Now that the fNFT craze has ended (thanks theymos! I really enjoyed the game, I too wish it could last longer, but calendar is calendar...) well I digress, but now that the fad is over I can replace that fNFT/sql-fBTC inflation with some proper WOsMerit inflation, so here we go. bitcoin is a lot about game theory. with so many institutions fighting over the last few bitcoin available, what would be the optimal time for a large investment to create an advantage over its competitors? maybe before or on a long weekend when the competition is on vacation?
Food for thought from a legendary in the making and official WO helicopter guy. +1 WOsMerits bitcoin is a lot about game theory. with so many institutions fighting over the last few bitcoin available, what would be the optimal time for a large investment to create an advantage over its competitors? maybe before or on a long weekend when the competition is on vacation?
Large investments will aim for OTC deals with predictable cost. Those without the clout for that will purchase slowly to avoid price shocks. We talk about supply and demand affecting the price but trading is a stochastic process and sentiment is probably more important most of the time. This is why 58k is "too expensive" but a dip o 53k is also "too expensive" then when we're blasting past 73k, it will be "buy buy buy". An old fox. Old dog? New tricks? No need. This stuff is old, "too expensive" vs. "buy buy buy". The matter is, it still works that way. +1 WOsMerits My point of view on this matter: I suspect most big players go OTC, so the market shouldn't be too responsive to their buys in the short term (the cAPSLOCK/Richy_T thesis basically). However, Saylor has said he likes iceberg/hidden limit buys on the ordinary books, so there is that. The answer likely lies in the middle. Perhaps? |
|
|
|
It's not just about proudhon, guys. It's GANDALF the wizard himself that says so! We're all doomed. Cornz is going to zero soon. Should I say, weeeeee? Badger is toying with 60k again.
And immediately a $6m sell wall appears (Stamp). If you are buying 600mm worth OTC what's 1% to keep the price "oracle" in line? People are probably tired of me saying this, but I just can't see how this is not what is currently in play... and it is ridonkulously bullish once it stops working. +1 WOsMerits Some people just can't stop making sense... |
|
|
|
It was hard to beat the roleplaying like gimmick, but I think this fNFT thing succeeded in shattering all previous April fools. It's the best of them all! The idea of bitcointalk user tied NFTs is entertaining, current, and most of all, instructing. I took it as a lesson in illiquid shitcoin markets. Only, this time we knew it wouldn't last longer than a butterfly, and no one had any expectation of riches. But still, we could all experience that bitter bag holding feeling and the "but but... my bitcoinz gone? Where are bitcoinz?" aftertaste. Dodgy emission... "Satoshi NFT ffs!?". Market fuckery with bots scavenging the book for valuable tokens - OK, the bots are just a SOMA hunch I have, but it was impossible to trade with friends at under-market prices: someone would scoop up the good tokenz as soon as you listed them. If this isn't a multi-faceted lesson, then what is? The only problem I see with this? It's going to be quite a feat surpassing this April fool come next April. You set the bar a bit too high for your own good  Thank you theymos! |
|
|
|
|
TL;DR: No love from communists. Even for communists.
|
|
|
|
If everyone HODL, who will buy BTC when we really need to exit the market?  If you're really a HODLer, why do you blabber about exiting the market? |
|
|
|
Too many lulz, too few smeritz  I'm not even bothering with WOsMeriting ATM. That fucker theymos already introduced much too much emission inflation with this devilish craze. |
|
|
|
Still gotta see what the Aprils joke is all about.... Later when i'm home  Too late. You're losing out already. BTW I wouldn't mind a Dude fNFT. I'll pay 500 BTC for it. Anyone? |
|
|
|
One curiosity that I have regards a couple of my previously owned NFTs (of me) that are currently listed "for sale," and I was pretty sure that I was only issued 7 NFTs, and they were numbered/labelled I to VII.., so currently, as I type this post, why are there two NFT's that are for sale with my name that are numbered/labelled VII? ( you can see the ones for sale, here) Seems strange to me. My guess? As part of his fNFT lesson, theymos decided to fuck up with emission. |
|
|
|
Been thinking about selling the equation in my avatar ... how do I collect royalties if someone invents something incredibly lucrative using it?
