 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
@piuk: feature request - CSV download option for a history of up to some arbitrary number of blocks.
Would love this, as there are some stats I'd like to run on your transaction volume figure.
Is there any other way that I can get this?
|
|
|
|
a theoretical series of transactions which move 100% of the existing bitcoin to some previously-unknown wallet address would reduce the BTCDD figure to 0%
You meant "increase the BTCDD to 100%". Your previous post in this thread was correct in this regard. Even if you consider that there are lost coins, the theoretical BTCDD figure approaches zero as the number of days goes to infinity.
If there are lost coins and a finite total number of coins then the BTCDD percentage cannot possibly reach 100% ever. If there are no more transactions then the BTCDD tends to 0%. In the long run, if there are any transactions then the BTCDD has a lower bound given by the proportion of the transacted coins out of the total coins. Arithmetically it seems to me that the percentage cannot exceed 50%: in fact it should reach 50% asymptotically.
Both statements are incorrect. ByteCoin OK, so I reversed 100% and 0%, you're absolutely right. But it seems like you realized that! Sticking with the substance of the discussion: if the total transactions per day average 50% of the total coins outstanding over some longish period of time, then sure, it's asymptotic to 50%. Let's do some math on that: assuming the BTC stabilizes at $5, the long term implication of the 50% asymptote is about 22M * $5 = $11M of Bitcoin transacted commerce per day or about $4B / year. That is 1/1000 the size of the VISA network at $4T/year, or about 0.1%. Not great. To reach 10% of the VISA network at a 50% asymtote, the network would require a BTC valuation of $100. It's not a bad goal! |
|
|
|
I note also that the percentage value seems relatively flat over the last quarter, at least according to ABE. They report it as 36.1245% as of block 145677 at 2011-09-17, vs 35.1627% on June 17. Does anyone know of a regularly updated graph by percent, rather than the graph of the raw numbers at http://banana.mine.nu/daysdest.htmlBTCDD is proposed as a measure of monetary velocity for bitcoins: that is not the same as transaction volume so I am not sure to be posting on the right thread. Arithmetically it seems to me that the percentage cannot exceed 50%: in fact it should reach 50% asymptotically. If x is the average of the last block number seen for any bitcoin, the percentage is (x- N/2) divided by N (N being the current block number). x should be close to N as velocity increases. I'm not sure your math is right. Since a theoretical series of transactions which move 100% of the existing bitcoin to some previously-unknown wallet address would reduce the BTCDD figure to 0%, I don't believe the figure is asymptotic to 50%. Please explain further. Even if you consider that there are lost coins, the theoretical BTCDD figure approaches zero as the number of days goes to infinity. |
|
|
|
|
What is the logic used to estimate the transaction volume?
Do you simply always to the smaller 'To' amount as the transaction amount (right of your arrow in the transactions)?
|
|
|
|
I've created a site similar to block explorer with a couple of improvements: - Includes orphaned blocks which can be used to track possible double spends
- Estimates the actual volume of BTC transacted (not just BTC sent)
The site can be found at: http://pi.uk.com/bitcoinAll ideas and feedback welcome. Is the site down? As of 3:38pm PST, this appears to be the case. Wanted to ask a question about the calculation method on transactional volume. |
|
|
|
On my todo list: - Bitcoin days destroyed (thanks Stephen for explaining)
- Solid coni support
- Complete the move to the bitcoind mysql backend and remove rpc polling
- list addresses with the highest balances
+1 to notion of adding the Bitcoin DD (days destroyed) stat. One other comment: where do you get $1000 / 2 years for 1 GHash? Is that approximately 50% depreciation per year on a rig which costs $1/MHash/s? Don't disagree with the number so much as interested in how you derived it. |
|
|
|
All my posts are kind of trollish...
but yeah, my point is, the amount of transactions meaning anything about bitcoin's viability is a farcical fallacy. It's obviously not transactions for any goods on the white-market, and probably not the black market either.
I suspect a LOT of bogus moving shit around for the sake of it transactions, as well as overly paranoid moon-bats laundering their coins to get some higher degree of pseudo anonymity.
Also, keep in mind that everything that happens within the exchanges never hits the chain, which is interesting.
So you think people are just shifting coins in their own wallets? Are there really that many people out there who would be shifting around that much money per day/hour? It's kind of crazy unless there was some early adopter who's got a billion coins that he's slowly offloading. I also agree it seems a little high for even black market activities. From what I saw of that one site (i cant remember the name) people were dealing with small quantities. < few BTC not hundreds or thousands of BTC worth of illegal stuff. It does smell funny. Anyone else have any opinions on what this might be? It's important to understand that the 'transitional volume' figures include the coins that are returned to a wallet after a partial spend. For example, if I spend 1 BTC on something, and my wallet has a single consolidated value of 5000 BTC, then the transaction looks like: 1BTC + 4999BTC, and the total volume is quoted as 5000 BTC. It is more interesting to look at BTC Day Destroyed if you're truly interested in 'velocity' in the traditional sense. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Days_Destroyed |
|
|
|
When the hashing power has decreased and rigs were sold. But yeah people are in denial, that's what gives scam artists alternate cryptocurrencies a free hand.
