<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
Hi James,<br>
<br>
On 7/18/2013 9:49 AM, James Carroll wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALbjWneigd=_Br6XxE8NWJKymohFb=678bpm6BhB209zS_SssQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Brent Allsop <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:brent.allsop@canonizer.com" target="_blank">brent.allsop@canonizer.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div><br>
I do have another question. Would all you guys
consider .00001% / year growth, exponential growth?
It seems like most of our disagreement is just about
how much exponential growth there is. And even the
graph from 1900, would look very linear (as you seem
to think it is) with .00001% growth, right?<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="">Any "% growth" is exponential growth. In the
short term, exponential growth can look linear. However,
there is no reason to suppose that it isn't linear without
more data.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, but one can also be just as theoretically justified in arguing
what appears to be linear could turn out to be exponential. Long
term, or within 100 years, if not way sooner, certainly we'll be
mining huge sums of Gold from Asteroids, if not finding many more
sources of Gold, having robots mine more gold than we could ever
need, and so on.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALbjWneigd=_Br6XxE8NWJKymohFb=678bpm6BhB209zS_SssQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div style="">There is no reason to apriori suppose that
every linear trend is actually an exponential trend with a
doubling rate that is so far out that you can't see it
yet. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Now we're getting down to the nuts and bolts of the argument. How
far out IS the doubling rate for Bitcoins? Historically, Bitcoin
valuations have been growing so fast, it's much better to talk about
times for 10 times increases, not just doubling times. As the
historical graph shows, the first 5 order of magnitude increases
took less than 6 months, and happened unbelievable regularly.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/154/2">http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/154/2</a><br>
<br>
Only the most recent 10 times increase, took less than 2 years.
That's a doubling rate of about 4 months, or 300% / year, the most
aggressive supporters in the camp are predicting this rate will
continue, in a Moore's law like way, at least until we reach a
$1000/BTC valuation. The more conservative in the camp, are
predicting a more conservative 100% / year or doubling once a year
rate, putting the first $1000/BTC valuation towards the end of 2016.<br>
<br>
So, if either You, Gordon, or anyone disagree, what are you saying,
and how many of you agree, compared to the emerging expert
consensus?<br>
<br>
Brent Allsop<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>