I believe Slippery Slope in the context of this thread is a proper noun. It represents the origin of this Million Dollar Logistic Model, not the concept of the slippery slope.
Indeed. SlipperySlope was my then-so-clever handle at the peak oil blog The Oil Drum, which I carried over here back in 2011. On Reddit I am frugal-guy. The SlipperySlope user name here has no semantic relationship to Bitcoin. -Stephen Reed |
|
|
|
The Captcha Is Gone!
Thanks for that! Those alpha Captchas were hard. I see that many former Scrypt providers have migrated to X11. Is it worth the switch? |
|
|
|
Can you guys please stop drawing charts connecting 2014 to 2013. We are broken out of that trend into a completely different trend.
Could you elaborate with some justification? I concede in advance that bitcoin price series have been difficult to forecast, yet clear patterns appear in the history. |
|
|
|
Here is the 2-year log chart of the number of transactions excluding the 100 most popular addresses from Blockchain.info. Appears like a double bottom in the past 30 days - especially if the moving average rises substantially above 60,000 transactions. The 100 most popular addresses are excluded because Satoshi Dice used non-economic dust transactions to indicate results of bets.  |
|
|
|
This trendline is what matters long-term:  Follow that and the price will come up naturally. Cheers, Assuming, that the bitcoin price is one million USD at full adoption, here is the S-Curve from my model. Note that the previous bubbles are not detectable on the linear chart because we are far away from full adoption . . .  |
|
|
|
The Log10 deviation from trend was indeed inspired by rpietila, but the logistic, i.e. S-Curve trendline is my own hand-fit as of November 11, 2013. The value of -0.45 for May 6, 2013 is the lowest that was ever calculated by my model. I bought some fractional coin at my local ATM yesterday and will do so every weekday this month, as I did last month. |
|
|
|
Log10 delta from the trend . . .  |
|
|
|
Adjusted number of transactions, as reported by Blockchain.info . . .  |
|
|
|
May 5, 2014 UpdateThe November 2013 bubble continues to collapse, as apparent from these updated price charts. Because of the close fit provided by the Metcalfe Law relationship between the number of transactions and the historical price series, I have also included the corresponding chart that shows a two month downtrend in the number of transactions. The logistic model calculates the trend price today at $1,187. Accordingly, today's price of $428 is a relative bargain. April 10 at $340 is the lowest price reached after the November peak at $1163. The downtrend has not yet been broken. Here is the updated logistic model presented in Log10 form . . . 
|
|
|
|
Until then, feels good to own bitcoins.
Right on that!In the great bubble of June 2011 some of us were waiting for the bubble to collapse all the way back to $1. The price had fallen for a while from $32 and stuck at $17 and then $15. When it fell through $10 we thought oh well cheap coins but they may get cheaper. I recovered what ever losses I had in coins by buying back at $6. Then we waited while prices went lower and lower. $2 was the bottom only for a short time. Those waiting for $1 got left behind. Good to be in coins and not get left behind. I made a great mistake in the April 2013 bubble collapse not really paying attention to Risto like I should have. I wanted that bubble to be like the great bubble and for prices to go back down to $40 from the peak at $266. Risto said that demand from his precious metals customers was very strong and was predicting much higher prices by year end 2013. I got left behind on the drop down to $65 when I was in dollars instead of coins. I hated that feeling. Now I stay in coins and buy more at bargain prices. It feels good to buy. I will trade the next peak, but not the collapse. |
|
|
|
I'm very happy for all of you that were able to buy at the $350 range but at same time I must admit I'm a little jealous!  There's a good change we'll hit it again. I'm not sure what Risto's thoughts on that are, but analysis of this giant wedge we're in on the one day charts would indicate we could reach that low in the next few weeks before breaking out. I don't think it will go any lower than that though. Do you think that the April low at $338 was the bottom for this bubble? |
|
|
|
It's trival to create a PoW system with that creates coins according to whatever schedule you want.
the 'schedule' is based on number blocks, not a timestamp though , right? If you like. It is in Bitcoin. From the Wiki. Although based upon the number of blocks, it is effectively a calendar schedule too, because the system attempts to average 10 minutes per block. Block creation fee
The block creation fee changes at every 210000 blocks. The block creation fee is a function of block height on the chain (genesis=0), and is calculated using 64 bit integer operations (in satoshis) as:
(50 * 100000000) >> (height / 210000)
The block creation fee started with 50 BTC, has fallen to 25 BTC at block 210000, will fall to 12.5 BTC at block 420000, and finally down to 0 satoshi with block 6930000. The block creation fee of all coinbase transactions will sum up to 2099999997690000 satoshis, practically 21million BTC.
|
|
|
|
The Hard ForkCopied from the poll thread . . . I got a question here.
