This is interesting. I have done some reading up on 'reversion to the mean' as I've never heard of the term.
To me, my thinking was along the lines to Bit_Happy. That is, if there is an average x, and for years the number produced is < x, then there needs to be a period where for years the number produced has to be > x, in order for that average to stand.
Am i understanding the fallacy of the reversion to the mean correctly - the above is not necessary the case?
Your statement is correct, but if the results have been below average, then the average must change, and not the mechanism behind the average. Here's an example of the "reversion to the mean" fallacy in action: You flip a coin 100 times, and you get 40 heads and 60 tails. You expected the number heads to be 50%, but you got 40%. Next, you are going to flip the coin another 100 times. You expect 50 heads for the next 100, so you must expect 90 heads for the total 200, that is 45% of 200 flips, not 50%. If you expect 400 of another 800 flips to be heads, then you expect the total number of heads to be 490, and the average for the 1000 flips to be 49%, not 50%. Eventually with enough flips, the average will approach the expected 50%, but not because something "reverted". Now, let's assume that you expect the total number of heads after 200 flips to "revert to the mean" of 50%. That means that you expect 60 heads out of the next 100 flips, and not 50. In order for that to happen, then something about coin flipping must change. Otherwise, you must expect 50 heads and not 60. |
|
|
|
|
If bitcoins were distributed equally and fairly to everyone in the world (the ideal, right?), then each person would get about 0.003 BTC, worth about $0.83. In other words, a fair distribution of bitcoins would do nothing.
In fact, if you are complaining about the unfair distribution of bitcoins and you own more than 0.003 BTC, then you are a hypocrite.
|
|
|
|
I think I understand your intention. That is, give each newborn an endowment that grows over the years. In a system with unlimited growth in the money supply, then the money used to pay the interest is simply created, effectively lowering the value of the money already in circulation. The problem with your proposal is that Bitcoin has a fixed money supply, so the interest paid to each person has to be paid by someone else.
So, to answer your questions:
1. Yes, there could be a consensus that results in this change to Bitcoin, but it is extremely unlikely to ever happen.
2. It is hard to say because Bitcoin is not designed to work this way. It would require implementing Proof-of-Stake for certain addresses, but not all addresses, and a way to limit the addresses to one per newborn, and perhaps a way to destroy or distribute the coins if the person dies.
Could also it not be an option for the user who pays a fee for a transaction to the miners not also chose, perhaps in the same motion, to allocate a percentage of that transaction fee to go to this cause? Such an option could easily be added to wallets, and without making any change to Bitcoin as long as it is voluntary. |
|
|
|
|
I think I understand your intention. That is, give each newborn an endowment that grows over the years. In a system with unlimited growth in the money supply, then the money used to pay the interest is simply created, effectively lowering the value of the money already in circulation. The problem with your proposal is that Bitcoin has a fixed money supply, so the interest paid to each person has to be paid by someone else.
So, to answer your questions:
1. Yes, there could be a consensus that results in this change to Bitcoin, but it is extremely unlikely to ever happen.
2. It is hard to say because Bitcoin is not designed to work this way. It would require implementing Proof-of-Stake for certain addresses, but not all addresses, and a way to limit the addresses to one per newborn, and perhaps a way to destroy or distribute the coins if the person dies.
|
|
|
|
For every block that takes an hour, there should be one that takes a few seconds.
True, but... If you "suffer through" an unusually long streak (high wait time for blocks, dice rolls under 7, etc), then at some point you have to get fast blocks or high dice rolls in order for the stats to normalize. Is it accurate to say the dice have long-term memory?  The average time between blocks has been about 10 minutes. There is no mechanism to guarantee that the future average time between blocks will be 10 minutes. However unlikely it might be, the average time between the 2016 blocks in a difficulty period could be 1 hour or 30 seconds. If the first 1008 blocks averaged 20 minutes each, there is nothing that will make the last 1008 blocks average 0 minutes in order to maintain the expected 10 minute average. Statistics describing the past can be extrapolated in order to predict the future, but they can't affect the future. FYI This is related to the fallacy of the concept of "reversion to the mean". |
|
|
|
One day I've sent a big transaction of ~5 btc with zero fee and it was confirmed in less than 30 min. Maybe I was lucky or maybe it was the 5 btc I dunno know. Now I put always 0.0001 bitcoin as fee and for me is very fine, it is less than 0,02 $ !
