It means: Yes I have lost coefficient calculation.  Benefit somewhat less than I expected. For 1 million in a single splitting the difference is 0.03% (and here I quoted Come-from-Beyond) For 50 millions in a single splitting the difference is 1.27% And now I say that for 200 millions (20%) in a single splitting the difference is 5.26% (20%/19%) Where is the lie?Alice owns N, Bob owns N/2 + N/2 (==N). Let's assess Bob's chance to hit target assuming that base target is such that Alice hits it within 1 minute (say, 0.001 probability): Every of the accounts has 0.0005 chance to hit the target (0.001 * N/2 / N) Chance that none of the accounts does it == (1 - 0.0005) * (1 - 0.0005) = 0.9995 * 0.9995 = 0.99900025 Chance that any of the accounts does it == 1 - 0.99900025 = 0.00099975 Thus the combined stake does have advantage which proves Dervish point of view. Let's calculate this advantage: Alice / Bob = 0.001 / 0.00099975 = 1.000250062515629 Thus Alice quotient of advantage = 1.000250062515629 - 1 = 0.0003 = 0.03%Max value of advantage quotient can be reached if Bob splits all his coins among very big number of accounts. It will be close to 0.05% in this case. PS: 0.05% advantage is compensated by dispersion and can work only in very long run which doesn't make sense coz currency where stakeholders don't spend coins will die much earlier. Ok, Now I understand better. After split to two equal parts, p = 1 - (1 - P/2) * (1 - P/2) = 1 - (1 - P + P^2/4) = P - (P^2) / 4 So the equation Dervish used was correct. |
|
|
|
The equation for difference is
d=P/p=P/(P-P2/4)=4/(4-P)
for 1% (1 million) d = 4/3,99 = 1,0025 difference 0,025% CFB have rounded it to 0,03%
for 5% (5 millions) d = 4/3,95 = 1,01265 difference 1,265% I have rounded it to 1,27%
for 20% (20 millions) d = 4/3,8 = 1,05263 difference 5,26%
Do you have any reference of p = P-P 2/4? Say if I have all the Nxts, my probability is certainly 1. Then I divide all my coins to two accounts, the probability of one account is (1 - 1/4) / 2 = 3/8 and the sum of my two accounts becomes 3/4? Does that mean there's 1/4 chance no forge in a round?
If I further divide them to 4 accounts, then the forge probability further decreases? So there're more empty rounds? Seems quite hard for me to understand.EDIT: What I said was not true. |
|
|
|
Wouldd it even be possible for this coin to get those kind of returns like Mastercoin. I was under the impression it wouldn't be
More people burn now means less chance to get more than 10x return like Mastercoin in short time. Those kind of return (10x -> 1000x) requires that people highly suspect it in the beginning and then later found it real and useful. The extreme case is Nxt. Almost no one trusted it in the IPO stage (they got 21 BTC only), and then when the client came out and it worked, the price shot up because the demand suddenly increases but most chips are controlled in the hand of a few people and it's quite easy for they to hold and see the price up to the sky. For XCP, 1) people are already quite familiar with the idea due to MSC; 2) the 'Prove by Burn' removes the trust issue; 3) the client is working and we can see the source code, so you can see that there're already 1200 BTC burnt in less than half a month. The situation, however, is almost the same after the IPO. Most of people want to buy will burn now anyway. For the demand from those new comers, the supply (from those want quick profit of 30-40%) will be enough to keep the low price. Therefore, no reason to expect the price could rise significantly without any big news (e.g. a beautiful and user friendly client; a famous asset such as AM moves in; or a lot of bets like those in bitbet are available). |
|
|
|
Hi all,
I am buying 1.8 million NXT from lophie.
I am looking for escrow from reputable member.
I contacted Anon123, John K., and TAT, but no reply yet.
If anyone else with high reputation is interested to do the escrow, please pm me, I'm happy to pay a fee for your service.