Can bitcoin really switch to PoS? Wouldn't it just create a hard fork and create a new altcoin?
The Bitcoin brand is not an enforced trademark and the core developers have a policy of neutrality with regard to controversy. My project, to be deployed at the beginning of 2016 after a year of public testing and scrutiny, will use the then-current blockchain as the initial distribution. The new version will exchange transactions with the old version on the existing network. Both versions will reject any transactions tainted by rewards created by the other version after the hard-fork date. I need at least a three to one advantage with regard to peer full nodes on my version. For proof-of-stake to work I need the cooperation of the largest holders. I need the cooperation of transactors such as third-party wallet providers, hosted wallet providers, and nearly all the major exchanges. One or more transitional SHA-256 multipools will provide untainted bitcoin for its participating ASIC miners. During the year of testing, the project open source will be provided to at least one altcoin already in circulation. There will be three prices for bitcoin after the hard-fork. The main price will be for untainted coins mined before the hard-fork. The second price will be for coins tainted by proof-of-work rewards issued after the hard-fork. The third price will be for coins tainted by proof-of-stake rewards issued after the hard-fork. I expect selling pressure on the tainted proof-of-work coins as ASIC miners necessarily must sell to buy equipment and purchase power. The new version will be have the features, to attract the needed majority . . . - immediate transaction acknowledgment for incorporation into the blockchain, which is checkpointed every 10 minutes following the new block
- mining rewards distributed via pools in proportion to provided stakes
- transactions will be included that have lower fees than present and no-fee transactions will be much more likely to be accepted
- only one version of the blockchain exists, has broad consensus approval and is widely replicated
- network cryptographic audit trail
The consensus of users, as designed by Satoshi, will pick the winner. Unless the odds beforehand are very much in this project's favor, the hard-fork will not occur as fragmentation of the system hurts us all. Yet the wastefulness of the current system compels a timely solution.
|
|
|
|
I got a question here.
Can bitcoin really switch to PoS? Wouldn't it just create a hard fork and create a new altcoin?
The Bitcoin brand is not an enforced trademark and the core developers have a policy of neutrality with regard to controversy. My project, to be deployed at the beginning of 2016 after a year of public testing and scrutiny, will use the then-current blockchain as the initial distribution. The new version will exchange transactions with the old version on the existing network. Both versions will reject any transactions tainted by rewards created by the other version after the hard-fork date. I need at least a three to one advantage with regard to peer full nodes on my version. For proof-of-stake to work I need the cooperation of the largest holders. I need the cooperation of transactors such as third-party wallet providers, hosted wallet providers, and nearly all the major exchanges. One or more transitional SHA-256 multipools will provide untainted bitcoin for its participating ASIC miners. During the year of testing, the project open source will be provided to at least one altcoin already in circulation. There will be three prices for bitcoin after the hard-fork. The main price will be for untainted coins mined before the hard-fork. The second price will be for coins tainted by proof-of-work rewards issued after the hard-fork. The third price will be for coins tainted by proof-of-stake rewards issued after the hard-fork. I expect selling pressure on the tainted proof-of-work coins as ASIC miners necessarily must sell to buy equipment and purchase power. The new version will be have the features, to attract the needed majority . . . - immediate transaction acknowledgment for incorporation into the blockchain, which is checkpointed every 10 minutes following the new block
- mining rewards distributed via pools in proportion to provided stakes
- transactions will be included that have lower fees than present and no-fee transactions will be much more likely to be accepted
- only one version of the blockchain exists, has broad consensus approval and is widely replicated
- network cryptographic audit trail
The consensus of users, as designed by Satoshi, will pick the winner. Unless the odds beforehand are very much in this project's favor, the hard-fork will not occur as fragmentation of the system hurts us all. Yet the wastefulness of the current system compels a timely solution. A project whitepaper is the first step to gaining the required expert support, and I am gathering my thoughts in preparation for writing it. Bitcoin Proof-of-Stake |
|
|
|
So from the posts I read from you on the topic of speculation in recent posts. The short term expectations is pretty much unknown but it is a good buy time, correct?
