What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too? Since PoS schemes aim to create value out of nothing (cf. alchemy) Are you disputing the affirmation that value is derived from the usefulness of the network and therefore not from the cost of maintaining the network? No it's an affirmation that saving doesn't doesn't service the greater good, the act of saving is risky one only saves if there is a future benefit, while one invests or spends one's savings for future benefits. With PoS saving are reward always. It's like holding a share in a company. Dividends reward people who hold shares in companies who are profitable (ie. which resolve a problem in a efficient way). Are you stating that shareholders shouldn't earn dividends? How about you tell - do you think increasing the number of currency units (other things being equal) increases the market cap? Answer is of course NO, but why is the whole thing then so important? |
|
|
|
Eg.with Auroracoin the slope is already negative. Linear regression could not prevent it. |
|
|
|
What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too? Since PoS schemes aim to create value out of nothing (cf. alchemy) Are you disputing the affirmation that value is derived from the usefulness of the network and therefore not from the cost of maintaining the network? No. I had a long treatise concerning this as my first post in the thread. I dispute that the network can sustainably gain any value if the currency unit is created out of thin air. |
|
|
|
The problem with your log-linear model isn't that it's not updated regularly. I know you do that.
The problem is the *extreme* laggyness of the model, and how you intend to use it. By the time your regression picks up the fact that we are in a huge bear market*, it is already much too late.
The log-linear trend can maybe, if you insist, be used to get an idea of the order of magnitude of the expected price, assuming nothing about the growth function up to now has fundamentally changed. And even then you should remind people that it is no guarantee either, just a reasonably motivated model.
I agree. Is there a point of controversy? |
|
|
|
Get it into your head: If (for whatever independent reasons) we will stay below that trendline long enough, it will look substantially different from the one you constructed right now.
This would not have warranted a reply, except to refute once again the matter that he seemingly cannot get or cannot remember, no matter how many times it is repeated (note the rare use of dark green combined with bold):
The "rpietila exponential trendline" is updated regularly (monthly) with the latest data, so if the price is below the trendline for a month, it drags the trendline with it. If it is above, the trendline is also dragged upwards. Monthly is chosen due to the reason that for all practical purposes it is the same as updating it every day. During its active existence in this forum, it has been updated 8 times and the updates applied respectively.
ADD: OK, it seems I am again being too verbal  TL;DR: You are wrong. And butthurt.
|
|
|
|
What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too? Since PoS schemes aim to create value out of nothing (cf. alchemy), surely they can decide to exclude whatever entities from the nothing ahem. value distribution if they want. There is no social contract that forces the creators to give shares to anybody. Most altcoins only give shares to the creators themselves and exclude all the others. If we are aiming to have another social engineering fiat experiment, do as you wish and don't be surprised if nobody wants to hold your paper except (max) at gunpoint, as is the case with national fiats. |
|
|
|
Every exponential price trend that grows faster than population, inflation, and total economic output must perforce cease to hold at some point. Unchecked, a 10x increase per year would mean that 1 BTC would buy the whole Earth within a few decades.
So, the question is not IF, but WHEN will Bitcoin's price stop following the historic exponential trend?
(Do I need to post again the Worldcom price chart? It followed an exponential trend much more closely and for a longer time than Bitcoin so far...)
Price trends should not be trusted without undersanding the fundamentals behind them. Some bulls here have their explanation for Bitcoins historical exponential trend. I have mine, The conclusions seem to be very different...
I think we can agree on the following: - If Bitcoin never makes it big and does not grow over its current 0.02% adoption of the target, it fails, and price per unit may collapse even from the present level. - If it does make big and its adoption grows to even 500 million people, the price per unit is multiples of what it now is. The domain of speculation is in whether it has the muscle to grow or not. Until now it has had. I think it still does. You think it does not. |
|
|
|
|
Some basics if you want to use the exponential trendline, or contend against its use. Two things must be observed:
- The base value of the trendline
- The deviation of the current price from the trend, expressed in log10 units (1 unit = price is 90% lower or 900% higher).
The range where the deviation typically wanders, which is seen as booms and crashes in the price chart, is -0.4...0.5 log units.
In 2014-7-15, for example:
-0.4 => $0.75
-0.3 => $0.95
-0.2 => $1.20
-0.1 => $1.53
0.0 => $1.94
+0.1 => $2.47
+0.2 => $3.10
+0.3 => $3.95
+0.4 => $4.90
+0.5 => $6.30.
