@molecular
You're right of course, if taken at face value, any gain will be offset by an equal loss, and vice versa.
What was presumably implicit in Fabrizio's comment is some notion of 'stop loss' (or equivalently, being margin called). As in: you don't let the losing position ride out as long as the winning position.
I see. So that's basically a bet on the size of the next move (either way). It's all about where to set the stops of course. I would fathom anything less than 10% away from market is too risky. Also: I'm not convinced there will be a big move soonish tm. We could well trade around in a tight range for a long while. |
|
|
|
I think we're at a point when you can just leave a long and a short together and just leave them be.
*scratches head* Can someone explain that to me? Wont the short make as much losses as the long makes gains, i.e. they cancel out? If you have a 10x long or 10x short on 10BTC each, if the movement is 30% either way you would gain roughly 20BTC (30BTC-10BTC from the losing position). 50% = 40BTC. Minus fees etc. of course. Please correct me if I'm wrong. You would gain 30% from the winning positin but loss 30% from the losing one. ? I would think your losing position would be force closed between the 7%-10% mark. Wouldn't it? With 10x I mean 10x leverage. That's using forced liquidation as a stop order, right? In that case I could just put 2 stop orders: a short 10% below market and a long 10% above. If that's the essence of what fabrizio suggest (which I doubt), I agree: that could work in current conditions. Both a drop below $207 and a rise above $253 would probably result in a larger move. |
|
|
|
I think we're at a point when you can just leave a long and a short together and just leave them be.
*scratches head* Can someone explain that to me? Wont the short make as much losses as the long makes gains, i.e. they cancel out? If you have a 10x long and a 10x short on 10BTC each, if the movement is 30% either way you would gain roughly 20BTC (30BTC-10BTC from the losing position). 50% = 40BTC. Minus fees etc. of course. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Let's say at price $100 you go long buying 100 BTC using $10,000 Now price rallies to $130 (+30%), so your position (+100 BTC) is worth 13,000. If you close it, you made a gain of $3,000. In BTC-equivalent that'd be 23 BTC. Let's say at price $100 you go short selling 100 BTC for $10,000 Now price rallies to $130 (+30%), so to close your position and buy back the 100 BTC you'd have to put up an additonal $3,000 (you already have $10,000 from the sell). So that's a loss of $3,000. In BTC-equivalent that'd be 23 BTC. So nothing is accomplished when opening and closing 2 equal-sized positions at the same times. Closing the long first and then waiting for price to drop is the same as not opening the pair at all and just opening a short at $130, no? |
|
|
|
~1,314,000 new coins will be created over the next 365 days
Some will be sold.
Some will be kept by miners.
Either way, the bitcoin economy will need to absorb 1,314,000 new coins. At $230 per coin, that's 300 million dollars to break even.
The economy doesn't absorb anything. It uses money to facilitate trade or as collateral in contracts. I think what you might mean is that demand will have to absorb 1.3 mm worth of supply. At any given time, someone can spike the price up to $500 or $1000 or more.
what? That would cost someone many many millions of dollars. Better accumulate slowly at low prices while there's blood on the streets, which is what the smart money is doing, just as it was doing at $2 in December 2011 (only now things move much slower) But don't be fooled. It won't last because it can't last. The trend is down because Satoshi designed 2015-2016 to be part of the distribution phase. Controlled supply somewhat guarantees that there will be buying opportunities for years to come.
In most of the "distribution phase" the trend has been UP. Guess what: because there is demand from the people the coins are being distributed to. Coins aren't just distributed by mining, they're also distributed by selling (even more so now than back in the past the gpu / cpu mining was a thing, and also even more so at low prices when miners have to sell a higher percentage of the mined coins). Controlled supply doesn't guarantee anything. If (when) demand outpaces the constantly diminishing supply, the price will rise. Will you then be surprised and say: I only wish I'd learned this earlier.
|
|
|
|
I think we're at a point when you can just leave a long and a short together and just leave them be.
*scratches head* Can someone explain that to me? Wont the short make as much losses as the long makes gains, i.e. they cancel out? |
|
|
|
Was meint Ihr so? Rauf? Runter? Seite?  seitwärts mit zunehmender aufwärtstendenz. rückschläge nicht ausgeschlossen, aber immer > $100. trading range $100 bis $500 für 1 Jahr plusminus 6 monate. sehr ungenau, ich weiss. my best shot. |
|
|
|
Update for trezor on android is released or not?
