Bitcoin Forum
August 17, 2019, 11:51:58 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 [98] 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 »
1941  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Why do you trust bitcoin in one sentence. on: June 28, 2012, 05:13:10 PM
I find one sentance too short.

How about some Haiku?

I might trust bitcoin
Other bitcoiners do too
That's ok for now


Or a limerick:

There once was a bitcoiner named Dave
With fiat cash felt like a slave
In Bitcoin he trust
If it never will go bust
He'll have enough coins to save

Math math math math math
Bitcoin doesn't require trust
math math math math math
1942  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Guns on: June 28, 2012, 03:01:07 AM
Just to make it clear: I'm not anti-gun, I'm just playing on that side of the argument because it's the minority. I haven't yet formed a solid opinion.
What I'm looking for now is unbiased historical data which isn't cherry-picked. Simply showing one side of the data (people with gaping holes in vital organs die) isn't enough when the other side of the data may be stronger (people with guns are victims of crime less often).
1943  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [IDEA] Dirt cheap online storage on: June 27, 2012, 09:39:35 PM
Simple, just download directly from the nodes, and meter how much data comes in from that particular connection.
1944  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Guns on: June 27, 2012, 08:03:24 PM
While we're cherry-picking our data:
Quote
19. Hemenway, David (2006). Private Guns, Public Health. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press. pp. 65. ISBN 0-472-03162-7. "...a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduce crime."
1945  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Guns on: June 27, 2012, 06:48:44 PM
Is anyone going to respond to that graph?
... without using a Straw Man?
1946  Economy / Speculation / Re: The bubble has popped, slow decline to $3 on the way on: June 27, 2012, 06:32:48 PM
Nonono, panic, and sell your bitcoins to me for higher than what I predict them to fall to!
1947  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Why do you trust bitcoin in one sentence. on: June 27, 2012, 06:14:37 PM
I understand the OP his vision on this.
Why should you trust people that claim you should trust in the math it's build on.
I mean the only way you can confirm this is to take a look at the source code.
But what if you cannot read C++?
Well, then you need to trust the people that claim it's alright.
But those people will also probably have Bitcoin and won't say Bitcoin is a shitty currency since it's at there own intrest to make Bitcoin look good.

Right?
I think that if the math Bitcoin was built on was flawed, there'd be even one person who would point it out. While the client's source is a bit above my head, I can go so far as to verify that it matches the whitepaper (minus merkle-tree pruning). And I can read the whitepaper, and it sounds good to me...

So if you can't verify Bitcoin's math, find me one person who has verified that it doesn't work. Bitcoin's userbase is large enough that it encompasses enough people who are competent in C++.
1948  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Guns on: June 27, 2012, 06:09:22 PM
Is anyone going to respond to that graph?
1949  Economy / Speculation / Re: The bubble has popped, slow decline to $3 on the way on: June 27, 2012, 01:17:52 PM
Rofl. That is all. Carry on.
1950  Economy / Gambling / Re: SatoshiDICE.com - Verified rolls, up to 64,000x winning on: June 27, 2012, 01:15:06 PM
The math is that SatoshiDice carries a house edge, so it's a negative-sum game for the gambler.
1951  Economy / Speculation / Re: The bubble has popped, slow decline to $3 on the way on: June 27, 2012, 03:10:04 AM
My personal belief is that there exist a Quantum computer right now that could theoreticly break sha-2. Just how quickly I do not know, maybe 6 months a year. Not feasible to use against sha digesting yet. I do not believe however that such a machine would be in a position to be used for anything other than some very predetermined set of uses.

side note; on the technology and secrets thing, SR 71 Blackbird..... First 2 paragraph's after the intro; http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-030-DFRC.html
See, that's your belief. While it's probable that there exists technology more advanced than what the general public knows about, this does not prove the existence of a powerful quantum computer, nor does it prove the existence of a human teleportation device or a perfect weather predictor (that last one is probably impossible due to the butterfly effect/chaos + Heisenberg uncertainty principle.)
1952  Economy / Speculation / Re: The bubble has popped, slow decline to $3 on the way on: June 27, 2012, 02:53:12 AM
That makes more sense. So you believe that there is underground quantum computing. Cool. I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as do millions, if not thousands, of other devout followers. http://www.venganza.org/

I'm going to ignore your beliefs and every belief-based argument if you don't mind.

As for your "plausible scenarios," why do you think they are plausible? That is what needs support.

