I laughed.
I am sort of amused the altcoin thread is still going ^_^ The ultimate coin of the Altcoins lol I'm Quite Surprised as well that it's still around. Im enormously surprised it is still traded and valued at 360 BTC market cap :O Is there a graph of ATC market cap somewhere? |
|
|
|
I have been looking forward to this feature. It is works and if it is adopted and if it is adopted widely then it will be great step forward. Yet... the youtube video is little bit crazy  |
|
|
|
|
There is another real-life problem with Martingale. Repeatability. Even with perfect 50/50 game and no limit to stakes.
Imagine you start with $100 and play for 10 rounds. (100, 200, 400, 800, ..., 51 200). You need capital of $102300 to do that. This is quite a lot, but you can borrow this or use your house as collateral. It is very probable that you will win $100 this way. Probability is 99.90234375%. So far no problem. So you decide to make money this way and play every day (including weekends). Hundred dollars per day is good.
When you loose, you loose all $102300. The odds of such loosing is less than 0.1% for single game. If you do this for a month, 30 times, then the odds of loosing "some of the days" is about 2.8886%. Still nothing to worry about (perhaps). You will quit your job and go every day to casino. After a year (365 runs of your strategy) there is 30% probability of loosing all $102300 while you earned about third of this amount 365x$100=36500. You might be tempted to repeat this strategy more times in a day (lets say 10 times) to earn more every day. Then you will arrive at this probability faster, in 37 days in this case.
After 512 days (or 512 runs of your strategy) when you would earn enough to repay half of your debt, the probability of loosing all is 40%. After 1023 days (or 1023 runs of your strategy) when you could actually break even, the probability of loosing all and be unable to continue is 63.2%.
So it is more likely that you will end with a loss than with a profit.
|
|
|
|
...
...
Two tribes who do not practice egalitarianism will realize the other has great new advancements in technology and different things to offer; they participate in trade and improve mutually. They do this as they have a fundamental understanding of human rights, including civil and property, as they were able to understand why the egalitarian route was detrimental longterm for their survival. Any tribe which does practice egalitarianism may attempt to conquer the tribes which do not, under the assumption that they, tribe A, deserves the fruits of the labor of non-egalitarian tribes B and C; tribe A does this because it is running seriously low on resources, after having consumed most of them and demoralized their working class, and if they don't conquer anyone, they will soon perish. If unsuccessful, tribe A will disappear, and so have a huge life-or-death incentive to go to war. If successful, tribe A's strongest will assume control over tribes B and C and, if he didn't already, will come up with a name for himself along the lines of "king" or "president".
...
...
Tribes B and C have better technology thanks to mutual trade. Tribe A attack is unsuccessful. Tribe A perishes and another tribes D,E,F,... will see advantages of voluntary cooperation and steer away from egalitarianism. What happens then? They adopt Bitcoin eventually? |
|
|
|
Looks very cool. Looking forward to mine own TREZOR. |
|
|
|
At which point the concept of money becomes trivial at best, it wont go away, there will always be value for scarce things of use.... but the need for it will certainly decrease as time goes on. That discussion is a bit beyond this particular thread, but market forces WILL ALWAYS dictate the value of scarce things (nearly everything). The only way your scenario can happen is if each human being can create this energy (mindpower x chi' + crystals^2, or something) for nothing, because there will always be original capital costs. Truly infinite energy? Wow. No idea what happens then. All bets are off. I still think my comment above won't change. 8^] Do not forget the knowledge, entertainment, art, qualification, friendship etc. Even with abundant energy (and Startrek-like replicator) those will be scare and wanted. |
|
|
|
In theory, you could do something like insert a transaction in the blockchain with a 0.005 BTC txout spendable only by a certain secret key, and then modify the next version of the client to reject as invalid any chain containing a spend of that txout.
And then whomever holds that secret key could attempt to "kill" an alternate blockchain by spending that txout on that fork of the blockchain.
The problem with an idea like this is that if the fork is deliberate and malicious, then the malicious miners on that fork will be aware of the poison pill (because they have the sources) and will flatly refuse to mine that transaction.
Why would anyone prefer such modified client with "poison pill receptor"? |
|
|
|
People should get used to it and calculate more. People are buing gold even if they own "fraction of kilogram".