You can try to contact Pouncer to see whether he is interested. He has good reputation in escrowing MSC transactions before. I can do the escrow for you, but to you I am as a stranger as lophie and has no trust level.  |
|
|
|
I know it's off of topic but it seems that most of guys here switched from MSC to XCP. What happened? did u lose your faith in MSC?  I'm glad that you're supporting this project. It only assured me about my investment. Looking forward to see more development. I think the reason you see this is because they are hoping to make gains as large as in mastercoin. However, if that is the intention I personally feel a lot of people are going be disappointed. Because compared with MSC the distribution of coins in XCP is very much even and as such it would be more difficult to 'manipulate' the market, so to speak I don't have the statistics here but I'm betting more than half of the guys burning coins here are looking for a fast turnaround in profit and will throw the coins as fast as they have burned their coins  Caveat emptor For some people, get 30% - 40% return in one month is already a good investment. Suppose the daily burnt BTC count keeps current up trend, quite a lot of people will buy XCP at 0.001 BTC after the last burn block. Those who have already burnt could get 30-40% profit by selling their XCP that time (assume the exchange is already stable then). For those who want 10x or even higher return, they have to wait until there're more and more popular assets/bets are created and the demand increases significantly. For that to happen, the counterpartyd have to be heavily tested and be reasonable stable first. The schedule is tight, cause MSC Dex is already under testing now. The first arriver will most likely be the only winner. |
|
|
|
|
I found it interesting that many people here care more about relisting than the progress of this project. Does it mean once it is relisted you can pass the hot potatoes to others? Who will buy it and what will be the price if it is relisted now, when there're still no updates about the (test) chips after it has delayed about two months? Yes, I know Ken said he will update the progress of chips (not confirm it is finished) in NEXT month.
Seriously, I think it's better to press Ken more to consider compensating the investors, other than push him to relist and try to pass the shares to others. No one will buy them under current situations.
|
|
|
|
Lets see.
They both do the same thing.
Counterparty and Mastercoin are very similar in terms of features and potential. Mastercoin keeps the invested funds for development, while Counterparty burns the coins instead.
Which one would you invest in?
I think you need to add options: both and neither. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=406331.msg4543546#msg4543546Someone is this thread is claiming that: P > p where P means the probability of forging to put all Nxt into one acount, p means the probability of forging to split Nxt to 2 accounts. Could you confirm whether this is correct? If it's true, it's absolutely unfair. The large holders will have much more forge chances than they should be. It isn't. Cfb said so. Many times. What Cfb said is the other way, p will not be larger than P. Now someone is argue P is larger than p, in promoting his pool forging. |
|
|
|
I know it's off of topic but it seems that most of guys here switched from MSC to XCP. What happened? did u lose your faith in MSC? I'm glad that you're supporting this project. It only assured me about my investment. Looking forward to see more development. I'm not sure about others, but myself haven't changed my MSC holding. It's not necessary to be either-or. MSC has a super slow progress, but has sufficient funds. XCP has a pretty good progress, but may be lack of funds for expanding and largely depends on the community support. Therefore, I decide to bet on both of them. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=406331.msg4543546#msg4543546Someone is this thread is claiming that: P > p where P means the probability of forging to put all Nxt into one acount, p means the probability of forging to split Nxt to 2 accounts. Could you confirm whether this is correct? If it's true, it's absolutely unfair. The large holders will have much more forge chances than they should be.
|
|
|
|
Join a pool does not improve your forging income, but has a huge risk to lose all your Nxt. Why not just keep your own computer/VPS on? Therefore, apparently no one will join a pool like this. It's completely different from PoW pool mining where you don't need to risk anything other than the hashing power for one day or even just one hour.
