There are 2 proposals (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake, also linked in the OP) and none of them say anything about a minimum. The "minimum" that may be needed in practice is on the order of magnitude of dollars.

I think you might be confused with the SolidCoin system.

Well, the linking thread could be locked and have no further posts, so the clutter in the section is still reduced while giving people an opportunity to learn about the main thread.

Bot is back up. Due to the higher demand for the long bonds, POLY.10.1 is sold at 110% face value and bought at 106%, while POLY.10.-2 is sold at 104% face value and bought at 100%.

Update Aug 5 2012: Since there's not much trading activity anyway, to minimize overhead I've deactivated the bot. If you wish to buy or sell at the above prices contact me and I'll activate it.

Update Aug 22 2012: Bot is up buying POLY.10.1 at 106%. Live reserve is limited so PM me if you want to make a large sell. Other actions are not supported.

If I have a thread for which the appropriate section is low-traffic, but which could still have a wide appeal, is it considered proper to make a post on Bitcoin Discussion linking to it?

Alberto is still busy with his family restaurant due to the holiday season. He is giving me occasional updates and also said he'll be posting on the forum soon. As I understand he has fixed the 0 liquidation issue and some others. I'll try to do some testing but I'm fairly busy myself.

Hopping means some times are better to mine than others and that this can be deduced from the pool's past. In PPLNS the payouts don't depend on the past, only on the future. If hoppers could see the future and tell when blocks will be found, they would be able to hop. But they can't, so they can't. There is no hopping strategy that would give better-than-random payouts. This has been mathematically proven.

I'm not sure what I've done to deserve your distrust, but I honestly spent some time thinking about these things.

Edit: Ok, I will stop derailing the thread. I'll be happy to continue discussing PPLNS in an on-topic thread such as PPLNS.

I assume you are familiar with Look at a pirate, eye to eye if you dare. where some people report having met him?

There's a good chance I'll be going to the London conference, and my main motivation to do so will be to meet in person people I've known from the forums. The more the merrier.

As a resource to both myself and other people who want to know if the trip is worthwhile and who to look for, I'm inviting everyone who thinks he may attend to post in this thread.

Update: I'll attend and stay at the Royal National hotel.

I know I shouldn't be posting here, but...

Because the huge royalties I get from all the DGM pools allow me to change the laws of math?

I know there's not much information content in me saying this, but I was trying to make each reward system look exactly as good as it is. The causality is "Hopping-proof is good -> I developed hopping-proof methods", not "I developed hopping proof methods -> I say hopping-proof is good".


Which is basically what I've said, and if I understand the thread correctly this is now becoming visible in practice.

This is false, PPLNS is hopping-proof. You probably misunderstood how PPLNS works (or misimplemented it), most likely thinking it only rewards shares from the current round.

This is false. The expected profit of the pool op in a score method is 0 (if the fee is 0).

In true PPS the op is paying from his own funds, and it is his business decision what fee to charge to compensate for the losses and risks.

Score-based methods pay out (roughly) according to actually received rewards so they don't have these problems.


I'd heard of CPPS but I can't write about every crazy non-hopping-proof method someone comes up with.


Putting aside the false modesty: I understand math. Most people don't. If you want to follow the parts of my derivations that you can, and take my word for or query the parts that you don't, great. If not that's your choice but I'd appreciate not going around saying I have some malicious agenda.

Maybe this wasn't the case 1 year ago when this thread was started, before tristian1980 went on a necro spree.

Is the purpose of ads to harass visitors and make the site unusable?

Maybe someone is doing a block withholding attack. I doubt it, though.

We can leave them alone. Coordinating a massive spam attack was a bad idea even before they explained their reason to avoid Bitcoin (however little sense it makes).

The Humble bundle will change their mind with time, until then there are other organizations needing our help learning about Bitcoin and starting to accept payments.

I appreciate the initiative but I think it's a bit premature for this.

I have plenty to lose. Even with all the disclaimers I expect that my reputation will take a hit if something bad happens after I endorsed him. Also, I am very heavily personally financially invested in Alberto; I don't think sharing the exact numbers is appropriate.

Of course. It stands to reason that the person standing to gain 3% weekly + recall penalty will take a risk.

We can consider disclosing details in private to serious inquirers. But the premise is that I am somewhat trusted and if I say that I received a photo ID scan then I received a photo ID scan, and if I say that he received a physical letter I mailed to his address then he received a physical letter I mailed to his address - so public investors can be spared the trouble of doing it themselves.

Neither trust nor money are boolean variables. I trust him enough to risk (reputation hit + personal investment) but not enough to risk 10K BTC. If I was 100% certain of his willingness and ability to pay I'd just give him the 10K BTC myself.

As mentioned I also have my own money on the line. And getting 3% weekly interest for it.

Facebook account dates back to February 2010, don't know how to check this for Linkedin but I expect around the same and he has 161 connections. That's not something you spoof overnight.

And phone number can't be spoofed? Nefario's address verification isn't rigorous anyway, and I've verified his mail address.

He's probably going to the London conference so you'll have a chance to verify his ID in person.

We'll look into it but his identity is not the weakest link here, I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that he is who he says he is. The question is how committed he is to upholding the contract; as mentioned, based on my communication with him I believe he is very committed, but there's no way for me to know with absolute certainty.

I doubt they have the credentials you seek.

You're welcome to ask questions, but in the end every potential investor will take the available information and make his own decisions. There's no way to rigorously prove that your money is safe, and commenting on lack of such proof isn't helpful.

Right, I forgot how annoying Linkedin can be sometimes (I was already connected with Nefario so I could see Alberto's profile before connecting with him). The short story is that he is involved with some of his family's hotels and has founded the failed startups Enso and Wozad.

This makes no sense, if I had offered a personal commitment there would be no need for Alberto to verify with anyone.

Of course you can, https://glbse.com/asset/view/BDT, "Verification".

You're right, it doesn't.

I don't understand the purpose of this line of inquiry or even how it can be meaningfully answered, but I'll check if more information can be made public.

The funds don't need to be raised all at once so you can watch the progress of https://bitdaytrade.com before making any investment decisions.

No and I don't think it really matters. I'm not sure there's a meaningful way to legally force Alberto to commit his assets to paying GLBSE bondholders (and even if there is we have not pursued it), so you're relying on his word that he will pay out. If you think he's lying about the assets then he's also lying about paying and then it doesn't matter if he owns the assets or not.

I'm not sure what Patrick's procedures are but I assume it will be based mostly on data that we provide, so it may not be the independent confirmation that you are looking for.

Alberto is the person with this Linkedin profile, an Italian developer and entrepreneur (his profile is outdated, he's in Italy now).

Proofs of identity are not generally given publicly, but he is verified with GLBSE, Mt. Gox and myself, and he has received a letter I sent to his stated residence address.

He has some experience doing margin trading and has friends with even more experience to whom he goes for advice.

He has real estate assets which could be liquidated to cover his obligations if it comes to that point.

We are considering applying for Patrick Harnett's credit ratings which could make this clearer.

-rescan isn't needed in newer versions of the standard client.

This will help, yes. Also specify which client/eWallet you are using.

Wow, that's 4.2 billion coin-kilometer-days! Let's see someone beat that.