Unimpressive. A model is cannot be made simply by fitting a curve.
The main problem with your "model" is that it changes over time. If you fit the curve in the past, you got different parameters. If you fit the curve next year, you will get different parameters. It's a useless "model".
1) We do that all the time in Physics. Here, for example, listen to this talk: I'm going to try no matter what to explain and spread the message, but have you ever heard of Kepler's Laws? How do you think he found them? By exactly fitting the log of the distance of the planets vs the logs of the time it takes the planet to go around the sun. This is how he discovered one of the most important laws in astronomy. Kepler's model of the solar system is still used today. Tell me again how fitting doesn't allow us to make a model? Fitting allows you to make a model, but a curve fitting is not a model. Kepler's Laws describe the characteristics of the orbits of the planets, but they are not the model itself. Here's another astronomical example. Hubble observed that the red shifts of galaxies are roughly proportional to to their distance. Here is the graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Hubble_constant.JPGNote that neither the graph nor Hubble's constant are the model. They are observations that support the model of the the expansion of the universe. Likewise, your curve mimics Bitcoin's price over time, but it does little to explain its nature. It is not a model. Does your model provide any explanation of why the price behaves the way it does? 2) One can calculate the parameters of the fit with time. You can add more and more data to the analysis and then calculate the parameters. You can show that the parameters converge to a stable value with time. As you have more and more data the model becomes stable and that is what the model is after 15 years of data. I made a prediction 5 years ago using the same model and my model is basically the same after 5 years.
Your parameters are not converging to a stable value. Specifically, your n is not constant. It is falling over time. It was 5.9762 five years ago and it is 5.82 today. If you do the curve fitting for the first 5 years, I'm sure that n will be greater than 5.9762, and I predict that in 5 years it will less than 5.82. How does your model explain that? 3) The usefulness of the models doesn't depend much at all on the parameters changing slightly.
Perhaps "useless" is an exaggeration. I say "useless" because it explains nothing. Furthermore, like all tools based solely on back-testing, the fact that your curve fits past data allows it to predict the past, but it says nothing about predicting the future. |
|
|
|
|
Unimpressive. A model is cannot be made simply by fitting a curve.
The main problem with your "model" is that it changes over time. If you fit the curve in the past, you got different parameters. If you fit the curve next year, you will get different parameters. It's a useless "model".
|
|
|
|
Email from Grayscale: We are thrilled to share that today, January 10, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has approved our application to uplist the shares of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) (OTCQX: GBTC) to NYSE Arca as a spot Bitcoin ETF, and is expected to declare GBTC’s registration statement on S-3 effective as of 5:00 p.m. EST today. This approval will make it among the first such products to be brought to market in the U.S., as well as the world’s second largest commodity-based ETF and the world’s largest spot Bitcoin ETF.* GBTC shares will be listed on NYSE Arca under Ticker: GBTC.
Together, we have been working toward this milestone for over 10 years—the Trust first launched in 2013, became publicly quoted in 2015, and became an SEC reporting company in 2020. We are grateful to investors who have stood alongside us through this journey and supported us through the process of uplisting GBTC to a spot Bitcoin ETF. Today, GBTC holds 3.16 percent** of Bitcoin in circulation.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR INVESTORS:
Shares of GBTC are expected to commence trading on NYSE Arca on January 11, 2024. Once GBTC shares start trading on NYSE Arca, GBTC shares will cease trading on the OTC Markets and will have automatically been uplisted to NYSE Arca as a spot Bitcoin ETF. Current GBTC shareholders do not have to take any action prior to GBTC’s expected uplisting to NYSE Arca.
Once the shares are listed on NYSE Arca, the Trust intends to issue additional shares on a registered basis under the Securities Act of 1933, and employ simultaneous creations and redemptions. Grayscale believes these changes will enable GBTC to more closely track the value of its underlying Bitcoin holdings, after deduction of expenses. |
|
|
|
It was a hoax people. According to Gary Gensler: The @SECGov twitter account was compromised, and an unauthorized tweet was posted. The SEC has not approved the listing and trading of spot bitcoin exchange-traded products.
|
|
|
|
|
The SEC says the announcement is a hoax and the account was compromised.
|
|
|
|
|
The SEC says it is a hoax.
|
|
|
|
The SEC made an announcement on X: Today the SEC grants approval for #Bitcoin ETFs for listing on all registered national securities exchanges.
The approved Bitcoin ETFs will be subject to ongoing surveillance and compliance measures to ensure continued investor protection.
|
|
|
|
Why would people invest loads of money in BTC after the halving and not before? People choose to invest in the BTC market post-halving due to a reduction in its supply, which will increase demand, and you know that when supply becomes low and people demand anything high, it increases price pressure. ...when halving is happening Bitcoin supply is cut into half, meaning that the scarcity will make price to increase.
It's simple demand and supply. There's always demand for Bitcoin so when the supply reduced (in this case just the circulating supply and not total supply) it'll make the price to go up and that's why the halving increase the price.
