|
pm selloff in progress...
|
|
|
|
it looks to me that mining would be best described as being in a Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium - cypherdoc
Highlights are mine:" A pure strategy Nash equilibrium is a profile of strategies such that each player’s (miner's) strategy is a best response ((results in the highest available payoff (block reward)) against the equilibrium strategies of the other players (miners).
A pure strategy Nash equilibrium only requires that the action taken by each agent (miner) be best against the actual equilibrium actions taken by the other players (miners), and not necessarily against all possible actions of the other players (miners). In other words, it's expected for some miners to be malicious.
A Nash equilibrium has the nice property that it is stable: if each player expects 'a' to be the profile of actions played, then no player (miner) has any incentive to change his or her action (no incentive to start cheating). In other words, no player (miner) regrets having played the action that he or she played in a Nash equilibrium." http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1968579Nice. I hadn't looked at it that way but it makes perfect sense. Nash equilibrium works well in theory, the real world is a little more messy. Pre-mass adoption there are so many outside interests seeking bitcoin failure that there are other incentives at play. Once there is more distribution and buy in, the full effects of the Nash Equilibrium will be much stronger than they are today. the Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game; therefore, i think the Nash Equilibrium takes those hostile actors into account. the minimum # of participants required to apply the theory is 2 and doesn't depend on large #'s. what's also important for all actors to know and understand, and to know that the others know, is that the longest blockchain and the POW required to construct it is mathematically immutable. b/c we know that the hashrate of the Bitcoin Network is thousands of times larger than most of the supercomputers on Earth makes the strategical decision making of each individual actor clear; don't cheat. |
|
|
|
Costa said the bank's activities "were in clear violation of Bank of Portugal rules" and used "fraudulent schemes." Police suspect former Chief Executive Ricardo Espirito Santo Salgado, who stepped down last month, of fraud, forgery and money-laundering at the bank, whose business dates from the 19th century and has been one of Portugal's most venerable financial institutions, as well as for years its biggest private bank.Portugal Bank Collapse and Rescue Raises Questions http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/portugal-puts-66-bn-save-ailing-bank-24827430dickheads.
|
|
|
|
|
oh, btw:
Gold & Silver collapsing. Bitcoin up.
|
|
|
|
it looks to me that mining would be best described as being in a Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium - cypherdoc
Highlights are mine:" A pure strategy Nash equilibrium is a profile of strategies such that each player’s (miner's) strategy is a best response ((results in the highest available payoff (block reward)) against the equilibrium strategies of the other players (miners).
A pure strategy Nash equilibrium only requires that the action taken by each agent (miner) be best against the actual equilibrium actions taken by the other players (miners), and not necessarily against all possible actions of the other players (miners). In other words, it's expected for some miners to be malicious.
A Nash equilibrium has the nice property that it is stable: if each player expects 'a' to be the profile of actions played, then no player (miner) has any incentive to change his or her action (no incentive to start cheating). In other words, no player (miner) regrets having played the action that he or she played in a Nash equilibrium." http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1968579 |
|
|
|
Silver, oh noes! who leads again?  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin forming a daily swing low reversal UP on volume expected to be higher by days end:  |
|
|
|
gold back below support after dead cat bounce:  |
|
|
|
Yes! The volume is the key. Without it, a chart tells only half the story.
NL, the only thing i'd say about your arguments above is that i'd like to see gubmint play a "more" active role by loosening the choke points and regs that are restricting Bitcoin's free trade at the moment. there is no doubt in my mind that Bitcoin would be much more widespread by now if they weren't interfering. the other thing is that until the gubmint is willing to tie their fiat currency emission to Bitcoin, such as perhaps M1 to 21m BTC, they will continue to inflate the USD which is bad for everyone. this has to stop. Why M1 instead of M2? I've thought M2 was a better analog since it includes stored value, but I follow this thread religiously and value your thoughts on this. well, you're guess is as good as mine. i chose M1 b/c it represents liquid money much like Bitcoin:  |
|
|
|
While the concept of a "necessary backing" is a fallacy in my book "Backing" is a kind of awkward hack that attempts to limit the production of currency. It never really worked in the first place, and it's completely unnecessary now that we can just use math to limit the supply of the currency. don't forget the concept of backing may continue forward as Bitcoin is Modular Gold - cypherdoc.meaning we may end up plunking it into M1 in a 1 to 1 ratio with the USD monetary base forming a Bitcoin Standard serving as the foundation for the existing fiat debt system so as to prevent a severe debt implosion. |
|
|
|
Yes! The volume is the key. Without it, a chart tells only half the story.
NL, the only thing i'd say about your arguments above is that i'd like to see gubmint play a "more" active role by loosening the choke points and regs that are restricting Bitcoin's free trade at the moment. there is no doubt in my mind that Bitcoin would be much more widespread by now if they weren't interfering. the other thing is that until the gubmint is willing to tie their fiat currency emission to Bitcoin, such as perhaps M1 to 21m BTC, they will continue to inflate the USD which is bad for everyone. this has to stop. |
|
|
|
The problem I have with gold bugs who advocate a gold backed currency such as Rickards and Schiff is that gold backed currency has been tried and failed. It failed because of a central point of failure and in the US this central point of failure is the federal reserve and it failed to maintain a dollar peg to gold. Einstein's definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." By that definition, all gold bugs who want a gold backed currency are insane because it has been tried and failed miserably. Don't try it again. Bitcoiners are the sane ones for trying something different.
A gold backed digital currency would be great but these three conditions cannot exist simultaneously for money:
1. Digital
2. Backed by gold
3. No third party risk (no central point of failure - decentralized)
The next best thing is to have 1 and 3 exist simultaneously, which leaves us with bitcoin.
With Bitcoin Specie, we get all three. Bitccoin is not backed by gold so we don't get #2. Here we go. Bitcoin is backed by gold. Of course, you all know that backing is a concept that only applies at the institutional level of gubmint, the emitter of paper fiat. If they aren't willing to play ball by backing their worthless paper with Bitcoin, or even gold, your attempts to prove a point are pointless. That is what is required along with a free and open market in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Bears weakening:  |
|
|
|
best not ignore:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
