My break-even price is $0, so I'm gonna be around here for a while  My break even price is -($2500) Congrats. Mine is only -(low 3 figures). I am currently only 20% btc though. If I went 100% btc (like you probably are), it would be 3 figures also. It's kind of a misleading number because I could be 2% btc and have 5 figures, etc. I am closer to 50% than 100%, and all the time thinking of ways how to increase my stash (I don't need more money but cannot help it because I perceive this as the last life-changing buying opportunity for an ordinary guy). Perhaps somebody would like to buy PUT options for any maturity up to 90 days, any strike between 100-500 and any quantity up to BTC500? PM only. |
|
|
|
in principle I agree with this but I think the cutoff of -10 is pretty tight. If you believe in volatility (you should! ) and pitch your guesses over a wide spread, but then everyone else just does a normal distribution centred round the you could lose a lot of points on what would be a legitimate entry (i.e. not attempting to game the system). I understand this rule is focused on increasing the quality of the aggregate consensus, but it might be forcing people to guess much more conservatively, instead of actually putting down what they think for fear of getting disqualifed. I think that would be just as much of a compromise to the quality of the predictive power. I just changed it to -20. The example above should indicate that you don't really get that much more points when you bet a certain range with as much probability as you can muster: there is a law of sharply declining marginal returns in the lucky prediction and the law of exponentially-growing punishment in the unlucky prediction. I know that the rule alone (with or without cutoff grades) does make people conform to conformism, but this is a serious prediction contest and not a lottery. |
|
|
|
|
Seems that we have the same understanding of the situation.
In the end, the individual users of the currency have the final say, because if many of them decide to migrate, the previous currency network loses value and punishes those who still trust in it. Both PoW and PoS consensuses are helpless if people just abandon the currency en masse.
|
|
|
|
My break-even price is $0, so I'm gonna be around here for a while My break even price is -($2500) Congrats. Mine is only -(low 3 figures). |
|
|
|
The miners are not the only stakeholders. What really matters is whether the users want to own the new coins or the old.
Nope. The consensus is very clearly defined. Users of coins have absolutely nothing to decide in this decision making process. If you want to understand how Bitcoin works I would suggest to study the whitepaper. If a switch to another algorithm would be possible, bitcoins would be worthless bits. The most important feature of the network is that some elements can't change, first and foremost the money supply and proof-of-work. You can ask some of the miners and core developers how likely such a switch is. Nope. A cool part of the crypto universe is that anyone can fork the coin (considering he has the majority of the shares/consensus AFTER the fork against hostile groups) to do whatever, and the markets decide if the fork has any value. I don't believe miners and core developers would like to support such a change, but unless they have the majority of stake in the fork, they don't count. You can decide the parameters of the fork such that they actively suppress the position of devs and miners. Just like you would be designing an altcoin. |
|
|
|
What price will bitcoin be at the end of 2014
A larger-and-more-accurate-than-ever way to find out is just starting! Cash prizes! |
|
|
|
If your point total goes to -10 or worse, you are disqualified from the game immediately and your possible next round prediction is forfeited. This rule is to discourage trolling, gaming of the system and unresponsible forecasting. Getting -10 means that your estimated probability for a certain event which happened was 1/10 of the average. Certainly you were not being serious, were you?!
