Blah blah
Do US dollars have a hard cap? No.Do US dollars have a predictable issuance schedule? No.Do Chuck E Cheese tokens have a hard cap? No.Do Chuck E Cheese tokens have a predictable issuance schedule? No.Do Bitcoins have a hard cap? Yes.Do Bitcoins have a predictable issuance schedule? Yes.Therefore it is either stupid or disingenuous to lump Bitcoins in with these obvious scam projects like US dollars or Chuck E Cheese tokens. Blah blah centralize blah blah And exactly how is switching to gold and silver bullion going to get the government off of our backs? Wouldn't the governments and the religious leaders end up getting a substantial portion of the gold and silver, anyway? Wouldn't they then use the gold and silver to raise up armies and bully the rest of us into handing them even more of our gold and silver via taxes and other forms of extortion? Bones, you too still quoting him-who-must-not-be-quoted?  |
|
|
|
you know full well how hollywood and disney view things. the audience won't change them unless, en masse, we rejected them, which you also know isn't going to happen.
I'm not about to go on a crusade but if I can convince one person not to give his money to rabid ideologues who are trying to destroy our society than that is better than nothing. RABBId ideologues, you mean? I'm sure the producers are joos. They all are. You could open a nice thread with a few other WO participants. An echo chamber. Not as good a gas chamber, I know, but we all have to make do with what we have. |
|
|
|
|
One more SOMA(tm) prediction.
We're going to test the 6k area before end of month.
By September, next ATH run begins.
SOMA predictions - Straight Out of My Ass.
Almost totally wrong, almost all the time!
|
|
|
|
|
How low will we go? 8k is breached, about 7870 at the moment.
I've got some cash at last. Wouldn't mind to get some moar, even without hoping to do so at the bottom - which isn't reasonable, as we all know. Rather, I could start a fresh 2J-ladder near a local low.
In the meantime, my hedge short has payed off some along the way. Play money nearly doubled. Part of the short still stands, as an insurance agains 5k. Liquidation price is over 100k.
|
|
|
|
Oh yes, thank you. Not only Harris, but even the Daily Mail sez I gotta sell now, so I will! |
|
|
|
How about the PTB are trying to suppress bitcoin and generate despair through aimless volatility?
Aimless? Works for me. For JJG too, I reckon. right? even the clown car, every time it moves .001 I make .001 Yeah, I guess very few people here are weak hands to be shaken or uncertain would-be investors to fend off. I was thinking of mainstream types. (BTC volatility is working for me, too. I brought my safety short liquidation level to over 17k and pocketed some change too. As long as it dips again before hitting 17k, I'm gonna be greener than I am now.) |
|
|
|
|
My rookie conspiracy theorist take on the current price movement.
How about the PTB are trying to suppress bitcoin and generate despair through aimless volatility?
|
|
|
|
I think Masterluc got this one right. That's what he wrote yesterday, before today's sudden dip. 9500-10000 will rebound (down). There's a daytime sma200. And the sewers are now an asshole.
|
|
|
|
Blockchain is irreversible. THE Blockchain is, but Last of the V8s was talking about Ethereum. |
|
|
|
 EDIT: Holy crap. I just recognized I've attained Legendary status. I spend waaaay too much time here...  Congrats!! Now maybe you should celebrate by getting yourself some new testicle training blocks in granite, with a custom engraved monogram. Those gold blocks are too soft. |
|
|
|
I’m not sure if the OPs intention in this post is limited to personal indicators, or global stats too. Some simple global indicators in addition to the currently shown could be in the line of:
I was thinking of a personal indicator to be shown under the user's name, along with username, rank, activity and merit. This could be useful both to gauge new faces popping up in discussion, and as an incentive to self improvement. A major statistical difficulty which I remembered when gathering these is that a lot of people receive merit for pre-merit posts. (Though people who made zero post-merit posts were excluded in the above stats.)
Gathering these stats is slow. It could be tracked live per user, but I'd have to add a lot of caching at various points. I'm probably not going to do it.
