87
88

This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price. (i.redd.it)

ydtm が 投稿

全 45 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]GeorgesTurdBlossom 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (8子コメント)

This is one of your weaker arguments, OP.

[–]ydtm[S] 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

It will be very easy to test.

Once we start getting blocks that are 2 MB or 4 MB or 8 MB - we can come back to this graph.

Right now, the graph isn't very interesting any more - since the propaganda and crippleware released by Blockstream (and funded by AXA) have been centrally suppressing the volume / transaction throughput - and hence also apparently the price.

At some point, it is inevitable that the market is going to want to control its own volume (ie, control the blocksize) - instead of this historic aberration since late 2014, when Blockstream started artificially suppressing the blocksize.

[–]duffelbagg[🍰] 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (4子コメント)

It will be very easy to test.

Markets cannot scientifically be tested because you cannot replicate the billions of variables

[–]outerspacerace -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A model attempts to find the most impactful inputs to a system. You don't have to simulate the universe to have a reliable predictive tool for markets.

[–]Shock_The_Stream -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Markets cannot scientifically be tested because you cannot replicate the billions of variables

You don't need to replicate the billions of variables to scientifically test and forecast the weather.

[–]ydtm[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

billions of variables

?? Nobody mentioned testing billions of variables.

There are only two variables to look at:

  • Volume / Number of Transactions (which "blocksize" is a rough proxy for)

  • Price

Extend that graph out for a few years for two different coins:

  • BitcoinCore (with centrally planned, artificially tiny 1-1.7 MB max blocksize for the next few years)

  • BitcoinUnlimited + BitcoinClassic (with decentralized, market-controlled blocksize - eg: 1 MB, 2 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB for the next few years)

If the previous years of history on the graph apply, then we will once again see the Volume and the Price moving in synch.

1 BTC = 64 000 USD would be > $1 trillion market cap - versus $7 trillion market cap for gold, and $82 trillion of "money" in the world. Could "pure" Bitcoin get there without SegWit, Lightning, or Bitcoin Unlimited? Metcalfe's Law suggests that 8MB blocks could support a price of 1 BTC = 64 000 USD

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5lzez2/1_btc_64_000_usd_would_be_1_trillion_market_cap/

Bitcoin has its own E = mc2 law: Market capitalization is proportional to the square of the number of transactions. But, since the number of transactions is proportional to the (actual) blocksize, then Blockstream's artificial blocksize limit is creating an artificial market capitalization limit!

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5obe2m/this_traders_price_volume_graph_model_predicted/

A scientist or economist who sees Satoshi's experiment running for these 7 years, with price and volume gradually increasing in remarkably tight correlation, would say: "This looks interesting and successful. Let's keep it running longer, unchanged, as-is."

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/49kazc/a_scientist_or_economist_who_sees_satoshis/

If you want to stop the experiment now, and radically change Bitcoin's economic incentives, so that it is no longer "p2p cash" - then you can install SegWit and later Lightning - to drive people off the network and into Blockstream's centralized cryptobank Lightning Network hubs.

If you want to continue the experiment as-is, then follow Satoshi's roadmap - and let blocksize and price and volume continue to grow (controlled by the market), via a simple and safe hard-fork upgrade to BitcoinClassic or BitcoinUnlmited

The Blockstream/SegWit/LN fork will be worth LESS: SegWit uses 4MB storage/bandwidth to provide a one-time bump to 1.7MB blocksize; messy, less-safe as softfork; LN=vaporware. The BU fork will be worth MORE: single clean safe hardfork solving blocksize forever; on-chain; fix malleability separately.

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/57zjnk/the_blockstreamsegwitln_fork_will_be_worth_less/

Bitcoin Unlimited is the real Bitcoin, in line with Satoshi's vision. Meanwhile, BlockstreamCoin+RBF+SegWitAsASoftFork+LightningCentralizedHub-OfflineIOUCoin is some kind of weird unrecognizable double-spendable non-consensus-driven fiat-financed offline centralized settlement-only non-P2P "altcoin"

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/57brcb/bitcoin_unlimited_is_the_real_bitcoin_in_line/

[–]1MBFOREVER 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

While I share the belief that blockstream is hurting Bitcoin by fighting scaling with every dirty trick in the book, if we raised the limit and the price had a corresponding exponential increase back onto the model above, this would strongly suggest causation, but wouldn't prove it.

You have to be very careful making statements like these. They may be popular with most readers, but these types of claims can be easily scientifically disproven by "experts", which ends up discrediting /r/btc with those who matter, informed investors, business leaders, and miners.

Also, just a tip, but log charts are often used by hucksters to pump assets. I would avoid using them in arguments about block size unless there is a really precise, scientific point being made. When I see log charts, my first reaction is always "how are they trying to deceive me?" I would avoid using them entirely, as I'm pretty sure this reaction is common :).