bad rule. I have experimented with this, and the reason for such a rule is to preserve all players in the game (by threatening to kick them out for non-performance). What is wrong with it? If you want to max out your risk and leave some slots "unattended", the previous rules would anyway have doled you several minus-points, making it difficult to get back to the green. And to make it, you would have needed to gamble with the following months and make forecasts not based on what you think is probable but based on how you get back to the game. This is "gaming the system". With a large number of other players (so that your guess does not too much move the average): If there is only 2 choices of slots, BULL and BEAR, and others assign 80% to BULL. If you assign: - 80% to BULL, you get 0 should BULL realize and 0 should BEAR realize - 60% to BULL, you get -0.33 should BULL realize and +1 should BEAR realize - 40% to BULL, you get -1 should BULL realize and +2 should BEAR realize - 20% to BULL, you get -3 should BULL realize and +3 should BEAR realize - 10% to BULL, you get -7 should BULL realize and +3.5 should BEAR realize
- 5% to BULL, you get -15 should BULL realize and +3.75 should BEAR realize <-- risky, because leads to elimination if BULL
- 1% to BULL, you get -79 should BULL realize and +3.95 should BEAR realize <-- risky, because leads to elimination if BULL
You can summon quite much volatility to your guess, but not arbitrarily much. The example shows that there is no merit in going gung-ho, but it disturbs the other players. |
|
|
|
Finally some altcoins release easy-to-digest Richlist data. 22 largest addresses own 50%+ of HoboNickels. With Bitcoin, you need about 1,400 owners (with all their addresses), to get 50%+. Banks, Corps and Hedge Funds are buying hand over fist right now. Expect a massive change in direction and management of Bitcoin before hear's end. Bitcoin millionaires should have a contingency plan as more and more of the old guard foundation board is forced out and replaced by bank/govt puppets. 3 main guys are out in less than 3 months. Not a coincidence. Yes, I am aware of these developments. - "Hand over fist" is wrong expression, because if there were even the slightest frontrunning tendency, the price would have turned UP by now. - What kind of "contingency measures" you suggest? - Ousting BF board members and replacing them with bank puppets is not a big deal because supernodes have regarded BF as a bankster entity since the beginning, and illegitimate BF has no power over anything. - I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. |
|
|
|
If the coin creation method is changed, the ASIC owners have nothing to say.
Bitcoin uses proof-of-work, and therefore the majority of the hashing power decides. Why would the current stake-holders be so stupid to switch to a system which is unproven and where there economic advantages, i.e. their capital investment becomes worthless? That makes no sense whatsoever. Coin creation in Bitcoin doesn't arbitrarily change. That's why its a solid system. If such changes were possible Bitcoins would be worthless. All of this should be obvious to anyone who wants to understand why Bitcoin works. It is precisely BECAUSE of what you described that if any PoS would ever be implemented by anyone based on Bitcoin blockchain, it will be a fork, or an altcoin, and not Bitcoin. And therefore you and all of the ASIC miners will have no say in the process, because it has new rules. If people see that the intruder is gaining in value and Bitcoin is losing it, they may try to get extra share of the new coins by selling their Bitcoins, hastening their demise. The original Bitcoin proponents will only lose, though, if they have sold the spinoff, thinking that it is worth nothing. |
|
|
|
If you are so interested in these kinds of things, you should study the problem first. You seem to overlook some basics of Bitcoin. The current stakeholders, i.e. ASIC owners, have no interest in giving up their money printing press. To make changes to Bitcoin you need the consensus of those who have mining power and developers ("community consensus"). That community consensus is very clear. Bitcoin will never move to PoS.
I am afraid you are mistaken. If the coin creation method is changed, the ASIC owners have nothing to say. Only the economic decision of the coin owners will matter. If after the fork everyone tries to dump the PoS coins, it proves they are worthless. If everyone tries to move to PoS selling their PoW coins, the previous version with ASICs is worthless. |
|
|
|
Finally some altcoins release easy-to-digest Richlist data. 22 largest addresses own 50%+ of HoboNickels. With Bitcoin, you need about 1,400 owners (with all their addresses), to get 50%+. |
|
|
|
initial distribution on the unspent transaction outputs in the Bitcoin block-chain that are, say, less than 2 years old. The main reason being, you want the new coins to be held by people who are reasonably active in the Bitcoin community, in the hope that they will also be active in the new altcoin community. Satoshi would be excluded, not because he is too rich, but because he's too inactive. Arguably there is no need to reward the earliest adopters of Bitcoin because they are not early adopters of the altcoin. You would advertise the snapshot date in advance, so that whales that were still active and monitoring the scene would be able to transfer their bitcoins to themselves to freshen their transaction dates before the snapshot.
