|
Hoarding is only bad if everyone stops hoarding at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your suggestions, I will definitely considering in the new version. Problem is I've already done some work on my PC and I don't what to lose that by doing other changes on the on-line site. So I'll do them locally first and then update everything in one batch. Since it's a really hooottttt weekend over here I'd like to do a special bonus again. Every deposit you do until end of tomorrow, I will add 10%!This applies to all deposits done and verified by my site until tomorrow, Sunday, 23:59:59 UTC. I will handle the addition of the 10% manually so it may take until Monday evening. This special bonus is limited to 10 BTC per account, and a total of 100 BTC. I will only add the 10% after manually checking whether the user has actually played games on my side. You need to place bets for at least 10% of your deposit to get the full bonus (e.g. if you deposit 1 BTC, you need to play 1 game for 0.10 BTC or 5 games for 0.02 BTC to get the bonus). To claim your bonus please post here or mail me after depositing. Have fun  What does the bolded part mean? Does it mean that if 10 people sign up and deposit 100 BTC, no one else can get the bonus? If I understand this right, deposit 100 BTC and bet 10 BTC, you give 10 BTC bonus and all funds are available for the player after that? |
|
|
|
1% upto 5 BB would be super fair.
Live casinos, which have the worst rake are typically 10% upto $4 or $5 depending on the limit.
It's 10 BB now, which isn't even that bad (you only get that when you have a 1000BB pot, which is super hard to get). But the cap of $17 is real high. You'll have $10 rake if you ever have a $1000 pot, which is pretty steep. I bet if you went through the hand histories, there was never a hand where more than $5 USD was ever taken, so it's not like it would really change anything other than not scare people away. |
|
|
|
|
Now that the price of BTC has gone up so much, 1BTC max rake seems a bit high ($17!). It is rare that a pot will get that large, but it is scaring some people away. The 1% rake structure is extremely fair. Perhaps make a .4 BTC (40 chip) max rake now (.2BTC HU - 20 chip) ?
|
|
|
|
|
There's a pretty big incentive to make a competitor to Mt. Gox. The trouble is getting one set up in a country that won't shut you down. And then you get one running and start taking business from Mt. Gox, they lower their prices and run you out of business. Good for the consumer, but it's enough to prevent someone from entering the market. The other thing is, if you just start out, and you have lower fees, you will barely be able to make any money until you get significant volume.
I definitely would welcome a competitor to Mt. Gox. One idea to get bootstapped would be to have a mix of Mt. Gox and your own market. You keep a reserve of currency and Bitcoins at Mt. Gox. If someone sets an order on your exchange, they get the option of filling it only at your site, or at both yours and Mt. Gox. That way if the coins become available at Mt. Gox, they can get them, but they pay the higher fee. If they become available at your site, you pay a lower fee. The owner of the new site would just need to move money and Bitcoins around to Mt. Gox to be able to purchase at any point in time.
|
|
|
|
I don't think it really fits into his realm of political analysis and comedy. How does bitcoin relate to US politics? It doesn't... yet  Perhaps at a later date, but not now imho. Na, he likes to have on guests that make easy targets. Gavin would be an awesome guest on the show and I think he could handle Colbert well. It could be potentially entertaining which is the only thing Colbert needs. I've seen far more obscure things on the show. |
|
|
|
@bituser, how do you feel about missing out on 0.5 BTC?
One way to think of this is that you had a sure (almost) 0.5 in your hand, but then you gambled it all in order to get 0.65 (you gambled 100% to get a 30% return).
