30 days does not embody the full epicness of saying "never" when we are talking about the trigger being only $20 below the the price today. Also I don't want to change my 10:1 leverage to an arbitrary $500 especially as both agree than in P(98%) it will be hit in 90 days anyway. These are the changes. It seems clear that once again if you are bullish on bitcoin, the best odds you get by buying it. If you are bearish, then you have a few weeks/months in the sun, and then you are replaced with a new generation. And I have seen many.

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:


This is more interesting than anything that I have studied in 6 months, at least. Red emphasis by me. It forever destroys the attempt to control Bitcoin by banks' evil schemes concerning the (expansion of the) money supply. How?

Anybody, no matter who, whether he holds bitcoins or not, has the opportunity to make spinoffs from Bitcoin blockchain.

If the people who deposit their bitcoins to central depositories, demand these spinoffs "in specie", the central depository has to own the corresponding number of bitcoins. If they refuse to handle spinoffs at all, they are subject to bank run. Game over.

Are we rewarding from the work, or just instituting inflation? If latter, what was the point exactly..

Go check from post history who proposed the bet (me) and then choose yourself (10:1 to me if goes to 435 in 90 days). It is entirely ok to not participate in discussion, but to insist that I take a bet that I did not propose is.. well.. fitting for you.

If we assume that an other system (except mining/PoW) can more efficiently conduct the exact same work, and therefore the cost of maintaining the network would be lower, would this lead to an increase or decrease of Bitcoin market cap?

Hint: If there is a way to do it for free, what would happen to Bitcoin in this scenario?

And for starters, try to remember that changing the number of coins is irrelevant - only market cap matters and it can be divided to whatever number of coins we wish, by changing the decimal place or doing more complicated things.

What do you want?

Was it really so that according to the TOS of Mt.Gox, the instant I deposit my BTC to them, it becomes their "assets" that they "owe" me, instead of "customer funds" that they must "safeguard" for me?

If this question is resolved in the only sane manner that it can be ("customer funds" unless EXPLICITLY otherwise stated), it also becomes clear why the contents of the safety deposit boxes are not auctioned when a bank becomes bankrupt, and your car is not sold if you were having it painted when the painting shop goes broke. Instead, you property is returned.

Anyone?

This guy has transmutated the bet from (high payout to me if $435 is nevereveragain seen) to a spread ($435 and $500 and mostly it'll be a tie anyway, with only 1:1 odds and a short expiration time).


Okay.


Here our definition of "honor" is different. Market is defined as an aggregate of the actions of participants. Since there is no way to find out who is doing what, but the aggregate result (price) is visible, the supposed oaths to not manipulate the market can only hurt the honest ones and should therefore not be demanded.

I confirm that I have heard this story before from a person who has verified his identity.

Thanks, I will use that during the runup $1,000->$5,000. With 10:1 leverage and 1 million initial investment, that'll be... 40M profit.

2 days is needed to transfer enough fiat to Bitstamp and possible other platforms that might be used to alter the bet's outcome.

I was thinking of that. First off - I don't think they offer more than 2:1 leverage, they got burnt pretty badly in the runup in Nov-13.

Second, the slippage you take is about equal to the bet amount, unless you can start an avalanche (which I don't believe).

Third, the bet is not won by just hitting the opposite goal. You need to defend yours for 90 days.

=> You can perhaps use this to make the final push and manipulate the market as usual, but not make it +EV for you

Bitcoin block rewards are quickly dwindling. Could it be that it was intentionally designed to be more energy-efficient in the steady state when the initial distribution is completed?

Before anything else happens, we must agree on escrow, and both send the bet money to him.

Then finish the rules of the bet, which may require changes if price changes now for example. Also the 2 days is important. (windjc can also transfer money if he wants). Typically it's just too difficult to agree on things, but this is quite promising <thumbsup>


In 2014, only 8 days have hit $435.

If it hits both 435 and 500, it is a tie.

90 days is a long time, I would say it's near certain to hit 500 and about 80% certain to hit 435.

I don't think it is unfair to me.

I think so..

That is because Bitstamp.

windjc need 1.1M to take it to 435.
I need 1.45M for 500.

If he has lots of money, he will catch my bid at 435.01, and I will lose the bet unless 30 days turns it back up. Buying slippage-free at such a good price is still ok, but losing a bet hurts my pretty face.

What is the reason that the new coins should be given in proportion to existing coins, iff the holder also does some work?

If the work done is equivalent for 1 and 10,000 coin holder, should the reward not be also?

- Mutually agreed escrow holds coins from both from the beginning to the end
- 90 days
- I propose NewLiberty
- (Since the bet amount is so large and therefore foul play possible, I will require 2 bank days to set up my defences)

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.

Good point.