Are you aware mycelium has trezor support now? |
|
|
|
I don't read that as them "claiming 100k TPS". They identified serially having to write utxo set as the bottleneck and they estimated a high-end server could do 100k TPS on that problem. |
|
|
|
Ich persönlich kann mit dem aktuellen Kurs ganz gut leben. Klar wäre es schön, wenn wir wieder steigen würden. Aber ich sehe da aktuell prinzipiell keinen "Steigzwang". Warum MUSS der Bitcoin immer steigen? Ich finde es gut, wenn wir mal eine etwas ruhigere Phase haben, wo sich alles mal wieder etwas beruhigt. Das war 2013 alles einfach viel zu schnell... selbst 2014 mit den ganzen Minern im ersten Halbjahr usw.... das ging alles viel zu schnell.
jetzt 'ne fette rally wäre eh nich so gut, wegen dem ~3 tps limit: https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-4-simulating-practical-capacity |
|
|
|
observing some buy walls (stable so far, it seems, some got eaten into):  seems strong support building around 15000 |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is the first "voluntary consensus" system I think we've seen. Other systems may be centrally decided or democratically decided, but in all cases once a decision is made you have to follow it. For example we have: - The FED - Small group of people make all decisions. No one else has any influence over said decisions. Once a decision is made, everyone is forced to follow the FED's decisions or go to jail.
- Democracy - Large scale popularity vote, everyone gets to include their voice (in theory, we all know there are problems in today's "democracy"). Decisions (in theory) follow the opinion of the majority. Once a decision is made, everyone is forced to follow the decision or go to jail.
In both cases, once a decision is made you have to follow it or go to jail.Yeah, it sucks. Can't just leave and go somewhere else. If I could " fork earth", I probably would. Anyone coming along? |
|
|
|
This is not the prisoner's dilemma table. The Nash equilibrium is the best possibility for both. When a player chooses S, he helps the collective but also helps himself selfishly. There is nothing anyone can gain by "defecting". Every miner chooses S because it benefits him, not because he has some sort of pact where the other miner does the same.
The defector does gain by defecting; They gain market share. This isn't a prisoner's dilemma, it's just the best way for a mining entity to out-compete the other. It doesn't make a lick of difference that they can make more profit ( Split between the two) by cooperating over a long period of time by not leveraging a competitive advantage over that same period. Market share and out-competing are means, not an end. The goal of a miner is to maximize his profits. A big miner does this by creating large blocks. Why would he care that the other miner also gets more profit? Is he jealous or something? Please clarify what it is exactly that you're trying to say... Not sure about this, but maybe two things Meni says could be contested: - "The goal of a miner is to maximize his profits": If miners were individual humans I would say this is false (let's hope it's not and they act rationally maximizing their profits). There are studies showing that humans prefer a small gain to a large one if it is comparatively larger than some implied gain of some other person. Say a choice between receiving 1 Bitcoin or receiving 2 Bitcoins is offered, but another person receives 0 Bitcoins in the first case and 10 in the second case. Then the individual will tend to choose to receive only 1 Bitcoin, just to receive "more than the other guy". That's not "maximizing profit", that's maximizing some kind of "relative perceived profit" and yes, it boils down to jealousy (or rather 'envy'). Not sure this applies here, but I think it's possible. In case such psychological effects do apply, there's more human peculiarities that might be of interest, like loss aversion, where avoiding losses is preferred to acquiring gains of the same amount.
- "The miner has higher profit choosing S over N": I think this might be dumbfruits point: there might be some other, indirect effects stemming from the increased profit given to the competition influencing the miners profit in the long run. Let's take for a example a rather efficient miner. Let's say he can cover his cost in both cases S and N and let's say his counterpart mines with higher energy cost. Choosing S might push his competition into the profit zone, while choosing N might force the competition to shut down operations. In such a scenario, choosing N would be the more profitable option. Or maybe less crass: by reducing the competitions profit overproportionally to it's own, a miner can maybe slow down their expansion or increase of efficiency and maybe deven drive them out of the game entirely.
;tldr: I'm not so sure if it isn't a prisoners dilemma after all. Sure, Menis math checks out, but maybe that model (looking only at direct profit) is inadequate for predicting miner behaviour because it possibly omits important side effects or (less likely imo) makes false assumptions about miner motivation / decision making premises. |
|
|
|
Schäuble hat sich angeblich auf dem G7 Summit zum Thema virtuelle Währungen geäußert. Weiß hier jemand mehr?
