By not selling my coins.

If I was a miner and I believed roach that the forthcoming halving isn't priced in then I would stop selling the coins that I am mining for a couple of months. Why would I sell now for $400 each if I could wait 2 months and sell the same coins for $800 each? Maybe I would have to sell some of them to cover expenses, but I would certainly hold onto the rest.

This, of course, would reduce the supply and so increase the price. This, of course, is what we mean when we say the halving is already "priced in".


I am very open to being convinced that I am wrong. I am waiting for an argument that shows how the halving can't possibly already be priced in. But it seems all people have to offer is name calling. I'm not sure what you mean by "bulltards". I'm bullish on BTC price personally. Are you suggesting that there is something wrong in attempting to "buy low sell high"? Either way, I'm not waiting to "unload" - I hold BTC because historically it has performed better than any other asset class I am aware of. If the price drops it's not a big problem, and if it rises I still won't be in any hurry to sell.


This is true. BUT we all already know that the newly mined supply will be halving soon. As a miner why wouldn't you already be slowing the rate at which you are selling to take advantage of the post-halving price rise, and in doing so be pricing the halving in right now?


Yes, of course. The halving doesn't really halve the supply, it only halves the first derivative of the supply. The supply grows only half as fast as it did before. But I was trying to keep things simple. The subject of this thread says "Why it's not possible for halving to be priced in now" yet not a single argument has been made here as to why it is not possible. I think the thread is really nothing but an attempt to pump the price, disguised as an argument, which is why when I try to engage people here all I get back is insults. They're on "team pump" and since I'm arguing with them I must be on "team dump". In reality I am on "team logic", but they don't seem to speak logic.

The halving halves the supply of new coins from 3600 coins per day to 1800 coins per day.

If we take a simplistic view that there is a steady demand of 3600 coins per day at the current price then it is safe to assume that suddenly halving the supply while not changing the demand will cause an increase in price.

The problem with this is that everyone already knows that the supply is about to halve, and so some people will already have been acting upon that knowledge.

No.

Most PoS coins define the weight as "age * size", so the weight increases over time, meaning you can leave your wallet shut down and let the weight build up, then run it once per week to claim your rewards. But what are you being rewarded for? You aren't helping the network much by only running the wallet once per week.

CLAM defines the weight is just "size" (in CLAMs). So you don't build up weight by leaving your wallet closed. You are only rewarded while actually helping the network by trying to stake. This is the meaning of the word "working" in "proof of working stake". You only get rewarded for the time you spend working on securing the network by staking.


Yes, exactly the same.

I understand that you want and expect the price to rise, but do you agree with the roach that it is impossible for a known future event (the halving) to already be priced in?

Yes, of course.

If the forthcoming halving was known to be the last ever halving, we would all know that the supply isn't capped at 21 million, but is instead infinite. That would of course affect the price.

Everyone knows that the Bitcoin supply is capped at 21 million, and takes that into account when considering the value of a bitcoin. The cap is the result of all future halvings.


Our argument is that all future halvings are already known about, and are therefore already priced in. What is dumb about that?

I am yet to see any argument from you that supports your claim that the next halving isn't (and cannot be) priced in.

This isn't a legit halving thread yet.

I would like to believe that the halving isn't already priced in but am yet to see any convincing argument for it.

I have asked several times to see your argument, but it seems you have nothing.

No, two things:

1) the number of addresses doesn't matter; it's the number of separate outputs that matters; if I send 10 CLAMs to your address and then send another 10 CLAMs to your address you end up with two separate 10 CLAM outputs at the same address. They are independent, and will stake independently. They don't merge into a single 20 CLAM output automatically just because I sent them both to the same address.

2) I was recommending splitting your coins into outputs of size 30 CLAMs each. So I would split a 10k wallet into 333 separate outputs of 30 CLAMs each. And to show I practice what I preach, here's one I prepared earlier.

The problem is that there is no way of specifying that you want to buy your own overpriced coins. The exchange will match your buy order with the cheapest sell order on the exchange.

