with two players the game goes as following:
player 1 pays $5
player 2 pays $5
then player 1 leaves the game, player 2 keeps playing
if the game ends on the...
first toss
player 1 gets 1/2, pays $5, so wins $50
same for player 2
second toss
player 1 gets 1/3, pays $5, wins $33.(3)
player 2 pays $15, gets 2/3, wins 66.(6)
nth toss
player 1 gets 1/(n+1), pays $5, wins 100/(n+1)
player 2 pays $10n + $5, gets n/(n+1), wins 100n(n+1)
there's 10 outcomes, 1 of which is a win, and 9 of which is wait until next toss
player 1 - win for the nth toss
win(n) = (100/(n+1) + 9*win(n+1))/10 = 10/(n+1) + 9/10*(win(n+1))
n starts at 1
so win(1) = 5 + 9/10*(win(2))
win(2) = 3.(3) + 9/10*(win(3))
10/2 + 9/10*(10/3) + (9/10)^2 * (10/4)
5 + 3 + 2.25 + ...
win(n) = (9/10)^n * (10/n+2)
Sum[(9/10)^n * (10/(n+2)),{n, 0, Infinity}] = 100/81 (-9+10 log(10)) ~= 17.3
so he profits a little over 12.3 dollars every time he plays if he only plays the first game which is 246% profit!
if he plays the first two:
toss 1: pays 5, wins 50
toss 2: pays 10, wins 50
toss 3: paid 10, wins 2/5 * 100 = 40
toss 4: paid 10, wins 2/6 * 100 = 33.3
toss n: paid 10 if n=>2, win 2/(n+2) * 100
but now let's include profit calculations into the series because the first time we only paid 5 but second time ten
1/10(50 - 5) + (9/10)*1/10 (50 - 10) + (9/10)^2 * 1/10 (40 -10) + ...
5-0.5 + 9/10*(10*2/4-1) + (9/10)^2(10*2/5-1) + (9/10)^3(10*2/6-1) + ...
profit(n) = 4.5 + (9/10)^n(10*2/(n+3) - 1)
Sum[(9/10)^n(10*2/(n+3) - 1),{n, 1, Infinity}] ~= 11.7
11.7 + 4.5 = 16.2 which is higher than 12.3, but we had to invest more money on the subsequent throws, but still a higher EV, so throw at least twice
first three:
toss 1: paid 5, wins 50, profit 45
toss 2: paid 10, wins 50, profit 40
toss 3: paid 15, wins 50, profit 35
toss 4: paid 15, wins (3/7 * 100), profit 3/7 * 100 - 15
4.5 + 9/10(4) + (9/10)^2(3.5) + (9/10)^3(10 * 3/7 - 1.5) + ...
n>=3, profit(n) = (9/10)^n(10*3/(n+4) - 1.5) + 4.5 + 9/10(4) + (9/10)^2(3.5)
Sum[(9/10)^n(10*3/(n+4) - 1.5),{n, 3, Infinity}] + 4.5 + 9/10(4) + (9/10)^2(3.5) ~= 17.6
which is higher than 16.2, so we will keep going
first four:
toss 1: paid 5, wins 50, profit 45
toss 2: paid 10, wins 50, profit 40
toss 3: paid 15, wins 50, profit 35
toss 4: paid 20, wins 50, profit 30
toss 5: paid 20, wins (4/9 * 100), profit 4/9 * 100 - 20
4.5 + 9/10(4) + (9/10)^2(3.5) + (9/10)^3(3) + Sum[(9/10)^n(10*4/(n+5) - 2),{n,4, Infinity}] = 17.7
keep going
first five:
4.5 + 9/10(4) + (9/10)^2(3.5) + (9/10)^3(3) + (9/10)^4(2.5) + Sum[(9/10)^n(10*5/(n+6) - 2.5),{n,5, Infinity}] ~= 17.3
we could keep going, but 5 is worse than 4, so the solution is stay for the first 4 tosses vs. one player who keeps on playing
so we get the EVs here:
1 toss: 12.3
2 tosses: 16.2
3 tosses: 17.6
4 tosses: 17.7
so the first throw has the expectation of 17.3 (346% expected), second throw has the expectation of 8.9 (178% expected), third throw has the expectation of 6.8 (136% expected), fourth throw has the expectation of 5.1 (102% expected) and all throws afterwards have below 100%
throwing every time gives you 0 expected value vs. an every time thrower as you just split the winnings 50-50 and negative expected value vs. someone who throws only the first few
I am not sure you are taking into account the fact that the probability of a round ending after 1 throw is 0.1 which is greater than the probability of a round ending after 2 throws (0.09) and so on. Therefore if you want to calculate the expected profit from each strategy, the profit for each round length (which is a known) should be multiplied by the probability for this round length (also known) and then all these profits summed up to n=infinite: Expected profit = Sum{profit(n)*probability(n)} where n is the round length and varies from 1 to infinity. |
|
|
|
Yeap the exchange will be useful, but I guess a pool will also be equally useful as it seems to be so hard to mine a block now, I suspect a pool is strongly needed.