I don't feel bad at all. As I said in my earlier post, I would always offer 0.5 BTC during a normal game. I only offered the 0.65 BTC as I figured you would want to see fadisaaida's reaction. So really this experiment is somewhat invalid. The true experiment is between strangers who don't know anything about each other. By discussing the game first and by having witnesses, the outcome is altered. examples :
1. hah ( if i accept then i will look like a fool with my previous statement
fadisaaida listed this as one of his reasons for not taking the 0.35 BTC. But in the true experiment, he would not have taken a stance and could not be seen as a hypocrite for taking the low-ball offer. Just some food for thought. Rejecting when everyone knows the result might be perfectly rational, especially for this small sum. It shows people won't want to mess with you. But why not take it to the extreme, and say you'll reject anything less than .90 BTC? If you play the game over and over, you keep rejecting, and people will either keep offering you garbage to punish you or will give in. Reputation is key. |
|
|
|
I only found out about Bitcoins about a week ago, and while I realise the potential that they have, I see them strictly as an investment.
I'm 21 and am saving money to build a home within the next two years. After reading up on Bitcoins over the last few days, I plan to sink around $1000 into them. Then, when they reach a certain value, I plan to "cash out" and put the profit towards my home.
I understand the risk I'm taking in doing so, but what I want to know is; am I looking at Bitcoin the wrong way? Should I see it as more than a way to make some money?
Why do you think it will go up in value? Why not just go to Vegas, put 1000 on black? Also, why would you want to buy a home? |
|
|
|
I do not mean to be hateful in any way, but this system just stinks. I am totally on board with the idea that government-issued currency has got to go, and I hope Bitcoin does well.
I downloaded and installed the Bitcoin program. I then looked for a way to acquire Bitcoins.
I have spent over an hour just trying find a way to acquire Bitcoins and I have given up. I get it that the Bitcoin "first-tryers" are a knowledgeable and tech-savvy demographic, but you have made this thing too hard to figure out how to use!
I live in the United States. I have a bank account consisting of US Dollars. I want to get Bitcoins with my US Dollars. I am trying to exchange the world's most popular currency for a currency that's less than five years old, and I have yet to find any website out there that wants to make it easy for me.
I am a person of higher-than-average intelligence and I am an IT professional. I know how computers and the internet work. And, I sympathize with the goal of abolishing government money. If I cannot figure out how this system is supposed to work, then I have to wonder how many other people out there are not willing (or able) to get into the world of Bitcoins. If you're going to try to get people to accept something new (like the Bitcoin) you have to make it easy to use! I appreciate all of the hard work that has gone into setting Bitcoin up, but you have to make it digestible to the common person.
If I wanna go buy something on newegg.com, for example, I just go to the checkout, enter my debit card number and that's it! I don't have to do research in order to find out how to buy a flipping USB cable.
If anyone can address my concerns now that would be great, but otherwise, I'll come back in about 6 or 7 years, when someone has figured out a way to make getting Bitcoins easy.
If you want some Bitcoins, go buy a MoneyPak, I will sell you some. |
|
|
|
tomcollins: i reached page 3 on this page and i saw already few of your examples which are in my opinion focus only on 1 part of the issue. you are focusing on the guy who make the final decision and you seem to ignore the fact that, the winning/loose outcome depends on 2 people, so just because one come after another does not mean any is less significant. the fact the 1st person who make the offer has the knowledge that his offer is not final until he get the approval of the second person should make it in his best interest to make a fair offer. now if it happens and the offer is not fair, it boils down to how much of "taking the high road" and the stake of the offer that the 2nd person is willing. each of us has different factors that will influence this decision (pride,stubborn,fairness definition,financial status, etc..)
I'm focusing on the 2nd guy because the decision is already made by the time it got to him. He chooses to accept or reject. He can get butthurt about it and screw himself to screw the other guy over more, or he can act like a man and not. See, what makes you think a fair offer is an even one? That's what your problem is. You are assuming it's their money to split. |
|
|
|
If played the game and i received an offer of 10$, i will not take it. Just because the guy who made the offer had the 1st call does not make him more worthy, he is responsible as i am for a good deal for both, i would not take it cause in my book it is not fair. i might accept a less than 50/50 offer just to get out of something but it all end up how much money being offered represents to me!
for example:
he offer me 4 out of 10 ---> probably i will reject it.
he offer me 40 out of 100 ---> i might accept it.
he offer me 400 out of 1000 ---> i probably will take it.
he offer me 4000 out of 1000 ---> i most certain will accept it.
he offer me 100,000, out of 100,000,000 --> 100% will accept
bottom line it all boil down to how much i appreciate fairness in this word and how much of a value i give it.