Considering that everyone has a right to make an altcoin and distribute to whomever he wishes, that is quite a reasonable proposal. Also, do you see what a leap it is from "whales are dangerous to our new currency because they could crash it by dumping their coins, so perhaps we should exclude them to reduce that danger", and "we should exclude whales because they don't deserve to be rich, because they didn't work for their money"? The first is pragmatic. The second is philosophical/moral; the politics of envy.
Whales are important to the new currency because: - they have the means to prop up the price during downturns - they have access to marketing and project development - they supply the coins to the market at times of popular demand - they provide the overall backbone to the economy. If I did not have loads of bitcoins, would I do all that I am doing to help it succeed (for free)? Hell no. If there was nobody in that position, bitcoin would be without leader and without rudder. (It is already enough ) |
|
|
|
Arguably, PoW requires more inflation because the miners are doing more work and so need higher rewards than mere transaction fees can give them (at least while the currency is young, transaction volumes are low and the capital value is low).
With Bitcoin, the "inflation" has not prevented the coin purchasing power from rising a lot. In this context I cannot see how inflation has been bad. |
|
|
|
|
As I saw it, I'm smoking Romeo y Julieta Petit Churchills, have a 27" Mac screen on mahogany table, solid silver ashtray, same shoes as in the picture, and thinking of the next (III) Supernode meeting in Malla in June. So, it is kind of affirmative, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
Without any prior introduction, I posted the following. Because no prior info was given, this must be treated as the sole expression of my wish: Based on my research, I don't believe we will see 435 ever again (Bitstamp). If someone is willing to bet (I naturally expect much better than 1:1 for me), PM please. Chart1 & Chart2. This is just the 2013-7-18 again. No looking back (when you least expect it). Keywords: - (implicit) in BTC - (implicit) long duration at least 3 months (to adequately model "ever") - trigger condition breaching 435 - someone (anyone can take it!) - send me PM- much better than 1:1 odds for meWindjc's proposal: In 2014-3-30, the exponential trendline model gave a buy signal at $460 and the price has been unable to go below it for any extended time even after 4 weeks.
In 2013-11-23 it gave a sell signal at $872 (SlipperySlope's 0.40 confidence) or 2013-11-28 at $1,056 (my 0.45 confidence). It was also unable to stay above it for any extended time.
What odds do you want? As I would be betting to win less valuable coin, you shouldn't get much better than 50%. I think you will offer an unreasonable bet so that you don't have to make one at all. But let me know. Unreasonable? It's $30 to the trigger line (was $20 when I first called it). Are you willing to give 1:1 odds to me that price will hit $495 some point in the future? Of course not, you would not take that even at 10:1. So don't expect the same of me. Lol. You didn't even make an offer. Why am I not surprised? Since you are too chicken s*** to make a bet, here's one for you. Bet $50k with of btc Duration 30 days If we hit 435 on Stamp and don't hit 500 I win. If we hit 500 and not 435 you win If we hit both or neither its a draw. And we both donate $1000 worth of btc each to charity. Keywords: - in USD - short duration 30 days - trigger condition breaching 435 and breaching 500, with both/neither considered a tie (windjc's estimation 90% this will end in a tie) - aimed for me only, with insult - public- 1:1 odds, with charity clause* * EPILOGUE It is difficult to read the thread because of so many posts, especially if you are of the type that never checks the sources and relies on people. But then you will also get the objectively wrong idea of what is happening. Here I wanted to have a nice private bet with anyone who thinks that breaking 435 is imminent and is willing to give me great odds for defending it. This windjc turned into a public challenge directed against me, with different terms in every 6 parameters that are important in a bet. The bet itself seemed +EV for me so I decided to go on with it, but in the end there was not enough mutual agreement. As was perhaps the intention, windjc collected "fame" because I did not took his bet (why? do I also get points every time I propose things to people when it is not in their interest to comply?  ). In the meanwhile nobody took my bet (the one which i would have unequivocally lost last night). Nobody was even interested. I had estimated that probability for 435 holding should be 10% in general public's eyes, but I thought it was 20%. So I would have taken 7:1 odds for me, and lost almost straight away. I don't care about the bet. If everybody took that much space just to state that a particular topic does not interest him, this thread would be 6465 pages long.. oh wait What have you learned from it?
