Quote from: Threebits on August 12, 2014, 10:02:31 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on August 12, 2014, 09:31:25 AM

Quote from: Threebits on August 12, 2014, 09:15:58 AM

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on August 12, 2014, 08:28:07 AM

Quote from: Threebits on August 12, 2014, 08:00:35 AM

With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?

We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing.

The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information. They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users. However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use. Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months. Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity.

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on August 12, 2014, 08:28:07 AM

Quote from: Threebits on August 12, 2014, 08:00:35 AM

With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?

We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing.

The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information. They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users. However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use. Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months. Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity.

It is quite a surprise that there's no concrete information confirming increasing users, though news is flying daily for more adoption!

Giving it a careful consideration, I agree Jorge's comment. Anyone have different opinion.

If users are not convinced to increase, Metcalfe's law is not valid for bitcoin. How do we get to be convinced for increasing users?

Sometimes you have to conclude based on a combination of direct evidence and inferential evidence. Accordingly, Maybe you will begin to understand that there is increased adoption when you begin to see the price go up? You are asking for more direct evidence, and maybe that direct evidence is ambiguous. so therefore inferences need to be made from it.... Reasonable inferences, that is... You can argue that a reasonable inference is less adoption ... when that is NOT reasonable... But trolls and FUD spreaders like to engage in this kind of selective vision.....

Increase liquidity opportunities, investments, conferences and various mainstream news pieces on bitcoin also help to establish that bitcoin adoption is going up and has been going up... If you blindly do NOT want to see various signs that adoption has been going up, then pointing out more direct evidence will NOT help your selective blindness.. imhbo....

Being a holder, I wish to have some encouraging information. However, the information needs to be convincing.

Seriously, a hodler's combination of information is unavoidably with prejiduce and that is always my problem.

Adoption/wallets are inductive for increasing users. But, I tend to believe it may double if price double overnight ( which is also inductive).

I understand what you are saying, but I maintain that there is plenty of inferential evidence available, and you can read through a bunch of threads in this forum and by doing various searches through BTC articles.

I think you are erroneous in your perception if you are giving more weight to the opinions of Jorge b/c he does NOT hold BTC or to give more weight to the information of other non-HODLers. There are a lot of posters who are providing good and objective information in spite of their level of holdings. Jorge has already been proven over and over to be someone who selectively spins his information and uses academics and good / polite language to make it appear as if he is being neutral and objective, when in fact he is purposefully and intentionally blind and intentionally trying to focus on some nitpicky irrelevancy to get others to believe that to be the most important thing in the bitcoin space.

I understand that in the end, you need to feel comfortable with your own senses of probabilities regarding the direction of BTC... and part of your concerns about whether adoption may be lacking... or less than it is purported to be.