be flying in too many directions without a compass.

This is where Armstrong is a genius. He has some of your math ability and he put $100 millions of historical data into a model and he regularly talks with key insiders all over the world in every country.

I am limited by my resources and specialized area of experience (mostly programming), so I have to leverage him and others (e.g. Peter R's recent Metcalf fit) for data and initial insights, then I refine with my domain knowledge.

Quote from: aminorex on April 03, 2014, 04:02:56 AM

If your log-logistic model is a MAP estimation, I would say it has strong empirical and analytic support, which would push the fractal fit (already quite unlikely, according to my own understanding, but still a possible expression of a distinctly conceivable set of dynamics) outside of the range of interesting possibilities. But if log-logistic fit doesn't have a principled justification, with definable likelihoods (and I haven't seen that yet) then I would not exclude cascade models which typically produce such curves in other markets.

I don't know what a cascade model is? Care to summarize the significance or am I left to my own googling?

Quote from: aminorex on April 03, 2014, 04:02:56 AM

You say that declining rates of adoption reversing would be unprecedented. I say, how long have you been looking for them? And, how many deviations lie between the current rate and the rate which would be implied by the fractal chart? The history of AAPL comes to mind as a case of the former. Regarding the latter, if it is within a couple of deviations, then it would not be surprising if the decline in growth were noise. (And the more so, in a heteroskedastic model.)

I agree I would really appreciate if someone did some empirical analysis of the data from this perspective. This is not my area of usual work, so I should stay focused on what I do best (which isn't talking in forums, but seems to have consumed me of late Angry

).