|
I'm bumping this simply because I want more games to go on betco.in
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, most people don't realize that inequality is a GOOD thing. If means you can get more than somebody else.
|
|
|
|
Please explain. The graphs sometimes show straight, sometimes curved lines. But any two intersecting lines produce the same result. The nature of the lines on the graphs is irrelevant. This is one example. The nature of the lines is clearly relevant because if the line is curved, any shift up or down the line will be more/less dramatic than it would be in a straight line. And integral of the line function would show how changes in market pressure would affect the price. The type of line obviously matters. This author is a fucking moron. |
|
|
|
|
That thing was so stupid I want to punch my monitor. So many inconsistencies from a professor of logic and philosophy. Wow.
|
|
|
|
Don't take it personally. Many people think bitcoin is somehow, a scam.
Yeah, I've heard that too, and it boggles my mind. How can people say it's a scheme for the early adopters.. aren't ALL new businesses a "get rich" scheme for the early adopters? Isn't that the reward for taking the chance on something!? I hope Satoshi and the early adopters DO have their btc and make a buttload, they deserve the reward for the effort and taking a chance! For my part, I am using Bitcoins because I can see both how simple yet robust Bitcoin is, and I WANT to be a part of it, to use it, to help it gain traction. If that means other people get rich, good for them for finding and recognizing it before I did. I hope to also make out when BTC hits $50 a pop, and my savings wallet is suddenly worth something. But in the mean time, I will keep gambling on Betco.in, buying and using gift cards, trading with btc, getting my server and VPN with btc, and trying to stimulate the bitcoin economy because I think it should be used. |
|
|
|
if I understand it correctly when you receive bitcoins it's like having a "bitcoin note" of the denomination of the amount that you received them. so if you mine 50 BTC you get a 50 "BTC note" say. For simplicity, say you only have that 50 BTC in your wallet. You spend 1 BTC, so that "note" has to be broken - so it's like all 50 are spent, 1 BTC goes to the address you sent it to and the change of 49 BTC is returned to an address you own. So now you have 49 BTC in your wallet that are fresh (i.e. zero days old). For the BTC days destroyed calculation it's like all 50 BTC have been spent (so days destroyed = 50 x # of days you've held them) even though in reality you've sent 1 BTC and still own the other 49.
hope that's right. someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Since I don't quite get it myself, I can't confirm the accuracy of what you said, but if you are right, I now understand the metric. Thank you for that clear explanation. I truly appreciate it. I finally get it! |
|
|
|
This BitcoinDays Destroyed number still doesn't provide a perfect picture, it is just a much better measure than looking at raw spending totals. Here's an example: 1. Someone who mined 50 bitcoins exactly one year ago spends them.
Consider a slight variation on that ... example 5: 5. Someone who mined 50 bitcoins exactly one year ago spends 1 BTC. In Case 5 only 1 BTC was spent and 49 BTC was returned as change. There would still be 18,250 Bitcoin-days destroyed, even though the coins representing all but 365 of those Bitcoin-days remained in the same wallet. I understood the first 4 examples, but not that example 5 you just explained. Why are all 18250 BTC days destroyed? Why not just 365? Is it because some part of the 50 that was originally minted is finally spent, regardless of how many? If so, why? |
|
|
|
|
If it's not too much trouble, could you explain how and why? I'm still very confused, but I like the concept (or at least the vague notion of it that I have, which you've stated is clearly incorrect). I very much want to understand, and I'm sorry for being a pain. I just want to understand but I don't. I feel terrible and idiotic and I don't want to be wasting your time like this, but please, please help me understanding how this metric works and what it is.
|
|
|
|
luv2drnkbr, I agree with you. Raulo's formulation of "not having contributed if you leave the pool" is incorrect. I have never raised my dissent because the analysis of pool hopping does not depend on it as a premise. It is still a way to benefit on the expense of others in proportional pools, which is unsustainable if done by everyone.
The correct way to view this is to ignore the past, look at the present and see how it affects the future. If I submit a share now, what is the expected benefit to the pool? What is my expected payout? Are they the same? In my scoring method, the contribution and reward are always equal (up to fees). In a proportional pool, the reward is higher than the contribution in young rounds, and lower in old rounds.
On a proportional pool, suppose the current round already has shares twice the difficulty. If you submit a share, what is your expected contribution? You have a probability p=1/difficulty to find a valid block with reward B, so it's pB. What is your expected payout for this share? No matter what happens, you will get less than (pB/2) reward, so the expectation is less than pB/2. So you're better off mining solo which has pB expectation per share.
What if the round is very fresh, say, no shares at all? Your contribution to the pool is still pB. But now you have a probability of p to get the whole reward B to yourself, this contingency alone adds pB to the expectation; probability p(1-p) of getting half the block - since 1-p is quite small, this already puts you at almost 1.5pB; and with probability p(1-p)^2 you get a third, and so on. So your expected payout is roughly log(1/p)pB, which at current difficulty is 13pB. So shares submitted early on will give you a very large expected payout, much more than your fair share for your contribution to the pool.