The algorithm of forging is constructed such way so: p=P-1/4*P 2Where P - is probability to forge block with some amount and p - is probability to forge block with the same amount but split to 2 wallet. For the small amount different is very small. But for big it's not so small. For example if we have wallet with about 200 000 000 NXT it's change of forge about 20%. If we split amount for two wallets with 100 000 000 NXT on each our chance became 19% p = 0,2 - 1/4*0,04 = 0,19 Converse statement is also true. If we union two wallets with individual chance 9,5% of forge we increase their total chance. It became 20%. We can continue. First column number of wallets we store NXT. Second - total chance to forge block. Third chance of each wallet to forge block. | 1 | 20,0000% | 20,0000% | | 2 | 19,0000% | 9,5000% | | 4 | 18,0975% | 4,5244% | | 8 | 17,2787% | 2,1598% | | 16 | 16,5323% | 1,0333% | | 32 | 15,8490% | 0,4953% | | 64 | 15,2210% | 0,2378% | | 128 | 14,6418% | 0,1144% | | 256 | 14,1059% | 0,0551% | | 512 | 13,6084% | 0,0266% | | 1024 | 13,1455% | 0,0128% |
So if we has 1000 persons with 200 000 NXT each, when they unite to the pool they increase their income by a half! But here we look in to very big pool. If pool power will bee 50 000 000 NXT. It will increase income of member with 50 000 NXT about 12% If what you said is true, then either Nxt should fix this or it will worth nothing due to this unbelievable unfairness to prefer the large holders. |
|
|
|
Can you choose which pool you want to process your transaction?
I mean, is the problem now that if you made a 'patch' to the protocol that favoured P2Pool, the big mining pools would never switch over to that version of Bitcoin and as they control the hashing power, they control Bitcoin.
But what if the 5 biggest exchanges as well as Bitpay, Blockchain.info and Satoshi dice all said from this date and this time we are only sending our transactions to P2Pool? Maybe those big players make up such a big % of the total transactions that the the big pools will be processing such a small % of transactions, and will be so totally against the will of the community, that the smaller fork will be the real fork.
If it is pre-announced, hashers should pre-emptively switch to P2Pool anyway and enough of the friendly big pools, BTC Guild and Eligius might reluctantly point their own equipment into P2Pool too, maybe giving the new Bitcoin patch 51% of the hashing power anyway.
Leaving a 'potentially' nefarious Ghash.io stranded?
In a P2P network, you cannot control where you send the transaction. You announce your transaction to the nodes connecting with you and they will relay it to their neighbours and go on. Moreover, I don't think there can be a 'patch' to favour P2Pool. Bitcoin protocol itself has no favour to any miner as long as they can create a correct block. Thanks! I really appreciate you taking the time to give me that response. I know a non technical guy like me actually helping to find a solution to this problem, would be akin to Homer Simpson helping to find a cure for cancer, but you never know! I guess I want to show that I'm not just complaining about the problem, but I am trying to get involved/help as limited as that help might be. Sure, any suggestion and discussion is welcome. I'm just explain why your idea does not work. In my opinion, no idea is useless or stupid. |
|
|
|
Can you choose which pool you want to process your transaction?
I mean, is the problem now that if you made a 'patch' to the protocol that favoured P2Pool, the big mining pools would never switch over to that version of Bitcoin and as they control the hashing power, they control Bitcoin.
But what if the 5 biggest exchanges as well as Bitpay, Blockchain.info and Satoshi dice all said from this date and this time we are only sending our transactions to P2Pool? Maybe those big players make up such a big % of the total transactions that the the big pools will be processing such a small % of transactions, and will be so totally against the will of the community, that the smaller fork will be the real fork.
If it is pre-announced, hashers should pre-emptively switch to P2Pool anyway and enough of the friendly big pools, BTC Guild and Eligius might reluctantly point their own equipment into P2Pool too, maybe giving the new Bitcoin patch 51% of the hashing power anyway.
Leaving a 'potentially' nefarious Ghash.io stranded?
