|
Assume that the expected value of a bitcoin is $200. And assume that if bitcoin never reaches $150 is because bitcoin keeps growing until it replaces fiat and that it's then worth $4M. Probability of never reaching $150 then is approximatly:
p=200/4M*100%.
|
|
|
|
April might have been higher measured in dollars... But we all know that the dollar is useless as a tool for comparison since it fluctuates like crazy with announcements of infinite printing of more dollars and lack of announcements of infinite printing of dollars. But if you use gold as a comparison Bitcoin did actually reach ATH in October:  With log scale:  |
|
|
|
back to 200 within an hour.. watch
Back to $220 within 5minutes, watch! |
|
|
|
|
Most bitcoiner friendly! Not bitcoin friendly. We also want to enjoy our free lifestyle with some hot chicks in some warm weather with some spicy herbs!
|
|
|
|
Or just use bitcoinity.org |
|
|
|
Only ~200k of the 1.5m USD bid wall left, where did it go?
Whale got bored of waiting, gonna just buy for best price. |
|
|
|
Cayman Island looks pretty sweet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayman_IslandsThe Cayman Islands historically have been a tax-exempt destination. On 8 February 1794, the Caymanians rescued the crews of a group of ten merchant ships, including HMS Convert, an incident that has since become known as the Wreck of the Ten Sail. The ships had struck a reef and run aground during rough seas.[12] Legend has it that King George III rewarded the island with a promise never to introduce taxes as compensation for their generosity, as one of the ships carried a member of the King's own family, his son Prince William, Duke of Clarence and St Andrews. While this remains a popular legend, the story is not true.[13]
However, whatever the history, in practice the government of the Cayman Islands has always relied on indirect and not direct taxes. The islands have never levied income tax, capital gains tax, or any wealth tax, making them a popular tax haven.[14] |
|
|
|
|
Fellow bitcoiners
Our goverments wants to take our hard earned coins, put us in jail for having plants in our pockets and annoy us very frequently. It's takes a toll on our wealth and life satisfaction, and paying taxes that funds the real terrorist makes us morally poorer.
So if we should decide to sell everything and move to some place that wants us spending our coins there, only demands a reasonable low part of our labour and allows us to enjoy our life, without draining us morally, which country would you recommend?
|
|
|
|
|
Bump since it was moved back
|
|
|
|
189  |
|
|
|
Do you guys think we will have something epic happening at bitcoinity once we reach ATH this time?  |
|
|
|
Not far from ATH now:  |
|
|
|
If the funds on the bankroll were 100% my own, I would have shut the site down by now. I would have lost enough already. I wasn't expecting variance to be this much of a bitch at all. I was expecting ups and downs, but not like this.
For the first couple of months I felt like the bankroll was mine. I couldn't sleep with the worry that it would be lost. I have found that the only way I can relax is to stop worrying about the bankroll. It's not healthy for me to be constantly stressed about the ups and downs of the site's bankroll. I'm still happy to see it go up, and sad to see it go down, but I'm not as attached to it any more. I think it helped when I put the max profit down to 0.25% and got a massive "no, put it back, we want the variance" from the majority of investors. It made me realise that the investors know what they're doing, and that I don't have to baby them. I still sometimes feel like the best thing to do would be to shut the site down, but then I remember that the investors want the chance to recoup their losses.
Having said that, I was watching mechs almost lose everything just now, and hoping he wouldn't. It would have been great for the house if he had lost it all, but so sad for him too.
I hope that answers your question, and isn't too disappointing.
As an investor I am happy with this answear. I can take the variance, I have lost huge sums on various things before in life. I invested a sum I was willing to risk for this risk and have other sum's with other risks. Even before this investment I know I was not maximizing my value given what I believe is likely to happen, I am too risk averse and have a strong falling utility function, I do in fact believe I would be less happy as a bitcoin billionare than as a bitcoin milionaire and the same is probably true for USD. |
|
|
|
Watching the just-dice site right now is getting more interesting than football lol. And I don't even have any money invested.
Having money invested has made today a really interesting day, much more fun than playing myself. Looks like we've finally gotten some slack:   |
|
|
|
|
Dammit, he forgot to add a fee to his latest transaction. How can I get any work done today now?
|
|
|
|
Yup, 0.25% means investors who wanted exposure have less exposure. The thing is that you can always invest less, but you can't invest more (if you're maxed out). So basically 0.25% makes it a lot safer for wimps, more people will invest more, and for the people who were already invested the most they wanted to, they'll own less % of the house.
Wimps should not invest in gambling. I have had huge swings in my career as a trader, often lost much more in one day than I dare invest in JD(because of the scam risk), if you can't handle -50% in one day, then don't be the house in the casino. More investors won't mean more profits for the investors, I'd much rather have 30k invested and 1% allowed than 120k invested and 0.25% allowed given that we get the same action from bettors. Sure the variance will be lower at 120k, but the expected value also lower. So I will have a higher scam risk but the same variance and same expected value. For most investors this will be a very small part of their investment(otherwise the investors are not rational and the discussion is pointless) so utility value of the investments don't really matter. |
|
|
|
Max profit was just lowered to 0.25%
Meh this is terrible. I as an investor am very dissapointed. Kelly's criterion says that we should allow up to ~25% of invested be risked so 1% was already very conservative. The wales wont like it and us investors will get a lower ROI. Too bad so few people understand game theory and risk. The site was doing fine without the lowering the amount, cmon it was just getting started and even though profits went down, 30k BTC was invested while the site was just getting started. Hope the site owners comes back to their senses after having read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterionHow does (1*0.505-0.495)/1 = 0.25? I get 0.01, which is where it was before. You're right, I was wrong.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