I did not understand that proportional pools existed. Thank you for that explanation Holy-Fire. |
|
|
|
|
There will be an equilibrium that occurs. If there are few fees and everybody stops mining, somebody will say "ah screw it I can solve this block with my CPU and get a few bitcents, sure why not". Plus the rarity of miners will cause a panic about the vulnerability of the system, so people will mine just for their own peace of mind about the strength of the network. I don't think anybody should ever be concerned about the "there's no money to be mined!" problem. I'm MUCH more concerned about a virus propagating deepbit.
|
|
|
|
|
The answer for me would depend on my knowledge of the person who can reject the offer. What is his financial situation? What non-financial motives might drive his choices? If it's some random off the street I offer him not a 50/50 but enough that the monetary reward would likely overcome his "spite" reaction to my getting more. Like maybe $4200/$800. If he's a purely rational actor, I'd still give him $50 just because I'm nice, but not THAT nice.
If I'm the one able to reject the offer, I try to find some way to convince the other guy that I'm moderately well off and very vengeance-oriented. Then (whether or not I have been able to communicate this to him) I accept any offer.
|
|
|
|
|
This type of thing is exactly why I just made a whole new datadir on my Windows client and even redownloaded the blockchain in to that when I made my savings wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
Meh all this is too complicated. I'm just going to write a batch script to unrar my wallet and then a few seconds after the bitcoin client is closed, re-rar (with a password) the wallet file. I'm not a programmer, but I think I can make something like that that would work behind the scenes without me even noticing. I still have the bulk of my btc in a "savings account" wallet that is encrypted with TC and in multiple locations. But you're right, I should still have my main use wallet encrypted, just in case.
|
|
|
|
Forget buying drugs, I just inject bitcoins directly into my veins. The rush is proportional to the current difficulty, however most people cut them with nonces because mainlining BTC is like seeing god. You've got to be careful, though, because once I took a hit of BTC right when there was a huge difficulty increase and I nearly overdosed. I was shitting hashes for days. I know it's cheesey but I laughed.. |
|
|
|
I'm not math-savvy enough to get the whole thing, but I am a gambler and I understand expectation, and the basic premise is false: If one stops mining for a pool that has not found a share, one still gets a payment [...] even though now you contribute nothing to the pool chance of success. This enables cheating. It doesn't matter if you contributed to the pool and a hash wasn't found. It still took your previous work as well as the work of everybody else to find the hash. You DID contribute to finding that solution. And you are getting paid for the amount of work that you did. If you then go and continue working on your own, that doesn't matter. If I am playing in a re-buy poker tournament on a team's bankroll (a team I'm a part of), and if my win would get chopped with the team, but then I bust out, and the team doesn't want to re-buy me back into it, I can still go into my pocket and buy myself in on my own money. If somebody on the team wins the tournament, I still get part of it because I AM part of that team, and if I cash on my own money with my re-buy, I get all of it because the team didn't pay for that. That's not unfair to anybody. I was working for the team, and if the team wins money, I should get paid for my role in the team effort. If I then go off and put the effort in by myself and win, then I should get all of it. There's no conflict there. The basic premise of your paper is false. The EV is the same for the miner--it's merely a function of his total effort put in, pool or no pool. What you are describing is simply a "gambling system" that doesn't change the house edge. You've stumbled upon the Martingale system for blackjack and now think you have an edge. You don't. Nothing has changed. The premise is false. I will demonstrate what I'm saying must be true: If everybody in the pool mines for a bit then goes solo, the pool has done some work but now will never find a solution. However, one of the solo miners will (assuming no outside people in this example). The chance of any individual miner finding a winner is exactly the same as it was when he was part of a pool, it's just that when he was in a pool, he would have had to give most of his winnings away, but in return he got part of the winnings if somebody else won. By mining solo, he has merely given himself a bigger potential payout but at a cost of it being less likely. But his average monetary gain over the course of his lifetime will be the same, whether or not it's paid in small increments or in random 50 btc spurts. Thus, if the two are equal, it cannot be true that switching to one or the other at some magical point in time will somehow yield a higher profit. 100% of $5 is mathematically equivalent to 10% of $50. The only difference is variance. The premise is false! |
|
|
|
|
My "join" date on these forums pretty much tells my reason for finding out about them. I'm a poker player in the USA...
|
|
|
|
|
WTF the main Bitcoin client (the GUI) is SUPER easy and simple. It's only the "how it works" part that's nerdy. You can use it without knowing anything.
|
|
|
|
How can you know that most Bitcoin days destroyed aren’t just people moving old coins between their addresses?
That's not possible to know, and it doesn't really matter anyway. If I'm understanding it correctly, it's just a velocity of money metric to gage market spenditure versus hoarding. |
|
|
|
|
I feel like BTC Days Destroyed should be able to be roughly calculated (not exact) by the average number and size (in btc) of transactions per block and the average interval between blocks, over the entire life of bitcoins. Like couldn't I just find the total amount of BTC traded per block, and get how many "bitcoin blocks" instead of "bitcoin days" by using the summation forumla:
(Blocks^2 + Blocks) / 2
And then just figure out the average number of blocks per day. Those figures should give a basis of measurement of btc days destroyed should they not? Is that true, or am I wrong about that?
If I am correct, could somebody post the (roughly accurate but not completely accurate) formula for btc days destroyed, since I can't read python!..? Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