Those are repeating a very common misconception. First, the supply is not reduced by the halving. Instead, the increase in the supply is reduced. The supply increases with every block until it reaches 21 million. Second, reducing the supply does not increase the demand. In general, supply and demand are independent functions. |
|
|
|
|
I understand that the conflict is a vestige of Western colonialism and has been going on for 75 years now. I have no solutions to offer and my uninformed opinions have no value, so other than stating my belief that killing people is never a path to resolution, I keep my mouth shut.
|
|
|
|
Assuming you want to make a transaction without the public key being known in the mempool.
What does that mean? A transaction must be valid in order to be included in a block, regardless of who mines the block. There are miners who will include "non-standard" transactions in their blocks, if that is what you mean.I understand now. You want to submit a transaction directly to a miner without going through the bitcoin network. That seems possible. Perhaps there is info in the Mining forum. |
|
|
|
- Block Size Limit: What is the community's stance on potentially adjusting the block size limit to manage growth? Are there ongoing discussions on this topic?
The maximum block size ensures that the size of the block chain (and associated data) grows linearly while technological advances continue to cut costs exponentially. |
|
|
|
If you invent a hash function that is two times more computationally expensive, then you will simply drop the hash rate by half. The idea is for the hash function to delay computation by keeping the processor preoccupied with low-power, time-consuming overhead, like context switching, interrupt requests, memory and file access, searching arrays etc. But the overhead must be required for valid hash outcomes, so it can't be skipped or substituted with faster operations. The solution you are looking for is to require a pause and to have a low-cost independent method of verifying the pause. Somebody may invent such a system someday, but relying on arbitrary processes to introduce delays is not viable because technology simply adapts. The reason that ASIC miners are preferred over CPU and GPU miners is that they are more energy efficient, and one of the ways they achieve better efficiency is by eliminating those same computational delays that you propose. |
|
|
|
The idea of energy efficiency with respect to proof of work is nonsensical. Due to the economics of bitcoin mining, the cost of the energy used in the mining process approaches the value of the block reward, regardless of the efficiency. The amount of energy used can be reduced by: - increasing the cost of the energy,
- lowering the value of the block reward, or
- applying some external cost to mining, such as a tax.
Energy efficiency in proof-of-work is best measured, not by how many hashes can be done per second per watt, but by how few. The slower the hash function is, i.e. the more interrupts and memory accesses it involves that keeps the processor suspended and maximizes the delays between hashes, and for which there are no shortcuts or workarounds, the more time and less energy it will consume.
Artificial constraints such as interrupts and memory access are easily bypassed with specialized hardware, aka ASICs. |
|
|
|
|
With so many unconfirmed inputs, my guess is that a successful CPFP transaction would cost you a fortune.
|
|
|
|
|
Whether university is necessary or not is going to be different for each person. My advice is to get the best education you can afford. It will benefit you in the long run.
As for mutual fund vs. 529 vs. life savings vs. bitcoin, it all depends on your plans and your risk tolerance.
A 529 plan is a way to save for future education. It is an excellent vehicle for saving for future education because the gains are tax-free. On the other hand, your investment choices are restricted. Also, its use is not restricted to only paying for university tuition. It can used for other expenses and it also be used for K-12, and certain trade or vocational schools.
I think it is a mistake to assume that the price of a bitcoin will continue to rise at a rapid rate. Bitcoin may be a very good long term investment and better than other investments, but there is still a lot of risk. And while high risk/high reward assets may be appropriate for long term investment, investing only in Bitcoin is a mistake in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
I have a new concept regarding NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) that involves pledging Bitcoin. My idea is that one can pledge a certain amount of Bitcoin to create an NFT. If the pledged Bitcoin is transferred, then the respective NFT disappears.
I don't know how you could transfer the pledged bitcoins when the NFT is transferred, but associating an NFT with bitcoins is as simple as including a UTXO. If the UTXO is spent then the NFT would considered as worthless. |
|
|
|
|
A 6-sided die gives log2 6 = 2.58 bits of entropy.
I didn't have the patience to explore the issue in depth, but someone was saying that the way the site processes the dice rolls results in only 1.67 bits.
|
|
|
|
@ranochigo may have already point these out, but I think there are some important points to be emphasized. 1. The purpose of a word list in BIP 39 is to enable validation of a checksum. 2. If a seed phrase doesn't come from a standard word list or it is not compatible with BIP 39, most wallets will complain and some will reject it. But, some wallets will accept any phrase. 3. There are many BIP-39 word lists. Here is a list of the common ones: BIP-0039 Word ListsFurthermore, any arbitrary word list will work with BIP-39 as long as there is a wallet that supports it. And it doesn't have to be associated with a language. It could be a list of anime characters, for example. |
|
|
|
|
Excellent summary. In my opinion, the most accurate model is some combination of approach 1 and 2 because those reflect actual utility.
However, I believe that neither individual approach and certainly not a combined approach can ever provide any useful results because both have variables that cannot be measured or even accurately estimated.
|
|
|
|
Is that charlatan still active? Please understand that only a miner can "accelerate" a transaction by putting it in their next block. spider703 claims to accelerate a transaction, but he really does nothing except perhaps submit it to viabtc's acceleration page. He is hoping that when the transaction is eventually confirmed on its own or by viabtc, the sender will believe that he helped and and then tip him. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