Edit: I think your heart is in the right place, and agree for what it's worth. Just be extremely discerning in how you try to prove points. The opposition is incredibly well funded and has the advantage of being able to wait us out. Repeating information is good to dispel gaslighting and history revision; but, when making new arguments, quality definitely matters over quantity, because any mistakes or weakness in arguments will be used by the opposition.

[–]Adrian-X 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

it's not an argument, it's a fact, you can argue whether or not it's coincidence.

[–]squarepush3r 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

yeah, these blind hate Blockstream/GMaxwell /r/bitcoin /Core market share are pretty low class and pointless

[–]_supert_ 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not sure this is an entirely scientific application of this model...

[–]ydtm[S] 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Someday we'll have more data - hopefully blocks that are 2MB, 4MB, 8MB in size... and then we can re-visit this graph.

I expect the historical correlation will be re-instated - once the market is again able to decide the blocksize / volume / transaction throughput - instead of Blockstream centrally planning and artificially suppressing the blocksize / volume / transaction throughput.

[–]poulpe 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's a whole lot of crazy for one post.

BU & criticism of core has so much better arguments than 'muh blockstream, muh axa, muh this random guy's random prediction of 10k didn't happen because core'.

What in the fuck...

[–]ydtm[S] 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I realize that it could seem random - but also you have to admit, that looking at that graph, the correlation between price and volume was pretty tight - until late 2014.

So it's not really a random prediction. It is simply historical, empirical data showing that price and volume were tightly correlated until late 2014 - and then after that, the price started to severely dip.

You can make of it what you will.

And regarding AXA - this comment in this thread presents some very cogent arguments for how AXA would suffer massive damage if Bitcoin were to become very valuable.

So... price and volume rose together, until AXA started paying Blockstream to spread crippleware and propaganda, imposing central planning to artificially suppress the blocksize - and (by the looks of that graph) also the price.

[–]greenearplugs 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

willy bot kept this correlation going much longer than it should have.

btc market cap increases linearly with tx. double tx = double market cap (going forward)

[–]fury420 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So... price and volume rose together, until AXA started paying Blockstream to spread crippleware and propaganda, imposing central planning to artificially suppress the blocksize - and (by the looks of that graph) also the price.

AXA started paying Blockstream in Spring 2016, yet your graph stops halfway through 2015.

Bitcoin's price has more than doubled since announcement of AXA SV's investment in Blockstream:

https://blockstream.com/2016/02/02/blockstream-new-investors-55-million-series-a/

On Feb 2nd 2016 prices ranged from $365 to $374 USD on Bitfinex

today's price range on Bitfinex is $813 to $837 USD

[–]ydtm[S] 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

https://i.imgur.com/sywn1fv.png

Look carefully at how the black line has been dipping below the red line since late 2014.

The price would probably be $10,000 USD/BTC if Blockstream / Core hadn't started suppressing Bitcoin volume & transactions in late 2014, with their artificial, centrally controlled "blocksize limit" of 1 MB.

More info (from the trader who created the graph):

https://np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/5o8n4u/daily_discussion_monday_january_16_2017/dchmlm1/

Model price based on tx rate: 7-day average: $10874, 28-day average: $11038.

Model price = 10-0.638 * (tx per day)2.181 / # total coins.

Those with long memories will recall that this model has long indicated a price significantly over spot, fading the entire bear market; it was predicting significantly under spot when I started running it privately. It is revived to track against the current bull run.

Explanation is here with historical graphs of price vs. model and graphs of other correlations (last updated 2015-06-29). The code](https://np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/2oyrfq/code_for_tx_model/[) is here if you want to improve on it.

Historical information for people who are curious

Blockstream was founded in late 2014:

https://www.blockstream.com/2014/10/23/why-we-are-co-founders-of-blockstream/

https://blockstream.com/2014/11/17/blockstream-closes-21m-seed-round.html

Who is AXA? What do they want from Bitcoin?

One of the main owners of Blockstream is AXA - a "too big to fail" insurance company, which would fail if Bitcoin became highly valuable.

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/search?q=axa&restrict_sr=on

How can we fight back to support Bitcoin?

The best way to make Bitcoin prosper is to reject the cripplecode and propaganda from AXA-funded Blockstream - and instead run code such as Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Classic.

  • Core / Blockstream's Bitcoin code has an artificially tiny, centrally planned 1 MB blocksize. The graph in the OP suggests that this may be the main factor which has been suppressing Bitcoin volume & transactions - and price - since Blockstream was founded in late 2014.

  • Core / Blockstream's SegWit-as-a-softfork is a messy hack and a poison pill which is designed to allow Blockstram to continue controlling Bitcoin and suppressing its price.