You say "No one sane will buy my coins at the high price", but the truth is that no one (not even you) is *able* to buy your coins at the high price until they have bought all the cheaper coins on the market.


No, but it didn't work.

The only reason to split your outputs up into smaller sizes is that when an output stakes it is unable to stake again for the next 500 blocks (about 8 hours). If you only have a single output that means your whole balance is sitting idle for 8 hours each time you stake.

If instead you have your balance split up into 100 separate pieces then when one of them stakes only that one will be sitting idle for 8 hours and the other 99 will continue trying to stake.

From this point of view you would want to split your balance up into as many small pieces as possible. But there are a few reasons not to split too much:

1) you have to pay a transaction fee when creating the split outputs which is proportional to the number of outputs you create
2) you also have to pay a transaction fee when spending the outputs; again it is proportional to the number of outputs you are spending
3) there is a limit on maximum transaction size of 100kB; this can make it impossible to spend all your split outputs in a single transaction if you have lots of them
4) every 16 seconds your wallet has to check each output in your wallet to see if it can stake yet; if you have too many it can take more than 16 seconds to check them all, and so you miss out on staking chances

I find I can check about 100k outputs per 16 seconds on a single CPU.

As a rule of thumb I try to keep my outputs at around 30 CLAM each. That way I expect to have about 1% of my wallet balance sitting idle at any time. I estimate that each 1000 CLAMs stakes about once per day, so each 3000 CLAMs stakes about once per 8 hours, and so each 30 CLAMs stakes about once per 800 hours, meaning that 1% is expected to be idle at any time.

Finally, notice that in addition to splitsize=N, you can also set combinelimit=N. That will cause the wallet to combine small inputs together when they stake, up to the specified size.

I am currently using:

  splitsize=20
  combinelimit=40

Meaning that when a 39 CLAM output stakes it is split into two 20 CLAM outputs, and when a 15 CLAM output stakes it will be combined with any other small outputs to make an output of size 40 CLAM or less. This way I always have a population of outputs between 20 and 40 CLAM in size without having to micro-manage them myself.

Maybe I missed it. Would you mind repeating it, or linking to the post? Thanks.

I've never encountered this guy before and wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But it does appear that he doesn't have a valid argument. He seems to have ignored my question after attempting to fob me off with logical fallacies re. billionaires and Soros. I guess he's simply talking his book.


Whenever I sell coin to myself to preserve profits I do it OTC, in person. That way there are no fees at all and no counterparty risk.

Just kidding. How does selling coin to yourself "keep the price up"? Isn't that crazy talk?

I am trying to understand why you think that is it impossible that the halving is already priced in.

I am not suggesting that billionaires should "go all in" or that Soros is in any way involved.

I am suggesting that since the halving and corresponding reduced supply are already known, they have already influenced the market.

How do you counter that argument?

Please respond.

If the price is guaranteed to rise significantly after the halving, why aren't you buying as many coins as you can now so you can make a guaranteed profit when the price rises? Why wouldn't the smart money buy up all the cheap coins now, up to the post-halving price, and therefore pricing in the halving jump in advance?

I put it to you that this has already happened.

You're right! We should be going after the authors of the PHP programming language itself. If they hadn't made their language available this evil script could never have existed. Surely they must have known their programming language was able to be used to implement scammy scripts and should therefore be held accountable for all the bad programs that exist due to their negligence.

Note for the hard of thinking: this is a joke; I am following the flawed QS logic to its natural conclusion.

I don't think I fully understand.

Are you saying that you may have accidentally taken too much money from me, but in order to find out whether you did I have to forego a free tournament entry?

How am I meant to know whether the value of the proposed bribe is bigger or smaller than the amount you accidentally took from me before you tell me how much you took from me?

Couldn't you just tell me how much you took? It shouldn't be too hard to make a list of how much each player is short:

  Loop over all the hands in the affected period {
    Calculate the amount of rake taken
    Subtract the amount of rake that should have been taken
    Assign the difference to the relevant player totals
  }

If that's too much, could you maybe send me my hand history over the relevant period so I can do the math for myself please?

Thanks.

