Stabilized Bitcoin using eMunie economics

[Fuserleer]

Surely to get backing I need to present my idea first...which is what Im doing here and seemingly getting scolded for it.

Okay - but I would not have thought that this forum would be the appropriate place to present your idea (as I doubt hardly any such people would be looking at this forum).

Also - it is starting to look like you have a bunch of shills here.

If you want to be taken seriously I think you should perhaps ask them to tone it down.

This forum is relevant to crypto (which is the field I work in) and Bitcoin (which is the subject of the test), why would it not be relevant? 

Why would I ask them to do that, they are free to post on whatever they like, as it happens they are avid eMunie supporters and are attempting to assist in explaining and answering the questions raised.

I'm certainly not going to start ordering people what they can and can't post, just in case others look upon me in a bad light for it when the topic of conversation is a legitimate one.

[CIYAM]

Well - if your project's topic starts to look much like @CfB's project in terms of the way that posts are being handled then I think you should seriously question whether you are doing the right thing.

[Fuserleer]

Well - if your project's topic starts to look much like @CfB's project in terms of the way that posts are being handled then I think you should seriously question whether you are doing the right thing.

So you endorse censorship?

[CIYAM]

So you endorse censorship?

Do you endorse @CfB's "trinary logic"?

(simple question - which others are awaiting your reply on)

[franky1]

easier to report this topic to be moved to the altcoin category, as its not bitcoin. and all fake bitcoin tests yielding fake results, purely done to try getting to talk about their altcoin on the main bitcoin category by subtly talking about bitcoin.

but i do hope they do have some utility in teir own economy. but definetly doesnt belong in the bitcoin category

[Fuserleer]

So you endorse censorship?

Do you endorse @CfB's "trinary logic"?

(simple question - which others are awaiting your reply on)

Heh ok I'm not playing this game.

I'll come back with a professor.

[Fuserleer]

easier to report this topic to be moved to the altcoin category, as its not bitcoin. and all fake bitcoin tests yielded fake results, purely done to try getting to talk about their altcoin on the main bitcoin category (subtly)

No it wasn't, I spent time setting up the test to behave like Bitcoin, time I could of used on other things as I thought it would be interesting for all to see how Bitcoin would behave with this applied.

[CIYAM]

So - to all others - someone who won't even agree that "trinary logic" is "snake oil" should IMO be viewed as suspicious.

(you have been warned)

[Fuserleer]

So - to all others - someone who won't even agree that "trinary logic" is "snake oil" should IMO be viewed as suspicious.

(you have been warned)

It was nothing to do with the topic of your question, its purely due to how this topic, a topic that I wanted to seriously discuss, has already descended into the same nonsensical, time wasting, childish, "tit for tat" games that happen in the Altcoin section.

I had hoped that at least here, where the so called "big boys" play, I'd have a chance of a serious, engaging discussion, regardless of if my model is correct or not.

As that is clearly not the case, then I just refuse to continue.

[franky1]

easier to report this topic to be moved to the altcoin category, as its not bitcoin. and all fake bitcoin tests yielded fake results, purely done to try getting to talk about their altcoin on the main bitcoin category (subtly)

No it wasn't, I spent time setting up the test to behave like Bitcoin, time I could of used on other things as I thought it would be interesting for all to see how Bitcoin would behave with this applied.

your test lacked open supply of the freemaket, arbitraging, reactions to your prices changes(sentiment) and so the results are not conclusive to what bitcoin would really be like if emunie exchange was around in 2010.

yo might have great success concentrating on a altcoin you have full control of and try selling your theory to the fiat economists. but it falls flat in the bitcoin freemarket as it doesnt take much of bitcoin economics into account.. mainly fiat economics of centralised demand and supply

[Fuserleer]

easier to report this topic to be moved to the altcoin category, as its not bitcoin. and all fake bitcoin tests yielded fake results, purely done to try getting to talk about their altcoin on the main bitcoin category (subtly)

No it wasn't, I spent time setting up the test to behave like Bitcoin, time I could of used on other things as I thought it would be interesting for all to see how Bitcoin would behave with this applied.

your test lacked open supply of the freemaket, arbitraging, reactions to your prices changes(sentiment) and so the results are not conclusive to what bitcoin would really be like if emunie exchange was around in 2010.

yo might have great success concentrating on a altcoin you have full control of and try selling your theory to the fiat economists. but it falls flat in the bitcoin freemarket as it doesnt take much of bitcoin economics into account.. mainly fiat economics of controlled demand and supply

I'm not sure how else to convey that the sentiment behind the trade didn't change, nor how to say again so that it is understood that the supply and demand in this test was disabled.

[franky1]

I'm not sure how else to convey that the sentiment behind the trade didn't change, not how to say again that the supply and demand in this test was disabled.

exactly.. you didnt consider that sentiment would change. that people would react differently after you change the order matching. you presumed that people would still hand over funds in the same manner no matter what.

if you did include the variable that sentiment would react to your order matching tweeks. then the results would be different.

again how can i convey that sentiment behind a trade WOULD change, and thus the supply and demand beyond the first day of trades would change.. if you just accounted for such deviations

[Fuserleer]

I'm not sure how else to convey that the sentiment behind the trade didn't change, not how to say again that the supply and demand in this test was disabled.

exactly.. you didnt consider that sentiment would change. that people would react differently after you change the order matching. you presumed that people would still hand over funds in the same manner no matter what.

if you did include the variable that sentiment would react to your order matching tweeks. then the results would be different.

again how can i convey that sentiment behind a trade WOULD change, and thus the supply and demand beyond the first day of trades would change.. if you just accounted for such deviations

ok I think I understand what you are saying.

