Let's see how this plays out.

As was hinted in another thread, trust comes by foot and leaves by horse. For good reason.

Then again, I prefer people who stand up for their past to those who try to bury it and move on as if nothing happened. Sadly, the latter seems to be common practice.



As for the bets, the one I would like to see settled is the one with hgmichna on terms of my bet. I never got the point of your terms anyway. I guess they already hinted something was fishy...? hgmichna is not very hard to find, but as noted on his website he is currently in Africa and returning early February. (There's an African phone number on there, but unless you suddenly decide to pay it'd be quite weird to call him. )

This thread is

• not very readable. At all.
• no more related to Bitcoin than to RNG and crypto in general. Why is it in Bitcoin Discussion_
• only of academic interest even if it were true and sensible, because Intel is including very fast quality RNG in their new CPUs.

Please... effort

Kinky games. If everyone's a criminal, they're less likely to come up and complain.

"You surely broke copyright/tax/whatever law. Sure you still want to complain, and have me look at that?"

Not saying all copyright and tax laws are something bad, but being sued for copying your own CDs to hard drive (might be illegal over here) or not knowing the super-special tomato taxation law is quite arbitrary. I say it's a good idea to distinguish between breaking pointless laws and actual immoral behavior.

It was crazy. Everyone was going nuts when the price spiked, and then again when it dropped. Summaries would be "TO THE MOON WE'RE ALL RICH" and "THE PRICE OF BITCOIN IS FALLING SELL SELL SELL!!!!!!1"

I guess it teaches that a horde of random people are not suitable to stabilize a market. So whenever Bitcoin prices or markets grow too fast, it might be wise to use caution.

Please, give up comparing backing currency to >M2 currency.

We already have BTC banking, and there will be more of it. Bill Gates does not hold a mountain of dollars! Even if he were to do that, those would be dollars on a bank, which this bank does not actually have -- it has ownership on investments on that scale.

A raw BTC is not the equivalent to a FIAT unit on your bank account, let alone a stock. If Bill Gates wanted to get ten billion USD in cash, do you think a bank would spit out the 100 tons of 100 USD bills? That's just not how it works.

That aside, the OP is still true -- for a mainstream Bitcoin usage, even just for selected purposes, the value of 100 current USD per Bitcoin would be insufficient. The world is pretty big after all.

真実

Is this the kind of game where algorithm-augmented IT freaks try to beat the efficiency of the commercial knowledge engines?

The problem with competitive games for money is that as soon as a few players are in and started optimizing their strategy, the barrier of entry gets large. The proposal of betting on betters might be interesting, as are tournaments where people/bots/users fight in rounds and others watch the show. (And can be amazed about the speed and precision of the contestants as soon as things get rolling.)

Remember IBM Watson, the human-toasting trivia machine? Check it out:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFR3lOm_xhE

That one had no internet connection, just a fat RAID. Give a contestant just a fraction of a second you get that with a Wolfram Alpha, Google Now and probably more custom scripts as fallback. With more time, you get humans with a very well-filtered UI. And this sure ain't the end of it. A human without augmentation on a copper connection should be pretty crippled against such competition.

This is page 102, what exactly are y'all talking about, apart from "The loving world is all secretly one in truth" vs "OMG Dank u suck!!1"?

This is pure time wasting. I couldn't even make up a satisfactory conclusion to this discussion. Go read something useful. On math for example, or statistics, economics, or logic, whichever you've been into the least. Probably, it will have been a better pastime in hindsight.

Yeaa, I'm a spoilsport, but that's what 'ya get for a truth discussion.

cunicula is right, the pricing is inefficient because the block size limits are arbitrary, and without a central entity controlling them it's unlikely that prices will settle at an optimal value. Actually, just read his posts again, they provide an accurate explanation of the problem.

The Bitcoin devs just had no better idea than an arbitrary limit, and since it's not an easy problem, it's hard to blame them. We can can probably deal with high future fees by introducing extra systems that use Bitcoin as backing. Thus we have limits that are only somewhat high now but probably low on the long run.



It's amazing how people just use some sort of mob-truth-finding and wander on. It seems that "Haha, I ignored you" remains the best BS-indicator.

I lol'd

Man, that site is funny. What'ya guys saying, new #1 Bitcoin investment lulz? Does this top the Dank Bank?


So, uh... *pfft* the shares are limited, BUT! If you buy even more, they're not limited anymore! And they yield more! It's not just an exponential money-maker, it's an above linearly scaling exponential money maker!! OHaruhisama, confine the page before I suffocate from laughter

Okay, that was enough Bitcointalk for today. This stuff makes my brain go drunk on its own.

So true, I just had to quote it. If only more people would acknowledge what they're not qualified for.

the discussion on religion looks way too familiar. I personally say "fine, just treat me as an atheist" at some point. But actually, deep within, I just can't deny the possibility that Haruhi made this world for her amusement.



