Quote from: Adrian-x on September 07, 2014, 05:00:24 AM

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on September 06, 2014, 01:42:08 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on September 06, 2014, 07:02:34 AM

Tumbling addresses as I understand are not part of the final count as they end up empty.

I am assuming that this graph counts addresses that appear in the blockchain (as output addresses) for the first time on each day, and does not subtract addresses that have become empty on that day. Is this second assumption incorrect?

(Sigh, blockchain.info should have explained more precisely what is being shown in each chart...)

In the extreme tumbling scenario I just described, there're would be 150'000 new addresses created every day, and all would be non-empty at the end of the day.

I've possibly misunderstood the data I assumed it reflected the number of unique address used, as in, in use, as opposed to used up.

I think more over the network effect adds value to bitcoin, if there is no way to measure it so be it, it's my opinion this graph reflects that growth. Now that it can me manipulated because we have related it to Metcalfe's law does little to prove otherwise

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on September 06, 2014, 01:42:08 PM

Quote

While the measurements may not be accurate I feel confident they are magnitudes more accurate than the tools to manage existing monetary policies.

Banks and businesses are required to report their activity to their government, for tax and other purposes, and there are many thousands of people whose full-fime job is to extract useful statistics from that raw data. For example, the published numbers on credit card usage are probably accurate to 2 digits, at least; and we know the subtotals by country and purpose. Ditto for total salaries, total company income, etc.

With regards to the above accounting accuracy of reported numbers Bitcoin is more accurate.
The metrics that I was referring to are the ones used in economic calculations like the GDP, and the CPI, the former is more favorable when we make ill use of our natural resources and create sick unhappy people, we measure that and say wow we're growing fast lets inflate the money supply. And the latter is manipulate to excluded the things the money inflation effects, mainly housing and energy, so politicians can say look we do a good job if you're unhappy it's because you're part of the 38.4 percent not taking your antidepressants we fort so hard to secure in Afghanistan.

In Bitcoin manipulating the data makes ill use of excess investment capital but it has no effect on the consumers ability to save, and has no impact on entrepreneurs who find more effective ways to distribute resources equitably.

Macroeconomics is for central planning, Bitcoin is for distributed planning, Austrian heavyweights have elegantly expected the futility in using the data to measure economic success, they give a great framework for why Bitcoin will make a more effective money. The quantitative analysis of the Bitcoin data just identifies market need more acutely, and gives one a competitive advantage in business, not in how to manipulate a centralized system.

Network effects (Metcalf's Law) has nothing to do with price. Its only describes user adoption. Bitcoin price is purely speculative. It can be $1000 or $50 and still be used for for the same amount of transactions. You have to consider velocity.

I'm not sure if I agree Austrians are proponents of bitcoin. I was reading some bitcoin articles on Mises.org and it seems like the guys who comment who knew what they are talking about were opponents of bitcoin. I only see more bitcoiners claiming to be Austrian & the Austrians response was that bitcoiners don't understand Austrian Economics