Speaking for myself, I'd be glad to suffer some inaccuracy as a tradeoff for server load. Posts created before merit inception should asymptotically go to zero significance anyway. And any 1-D statistic is bound to be inaccurate under the right (wrong?) circumstances. I imagine striking a balance between ease of gathering/computation and capture of useful data is a difficult job in this case. The weekly tracking is an interesting idea.
It is, even if it only speaks about the overall flow, not about single users. I brought up the last statistic (4) latest_merit_increment/latest_activity_increment
(where both increments are within the same 14-day period) just because I thought that, even if packing less insight, it wouldn't burden the server as much as EMEP. If the number of posts in that period is easy to determine, it would make for a better denominator IMO. |
|
|
|
Anyway I'm getting really tired of this and really annoyed that there isn't one single person to step forward to say that they understand what I mean. Even though I really do believe in what I am saying and I think that I have good arguments behind it even I am starting to feel like a troll at this point. So I think I am going to disengage from this pursuit.
Disengage from Nazi noise too, and you could find even more respect. |
|
|
|
(snip)
(snip), a legend with 49/470 merit earned against 203/414. Over 4 times as much. Theymos's new ranking system indeed provides more useful information than the old. And prompt scouting is available, anyway.
Hey, mighty Theymos, do you hear us? We need more statistics, like "Imagination", "Magic Dust" or "Emep", which might stand for "Earned Merit per Eligible Post (ratio)".
What's your denominator there? EMEP's 'per eligible post' might maybe be better. Maybe by "Eligible post" I meant "Activity since the Merit System" rather than "Actual posts since the Merit System". The second quantity isn't available anyway. I haven't refined the idea too much, actually. I might get lucky in Meta (I threw it there, too). Thanks for the bug hunting. I did get lucky in the Meta thread. Theymos replied and he's open to suggestions. No promises, but an explicit formula with few inputs is preferred. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3380469.msg35435886#msg35435886 |
|
|
|
Bcash is a fork. Bgold is a fork. These are forks of Bitcoin. This is the least complicated thing ever.  Let me be clear guys. I share your opinion. It is my opinion as well that bitcoin core is the real bitcoin. All I am arguing is that that is my opinion and not a fact that is in some way objectively valid. In what fundamental sense is bcash different from bitcoin core that makes it the fork and not bitcoin core the fork of it? Bitcoin core has changed the consensus algorithm too just like bcash. We used to not have segwit enabled and bcash used to not have massive blocks. One isn't "the fork" they are each forks of the other. Adding any kind of qualifier after "bitcoin" to mean BTC/XBT is unpopular round here. OK, call it religion if you will. In order to minimize conflict, it is advised to use BTC to designate the bitcoin that needs no additional words to be designated. There will be fewer terminological scuffles. |
|
|
|
I try really hard to be. Part of being reasonable means accepting hard truths sometimes. Anon136, a legend with 49/470 merit earned against 203/414. Over 4 times as much. Theymos's new ranking system indeed provides more useful information than the old. And prompt scouting is available, anyway.
Hey, mighty Theymos, do you hear us? We need more statistics, like "Imagination", "Magic Dust" or "Emep", which might stand for "Earned Merit per Eligible Post (ratio)".
Where the heck are you finding these stats? On my end it says I have 1049 merit. I didn't realize I was in some sort of competition with anyone anyway. I definitely never gloated about my merit or tried to use it to argue from authority or anything like that. So I don't know where all this is coming from. I don't think your scheme would work very well anyway because the best way to get merit is to tell people what ever they want to hear. I think you would find that the people who filtered to the top of your system were the people who stroked everyone off the best. Sorry if I came across a bit rude. Merit tends to approximate a popularity contest anyway, even without my somewhat more convoluted exclusion of old rank based merit. And yes, you're right it's easier to merit those you agree with. No one dimensional metric system is perfect. But pleasing just everyone is probably just as difficult, so even such crude measures do have some, uh, merit. |
|
|
|
I tried two or three different metrics for things like "emep", but they all had poor results, mainly because so many posts were made pre-merit and there's so much difference between users on the various input variables. If people have ideas for stats in this vein, give me an exact formula with preferably only a few input variables. I might at least post some global stats, though maintaining an up-to-date stat for each user might be too slow.