This is a very wide range (basically a whole order of magnitude), so the trendline price in any future point cannot very accurately predict what the actual price in that point is. In the short term, the obscene range makes it useless, in the longer term, there are other uncertainties.
What it can do, however, is to gauge the buy and sell zones, which are points where the current price deviates from the trendline price significantly. At present we are in buy zone, because the current price is about -0.35 log units below the trendline price. Similarly in November we were in sell zone when the current price was over 0.4 units above.
The next sell signal comes when the price goes to 0.4 the next time, and it is unlikely to happen before July, so it is likewise unlikely for the top to be any lower than $5k.
In 2013-11-23 it gave a sell signal at $872. The buy signal came in 2014-3-30 at $460.
For the funds that were thus risked, the return was +90% in 4 months.
|
|
|
|
- The reward distribution algorithm does not have to be strictly in proportion to the offered bitcoin stake, rather it could and should be distributed in part to the super peers in return for substantial bandwidth and data security costs that they incur. Full node operators should receive sufficient reward to accommodate their expenses validating and replicating the blockchain, whose transactions grow at 3.2x annually, far in excess of Moore's Law cost reductions. The remaining large portion of the block creation reward, I propose to distribute in a manner which disproportionately rewards smaller stake holders, and perhaps somehow those wallet-owners not running full-nodes. The manner of distribution should should somehow dispel "the rich get richer".
Why is there a need to inflate the number of currency units by giving them to existing holders? (I know the question is fundamental but still warrants to be answered.) |
|
|
|
From reddit: If they traded with customer money they violated the ToS and it could be fraud. "MT. GOX'S OBLIGATIONS
...
6. it will hold all monetary sums and all Bitcoins deposited by each Member in its Account, in that Member's name as registered in their Account details, and on such Member's behalf.
LIABILITY
[...] Nothing in these terms excludes or limits the liability of either party for fraud, death or personal injury caused by its negligence, breach of terms implied by operation of law, or any other liability which may not by law be limited or excluded. " Anybody can post the full ToS?
[–]chris45215 2pistettä 1kuukausi sitten
Excellent! That quote seems to imply that customer funds are still the property of customers, which is quite important in the case of bankruptcy. If you think of it like a company that manages storage units, the customer items in each unit remain their property, and creditors have no right to claim those stored items if the company goes bankrupt. Also, it should be noted that Mt Gox could be a customer of itself and thus it's TOS would apply to itself. However, it would depend on the company to enforce the TOS or press charges in case of violation, which it obviously won't do.
[–]andypagonthemove 2pistettä 1kuukausi sitten
Maybe this is why they haven't included the BTC in their bankruptcy filing.
Seems that the key players have sucked the bankrupt company dry and aim to profit more from the money that is now in the other, personal, pocket, even after subtracting the court sentence. |
|
|
|
Is there any economic benefit at all to the network from such a mining? The transactions are practically handled centrally, like in banks(?)
No, it's distributed. (Unless you think Bitcoin is also mined centrally, due to a few mining pools having a virtual monopoly.) Does it [PPCoin mining] function in absence of a central authority? If not, in what way is it distributed? |
|
|
|
id go for the 10-100000 on 0.05 log increments. i'd not realised that superseded the [P/Slot * width] system but i see now what you have done. I see the benefit in collecting longer term forecasts to get an aggregate market outlook, so my complaint about having to do an 8 month forecast is really only minor i guess. I'll still enter regardless  I think it'll be more interesting to make several months into the future all at one go. I (or somebody) will provide the historical price spreads over all the different timescales. The exponential trendline(s) will act as likely lower and upper bounds with high confidence. |
|
|
|
Trying to keep it short: crank down the amount of the bet, if the amount bothers you
If the bet is +EV for me, I try to bet as much as possible, bounded by the Kelly formula of course. If it is -EV, I don't bet anything. the money should just be a side issue, just to give assurance that you are willing to put some skin in the game
No thanks. I bet to win, if at all. Windjc would be willing to give you some odds. Too late. He had ample time. you, Rpietila, used the word "never" which implies that you think 100%, so you should be more than willing to bet 50% odds when you make such a statement. "never" is part of the event clause: ( P("bitcoin will never go to 435") = X% ). Never was it indicated that X equals 0%. |
|
|
|
I don't understand the question. Coins can be exchanged for goods and services in the usual way. Doing so resets their age to zero, so the receiver can't use them as mining stake for a while.
Is there any economic benefit at all to the network from such a mining? The transactions are practically handled centrally, like in banks(?) |
|
|
|
What are the things that I pay for / vote for?