Why is your belief plausible? I.e. that there is not technology more advanced than what is searchable in Google and accessible in peer-reviewed journals?
I don't believe that. I also don't believe in its opposite. Evidence is necessary.

Quote
Now, maybe you'd concede to the general term 'technology' rather than the specific term 'quantum computing.  Maybe you think, "Well, maybe there's some other kind of technological advances that are out there that I haven't heard about yet, but not in the field quantum computing.  I've heard about quantum-computing and I can look it up, so that must mean that's all the information out there."  But, given that quantum computing does exist in the public knowledge base in rudimentary form, then my assertion isn't so far-fetched after all.  We know quantum computing exists.  Don't give me the flying spaghetti monster crap.
That's not what I'm saying at all.

Quote
It's honestly shocking to me that someone like you would assume that the assertion I am making is something akin to the "flying spaghetti monster" or the "giant teacup" or any other ridiculous analogy.  I believe in extraterrestrials, I believe in intergalactic civilizations, I believe in teleportation (which has also been demonstrated by scientists at the atomic level, and that was years ago), I believe in cold fusion, I believe in technologies that would solve the entire energy crisis the world is currently facing, I believe in all kinds of shit.  Do I have proof of it?  No.  Does that make me a "nut?"  No.
I'm not assuming that. The reference to the flying spaghetti monster is my justification for ignoring entirely unsubstantiated beliefs. Note that in that previous sentence, I'm not trying to imply that your belief is entirely unsubstantiated.

Quote
What I do have knowledge of, however, is that mankind has consistently and repeatedly made faulty and arrogant assumptions about their presumed level of knowledge for thousands of years.  And then someone like you comes along and thinks, "Wow, this guy's a nutcase.  He actually believes there's shit out there that I, a powerful Internet user, don't know about."  Get real dude.  That attitude has been the source of the humiliation of humanity for millenniums.  So, maybe it's not that shocking that you're spitting the same, familiar arrogance.  Don't forget, a lot of people in Korea think their leader is a fucking deity.  Why do they think that?  Multiplied propaganda.  Think for yourself, not what you're told.
This is a bit off on a tangent... I'm just trying to assess the logic behind your statements. I never said "nutcase" in this thread, nor did I refer to myself as a "powerful Internet user." Be careful how you use those quotation marks.

Quote
My brother told me a story about how his friend went onto Wikipedia one day and made up a town in Kansas, proceeding to write a history about this imaginary town and its people.  He maintained his entry for over a year, and then one day, he went to take it down from the website.

To his surprise, after he took it down, someone put it back up!  He tried to take it down again, but to no avail.  People kept believing the town actually existed, so much so that they adamantly scrutinized my brother's friend when he tried to tell them that he was the one that had put up the entry, and that he had fabricated the entire thing.
As they say in Kansas, "cool story bro"

Quote
This only shows the power of what's posted on the Internet.  While the story about the imaginary town in Kansas is dissimilar to quantum computing in the sense that we know quantum computing exists, the point is that people are apt to believe what they can find on the Internet or in a published source.  Multiplied propaganda is a very powerful thing.  The fact that you can look up quantum computing and receive a buttload of Internet searches leads to confirmation bias.  "Yep, these all say pretty much the same thing.  That must be all there is out there."  But the mentality is similar to those who believe in the imaginary Kansas town, and are unwilling to consider alternative possibilities.  
I am honestly only trying to look at the logic behind your beliefs.

Just fyi, you can't effectively tell someone's tone of voice from written text. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/jobs/07pre.html
1953  Economy / Long-term offers / Re: Bitcoin Savings and Trust on: June 27, 2012, 02:16:02 AM
Dear pirate,

why is it just you doing Gods work?
Obviously, it's due to global warming.
1954  Economy / Web Wallets / Re: Blockchain.info - Bitcoin Block explorer & Currency Statistics on: June 27, 2012, 02:07:23 AM
Unfortunately, water's boiling temperature in Centigrade is only 100... it's Fahrenheit which uses 212
1955  Economy / Gambling / Re: SatoshiDICE.com - Verified rolls, up to 64,000x winning on: June 27, 2012, 02:03:54 AM
Warning: heading more off-topic into probability theories.
Oh, I was close then.  I found myself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution yesterday when I was trying to work out how to do this, but didn't have enough confidence that I had the right distribution to proceed.

