3 ms·
I don't really know anything about this but every time I read these analyses using Benford's Law I don't understand why anyone would expect Bitcoin's exchange r
by fluidcruft 5y ago
I don't really know anything about this but every time I read these analyses using Benford's Law I don't understand why anyone would expect Bitcoin's exchange rate to begin with the digit "1" ~30% of the time. Once you're not talking about human-guestimated numbers, it seems more like a question of scale factors. If bitcoin's value fluctuates between 30k and 70k it's never going to start with a "1". Or if its value fluctuates between 120k and 180k then it's always going to start with "1". That's where I struggle trying to understand how Benford's Law is supposed to provide any insight.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- x4e 5y agoI believe it’s about which numbers it ends with, not starts with
- y04nn 5y agoYes, I don't know if the prices should have a better Benford's Law fit when the price is around and 10k or 100k but then a lesser fit when the price is between 5/50k and 9k/99k if you have not enough data. But if there is enough data, maybe it should better fit the Benford's Law, and this may be a proof that arround 10k/20k the price was rigged and should have stay around it longer but manipulation put it around 30k/50k.
- FabHK 5y agoBenford's law tends to fit better when: * the numbers span many orders of magnitude * the numbers are produced by multiplication (where log(x) is normal-ish), not addition (where x is normal-ish) Your examples span half an order of magnitude, so it definitely doesn't apply (as you say).