I second that, please no exchanges. Exchanges would paint a big fat hairy bullseye on this coin. Not being able to profit from imploding the network provides more security than having 2.5Mhash we're cruising at. Did you see where the owner of btcguild submitted 500,000 IP addresses to bothunters? Think about that for a minute. Right now both tenebrix and litecoin are cruising along at around 1000 CPUs mining each. Yeah, we may have more, but no, having 30% more CPUs than tenebrix isn't going to save us. If there was significant money up for grabs (and seeing how this is the best CPU-mined alternative cryptocurrency it may also get the most BTC offered for it) what do you think would happen? Let's get established first. This is the alternative currency most aligned with the goals and views of the broader bitcoin community, there's no reason we can't get more nodes than are currently mining bitcoins joining with spare cycles. THEN get an exchange. Exchange on day 1 is only required for pump-and-dump scamcoins with gargantuan premines (ixc, sc, tbx, sc2...) I completely agree we're going to need a few pools on board before too long. Another 4x difficulty increase in 55 blocks. How I wish the majority would listen to what you say... |
|
|
|
Typo on the worker page, it's _1 and password 1, not letters sorry.
Still something wrong with stats - I've been mining for 10 mins but no stats (still 0 active workers), then it logged me out How many shares did you submit? Stats aren't updated, because there are not submitted blocks. I've had 3 computers hashing at this for an hour and no shares... somethings wrong. I recompiled everything, even switched back over to the testnet but no one is on it for me to see if it still works there. All I did was remove testnet=1 and added the nonce and stuff and restarted everything. I updated to the latest versions of litecoin, nothing. I don't know what the difference between testnet and litecoin main is, but the pool isn't working. Anyone smarter than me I'll share a % with you if you can help me get this running. I don't know what to do from here though. I've recompiled pushpool from artforz and litecoin with no additional positive response. When the real chain went live this morning I had to delete all the existing files in my .litecoin directory. Before I did that, although I had testnet=0 in the conf, I was on the testnet still. After deleting them (except the litecoin.conf of course) and restarting the client, I was mining on the real network. Check if this is something as simple as that. |
|
|
|
Bah damn 3am launch -.- Just got my miner up at 8am. It was mining the wrong chain at 3am til then. Mined 3 actual blocks so far. What's the most coinage anyones accumulated so far then? I wanna know how far behind I am  I'm certain that I'm not #1, but so far I got 195 blocks. I was really surprised that I only got about 50% orphans in the first difficulty round. Now I'm only getting about 25%. Still going good. At how many khash? 100-150 (varying). |
|
|
|
Bah damn 3am launch -.- Just got my miner up at 8am. It was mining the wrong chain at 3am til then. Mined 3 actual blocks so far. What's the most coinage anyones accumulated so far then? I wanna know how far behind I am I'm certain that I'm not #1, but so far I got 195 blocks. I was really surprised that I only got about 50% orphans in the first difficulty round. Now I'm only getting about 25%. Still going good. |
|
|
|
How long should it take me to mine a block using the Windows client on a 2500k? Need to see if my miner is working...