In a P2P network, you cannot control where you send the transaction. You announce your transaction to the nodes connecting with you and they will relay it to their neighbours and go on. Moreover, I don't think there can be a 'patch' to favour P2Pool. Bitcoin protocol itself has no favour to any miner as long as they can create a correct block. Yes you can because you can control which nodes you connect to if you want. You can start Bitcoin-QT with options to connect to specific nodes and only those specific nodes. Most users probably just connect without those options but you can do it pretty easily. You can control who you connect, but cannot control who your connectors connect. |
|
|
|
Attention someone burnt 0.96, but the first output is not the burn address. That's a $800 loss. Please use counterpartyd to burn or ensure there's no change. If you are not confident enough, better to use Maxmint's burn service. I'm just about to burn. Is there a problem and everyone should use counterpartyd right now, or did the person make a mistake? He used bitcoin-qt or other clients and the change address is randomly positioned in those clients. it happened that change address was positioned the first. Therefore, please calculate carefully and make amount to burn + miner fee = balance, or just stick to counterpartyd or blockchain.info. I again suggest that the counterpartyd to treat burning as a special operation in the parsing. It's really not necessary to add so many restrictions in burning. Currently, there's already 2.2 BTC burnt for nothing. In MSC, even the invalid transaction can be returned, they put no restriction in sending BTC to 1exodus. In my opinion, XCP should be as tolerable because we have not way to send back the invalid burnings. |
|
|
|
"He says he owns less than one bitcoin himself." How could one believes 1 BTC will worth $100000 but doesn't have 1 BTC yet.  I was asking myself the same thing, and had a few thoughts. Maybe because he thinks hoarding is bad for functionality. Which, it kind of is, but still, if you expect a 10,000% return, would you reject it out of principle? If so, kudos. Maybe he's lying because he doesn't want to publicly disclose his holdings. I can think of a few reasons this would make sense. Maybe he believes that investing in the infrastructure will prove more profitable. It will certainly prove more valuable for the entire community. Although, even with this mindset, I'm sure he still has enough USD left to hold more than 1BTC!! Anyway, to me I think he either lied about his holding or lied about his belief in BTC, and therefore makes what he said means little to me. Certainly I could be wrong and he could be just like those who spend all of his income and have no saving at all. |
|
|
|
180+ coins burnt today, if this project and MSC fail, 1CounterXX, and 1Exodus would be in the alltime memes of btc history.
1CounterXX is, but not 1Exodus since its just a normal address and all the funds inside will be spent at last. The funds in 1CouterXXX..., however, will be there forever, no matter counterparty succeeds or fails. |
|
|
|
Now you are suggesting CipherMine to take over the DMS funds completely. That means they 'deprived' all the shares of one of their investors and use them to setup a new fund. Although we, the investors of DMS, will welcome this solution definitely, we cannot deny that it is completely illegal.
Not at all. I am proposing a new manager for DMS. This could only be done if it is proved Deprived is dead or legally incompetent to continue. It would not be illegal. We could sue his estate if it refuses to deal with us as we have a contract with him as asset holders. Would it be a lot of work? Possibly. Is there an alternative? I can't think of one. That is why it is important to find Deprived, or find out what happened to him. Nothing will change until that is done. The DMS funds are owned by Deprived, not just managed by Deprived, so we investors are only the creditors of Deprived's personal debt, and don't own the funds and cannot change the manager at all. Yes, we have right to ask Deprived to pay the debts unless he is declared bankruptcy, and Deprived has to pay the debts with all his personal belongs since he runs the fund as a person, not a limited cooperation. Anyway, I agree with you that the most important thing is to find him or at least find out what happened on him. Currently, the only person who know Deprived's identity is Kate. Do we know if there's any one else? |
|
|
|
"He says he owns less than one bitcoin himself." How could one believes 1 BTC will worth $100000 but doesn't have 1 BTC yet. |
|
|
|
Might be a stupid question, but can I burn twice from the same address? i.e. just send 0.01 BTC as a test, then send the rest
Yes, but make sure that address still has enough BTC. Otherwise, if the client combine the inputs from multiple addresses, you will lose what you have burnt. Of course, you will be safe if you are burning with the counterpartyd. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