That is my opinion as well. I am buying small amounts almost every workday. |
|
|
|
By this weekend, the current rally on Huobi 6-hour resolution chart could once again get close to the long term resistance trendline. I drew the line it so that it was penetrated on April 16, but on the Bitstamp price chart that same line held all the back to the November peak. Many chartists are thinking it will breakout in May.  |
|
|
|
Another goodie from the original proof-of-stake thread, in which Mike Hearn talks about forking the blockchain and running experiments. That is my plan for 2015. By the way, if you're interested in delegated voting, I wrote a paper on using it in a democracy some time ago: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1jidmNJHWAtsPLCUD7EPPm8jOEV93kSXbZOMycqCWOyAI think delegating voting is a great idea. I'm less convinced that it would work for replacing hashing in the block chain, but it might. Some more problems for you to consider: - If I control a key with 10 delegators, then I spend that key to 10 new keys, what happens to the delegations? Does it make sense for a key to have fan-out (ie 1 key to delegate to 10 other keys)? Do you split the value evenly or not?
- How do you efficiently detect and resolve delegation loops? ie, key A delegates to B, B delegates to C and C then delegates to A? You have to do this efficiently because otherwise setting up new delegations is a way to DoS the system. Note that detecting cycles in a large graph is slow, Tarjans algorithm is O(number of edges). If each key in the system takes part then every new address in the system potentially makes setting up new delegations harder. As the number of keys in the system grows without bound over time, that could be an issue
- Keys are owned by end users who may or may not know/care about the inner workings of their currency. How do you get new users to delegate appropriately?
It should be possible to run a parallel block chain based on proof-by-stake, but using the same transactions. It could be done with an adapted Bitcoin software. Once such a chain was up and running you could compare the results vs the existing chain. I don't have the time/energy to do this myself. |
|
|
|
Here is the earliest reference that I could find to proof-of-stake, using the search tool of this forum. Care to comment here? My own first thought is that because non-standard transactions do not become part of the permanent record, I would seek a different means of recording the vote . . . I've got an idea, and I'm wondering if it's been discussed/ripped apart here yet: I'm wondering if as bitcoins become more widely distributed, whether a transition from a proof of work based system to a proof of stake one might happen. What I mean by proof of stake is that instead of your "vote" on the accepted transaction history being weighted by the share of computing resources you bring to the network, it's weighted by the number of bitcoins you can prove you own, using your private keys. For those that don't want to be actively verifying transactions, and so that not all private keys need to be facing the network, votes could be delegated to other addresses via some kind of nonstandard Bitcoin transaction. In this way, voting power would accumulate with trusted delegates instead of miners. New bitcoins and transaction fees could be randomly and periodically distributed to delgates, weighted by the number of votes they've accumulated, thereby incentivising diversity of the delegates and direct voters. If the implementation could be done, it proved to maintain at least a similar level of privacy and trustworthiness, and it only minimally complicated the UX, I'm thinking that a proof of stake based fork could out-compete a proof of work one due to much lower transaction fees, since its network wouldn't need to support the cost of the miners' computing resources. (Note that the vote delegation scheme has bandwith/storage overhead that would offset these savings by some amount which would hopefully be relatively small.) Some other potential improvements this system could offer: - Possibly quicker, more definite confirmation of transactions, depending on how it can be implemented.
- The "voting power" may be more trustworty, since it would accumulate in a bottom-up fashion via a network of trust, instead of in the somewhat arbitrary way it accumulates now. (Note the potential problem of vote-buying here.)
- It would remove the physical point of failure of bitcoin mining equipment, which can be confiscated or made illegal to run.
- It could be used to provide stakeholders a means of making their voices heard (via the delegated voting system it establishes) when it comes to proposals for software updates and protocol changes.
Anyway, I just wanted to throw the idea out here to see if there are any obvious reasons why it couldn't be implemented, and to hopefully spark a discussion amongst those better qualified than me. Cheers. |
|
|
|
The quality of writing on this thread amazes me.
Sometimes being a bitcoiner makes me feel like an intellectual/scholar lol. I think it is simply engaging our wits to persuade each other and to learn. When I read what you write, I think about it, and maybe a few hours later, I think some more. And when I read Peter_R's comments, I did not exactly laugh out loud, rather I grunted. I studied the book he mentioned before the date of the title. It was then, and remains to this day, a devastating critique of totalitarianism and linguistic legerdemain. Each of those phrases I had forgotten four decades ago - and he brought them back to life. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