Previous posts discussing the above topics in more detail

(1) This graph shows Bitcoin price and volume (ie, blocksize of transactions on the blockchain) rising hand-in-hand in 2011-2014. In 2015, Core/Blockstream tried to artificially freeze the blocksize - and artificially froze the price. Bitcoin Classic will allow volume - and price - to freely rise again.

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/44xrw4/this_graph_shows_bitcoin_price_and_volume_ie/

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/search?q=author%3Aydtm+price+graph&restrict_sr=on

(2) Why Bitcoin Unlimited's FlexTrans-as-a-hard-fork is better than Core/Blockstream's SegWit-as-a-soft-fork

For other people who might want to review some of these earlier discussions, a few links are provided below:

Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4ttmk3/reminder_previous_posts_showing_that_blockstreams/

"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - /u/ForkiusMaximus

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/

The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4080mw/the_real_reason_why_core_blockstream_always/

As Core / Blockstream collapses and Classic gains momentum, the CEO of Blockstream, Austin Hill, gets caught spreading FUD about the safety of "hard forks", falsely claiming that: "A hard-fork forced-upgrade flag day ... disenfranchises everyone who doesn't upgrade ... causes them to lose funds"

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41c8n5/as_core_blockstream_collapses_and_classic_gains/

SegWit-as-a-softfork is a hack. Flexible-Transactions-as-a-hard-fork is simpler, safer and more future-proof than SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - trivially solving malleability, while adding a "tag-based" binary data format (like JSON, XML or HTML) for easier, safer future upgrades with less technical debt

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5a7hur/segwitasasoftfork_is_a_hack/

The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5e4e7d/the_proper_terminology_for_a_hard_fork_should_be/

Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/

Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4mnpxx/normal_users_understand_that_segwitasasoftfork_is/

"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5e410j/negotiations_have_failed_bscore_will_never_hf/

If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/

Wladimir van der Laan (Lead Maintainer, Bitcoin Core) says Bitcoin cannot hard-fork, because of the "2008 subprime bubble crisis" (??) He also says "changing the rules in a decentralized consensus system is a very difficult problem and I don’t think we’ll resolve it any time soon." But Eth just did!

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4ttv32/wladimir_van_der_laan_lead_maintainer_bitcoin/

"Co-opting a dev team or a repo is far easier than trying to end-run a market. ... Hard forks are the only way for the market to express its will, which is the only way for Bitcoin to remain both decentralized and viable. ... Hard forks are exactly what is needed in a controversy" ~ u/ForkiusMaximus

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5f542k/coopting_a_dev_team_or_a_repo_is_far_easier_than/

[continues in next comment...]

[–]ydtm[S] 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

[...continued from previous comment]

(3) How can we take back control of Bitcoin, so the price and volume can continue to rise like they did before late 2014 when Blockstream started spreading their crippleware and propaganda?

  • Uninstall the cripplecode from Core/Blockstream

  • Install the code from Unlimited or Classic, which:

    • supports decentralized blocksize scaling - decided by the market, not by central planners at Blockstream
    • supports clean, simple, safe upgrades (eg, FlexTrans, not SegWit)

  • Avoid the censored forum r\bitcoin, and instead use the lightly moderated forum r/btc

Some previous posts on this subject:

Bitcoin can go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks, so it will go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks. All the censorship & shilling on r\bitcoin & fantasy fiat from AXA can't stop that. BitcoinCORE might STALL at 1,000 USD and 1 MB blocks, but BITCOIN will SCALE to 10,000 USD and 4 MB blocks - and beyond

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5jgkxv/bitcoin_can_go_to_10000_usd_with_4_mb_blocks_so/

Bitcoin Unlimited + Classic hashrate goes over 15% for first time ever. Bigger block hashrate continues to climb.

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5m8gs8/bitcoin_unlimited_classic_hashrate_goes_over_15/

The Bitcoin Classic and Unlimited dev teams remind me a lot of Ethereum's dev team. Rational, good people. And Core reminds me more of the Federal Reserve.

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4u8ke1/the_bitcoin_classic_and_unlimited_dev_teams/

In the last 24 hours, Unlimited + Classic hashrate is 25% of the total Bitcoin network - just sayin'

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5o7mnx/in_the_last_24_hours_unlimited_classic_hashrate/

[–]jvanbec 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is it me or are these log charts just ridiculous

[–]ydtm[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Actually the graph doesn't cover the last six months of 2016.

During that time, we saw the two major competitors to BitcoinCore (BitcoinUnlimited and BitcoinClassic) gaining a significant share of hashpower and nodes on the network - sometimes up to around 15% of hashpower and 25% of nodes on some days this past week.

  • BitcoinCore (developed by Blockstream) suffers from centrally-planned, artificially tiny 1-1.7 MB blocksize

  • BitcoinClassic and BitcoinUnlimited provide a one-time safe & simple upgrade, after which the market will always be able to decide the blocksize (eg: 2 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB, etc.)