For the merit rate, I was thinking of something like (1) EMEP = merit_earned / posts_since_merit_system where merit_earned = merit - merit_airdropped_for_rank, trying to capture how many rewards were earned for posts made after merit was introduced. Alternatively, (2) EMEA = merit_earned / activity_since_merit_system which might have some advantage I can't see. Both metrics would indirectly provide info as to the posters' rank at the time of merit introduction, or to their activity since then. If this is undesired, larger buckets could be provided for the merit rate: (3)
# MP = EMEP, EMEA, or similar quantity.
if (MP >= 1.0) return 'A'
if (MP > 0.5) return 'B'
if (MP > 0.3) return 'C'
...
if (all else fails) return 'Z'
A useful statistic can be computed without reference to the actual number of posts - e.g., something like (4) latest_merit_increment/latest_activity_increment
where both increments are within the same 14-day period. If the metric needs to smoothed out against volatility, it could be implemented with some time quantization, , possibly a time moving average (exp decay?). This is off the top of my head. I haven't given the matter serious thought, honestly. If anything sensible pops up, I'll add to this thread. I was hoping to stir some rational discussion, so I'm happy the mighty were indeed listening. Thank you! (@InvoKing: thank you too ) |
|
|
|
If I could vote for 0-conf or RBF as a feature, I'd pick RBF anyway.
You realize, of course, that RBF _requires_ persistently full blocks in order to work reliably, right? Jus' make'em blocks smaller if you really care for RBF, then! Oops. Redneck in me. We start sliding, man. Sorry. Let's keep it here, we ain't gonna vote on this anyway. With a little help from my freh-eh. |
|
|
|
(snip)
Anon136, a legend with 49/470 merit earned against 203/414. Over 4 times as much. Theymos's new ranking system indeed provides more useful information than the old. And prompt scouting is available, anyway.
Hey, mighty Theymos, do you hear us? We need more statistics, like "Imagination", "Magic Dust" or "Emep", which might stand for "Earned Merit per Eligible Post (ratio)".
What's your denominator there? EMEP's 'per eligible post' might maybe be better. Per post again - like acceleration vs speed? Maybe by "Eligible post" I meant "Activity since the Merit System" rather than "Actual posts since the Merit System". The second quantity isn't available anyway. I haven't refined the idea too much, actually. I might get lucky in Meta (I threw it there, too). Thanks for the bug hunting. |
|
|
|
Zeroconf is not built atop 'trust Wu, Ver and Wright'. It is built atop 'we don't have overwhelming tx backlog that makes doublespends hard to detect'.
without a backlog, it's still batshit crazy to accept 0-conf. people have double spent against both bitpay and coinbase; peter todd did it publicly once. if you close out the invoice before confirmation, there's nothing stopping the consumer from pushing a higher-fee transaction using the same inputs. the "tx backlog" really seems like a red herring. 0-conf has an inherently weaker trust model. satoshi acknowledged this: As you figured out, the root problem is we shouldn't be counting or spending transactions until they have at least 1 confirmation. 0/unconfirmed transactions are very much second class citizens. At most, they are advice that something has been received, but counting them as balance or spending them is premature.
accepting 0-conf transactions doesn't mean trusting "Wu, Ver and Wright".....it means trusting the payor not to steal back his money from you. +1 WOSmerit Summarizing: with a tx backlog (I inexactly called it "cache") it's probably doable, but it's a shit solution anyway. If I could vote for 0-conf or RBF as a feature, I'd pick RBF anyway. |
|
|
|
|
If I could get heard by the mighty Theymos, I would very much like to ask if we could get more statistics. We need something like "Imagination", "Magic Dust" or "Emep", which might stand for "Earned Merit per Eligible Post (ratio)".
The first has been implemented, but we saw it didn't work out. Could we have the other two? Or just the last, maybe? It actually could give us a useful view of someone's history here.
Or some other number/bucket system like that, perhaps. I'm sure several tweaks could be twoken to fuzzy it up a bit if deemed appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
wow is this even news?