Currently you need to complete on average 4.2 Mhashes. Divide by your KH/s and you get the average number of seconds to find a block. |
|
|
|
|
Here's your first LTC donation:
5ea309a5ef53d2caef2806a66644ce9f3beeea094c58fe06026e8225799c804c
|
|
|
|
Well, I have but I only got one connection so far  probably phelix which I added with connect= also I got 16 orphans and no blocks  Sounds like a network problem. Check cabling, reset switches/routers, do some traceroutes to US IP addresses (BTC pools e.g.) and pings as well (to check for packet loss). This kind of results says that something's wrong. |
|
|
|
I don't know why everyone is getting this number of orphans. I only got 45% orphans since 3:05AM GMT.
Daemon at a Public IP address with 19 peers connected currently.
Well it stops at 8 connections for me. only orphans also the network latency seems to be an issue, if you are in Europe you're apparently screwed.. I am also in Europe. In the farthest possible place. |
|
|
|
|
I don't know why everyone is getting this number of orphans. I only got 45% orphans since 3:05AM GMT.
Daemon at a Public IP address with 19 peers connected currently.
|
|
|
|
BTW, still, nobody is willing to send me a test donation of 0.01 LTC? 0.001?
Just want to make sure it works, I'm mining but haven't found a block yet.
LWydKD9DzqxjbroEwksGYLnfZJeQJa9KFt
Just did. 1f63a964d79802d479721fd81c96faec803674cbbfc9dafaeae77d5a28f89a7a |
|
|
|
I have managed to mine 3 blocks, but tons of false proof of work.
The 90% stales are only to be expected, but the 70% orphan blocks are worse. 400 LTC, lucky you. I'm like 10% of the current hash power, but getting nothing but stales and orphans. 100 LTC mined though... Where do you see the hashpower? |
|
|
|
1.38 KH/s with the first release Tenebrix miner 1.78 KH/s with ArtForz miner 1.79KH/s with the new Tenebrix miner E5320 compiled with -msse2 -msse3 You even managed to improve on ArtForz's work ! Maybe you should change profession. Just a suggestion  . |
|
|
|
Haha ok, well close minded people are going to be close minded what can I say. Anyone that is reasonable will read this thread and see my intentions.
I think your intentions are good. I really do believe you wanted to create the perfect coin to replace bitcoin, which you think is seriously flawed. I give you credit for that. And I think you have superior coding skills. But I think you need to work on your economics and your communications a bit more. It seems to me you are just turning solidcoin into a centralized fiat currency where you are the Fed. You may not agree, but a lof of people on this board feel the same way as I. You should ask yourself why. Maybe you are able to convince a hoard of people to follow your lead. I've seen worse things. I mean just look at how many people actually think the Fed is doing a good job. My advice is if you really wanted to create a bitcoin killer, have an open mind and design your new coin WITH the smart people on this board. Keeping it closed source and a secret is not the way to go. +1 |
|
|
|
We have our first entrant! Looks like you did a whole lot of hard work there 3phase. I have clarified the rules of the competition, see the competition post. 2nd hint for the competition - if you don't have the probability theory chops to to answer the first question and if you have some time, a 10 sided die(or online dice generator), a pencil and lots of paper you should be able to answer this question by playing the game and recording the results. I would probably just generate lots of rolls and then calculate results for different strategies you think might work. Post your best strategy and the results and working out and see if you win! If you do have the enough knowledge of probability to calculate results, I would probably check your conclusions using dice and a pencil, or a simulator if you can make one. It only took half an hour with Excel. My probability 101 class was 25 years ago, so I don't remember much, but I can still understand certain things. And yes, a simulator would be best, but it is beyond my means. Thanks. |
|
|
|
3phase: you misunderstood the game
the prize is distributed per amount of throws you play
so after 20 throws, the people who played 20 will get a larger share than the person who played 5