The sentiment, if the price was stable, would likely change for the better (less panic dumps, and dragon chasing pumps), but we are still applying the trades with the worst case sentiment.

So, if we are stabilizing with the worst case sentiment, that sentiment is now irrational compared to the price, and it's harder to stabilize a price when the trades are being made irrationally.  That then should imply that the model is able to handle very extreme situations.

[franky1]

ok I think I understand what you are saying.

The sentiment, if the price was stable, would likely change for the better (less panic dumps, and dragon chasing pumps), but we are still applying the trades with the worst case sentiment.

So, if we are stabilizing with the worst case sentiment, that sentiment is now irrational compared to the price, and it's harder to stabilize a price when the trades are being made irrationally.  That then should imply that the model is able to handle very extreme situations.

if there were more stability in bitcoin within your exchange.. then there would be less people playing with them in your exchange as a day trading platform

although a usable currency stability outside of exchanges is good. but on exchange stability/stagnancy of prices are not good. it would effect peoples decision to hoard large sums on exchanges because there is no need to daytrade.(altering your supply buffer)

thus even in a stable exchange. your supply buffer would not be the same. and because there is lack of supply. people can abuse that. by arbitraging. and only using your exchange as a temporary 'flip' rather than a permanent store

in short. the results you released would not be the same. you cannot predict the reactions of change. your theory will fall flat on an open market. because you can never code sentiment accurately.

you would need to be the only wallet service and only exchange available to be able to control 'sentiment'..

however ill say it again, your altcoin could be useful if you aimed your theories not at the bitcoin free market. but at the fiat/altcoin centralised markets. and tried engaging your discussions in that economy. as the results (which still wont be perfect) would however have less variables to attempt to simulate.

again you would have more success and possible fame. if you aimed your PR at a centralised solution for currency economics

[Fuserleer]

ok I think I understand what you are saying.

The sentiment, if the price was stable, would likely change for the better (less panic dumps, and dragon chasing pumps), but we are still applying the trades with the worst case sentiment.

So, if we are stabilizing with the worst case sentiment, that sentiment is now irrational compared to the price, and it's harder to stabilize a price when the trades are being made irrationally.  That then should imply that the model is able to handle very extreme situations.

if there were more stability in bitcoin within your exchange.. then there would be less people playing with them in your exchange as a day trading platform

although a usable currency stability outside of exchanges is good. but on exchange stability/stagnancy of prices are not good. it would effect peoples decision to hoard large sums on exchanges because there is no need to daytrade.(altering your supply buffer)

thus even in a stable exchange. your supply buffer would not be the same. and because there is lack of supply. people can abuse that. by arbitraging. and only using your exchange as a temporary 'flip'

Isn't that the wrong way around?

If the price being more stable means there are less people trading, then the buffer would have MORE resources and not less, because less trades are in the range where it needs to intervene, so it intervenes less.

[Sparky_eMunie]

I'm not sure how else to convey that the sentiment behind the trade didn't change, not how to say again that the supply and demand in this test was disabled.

exactly.. you didnt consider that sentiment would change. that people would react differently after you change the order matching. you presumed that people would still hand over funds in the same manner no matter what.

The sentiment change would be:

A. the vast majority of traders would stop pumps & dumps, as they would not be profitable
B. few may try a coordinated pump & dump of an incredible amount in order to defeat the system buffer

it's not impossible to defeat the system (by exhausing the buffer), but because the buffer receives new currency during the pump, it's very difficult to accomplish.

With eMunie's economic model, BTC would be a digital currency, and not a speculative digital commodity.

[CIYAM]

It sounds like an amazing thing - yet I don't see the peer reviewed algorithm design do I?

Why is that?

(just like I don't see the stuff behind other alt crypto currency promises)

You don't "trial an algorithm" on a forum (you do, however, manipulate and trick people on a forum).

[Fuserleer]

It sounds like an amazing thing - yet I don't see the peer reviewed algorithm design do I?

Why is that?

(just like I don't see the stuff behind other alt crypto currency promises)

You don't "trial an algorithm" on a forum (you do, however, manipulate and trick people on a forum).

Well maybe if someone would assist me, which is what I'm asking for, instead of just stating I need a professor, I need a paper, I need this, I need that, maybe I'd be able to provide it.

I presented this here (and other places) in an attempt to maybe find someone that is knowledgeable about these aspects, and can help to determine if it really IS a thing or not.

A lot of people have criticized me for attempting all this on my own, but when I come to actually look for assistance in verification, I get zero.  

And in the case of you, it seems you're now trying to incite a character assassination :|

[CIYAM]

A lot of people have criticized me for attempting all this on my own, but when I come to actually look for assistance in verification, I get zero.  And in the case of you, it seems you're now trying to incite a character assassination :|

I am certainly not trying to incite a character assassination but I do wonder about the strategy that you are using here (as it is so far the same as what @CfB is using).

If there is simply no academic that has any interest in your project then you think that somehow that is their misunderstanding?

[franky1]

The sentiment change would be:

A. the vast majority of traders would stop pumps & dumps, as they would not be profitable
B. few may try a coordinated pump & dump of an incredible amount in order to defeat the system buffer

it's not impossible to defeat the system (by exhausing the buffer), but because the buffer receives new currency during the pump, it's very difficult to accomplish.

With eMunie's economic model, BTC would be a digital currency, and not a speculative digital commodity.

thats the utopian dream if you are the only wallet service and the only exchange available..
again failing to see the sentiment of a open and free market.