Actually, because he acts first, he is 100% more worthy. This is like saying I bought a lottery ticket, another guy did too, and he won $1,000,000. But I get the veto power where if he doesn't give me a "fair" amount, I can make sure his money gets destroyed. |
|
|
|
Except that difficulty is 434882.7217497.
Also, if it's too difficulty and not profitable, then miners will drop out and the difficulty will get lower. |
|
|
|
What rules would you make differently?
A couple of rulesets I've thought of:
1. Each new wallet gets a predetermined number of coins (say, 50). Mining is paid for by transaction fees only, so coins are only added to the network through new people joining. This would be to fight against the early adopter billionaire issue (if you want to call it an issue). Downside is that I can't think of any good way to prevent someone from creating wallet after wallet and dumping it all to a single address.
2. Similar ruleset to what is currently in place, only there is no decrease in the 50 BTC bounty for each block found. This bounty would continue indefinitely, to help balance against the loss of bitcoins through lost wallets.
3. Bitcoins are given according to hashing power provided. This would make the currency highly inflationary for the earlier periods of adoption, and inflationary to some extent virtually forever. Say, for every GH/s of mining capacity a miner has, they are paid 1 BTC per day.
I am curious to hear why you would or would not rather have one of these rulesets. Or suggest your own. Note that I am not saying that any of these should be adopted, or endorsing them in any other way, I am just curious to see what other people have to say about them. I think the current setup is pretty dang good, except for the early adopter problem. It's too exponential of an issue to allow universal acceptance of bitcoins as a currency, IMO.
Regardless, thoughts?
1. is too easy to game. Someone would just keep generating wallets and getting lots of coins. 2. not bad 3. the problem with this is it is hard to predict what kind of hashing power will exist in the future. Perhaps it becomes trivial to get 1 TH/s in the future. So inflation becomes unpredictable. I would change it only so that the reward is based on a bell curve with the peak 20 years out. So initially the reward is small. Then as adoption increases, it increases. Then it tapers off after adoption has hit critical mass. |
|
|
|
After all the rigs are working, DO buy some decent UPS  (it might be absurdly expensive though...) so you can mine even when the government shuts power off. Or at least hook up an alternator to a bicycle... ;-) My idea or dream is to go for 15-20KVA solar power generator. So i don't have to pay electricity & dont have to worry power outage. All are hanging , due to problem in land sale. Just need to find a solar power generator you don't have to pay for if you don't want to pay for electricity. |
|
|
|
I do enjoy your charts bitcoinBull, nicely done! I agree, price/difficulty is a good ratio to use. Even at $1.00 and difficulty of 100,000, there was still serious profit to be had by mining. I think if we see the ratio drop to 0.5 or below, that's when we'll really see a good portion of the miners drop out.
There is a difference between dropping out and not investing in mining. I need to look, but the last time people dropped out, was there any relation to when GPU mining was introduced? If this was the case, it was the first time CPU mining became unprofitable. As the ratio gets smaller and smaller, some forms of GPU mining become unprofitable due to electricity costs. What really is happening is the difficulty is much like a ratchet. It requires a bit of force to turn, but stays at that level. Maintaining the current price in the face of reasonably large inflation (2.75 million coins per year mined!), you need a steady stream of force to hold that up. If that stream ever lets up, the price drops. As for miners not selling, that's a different market force absorbing (opportunity cost of miners not selling in a way). They are choosing to save rather than "consume" the coins. It's a lot easier to have people hoard the coins than to outright buy them. Eventually difficulty will get to a point where operational costs will force some to come offline. We are a long way from that. The question is how that will affect price. I think you'll see a near constant difficulty ratio at that point (margin increases from miners who have free electricity, perhaps). |
|
|
|
That's certainly an interesting metric to consider.