Thanks a lot for doing the maths.
You were more than close. That formula is exactly what you need. In general, an understanding of binomial probability or "Bernoulli trials" will get you a long way. If
 n = number of trials
 r = number of specific events you wish to
       obtain
 p = probability that the event will occur
then all you need is

Where

is the binomial coefficient, also denoted C(n, k),  nCk, or nCk

(yes, I did steal the part beginning with "Where" from Wikipedia; it's nice, easy, and compact)
1956  Economy / Speculation / Re: The bubble has popped, slow decline to $3 on the way on: June 27, 2012, 01:50:24 AM
That makes more sense. So you believe that there is underground quantum computing. Cool. I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as do millions, if not thousands, of other devout followers. http://www.venganza.org/

I'm going to ignore your beliefs and every belief-based argument if you don't mind.

As for your "plausible scenarios," why do you think they are plausible? That is what needs support.
1957  Economy / Speculation / Re: The bubble has popped, slow decline to $3 on the way on: June 27, 2012, 01:38:22 AM
If you don't want logic lectures, debate properly. "Burden of proof" is a valid requirement. Do I really need to give an example?
"There's a monster under my bed which poops cold fusion"

If you're not clever enough to tell the difference between a belief and an assertion of absolute fact, you're not clever enough to be lecturing me on logic.

I'm fully expecting some dumb reply about how hypotheticals are logical fallacies, too.   Roll Eyes
Are you implying that you have asserted an absolute fact when you said that quantum computing with abilities well beyond the public's knowledge is already being used? If not, what are you saying?
1958  Economy / Gambling / Re: SatoshiDICE.com - Verified rolls, up to 64,000x winning on: June 27, 2012, 01:26:45 AM
Interestingly there is a significant probability that SatoshiDice itself will loose a lot of money, despite it's house edge.  I think that is why they have had to decrease bet limits and increase the house edge.

Look how they lost over 3000 BTC ($15,000) in a 7 day period (June 2nd to June 9th):

http://i.imgur.com/ru1Gz.png

It looks to me like a large amount of those losses stemmed from a single bet:

  http://blockchain.info/tree/7470279

Follow that bet, its winnings, and the various change outputs, and you find a sequence of large bets with unusually high win rates.  I found 45 "lessthan 32000" bets with 26/45 winning (58%) when it should be 48%, and 19 "lessthan 48000" bets with 15/19 winning (79%) when it should be 73%.  The bets are mostly 50 or 100 BTC each.

My knowledge of statistics isn't good enough to work out whether this is reasonable variance, or whether it's suspicious but I suspect that I don't have enough data points to draw any safe conclusions.
For situations like these it's hard to set a threshold of probability. For example, according to our current understanding of quantum mechanics, it is possible but highly unlikely that Ella Fitzgerald will appear next to you right now. There's an overwhelmingly larger yet still incredibly small possibility that most of the particles in my nose will "teleport" somewhere else. I ignore this possibility in my everyday life and assume that my nose will continue to exist in its current form because the probability of mass localized long-distance quantum teleportation is so small.

To find the probability of "beating the odds," we can use a binomial probability distribution function. It's basically Bernoulli's experiment.


The probability of winning exactly 26/45 bets on 48% odds is binompdf(45, .48, 26) = 5.05%, which is fairly reasonable.
The probability of winning at least 26/45 bets on 48% odds is binompdf(45, .48, 26)+binompdf(45, .48, 27)+...+binompdf(45, .48, 45) = 12.23%, which is between 1/8 and 1/9 odds.
This makes sense when you consider that 48% is close to 1/2, and 26/45 is close to 1/2 as well.

For the second data set:
18.35% for exactly 15/19 wins on 73% odds
38.71% for at least 15/19 wins on 73% odds

I am happy to post more technical details, such as the source code of the program I used to sum up the density functions or the output answers to more decimal places, but I suspect it's not really wanted.

TL;DR no, it's not suspicious, just unlucky that it happened on such large bets.
1959  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [ANN] The world's first handheld Bitcoin device, the Ellet! on: June 27, 2012, 12:57:51 AM
Now it's 4 months. No, seriously.
1960  Economy / Speculation / Re: The bubble has popped, slow decline to $3 on the way on: June 27, 2012, 12:52:03 AM
If you don't want logic lectures, debate properly. "Burden of proof" is a valid requirement. Do I really need to give an example?
"There's a monster under my bed which poops cold fusion"
Pages: « 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 [98] 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!