Missverständnis. Er sagte glaube ich man müsse Bargeld abschaffen. Welchen Begriff genau er verwendet hat, hab ich vergessen. Glaube digitales Geld oder so. Naja. Agenda Monetary Control halt... |
|
|
|
I think a better solution would be to require miners to do more work for larger block sizes. Instead of hashing just the header of a block, miners have to hash something more: perhaps something proportional to the block size. So if a header is 80 bytes, it takes up 80/1000000=8e-05 of the whole block. So for any block size x > 1 MB, require a miner to hash the first (8e-05)x of the block in order for it to be valid. This will make Bitcoin automatically scale to the power of computers in the future, as big blocks will only be plentiful if computers (ASICs) are fast enough that it is worth taking the extra transaction fees with bigger blocks. Any problems with this?
That's the basic idea behind Greg's proposal. I've yet to examine it in detail; I think it was actually what I thought about first, before eschewing it in favor of a deductive penalty. I think there are errors in your description of how to implement this. It's not about what you hash, it's about what your target hash is. Also, you need to carefully choose the function that maps block size to mining effort. Can you link Gregs proposal? I haven't seen it. |
|
|
|
I really like this idea! Keep up the great work Meni Rosenfeld  I like it, too. Thinking about the next steps I re-skimmed the OP (pretending to be someone just being introduced to the idea) and I think the introduction of (and reference to) the 'rollover fee pool' is very misleading. I know it is explained right after that it's really a 'rollover size penalty', but I fear it might lead people onto the wrong track and make it harder than necessary for them to grasp the idea. Maybe it'd be less confusing and easier to understand the concept if that part was removed? I have a feeling this idea is a hard sell, mainly because it isn't what many might expect: it's neither... - a way to dynamically set the block size cap nor
- a solution for scaling nor
- a rollover fee pool
It concerns itself with a different (although related) issue, namely the way the system behaves when approaching the transaction throughput limit. I personally think this is a very important issue and my expectation of the current behavior and the ramifications thereof regarding user experience and media coverage is one of the reasons I'm for Gavins simple 20MB kicking-the-can-down-the-road proposal. With the rollover penalty in place I might be willing to wait longer and let some pressure build on developing scaling solutions. I'm not opposed to seeing how a fee market would develop, I'm also not opposed to seeing business opportunities for entities working on scaling solutions. I just don't want to hit a brick wall, as Meni so aptly put it... it would do much damage and can potentially set us back years, I fear. So what are peoples ideas of how a roadmap could look like, what kind of funds we might need and how we could organize enough (monetary and political) support? |
|
|
|
Did you say something? I'm too spooked by that frightening sell wall to pay proper attention, sorry...   lol, you think that's scary ?!? |
|
|
|
Oder das Grundbuch von Venezuela. Da nimmt man die sicherste und zukunftssicherste chain: bitcoin.
Ganz im Gegenteil. Gerade für solche Fälle nimmt man eine eigene Blockchain, also Bitcoin-Kopie, die dann nicht durch irgendwelche Zahlungen aufgebläht wird. Stabil gehalten wird diese Blockchain dann von den ganzen im Land verteilten Grundbuchämtern und Notaren. Diese sollen ja gerade überflüssig gemacht werden, weil man gemerkt hat: die sind korrupt oder zumindest korrumpierbar. |
|
|
|
puhh wenn ich es richtig im Kopf habe, bin ich an dem WE schon verplant. Irgendwie ist des dafür, dass ich sonst eigentlich nie irgendwas vom BV gehört habe, jetzt knapp informiert. Vor allem ist die Einladung hier ja nicht mal offiziell. Und warum Hamburg? Viel unzentraler gehts ja gar nicht. Haben wir da überhaupt Mitglieder  Da gibt's nicht mal viele Bitcoiner. Hamburg ist Wüste was bitcoin angeht. Ich wohn zwar dort, bin aber kein Mitglied. Vielleicht kann ich dannach dazustossen oder so? Würde euch ja gerne treffen. |
|
|
|
Wie wars? Neue Gesichter? Spannde Themen?
2 neue Gesichter, also viel intro-talk und Fragen beantworten. |
|
|
|
Obviously if you can find someone to work a PoC for your proposal, that would be fantastic.
If the proposal finds enough support, I'm sure we can crowd-fund a PoC. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