That scenario thinking and probabilities are very hard to understand for many people, even in threads dedicated to it. Further education is necessary, but any serious and accountable predictions by anyone should be taken here, with a consistent and uniform methodology, and cash prizes (all entry fees go to the pot + my 1,000m BTC bounty and perhaps windjc's also..) |
|
|
|
Excel is ready. Anyone who wants can betatest it, provided that he gives the email address and promises to do the testing immediately  |
|
|
|
Current holders intuitively know it. To make new money interested, we have to tell it. It is a bit tricky, because it employs recursive probability. |
|
|
|
actually the argument was invalid, alongside this beautiful red herring you have presented to me. Risto is not 100% certain that bitcoin is going to be adopted by the entire world. you set up the argument as a strawman - or where do you get your facts?
He is not certain about that? Well, maybe you should ask him on what does he think about that. He estimates that there is an insanely high 1% chance that Bitcoin will reach 1,000,000 dollars per BTC. That is 10k$/ BTC expected value from that scenario alone. And the others are not all zero either. As people learn about this insanely profitable risky bet offered to them, they buy in, mostly very little, because losing does not hurt, but winning changes their life. When enough people buy, the price rises. Now we are closer to 1,000,000 and the probability to reach it therefore goes up. This allows more people to buy, because less risk. In the end, when the recursion is totally played out, the probability to hit an insanely high valuation of $1 million (or higher) is something like 20%. And when you see and understand the above, it makes you even more willing to buy even more NOW, increasing the price and ...  |
|
|
|
Speaking of trendlines, there some EW trader who gave a 3 hour lecture on youtube about how all of the trendlines are going to break due to EW and they all have to retrace. Even that lower line, the one I'm following, he thinks is going to break. What do you think.  Two cases: - Bitcoin is broken and adoption reverses - Previously unimaginable attack on exchanges makes all bitcoin exchange go off-chart (essentially Mt.Gox price all over again). Otherwise no frigging chance. (Yes, the two cases are realistic, but not probable enough for me to willing to lighten up my position or do anything else.) |
|
|
|
many readers don't understand the whole concept and go out screaming "rpietila was wrong" every time I say anything, no matter what probability is attached.
The vultures love having someone to blame. they crave it. they also crave promises. and free lunch. A logical proposition of "something is true with 100% certainty" does not have any practical meaning in the realm of probabilities, because to say it would entail attaching infinitely long bounds or infinitesimally short timeframe to it. - I can say with 100% certainty that Bitcoin price in USD is between 0 and infinity at any point forward. - I can say with 100% certainty that at the moment of observing, it is between 400 and 500. - I can say with 99% certainty, that it will not crash to 100 or rise to 1000 in the following 24 hours (average price of that time), and anyone can call me by offering better odds than the prediction, eg. 50:1. Still there would be practical reasons not to take the bet, eg. overhead, taxes or regulations. That's why I'd like to bet such that I win a lot with small P and lose a little with high P Yeah, so wouldn't everybody. But unless you are just going to con someone who is an idiot, if you are going to enter a bet, you have to be willing to take appropriate risks. A bet is inherently risky. That's why bets are not made for "profit," they are made for excitement and memories. Sure, just like in poker, with skill and research you can better your odds. But there is still risk. In this case, I wanted somebody to bet with me on my terms. You wanted me to bet with you on your terms. Nobody accepted. I get all the blame. You are not successful enough, bro. Nobody hates you. Your terms were fair in general, but not the type of bet I was interested in. (The carry risk for me is ( k *capital * time), and for a bet likely resulting in a wash, it would turn it -EV for both.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