I don't think I ever left feedback for anyone for selling a script, but I'll answer your question anyway.

If you buy any code on the understanding that you wouldn't publish it, but you do publish it, then I would see that as evidence that you aren't very trustworthy. You don't have the right to open-source somebody else's closed source code against their will.

I don't understand what you're saying about "no excuse not to pay".

He doesn't. He wants others to see the problem that he is hinting at but which doesn't really exist. It's how he operates. He has no evidence so he has to rely on this kind of half-truth.

See also the constant "but that's nothing compared to what is coming in part 3" bullshit.

I excluded BAC from my trust network shortly after he started leaving unwarranted negative feedback against all the CLAM developers. His feedback was no longer correct or useful and so I excluded it. That is what exclusion is for.


I keep telling you. I don't and didn't code a Ponzi script. I removed some broken code from an existing Ponzi script.

The correct answer to the question "How much did dooglus steal?" is "nothing at all". But don't let that get in the way of your story telling.


I have never knowingly worn the signature of a scam or Ponzi site. I did were signatures for 2 dice sites that ended up being scams, but I had no idea they were scams while I was wearing the signatures, and stopped wearing them as soon as I became concerned about the possibility of foul play.


That's my point. If you advertise an obvious Ponzi scam then you cannot reasonably claim you don't know you're advertising a scam. If you advertise what appears to be a regular dice site that eventually scams people I think that is quite different.


IIRC it was much less than that. I had a couple of good runs using Martingale betting but hit the inevitable losing streaks that put an end to it. Whether I won or lost doesn't seem to be relevant to whether I'm a scammer however, so what's your point? And I didn't play on their site once it came out that they were cheating their players. Why would I?


This is completely false. I always said that I didn't know who they were and so had no way of knowing whether they were scammers or not. I was active in outing their scamming when Finile (was that his name?) first spotted the evidence.


I can hardly wait.


Is that your evidence of me downloading the risk of them scamming?

I am saying that worrying about them turning out like a site that didn't scam isn't something to worry about. That is not the same as saying there is nothing else to worry about. Of course there is always a risk when trusting third parties with your money.


In both cases there were warning signs. dicebitco.in were caught skipping bets, and dice.ninja stopped showing proof of solvency via their cold wallet. I posted about both of these things and withdrew my coins.


I had no advance knowledge. You have no evidence that I had any advance knowledge, and yet keep insinuating that I did.

For a brief time I advertised a couple of sites that appeared to be running an honest service. Later, there were warning signs that they might not be honest. I withdrew my coins and warned people about the sites.

How does any of that mesh with your theory that I was somehow complicit in the scams? It would make no sense for me to post anything negative about the sites if I was "in on" the scams.


The vulnerabilities were visible to anyone with a brain. You do not need permission to notice things. It's not like I went looking for them. I noticed that the sites were open to abuse by unethical people and responsibly disclosed the vulnerabilities to the sites. You somehow want to turn that into evidence against me? Go ahead!


As I understand it he has paid the majority of his debt back and is working to pay back the rest. He strikes me as a good guy with some problems, trying to make things right.


I don't think it's a good idea for him to hold other people's money. He has shown in the past that he can't be trusted with it, and I'm not convinced that he wouldn't make the same mistake again in the future. Maybe he learned his lesson but I wouldn't be sure of it.

But despite that, the fact remains that he was indeed running a Ponzi scheme, and he was using a crappy open source PHP script to do it. The script had paid the first few players out twice each by mistake, and he had no idea why. He asked for my help in fixing the script and I gave it. I posted that I didn't think it was a good idea to be running the scheme, and that the staking rewards wouldn't pay for the returns. Having the script continue paying out incorrectly would be more likely to lead to the scheme defaulting than having it work right and so I decided to take a look at the script. After seeing how poorly coded it was I gave up and recommended he just stop using it.


Because you have somehow got it into your head that I'm doing bad things, and so you see everything I do in the same light.

One flaw that hasn't been mentioned:

It's generally not a good idea to reuse addresses (for security, and privacy), so there's no point paying to have a short version of one particular address.