Please have a look again. Maybe my explanation is not good enough, but the spreadsheet shows this. after 10 throws total the person with 5 throws gets a better share of the pot than at 20, so your conclusion that 5 any consecutive trials is best cannot be possibly true I will leave the post as is, as it might be useful for discussion, but I just want to say that my conclusion is wrong. iopq is correct. If you enter in the 11th throw, the probability of the next throw rolling a 10 is 1/10 as stated, but your expected reward is much smaller, because 10 throws have already been played. This says to me that for pure prop pools, only hopping at the beginning of the round is beneficial. It also however points to a curious tweak with score based pools such as Slush, where the value of the previous shares is gradually diminished to zero over time, and might provide an opportunity to hop there, even later than the start of the round. I am currently thinking on this. I also edited my first post to remove the mistaken conclusion ORIGINAL POST:Please consider the simple question for this simplified game that was proposed: I play for 5 throws in a round with 20 throws. I invest 5 units of money. I receive as a reward (10/20)*5=2.5 units according to my initial assumption. Of course if the round has only 10 throws to roll a 10, I will receive 5 units (as much as I had invested). But on the 20-throw round, does something change if I participate in throws 1-5 or if I participate in throws 11-15 (after having seen the first 10 unsuccessful throws)? No, it doesn't. The reward is the same. My point is that if you get to the gaming table during a round which already has 10 unsuccessful throws, this fact does not affect the probabilities of the next throws at all due to the independence of events. So you are perfectly fine to follow the proposed strategy (playing for the next 5 throws, throws 11-15 that is) and if the round ends with 20 throws you receive the same amount of reward as someone who followed the same strategy from the beginning of the round (playing in throws 1-5). You cannot know in advance the number of throws that will be needed. For the first two throws, the probability of rolling a 10 is 0.09. If there have already been 10 unsuccessful throws in a round, the probability of rolling a 10 in the next two throws (throw 11 and throw 12) is again 0.09. What might also help perception-wise would be to consider a more "strange" strategy whereby a player only plays on throws 11-15 every round. This strategy still has positive expected value, but it would be pointless, as they will miss many rounds (65% of them actually) which will be shorter than 10 throws, meaning that they don't exploit the positive expectancy of the strategy fully. But what if there were another 20 tables around at different stages of the round (in terms of number of throws)? Table-hopping would enable a player to fully exploit the positive expectancy if his strategy, regardless of his starting throw number. Sorry, I give up, I can't explain this in English any better. |
|
|
|
3phase: you misunderstood the game
the prize is distributed per amount of throws you play
so after 20 throws, the people who played 20 will get a larger share than the person who played 5
Please have a look again. Maybe my explanation is not good enough, but the spreadsheet shows this. |
|
|
|
|
Something seems to be wrong. Due to the lack of a blockexplorer:
Coinotron shows the last ~300 blocks found within ~35 minutes which is almost one block every 7 seconds. Difficulty however remains the same. No retargeting? Wasn't it supposed to be every 240 blocks (which is actually 120 blocks because every other block is mined with diff. 1 by the supernode)?
|
|
|
|
I agree with the implication. A serious currency would at least test this strategy extensively, and discuss it openly in the developer forums for quite some time, in case something has slipped their attention, and ends in Fkin UP their currency.
Can you see any way for it to be gamed? No, I can't at the moment, but with things like this 400 eyes and 200 brains are better than 2 and 1 respectively. That was my point. |
|
|
|
Sure, eat this, 51% attackers. No one can perform a network overtake, because the actual network actually produces only 50% of the coins.
That would be 50% of the blocks, not 50% of the coins wouldn't it? The 1 difficulty even blocks are for less coins - they are the protection fund coins IIUC. So does this system actually protect against 51% attacks? If so then a serious currency could implement this with difficulty 1 blocks that don't generate any coins. I agree with the implication. A serious currency would at least test this strategy extensively, and discuss it openly in the developer forums for quite some time, in case something has slipped their attention, and ends in Fkin UP their currency. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