Deepbit disagrees with you. Over the past month the hash rate there (measured, not estimated) has gone from 5 terahash to 5.5 terahash. It was going up 50 gigahash a day as the price went below $10, and has since flatlined -- but it has not decreased in any measurable way. *MY* remaining mining hardware is on craigslist, I don't deny it. Already sold two 5830s for $120 each, hoping for a difficulty drop or price pop to sell the last 2. But that won't be the general case until FPGA and ASIC miners make video cards as obsolete as CPUs. Why do you people still believe there's going to be bitcoin ASICs? How many goddamn times does it have to be drilled into your head that the economics will NEVER work out enough to develop one until BTC are trading for well over $50/coin steadily... I'm interested to know your assumptions behind your $50 price to justify ASIC mining. Please share if you're willing. |
|
|
|
Don't worry BTC is still over TWICE as profitable than every other mainstream investment. 1gh/sec $8 per BTC 1000KW .15 KW/hr 30 days Coins per 24h at these conditions: 0.5658 BTC Power cost per 24h: 3.60 USD Revenue per day: 4.53 USD ... less power costs: 0.93 USD Power cost per time frame: 109.57 USD Revenue per time frame: 133.86 USD ... less power costs: 24.29 USD Net profit first time frame: 24.29 USD Profit Margin = 18%  Let's compare to other endevours.... Historical US corporate profit margin is 5.5% to 7.5%. Historical US Equities yield is 9% to 11% OK, but in order to complete your analysis which compares the gross operating margin of bitcoin mining to other investment instruments, consideration needs to go to 1) the capital cost of the mining rigs and 2) the volatility of the underlying commodity and the associated risk premium. Even if you just take the volatility of the BTC as your cost of capital, the math changes significantly. |
|
|
|
|
The prevailing assumption seems to be that 'mining' does not equate to buying BTC with money, but I think it's really the same thing. The only practical difference is that when mining, you're 'buying' your coins at a discount to the current market value (at the current difficulty and 0.10 / kWh electricity, you're effectively paying something over $2/BTC). That does not account for the cost of capital required to commission the mining rig in the first place, which increases the effective risk further.
The closer the value of the BTC comes to the underlying cost of energy required to mine the coins (if profit margins get very low due to some unforseen price decline), the more 'speculative' mining operations become. In that sense, they are just like a buy-and-hold approach to buying with cash on Mt. Gox or any other open market.
|
|
|
|
In the context of determining whether 'old' coins are flooding the market (to drive the price down), it's worth tracking the CoinDD (days destroyed) metric available here: http://abe.john-edwin-tobey.org/chain/Bitcoin. The metric has not grown in any large jump since before this most recent price decline, and as such I suggest this decline is not a result of coins that have been sitting anywhere for any length of time. |
|
|
|
Some thoughts and a confirmation of my understanding of 'BTCDD': BTCDD is different than velocity in the traditional sense, because it uniquely accounts for how long an individual coin has been in the hands of the owner. 'Velocity' is a more generic measure which calculates how many times the same supply of money has passed through a given economy to support a given level of activity (GDP). If you applied this concept to Bitcoin, you’d be fooled by the fact that transactional volume does not represent ‘spending’, because of the fact nearly all BTC transactions return some fraction of coins to the spender (although you cannot determine with certainty whether they are returning to the spender’s wallet, or going someplace else as part of genuine additional spend; technically, it is impossible to see from any given naked transaction which is the ‘spent’ part, and which is the ‘change’ part). BTCDD deals with this by adjusting all transactions to account for the number of days since the public key associated with the coins spent (and therefore the coins themselves), last showed up in the block chain. I also found: http://abe.john-edwin-tobey.org/chain/Bitcoin?count=2016&hi=143075 and cranked the last 2 weeks of data through Excel very quickly to get a short term graph of the trend:  The slope ‘down and to the right’ represents a hoarding trend as time goes by and the BTC days figure ticks up by 7M / day, and the ‘upticks’ represent some combination of medium sized transactions with ‘old’ coin, or larger transactions with somewhat newer coin. Theoretically, I think the conditions for the ‘reset’ of BTCDD to 100% would be that all coins issued transfer from all n outstanding funded wallets to a single destination wallet in one coordinated effort over a single 10 minute interval. This would necessarily involve at least n transactions. It is also well established that some BTC have been permanently destroyed, so this is technically impossible, not to mention that the block reward for that block would throw things off by 50 BTC. --- Moderator: Please migrate to thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6172.msg90789 |
|
|
|
I have noticed that sometimes block timestamps appear out of order. For example: >> 142884 2011-08-28 05:23:00 1 50 1805728.389 7144249.91789992 265.327 966.464 36.101% >> 142883 2011-08-28 05:23:14 27 896.27036728 1805728.389 7144199.91789992 265.329 966.464 36.1009% Block 142884 bears a timestamp which is 14 seconds earlier than the prior block. I asked this question on #bitcoin-dev and got: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestamp, which makes sense. My question is: how can the network afford for the timestamp to be up to 2 hrs advanced? Does this open the door to any kind of time based attack on the network? Please add this to the appropriate thread or sub-forum. My posts are bound and limited to this forum, for now. |
|
|
|
|
Guys,
I'm working with TTUL on a bitcoin ASIC project. We've also done an analysis of mining efficiency given the current difficulty and power cost climate.
Please whitelist me.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