You'd need to fix the last bracket, otherwise no respected equation connoisseur will buy it. I would rather fix the first bracket (after the product), so as to be consistent with the size of the object inside the bracket pair... But, surely, even fixing the last bracket is a step in the right direction, and adds the necessary symmetry to the pair. You have an eye for detail, Phil_S. I'm impressed. An issue of the \large vs. \Large thingy? Wow, more (L A)T EX fans... Nice! I think math mode should automatically take care of bracket sizes, and in an optimal way. Not exactly. I don't remember the details (and I can't be arsed to check honestly), but the TeXbook says something to the effect that default auto sizes for delimiters tend to be a bit too large, and spaced a bit too widely. I doubt LaTeX improves on that, as the low-level formatting is mostly left as it is in Plain TeX. ... So if you want to choose your own bracket geometries that's fine but you'll have to start by discovering your own fucking equations
How about posting a larger version? I might be able to make out something beyond the bracket size. EDIT Wow, AlcoHoDL managed to not only read it, but also make an informed guess at it. I'm in awe. |
|
|
|
I don't get the new NFT thing.
It's a digital certificate that says, "I own thing X". You can then sell/transfer that digital certificate to someone else. Worse, it's a digital certificate which says "I own this digital certificate". It confers no rights or benefits to the work it is generated from whatsoever. Without a legal link into physical objects, NFT are mostly useless IMO. Which doesn't mean they can't be traded, as anyone who's been following shitcoins understands. I think theymos designed just the right new site layout in this particular day. A lesson, a sign of the thymes. |
|
|
|
Been thinking about selling the equation in my avatar ... how do I collect royalties if someone invents something incredibly lucrative using it?
You'd need to fix the last bracket, otherwise no respected equation connoisseur will buy it. I would rather fix the first bracket (after the product), so as to be consistent with the size of the object inside the bracket pair... But, surely, even fixing the last bracket is a step in the right direction, and adds the necessary symmetry to the pair. You have an eye for detail, Phil_S. I'm impressed. An issue of the \large vs. \Large thingy? |
|
|
|
I don't get the new NFT thing.
This is actually a great chance to learn. I suppose its more geared toward the economics of the market, but its not an entirely inaccurate depiction of how it works. Says the whale sitting on a jbreher-VII and a Last_of_the_V8s-III. Envious!!! |
|
|
|
|
The idea is keeping them from their aperitifs, I think.
|
|
|
|
I hope that means they're long |
|
|
|
Probably just me but I really don't like Nolan's non Batman movies.
After Tenet I decided to just not bother with his stuff anymore.
Really? I thought that "Inception" was pretty cool. Memento, Inception, The Prestige, Interstellar and Batman are master pieces from Christopher Nolan. These are some movies we will debate on for hours. I saw the trailer of Tenet seems amazing looks like mixture of Inception and The Matrix.. Btw do we have any Dark fans here on WO? I am watching it. My opinion? Nice music, with that simple glissando string motif that's chilling enough in itself. A slow burner with much less tension than descriptions/posters suggest. The slow burner, low tension thing is good - but it's a bit too complicated for my taste. Keeping track of things acrually requires drawing trees, a bit like 100 aņos de soledad, but luckily here there are more than two-three given names (thanks for that!). The good thing is it should definitely end with Season 3: no aimless wandering or shark jumping in sight. |
|
|
|
My issue with your point of view, Biodom, is that we are losing track of the raison d'etre for art - the enjoyment.
I understand a Van Gogh original is worth millions, and enjoying a copy or a hi res photo of it isn't the "same" thing in some sense.
But - if the work of art is digital to begin with, what's the relationship between artistic enjoyment and "originality" or "ownership" of the work? When it gets that philosophic, I start to smell smoke.