Actually I think of my gold in grams. I don't own a whole kilogram yet. And I agree with the original poster. If I were to write an example using bitcoin, I'd use mBTC. 1 mBTC is worth about £4. And then the price of USD drops even more and what then? Another change to microbits? I think that if the price stabilizes above 1000 USD/BTC, exchanges and merchants will be using mBTC. It is not hard to use prefixed unit as the "standard one". We use kilograms instead of grams. But I am against redefining basic "bitcoin unit". So 1 BTC = 1 kilosomething. |
|
|
|
|
We do not want Bitcoin to repeat (regulatory) mistakes of the past. We do not want Bitcoin to be like the "real" economy. We want it to be better, to be superior. Being not regulated is integral part of this superiority.
However, Bitcoin offers possibility of regulation via third parties and voluntary extensions of the protocol. But the most important thing is that it is voluntary and not enforceable. People will choose by adoption...
|
|
|
|
People don't want to feel like they own a fraction of something. I'm all for the move to Milli even if I'm not 100% fond of the name.
People should get used to it and calculate more. People are buing gold even if they own "fraction of kilogram". This is like stupid posting "price per kg" on the packages of different weighted goods. Anyone should be able to do this math by himself and compare. |
|
|
|
Haven't you heard?
Gen 3 was a failure like Gen 2.
No we have not heard (from any reliable source). |
|
|
|
|
Watch Dogecoin and watch 42 Coin. Are their exterme (un)divisibily relevant for adoption (among thinking and calculating people above basic school)? I think not.
|
|
|
|
Why would we even suddenly need an emergency fork?
The discovery of a critical bug in the protocol. Mere possibility of fast and enforceable emergency fork would be critical bug in the protocol, would it not? |
|
|
|
People who don't understand this simple concept shouldn't be speculating on Bitcoin anyway.
Their ignorance acts as a great natural barrier in this case.
Don't lure the gullible. It's immoral and counterproductive in the long-term.
This. People should do the math or at least know that bitcoins are very well divisible. |
|
|
|
God knows who the creator of bitcoin is.
I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Like no one is invading or fighting
So boring
Was promised world war 3
Give it some time. And be warned that some people do not understand irony and black humor. |
|
|
|
Suppose Dorian is the real Satoshi, and wants to direct attention away from himself. What will he do?
He'll post a message from a known Satoshi account, saying "I am not Dorian Nakamoto."
Think about that for a while
Suppose Dorian is not the real Satoshi. The real one wants to clear his name and posts from his account 'I am not Dorian Nakamoto.' Think of that with your under the average IQ. Leave the old man alone, he's in enough trouble as it is. Both variants are plausible. I believe the second one. However, I also believe aes1 IQ is above average. You're all implying the real Satoshi is either a bad liar, stupid, or wants to be caught. Why would he behave this obvious, using his real name, denying his identity, etc? He probably just want's to clear this guy's name before some lunatic attempts to murder him. I am implying that I believe that "real one [Satoshi] wants to clear his [Dorian's] name and posts from his account". I am also implying that "Satoshi is either a bad liar, stupid, or wants to be caught" is possible, although I would not interpret his words this way. Believing something does not make it true! |
|
|
|
Suppose Dorian is the real Satoshi, and wants to direct attention away from himself. What will he do?
He'll post a message from a known Satoshi account, saying "I am not Dorian Nakamoto."
Think about that for a while
Suppose Dorian is not the real Satoshi. The real one wants to clear his name and posts from his account 'I am not Dorian Nakamoto.' Think of that with your under the average IQ. Leave the old man alone, he's in enough trouble as it is. Both variants are plausible. I believe the second one. However, I also believe aes1 IQ is above average. |
|
|
|
economists estimate that only 8 percent of the world's currency exists as physical cash. The rest exists only on a computer hard drive, in electronic bank accounts around the world.http://www.howstuffworks.com/currency6.htmI'm work in a small business and about 90% of sales goes through PDA machines ... myself.....well I dont have more than 10 quids in my pocket for ages ... every time I lost my debit/credit card .. I rush to the bank agency because I simple don't have enought banknotes with me... Good point. If fiat exists to such a percentage in digital format, why doesn't traditional banking suffer from these security issues at the same level? Because it is heavily regulated. More security is bought with (limiting oneself) freedom. Also traditional banking suffers from some other security issues (government robbery taxation, violation of privacy, forced bail-ins, monetary reforms, state collapses...) which Bitcoins offer protection against. It is up to everyone to choose. Both systems should coexist and display its advantages and disadvantages. It is easy to say that something is "better" or "necessary" if you have no comparison. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