And during that time, the price has gone up a lot.

(Although, yes, it could be due in large part to the halvening, which happened in August 2016 - and also to the end of the 2-year correction starting with the great price crash of Dec 2013 - which may have been due to the death of MtGox's WillyBot which had been artificially inflating the price in late 2013, by "buying" insane amounts of Bitcoin with fake dollars which only existed in MtGox's SQL database.)

Anyways, I think most people would agree that it would be better to let the market decide the volume (and hence the price) - and not let Blockstream decide the volume (and also possibly let them suppress the price).

Bitcoin is a creature of the market. Its volume and price should be decided by the market - not by Blockstream.

And yes - I am saying that Blockstream is suppressing the price (by suppressing the volume).

Wanna test my hypothesis?

It's easy:

(1) Just uninstall BitcoinCore/Blockstream.

(2) Install BitcoinClassic/Unlimited.

(Or you can even mod your code yourself to accept 2 MB or 4 MB or 8 MB blocks or whatever. That's another little-known fact from Satoshi that Blockstream wants you to forget: the consensus rule-set which defines valid blocks "is" whatever 51% of the goddamn hashpower on the network says it "is".)

(3) Once 51% of the network does this, then watch the volume - and the price - go to the moon.

1 BTC = 64 000 USD would be > $1 trillion market cap - versus $7 trillion market cap for gold, and $82 trillion of "money" in the world. Could "pure" Bitcoin get there without SegWit, Lightning, or Bitcoin Unlimited? Metcalfe's Law suggests that 8MB blocks could support a price of 1 BTC = 64 000 USD

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5lzez2/1_btc_64_000_usd_would_be_1_trillion_market_cap/

[–]bitdoggy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't believe much in chart's trends but Blockstream is definitely the reason why the price is under $2000 today.

[–]merton1111 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

'bruh, im not millionaire yet, it's all because of blockstream'

[–]UKcoin 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

YDTM sinking to new lows, posts some random graph from some nobody trader and acts like it's gospel predicting the future, what a fucking moron.

"Hey everyone look at this one trader out of thousands, his predictions didn't come true, must be all cores fault"

YDTM you're a fcking moron and you prove it every day, your posts are an absolute joke, you provide zero quality and you are an embarrassment to yourself.

[–]fury420 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly now, AXA's initial investment in Blockstream occurred in Spring 2016, part of Blockstream's second public funding round

Why do you continue to peddle these lies?

[–]Shock_The_Stream 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, they started the attack themselves, and then that centralized hub/bankster strategy got another boost with AXA.

[–]fury420 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

But ydtm repeatedly lies & misrepresents the timeline, the amount invested by the AXA subsidiary, level of control they obtained, etc...

Correcting his lies seems to accomplish nothing, he continues to repeat them.

I find this unacceptable behavior.

So... price and volume rose together, until AXA started paying Blockstream to spread crippleware and propaganda, imposing central planning to artificially suppress the blocksize - and (by the looks of that graph) also the price.

I mean this right here is a blatant lie.

AXA started paying Blockstream in Spring 2016, yet the graph ydtm has posted stops midway through 2015.

The fact is... Bitcoin's price has literally doubled since AXA SV announced their investment in Blockstream, but that does not fit the narrative ydtm is peddling.

https://blockstream.com/2016/02/02/blockstream-new-investors-55-million-series-a/

On Feb 2nd 2016 prices ranged from $365 to $374 USD on Bitfinex.

[–]mrtest001 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank God we are not over $10K!! I am still buyin'

[–]vamprism 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here are some lines on a graph.

[–]2cool2fish 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did you cherry pick this?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears the plot only goes to about mid 2015, ie when the price would have started to rejoin the trajectory of the model.

Not that the model means anything really.

[–]tubehand 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

who funds block stream

[–]tubehand 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_de_Castries

[–]tubehand 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The creature from Jekyll Island Book by G. Edward Griffin

good place to start for those who still have faith in the legacy/ legendary financial system.

[–]chris101sb -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

IT ALL STARTED WHEN FACEBOOK BOUGHT WHATSAPP IN FEBRUARY 2014!! DO NOT BELIEVE OP! CORE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! OP IS TRYING TO COVER UP THE FACEBOOK/WHATSAPP CONSPIRACY!!1!

[–]FlyingSheng 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If your model doesn't match reality, it's your model that's broken, not the other way around.

[–]n4ru -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sometimes this sub comes off as significantly more delusional than /r/bitcoin

[–]pdubl 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sometimes? I come here just for the chuckles.

[–]n4ru -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

At this point it's probably the same for me.

[–]gorgamin -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

How about we just make 1TB blocks, would you be happy then?