Well, I am able to enjoy Van Gogh painting in person OR as wall paper while understanding the difference. When i look at the wall paper, i have some thoughts about the fate, the universe, etc. When i am in front of the physical painting, I pay attention to the minutia of the artist's work and how it becomes 'alive' at the distance. When you own something, it is different from looking at something. For myself, I like to look more than own, but some like to collect. If their NFT shows artist's digital signatue, is validated on a blockchain and is basically immortal (hopefully), then collector might be satisfied in feeling that his/her 'piece' is unique, there is only ONE and there always be only one. If I were a collector, I wouldn't be satisfied in feeling that the uniqueness of my piece is limited to a few bits of metadata in the signature - which, again, isn't part of the work itself, since other "unique" prints have the same exact data as their artistic content. Only physical enforcement of the link would give me that kind of satisfaction - along with possible returns. What physical enforcement? Physical enforcement as in "This physical work, authentic or not, present in this gallery/museum, can't be uncovered for all to see/moved from here etc., whithout a signature from the owner of this specific NFT". Who wants to "use" the object (watch, say) must get strong crypto auth before being legally able to. In a museum, we are relying on "experts" to tell us what is genuine, but even experts are fooled sometimes. There are very sophisticated forgers in a physical world. https://artfulliving.com/art-forgery/EDIT: btw, metadata IS part of the work itself, for sure, included in the NFT. Yes metadata is part of the work and is necessary to enforce ownership. It is not part of the creation itself, in the sense that the work can be used/enjoyed even if all metadata are removed. This is the rift I was referring to - between art as an esthetic experience that has value and art as a token whose ownership/accessory data are not necessary to enjoy a specific piece of art. Unless there is physical (legal?) enforcement, that is. I am not being dismissive. |
|
|
|
My issue with your point of view, Biodom, is that we are losing track of the raison d'etre for art - the enjoyment.
I understand a Van Gogh original is worth millions, and enjoying a copy or a hi res photo of it isn't the "same" thing in some sense.
But - if the work of art is digital to begin with, what's the relationship between artistic enjoyment and "originality" or "ownership" of the work? When it gets that philosophic, I start to smell smoke.
Well, I am able to enjoy Van Gogh painting in person OR as wall paper while understanding the difference. When i look at the wall paper, i have some thoughts about the fate, the universe, etc. When i am in front of the physical painting, I pay attention to the minutia of the artist's work and how it becomes 'alive' at the distance. When you own something, it is different from looking at something. For myself, I like to look more than own, but some like to collect. If their NFT shows artist's digital signatue, is validated on a blockchain and is basically immortal (hopefully), then collector might be satisfied in feeling that his/her 'piece' is unique, there is only ONE and there always be only one. If I were a collector, I wouldn't be satisfied in feeling that the uniqueness of my piece is limited to a few bits of metadata in the signature - which, again, isn't part of the work itself, since other "unique" prints have the same exact data as their artistic content. Only physical enforcement of the link would give me that kind of satisfaction - along with possible returns. |
|
|
|
|
My issue with your point of view, Biodom, is that we are losing track of the raison d'etre for art - the enjoyment.
I understand a Van Gogh original is worth millions, and enjoying a copy or a hi res photo of it isn't the "same" thing in some sense.
But - if the work of art is digital to begin with, what's the relationship between artistic enjoyment and "originality" or "ownership" of the work? When it gets that philosophic, I start to smell smoke.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly my issue with NFTs. There could be a use for them, such as tracking actual physical assets: imagine owning an NFT for (part of) the Mona Lisa or something like that, and earning profit each time someone buys a ticket for the Louvre, or every time the work is loaned for an exhibition.
Same with the songs: I own the NFT, are the song rights now mine? Who gets the royalties on its uses - me or the person who sold me the NFT? If it isn't me, what exactly have I bought? The right to listen to the song? I've got my mp3 for that.
|
|
|
|
Sorry will read better next time.
That's puzzling to me too. Maybe because the US is doing much better then the EU in number of vaccinations per capita? I really hate the EU for being so penny wise pound foolish when buying the vaccines, yes they were very cheap compared to what the US paid, but of course now we are last in line (of the first world countries), costing muuuuch more in lost revenue.
Your "penny wise, pound foolish" feeling is shared by a few informed people. I feel differently, and I think the issue wasn't how much the EU paid for vaccine, but the low negotiation skills shown basically by Ursula von der Leyen personally. She should have left that to some seasoned shark tamer, like Mario Draghi. I do agree the net result is a mess for Europe. And the difference vaccination progress might well explain the present exchange rates - but then, why is UKP penalized too? UK is doing just fine with the vax. Another good point from you though. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