You vote with coin-days. for = is there anything that I can spend them on? |
|
|
|
subject does NOT necessarily need to be complicated with odds and a whole lot of various ambiguous terms.
Now you are childish. Poker players raise if they have 52/48 but not if it is 48/52. I am calculating 90% odds for the certain outcome. If you think the odds are 95%, you should bet with me for +EV. 50% is obviously not same as 90%. I am tired of writing to people who don't know about betting enough to justify opening their mouth but nevertheless do it. So no bets here. The other thread will perhaps develop into a probability machine where you will always be able to check if your feeling corresponds with the majority, and bet with the ones who think the opposite. |
|
|
|
in a distributed system, conflicts are resolved by majority vote, and voting has to be made expensive to prevent stuffing the ballot-box. Proof-of-work is one way to make it expensive. Proof-of-stake is another.
I have read the thread, and there was a convincing differentiation of shares vs. coins. With shares, you vote without working, according to how much you have at stake from previous investment. With coins, you must pay for every vote you want. The first one is scarcely suitable to be a basis for a monetary system, because there is no anchor, no cost that "keeps people honest" like in gold standard vs. fiat standard. Generally with PoS you pay with "coin-days". The longer you hold coins, the more weight they carry for voting, but the act of using them to vote resets their age to zero. So that's what you lose; not the actual coins, but the coin-days. But you do lose something, something that is unavoidable expensive to acquire (you have to buy the coins and then hold them for a time). So it is not like voting with company shares. As you say, that is essentially free once you have the shares; you can vote the same shares multiple times. What are the things that I pay for / vote for? |
|
|
|
forecasting 8 months out in month one feels a bit like a lottery imho and is 8x more work! my preference would be 1 month at a time, fwiw.
given my recent dream (yes sorry, i know!) of $64 price I would prefer if there were bands for
2.1 125.89
2.0 100
1.9 79.43
1.8 63.10
1.7 50.12
1.5 31.62
1.4 less
as they seem a bit top heavy at the moment (i.e. 100,000 is around 200x current price, whereas 158 is only around 1/3 current price) this covers going back all the way to retest the ~$32 ATH
I don't think its likely we will go that low but when you are dealing with assigning the chance of 1 in a million....
Thanks for the idea. Yes I know I am in a bind, because the original idea of having 491 (and later, 5000) slots, was perceived too difficult to handle. Also the administrative cost would have been harder. The linear 100-199, 200-299 bands become ridiculous after a few thousand$. And since the last year was 80x price appreciation, we will have to prepare for *minimum* $64,000 price by the end of 2014. If the slots are in log scale, the number of them soon becomes large, and still the resolution in the middle of the scale is not too great (0.1 logpoints == 26%). I would perhaps go for 0.05 point resolution and 10...100,000 USD/ BTC range, resulting in 80 slots. For me, the thinking is anyway a bigger exercise than filling in the numbers. And I would be producing a ready Excel sheet anyway. As for the length of a single forecast, one month would be cool to keep the interest high if this was just a game. But my original idea (not yet presented in the forum) was indeed to have longer term also. But that would have been a separate competition. And we are already treading on the fine line of having enough interest on this one, and to have the right kind of interest that can think in the right terms and produce data which has predictive value. Any ideas - muchos appreciados! |
|
|
|
Yah banks are bad. Your only solution is to buy Bitcoins from used-bitcoin salesmen and hopefully make them rich instead of evil bankers.
Newsflash: Newbies are not falling for this libertarian jingoistic gate keeping of used-bitcoin salesmen.
We all like p2p crypto technology concept and still love Bitcoin, but no need to keep shoving BTC down our throat. The idea is for society to come up with something different from Napster(Bitcoin) so most are on a better footing.
Now, the bank is MORTALLY WOUNDED. Watch out. They employ as many trolls as required to let the truth in Adrian-x's message not be distributed (2 msgs back). |
|
|
|
in a distributed system, conflicts are resolved by majority vote, and voting has to be made expensive to prevent stuffing the ballot-box. Proof-of-work is one way to make it expensive. Proof-of-stake is another.
I have read the thread, and there was a convincing differentiation of shares vs. coins. With shares, you vote without working, according to how much you have at stake from previous investment. With coins, you must pay for every vote you want. The first one is scarcely suitable to be a basis for a monetary system, because there is no anchor, no cost that "keeps people honest" like in gold standard vs. fiat standard. Switching back to fiat after just 5-8 years of enjoying the renewed benefits of gold would be sad. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