Assume a cost of $1/MHash. Also assume that difficulty relates directly to MHash at a rate of 1 difficulty to every 10 MHash (a more accurate number would be appreciated, I just can't find it atm, so 1:10 is my best guesstimate).
A couple interesting facts we can devise from this ratio:
- There has been roughly $4.3M invested in mining equipment so far.
- All of the bitcoins in existence are worth something like $50M at current market value, but they could not actually be sold for that much.
- I would be curious to know the actual $$$ invested into bitcoins, and whether it exceeds the $$$ invested into mining equipment.
We could assume that a $500,000 infusion into the mining system would therefore cause a 50,000 point increase in difficulty.
Now looking at the current market depth on MtGox, let's see what the same $500,000 would do to price.
Surprisingly, it would take only $275,000 to eat up all of the current asks that MtGox shows. The price would take an immediate jump to $15/btc. Of course, more people would jump on the sell train with an immediate price jump like that, so you could expect a reasonable amount of market correction there, but I think it is safe to assume than investing $500,000 into bitcoins would cause a permanent price jump of more than $1/btc.
It's hard to say how much this would change as the value of BTC goes up, because there could be more or fewer asks at a higher price. But you are right that $500,000 would be a constant chance in difficulty, whereas a direct investment in bitcoins would slow as the purchasing power of USD goes down relative to the value in bitcoins.
Another thing to keep in mind though, is that with difficulty, percentages would be key. A $500,000 investment in mining equipment wouldn't make as much difference tomorrow as it did today, because it would have a lower overall effect on the percentage of difficulty increase.
Here's an easy way to look at it. Putting $1 into mining increases the difficulty for a LONG time (until the rig comes offline). Putting $1 into Bitcoin only absorbs the coins mined RIGHT NOW. Tomorrow, another $1 is needed for tomorrow's coins. And the next day. You need $9x10,000 = $90,000 PER DAY going into Bitcoin to match just the mined coins. If the price goes to $10, you need $100,000 per day. |
|
|
|
Man, if he does that, buys up a bunch, then crashes it, it sure would suck to sell to him for a high price and then buy back when low. He'll sure show us!
Right now it wouldn't do much since not many people use the currency in real world transactions. Also if he had most of the money he could control the price. He would never have most of the money. If he tried to buy it all, the price would skyrocket, he would make us all rich and he would hold a bunch of bitcoins that nobody else used. If he then tried to sell them, he would have to do so an absurdly low price. Essentially, he would make himself doubly poor and us doubly rich. If he was not self-interested, he of course could destroy the currency. But Bazil needs to research the Hunt Brothers and how that worked out for them before thinking it will work. Most manipulation works by scaring people into doing stupid things. Say he wanted to buy a lot of bitcoins for cheap. He buys a lot at the market rate over time. Then he sells them all at once to drive the price down to extremely low levels. Everyone else freaks out and thinks that they better sell now before they are totally worthless! This drives the price even lower. Eventually he buys them back up. It's tricking people into selling when they shouldn't, or buying when they shouldn't. For example, on his buying rush, he might have a lot already that he purchases. Then buy a bunch all at once to drive the price up. People might think it's going to continue forever, so they start buying more and more after the catalyst kicked it off. Then he sells when it was driven up even more at a slower rate until he makes profit. This only works if people are too slow to act or they can get scared into doing something stupid. Or if he wants to give up a lot of money just to destroy it. Bazil is just using boogeymen though "I'm not sure how he'll do it, BUT HE WILL FIND A WAY BECAUSE HE IS AN EVIL GENIUS!" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
