Quote from: eXPHorizon on Today at 01:06:26 PM

uliepooie the WE are is a humanity as one wholeness.. but some are not part of our humanity so.. i dunno ? Cheesy

Will the power-hungry lives be spared. Or will their thrones become electric chairs? See the non-believers by the path. Non-believers by the path..

The sinners' world is full of hate and copy paste Cheesy

You are likely to be much better off to be attempting to hedge your bets and getting a stake into various outcomes rather than living in a world of theories that hardly even seem concrete without some skin in the game... .including but not exclusively establishing your DCA strategy into bitcoin..

Maybe start with $10 per week, you seemingly skeptical lil fuck?

I suppose that I am responding to readers of the thread who might take anything you have written seriously, since you seem like kind of a lost cause in terms of actually indicating that you are taking any actions rather than merely whining about what you believe is the state of the world.

Quote from: cAPSLOCK on Today at 01:08:19 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 07:12:43 AM

Quote from: Phil_S on September 01, 2022, 08:55:10 PM

"2x per year" trend seems invalidated. Oh well. It's still growing.

Can't you just shift it to some other convenient exponential variant? How about 1.8x hahahaha.. and then later 1.5x.. but then many of us likely appreciate that many new adoption curves (to the extent that prices are reflected therein) would likely have some kind of a curve rather than straight line, no?

As I see it one of the main problems with all the "models" *and* interpretation/expectation of models is they tend to be biased to various schelling points and oversimplification of formulas:

2x per year (has never actually happened exactly, right?)
The market cap of gold (why?),
Stock to flow (as if the only thing that matters is supply)
Some proprietary log curve or two (yeah... because it's a little complicated this simple formula will be righter!)
And my fav so far: 100k by the end of December! (TWO schelling points in one!)
Supercycle! (just picking on myself... based on greed, and sort of an anti-model really.)

Oh, and there is one more (for THIS list)... but this one is part of the holy choirbook, so people might not like to call it a broken model "The four year cycle". This one is at least supported by some fairly strong design forces. But it still only takes into account a limited number of extremely important things. Ignoring completely things like the price of electricity, the proliferation of mining, the reaction of governments, and so on. And I have to also point out that it has nothing to do with "four years" but we humans like to call it something we can easily relate to.

And ALL OF THIS exists in the extremely long shadow of the world macroeconomic condition and the strength of the worlds unit of account, the US DOLLAR.

Whatever your model... it will be instantly distorted by what happens with the mighty $$$. And the price of important commodities like food and power in THAT asset.

And while we are on THAT topic... Food and Power. We are currently watching an effort unfold by supragovernmental forces to take control of the food supply and energy creation in The Ukraine, The Netherlands, The Canada (I don't see why .ca can't have an article too!), The New Zealand, and so on.

In my opinion... gone are the simple days when we could predict shit, really. Wink

But Bitcoin is still the best thing going for value storage, and most likely growth depending on your time horizon.

Have a nice Friday WO!

Maybe I should start with your ending comment first that involves ideas of previously being able to predict ~~things~~ shit? Wake up cAPSLOCK!!!!! We've never been able to predict shit, except after the shit has already happened, so it looks easy to have been able to predict things when we are looking into the past.

Second, you are like a lover and a hater of models at the same time, and you list the various deficiencies in the models by pointing out that the models do not account for all of the things, maybe not even the most important of things, yet at the same time we should be able to appreciate that it is quite likely that prediction models are attempting to focus on the most essential of things in order to attempt to both be able to focus on relevant influential factors and also by their very nature they are striving to get their prediction(s) correct. Of course, we know that models cannot account for all of the things, and of course, we likely recognize that there are a variety of human freewill factors that actually end up changing histories trajectory and they are not even human free will factors that likely can be determined in advanced, even if you were to ask the individuals who did their thing.

I am surely not going to poo poo on models, because those models are likely trying their best, and they also likely serve as our best guide forwards whether we subscribe to model x, y or z and no matter how some of us might weigh their importance in different ways than others. Even though I have not really given up on my describing stock to flow, four year fractal and exponential s-curve adoption based on Metcalfe principles and networking effects as the most influential of frameworks, I may well need to change aspects of my tune, too.. especially when we are seeming to be in strong current DOWNity BTC price pressures that may or may not continue to play out in the negative (but part of my definition of being in a bear market is that there is a need to grant slightly higher odds to down rather than to UP, even as we might still question whether $17,593 is going to be able to remain steadfast as our bottom for this cycle.. .. for sure we are within striking distance now, so it makes it more difficult to talk about the models in the same way that I had previously been discussing them, and surely there may well be some questions in regards if something(s) might need to be added or subtracted from my prior considerations of the models.. ..

Maybe I am like PlanB in the sense that I am still not going to give up on the more convincing of models and frameworks that I have historically considered, even if they are under challenge and even though there may well be some better models or factors that need to be taken into account to either supplement existing models or to help in the creation of new models.

Otherwise, what are we going to do? Just throw up our hands and give up? I personally believe that each of us is better off to have some kind of framework in which we attempt to see the world, even if we might end up getting our predictions wrong, but we are giving it our best boyscout attempts, and maybe learning along the way too, if we need to tweak or maybe if there is something within our preparations in which we might have to change our allocations, so instead of weighing Armageddon at less than 1%, we have to increase our allocation to 5-8% - which seems pretty dramatic, but some of our recent world changes have been pretty dramatic, too.. . and maybe some of us bitcoiners who had already been prepping with bitcoin feel a wee bit further ahead of the curve as compared to some of our normie friends and acquaintances who might seem to be going on with their lives as if there haven't been any kind of changes in the world that going to cause them to change, and maybe they are not really into preparing for Armageddon anyhow, so they just leave their Armageddon scenario preparations at 0%, even if push comes to shove, they will admit that they agree that Armageddon scenarios are more likely in recent times, but they cannot conceive of having much if any power in terms of whatever preparations that they need to make or if there might be anything that they can do to better prepare themselves for such Armageddon scenarios.

Since you had been talking out of both sides of your mouth in regards to whether models are good are bad, I doubt that I am saying much of anything different from you except maybe some of my matters end up getting framed differently from you in terms of my desire to assert that the models are still quite useful, even if they end up playing out wrongedly.