Zero-fee transactions are based on the weight of the transaction, which takes into consideration the input size, output size, and age. If you held 0.1 BTC for a day, you'd already have enough weight to negate the need for fees (if you were sending at least 0.01 BTC). 5 BTC was way overkill for the system. I like the term "weight" to mean the size in bytes. Generally, the "size" of a transaction is considered to be its value, so a term like "weight", which also implies a burden, is better. I'm going to use it from now on. Weight is in relation to its importance in the network, NOT its cost. Higher weight = higher priority to be added. I think you're getting terms confused here. In fact, it's the opposite of what you said: higher weight = LESS fees needed, since it's already a high-priority transaction. I didn't read your post closely enough. I still prefer the "weight" of a transaction to be the size in bytes, even though there still might be some confusion. Is there precedence in using the term weight to me importance of the transaction? Is there a better term that could be used? |
|
|
|
You now dont really get BTC with mining nowadays, the electricity bills etc are too high and you cant make profit.
You can't make a blanket statement like that. If your electricity is cheap enough you can make a profit after some time, even with a rising difficulty. For example, if you start mining right now with an AntMiner S5, you will break even and start making a profit after 6 months, given these parameters: Equipment Cost: $418 BTC Price; $275 Power Cost: $0.06 / kWh Difficulty Increase: 7% per month |
|
|
|
Currently, revenue from mining bitcoins is about 0.32 BTC per TH/s per month. To determine profit, you must subtract power, cooling and equipment costs, and the mining pool fee. Please note that as the difficulty rises, the revenue per TH/s will drop. You can estimate profit here: https://tradeblock.com/mining/why rise difficulty ? in TH/s how many GHS is ? As more people mine and as mining equipment improves, the difficulty increases in order to maintain the block rate at 10 minutes per block. Miners are competing for a fixed block reward, so if other miners increase their capabilities, your share will decrease unless you increase your capability too. 1 TH/s is 1000 GH/s |
|
|
|
Currently, revenue from mining bitcoins is about 0.32 BTC per TH/s per month. To determine profit, you must subtract power, cooling and equipment costs, and the mining pool fee. Please note that as the difficulty rises, the revenue per TH/s will drop. You can estimate profits here: https://tradeblock.com/mining/ |
|
|
|
One day I've sent a big transaction of ~5 btc with zero fee and it was confirmed in less than 30 min. Maybe I was lucky or maybe it was the 5 btc I dunno know. Now I put always 0.0001 bitcoin as fee and for me is very fine, it is less than 0,02 $ !
Zero-fee transactions are based on the weight of the transaction, which takes into consideration the input size, output size, and age. If you held 0.1 BTC for a day, you'd already have enough weight to negate the need for fees (if you were sending at least 0.01 BTC). 5 BTC was way overkill for the system. I like the term "weight" to mean the size in bytes. Generally, the "size" of a transaction is considered to be its value, so a term like "weight", which also implies a burden, is better. I'm going to use it from now on. |
|
|
|
This thread is not intended to bash (or spread fear about) the next generation of elite humans who will (probably) attain staggering wealth with their pile of Bitcoins:
Did Satoshi make public comments about the initial distribution of Bitcoins? I am curious if he addressed the subject, and I know we have some great historians and "Satoshi experts" around here. Also, If there are any quotes, please feel free to discuss the content.
Edit: To be more specific:
I'm not asking if Satoshi gave technical mining tips.