I see the Bitdaytrade accusations are still lingering about. As I said before, I believe Meni is honest, had no intention of things turning out this way, and it was a bad deal for him too. To anyone who still wants to nag about this: there are so many liars, fraudsters and other truth-benders around, just pick a different target! Everyone can make a mistake. The original Bitcoin client once had a freaking integer overflow, did we all run screaming "ZOMG Satoshi must be so stupid to overlook it, I'll never trust his stuff again"? Also, it's not a secret who ran Bitdaytrade and how he did it.

Independent of the exact implementation, there is no need for a fair initial distribution. It's unimportant. An early adopter can smash his coins into the market exactly once. Then, that's it, and they can be traded hundreds of thousands of times later.

But rewarding early adopters served an important purpose, namely kickstarting adoption and incentive for the developers (although they might have really hit the mark in their own getting rich method. ).

The current distribution is as good as any to start off with. For all I care, Satoshi could've just sold me the coins directly. In the long run, it's all irrelevant. I'm jealous about early adopters' quick riches too. Still, that time is over now, and as a community, we have no real reason to go back. So let's think ahead and focus on the power of international markets we could unlock; there's more than just a one-time use mountain of digital gold to get there.

Last outside analysis (block chain) showed 83k real balance (BTC paid - BTC returned, this is the actual fund flow) and 148k paper balance (extrapolated, this is what an account balance might have been showing). Though it depends on the cut-off date, the paper balance was exploding in the end, 7% weekly is quite the growth. That said, I don't think caring about the paper balance makes much sense.

Wuts with Psy's sudden second popularity surge? It's bigger than in summer! (No, I don't mean our local pro-Ponzi inquisitor, unless he's a Korean rapper, which would be awkward but useful in itself).

Err, anyway, @topic: Behavior of the Bitcoin economy so far was unsurprising to me. Thus, I didn't notice any major change in my economic and political views.

Deflation might be an exception. I hadn't thought about it much before I got into Bitcoin. Upon closer analysis, it's not as destructive as it seems at first. I still don't like the idea to allow monetary supply to decrease, as with Bitcoin's lost coins, but I can live with it now. Bitcoin has enough strong points to make up for it.

Well, if you think they're roughly equally likely and roughly equally far off, then where do you see a trading opportunity?

(13.1+7.2)/2 = 10.15, so if you mean it exactly that way it would suggest selling.

IMO, another drop is more likely. 7.2 is >30% down though, that's rather low. Hard to tell what might happen on the way there.

• Gox USD price never was below 3 USD this year.
• Wow @ predicting the peaks of Bitcoin price movement with accuracy on the order of 10%.

It's Bitcoin. IMO we could all be off by a factor and suddenly end up at 30 or 0.6, both numbers we've already seen in the last two years.

Just my opinion, I think it is reasonable to compare "raw" Bitcoins to M0 rather than higher-tier money supplies. Reality might be somewhere in between, but the apparent money in Banking should not be a good comparison.

If Bitcoin grows larger, the security and performance implications should create some sort of banking. Bitcoin loans already exist, people store coins on Gox or Silk Road or wherever. Such operations inflate the apparent Bitcoin money supply by some factor that is still rising.

So, I'd prefer conservative figures like the ones Atlas gives instead of comparing the demand/supply for direct BTC -- the hardest currency the net has to offer -- to demand/supply for a massively inflated crazy-debt-loop-backed M-over-nine-thousand Euro or Dollar.

Is this one of these threads where people use different definitions of "free market" and then derail the discussion into a "NO U" rampage?

The majority of transactions are transaction spam. But is that really what you're asking for when talking about "the Bitcoin economy"? Even if you'd find actual transaction volume, which is not the Bitcoindays destroyed (though those are a good measure), it doesn't tell you which sector is most important for Bitcoin to succeed as a currency. For that, you'd need profit margins compared to a situation where Bitcoins don't exist.

If you're asking what determines price, I'd estimate that the vast majority is speculative hoarding, then there's Silk Road drug dealing, and online gambling like Poker, Satoshidice, w/e. There may be people using Bitcoin for repeated international transactions, it would be invisible to us. But I'm not so sure the people who need that most have properly crossed the digital divide yet.



Either way, the question is: what is the question? (You know the answer is 42. )

Sorry, I got the date on that recorded host wrong. If anyone saved it, 196-215-128-155.dynamic.isadsl.co.za was recorded on 2012-07-15, not the 13th!

I double on the "not robbed/hacked", simply because this was the expected way to shut down the "Bonus Pool". Only question that remains to me is how well he was connected to Pirateat40, e.g. whether pool users provided laundered coins and Clipse just chose to keep a few dirty ones while he was at it. I still can't believe that it worked to claim paying the bonus by subsidizing mining with a magical own mining farm.


I mean, come on, the explanation was that he was giving you his own mined coins?

Insulting me seemed to be his pastime back in the day, that's how I knew about him in the first place, so it's likely that coins were moving between BS&T and him one way or the other.