Quote from: AnonyMint on July 19, 2014, 03:15:34 AM

Quote from: Melbustus on July 19, 2014, 02:36:53 AM

Yeah, I've seen that image quite a bit, thanks. Surprise surprise, it's like a bunch of random noise blew differently through all those curves (which, yes, are generated by some sort of similar underlying human phenomena). And yet what you're basically doing is zooming in on the early part of one of them, where there's likely to be especially big noise, trying to fit a nice elegant little curve anyways, and then making investment decisions based upon that. Sometimes what gives the elegance-seeking part of our intellect great satisfaction just doesn't matter. This particular domain is one where qualitative fundamentals analysis actually seems better than quantitative attempts.

The unifying S curve shape is undeniable for decentralized adoption of technology. There are outliers, e.g. the clothes washer apparently got replaced by the laundrymat along the way and the initial wildwest of autos in the USA got replaced by well regulated government roads and licensing, but that isn't noise it is centralization.

Setting aside whether all the outliers on the graph are explained by centralization (I don't believe they are), I don't see what this has to do with Bitcoin or more importantly Monero.

Both are very much in the innovator phase. Most people have barely heard of Bitcoin and if they have, can't clearly explain what it is or what it does. I don't see curve fitting as being useful on the very first part of the cycle where all of these inventions are close to zero.

If bitcoin gets to say 30-50% then perhaps you can argue that it fits better with the adoption cycle of some of these inventions over others, since they do indeed differ at that point. At the very early near-0% stages, I don't buy it.

EDIT: changed relevant range from 20-30% to 30-50% since the latter is where we see serious deviations from the S-curve model on some inventions such as washing machines, automobiles, etc.