Did he discuss the fact that some early users would become "elite" with large amounts of Bitcoins and the affects that could have later?
Given that bitcoins were worthless when he started and worth about $0.20 when he left, and that the future of Bitcoin was (and still is) anything but certain, I don't see how anyone at that time could anticipate becoming super wealthy just by holding bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Perhaps this needs to be in the Beginners section... Satoshi started Bitcointalk? The very first topic in the forum is started by Satoshi and talks about Bitcoin 2.0 -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=16.0Pretty cool! That's Bitcoin 0.2, not 2.0. Satoshi also registered bitcoin.org. |
|
|
|
The atm gave me an address but at the end of the address it had "?amount=2.14". I stupidly deleted this from the end of the key that was given to me and sent the bitcoin.
I don't think you did anything wrong as long as you sent the correct amount. The "?amount=2.14" is just supposed to tell your wallet how much to send. The real question is why you can't redeem, since the transaction went through. Basically I went to a Bitcoin atm and tried to withdraw bitcoins from my wallet.
I'm not familiar with ATMs. What do you mean by "withdraw bitcoins from your wallet"? |
|
|
|
I know the problem with confirmations and I can easily afford the fess, I am just curious about the fees etc.
Many of you say miners wouldnt accept the transaction without fees, so can a miner set what kind of transactions they want to include in a block or is it just the network doing it randomly?
Miners are free to set their own policy for determining which transactions are included and which are not. Most miners follow Bitcoin Core's policy, but some do not. |
|
|
|
My Idea.
It would be great, if there would exist a platform that would calculate which is the best exchange to buy bitcoins...
Already exists. i think it is a cool idea. can you give a link to this platform? is it something like an exchanger or a bot? without a doubt, this will help us a lot. I also want the link. Like this? http://bitcoincharts.com/markets |
|
|
|
That's true for big transactions.
Let's suppose you are sending 0.03 btc to someone , so generally you pay 0.0001 as transaction fees , but i sometimes crop it to half i.e. 0.00005 and still get same confirmation time, though it is not recommended and before you use them , Remember that they might take some days to pass
In general, paying a fee of 0.00005 per kb is the same as paying nothing. However, each miner sets their own fee policy, so some miners might choose a transaction paying 0.00005 per kb over a transaction paying no fee. |
|
|
|
Date Registered: August 27, 2014, 09:46:50 AM You had fucking 8 months and still dont understand how btc mining/blockchain works? Get the fck off scammer. Now if you're so good, please tell me why I can not point my miner towards a specific transaction to get to confirm quicker. seriouscoin is an annoying troll. You can ignore him. I do. |
|
|
|
Are there any Android BTC clients that remotely use my Bitcoin Core wallet so I don't have to use another wallet specific for my phone? I am running my own BTC node.
thanks
you can try to export your private key and import it in your android wallet. That is a bad idea because as soon as you send bitcoins using one wallet, the balance shown by the other wallet will be incorrect. Incorrect,if you spend the coins, it will be broadcasted across the network. The wallet will check the blockchain for wallet balance. Since it is updated in realtime, there is no way for it to be incorrect. But the change will be sent to an address that the other wallet doesn't control and the balances will diverge. Maybe I should have used the word "different" instead of "incorrect". |
|
|
|
|
In short, you can solo mine your own transactions, but the chances of your low priority tx getting in the next block depends on your portion of the total hash rate.
|
|
|
|
bought bitcoin when they were just $3 I bet hes got around 50,000 BTC in his wallet and when the price sky rockets hill be a multitrillionaire eny ho know his btc address?
He announced on March 9, 2013 that he had over $1 million in bitcoins. The price around that time was between $50 and $120. That means that he probably had between 8000 and 20,000 BTC. My guess is closer to 10,000. He might have more now, as a result of his QRK pump-and-dump. As for "his btc address", nobody with a large number of bitcoins stores them all in a single address. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
