Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[ElectricMucus]

Just wanting to say in case of the $100 envelope which you can swap for a $200 or $50 one - statistically you should swap since the average amount would be $125. If they however contain $50 and $150 it becomes statistically irrelevant.

And if you're offered a choice to swap again?  Swap/not swap -- same deal as above?

That depends which envelope you got and if you can swap in for the remaining envelopes, if they are just the three envelopes and you aren't allowed to look you shouldn't swap a second time.

Bitcoin investing are best described as a gamblers fallacy, limitless gains and losses.

[crumbcake]

Just wanting to say in case of the $100 envelope which you can swap for a $200 or $50 one - statistically you should swap since the average amount would be $125. If they however contain $50 and $150 it becomes statistically irrelevant.

And if you're offered a choice to swap again?  Swap/not swap -- same deal as above?

That depends which envelope you got and if you can swap in for the remaining envelopes, if they are just the three envelopes and you aren't allowed to look you shouldn't swap.

No, you can't look & no, the envelopes will contain double/half of your envelope. At what point do you get out?
edit:  didn't see your last line edit

[ElectricMucus]

Just wanting to say in case of the $100 envelope which you can swap for a $200 or $50 one - statistically you should swap since the average amount would be $125. If they however contain $50 and $150 it becomes statistically irrelevant.

And if you're offered a choice to swap again?  Swap/not swap -- same deal as above?

That depends which envelope you got and if you can swap in for the remaining envelopes, if they are just the three envelopes and you aren't allowed to look you shouldn't swap.

No, you can't look & no, the envelopes will contain double/half of your envelope. At what point do you get out?

Well, in this case it's best to swap again over and over. I'm too lazy for a proof though.

Does something like M = (2N+0.5N)/2 suffice?
On second thought, since there should be as many times doubling as halfing  the average end result should stay the same.

[crumbcake]

Just wanting to say in case of the $100 envelope which you can swap for a $200 or $50 one - statistically you should swap since the average amount would be $125. If they however contain $50 and $150 it becomes statistically irrelevant.

And if you're offered a choice to swap again?  Swap/not swap -- same deal as above?

That depends which envelope you got and if you can swap in for the remaining envelopes, if they are just the three envelopes and you aren't allowed to look you shouldn't swap.

No, you can't look & no, the envelopes will contain double/half of your envelope. At what point do you get out?

Well, in this case it's best to swap again over and over. I'm too lazy for a proof though.

Phew.  *wipes brow*  Good for me, it was my badly-thought out flip on the Monty Hall Problem
edit:^^^

[SZD]

BTC prices are so boring these days

Are the bots keeping it stable? Conference insiders?

[MickeyT2008]

Just wanting to say in case of the $100 envelope which you can swap for a $200 or $50 one - statistically you should swap since the average amount would be $125. If they however contain $50 and $150 it becomes statistically irrelevant.

Envelopes full of cash?  I'll have some if you're offering, lol.  Maybe I should become an MP, there's plenty of brown envelopes stuffed full of money to be had that way.

[ElectricMucus]

Phew.  *wipes brow*  Good for me, it was my badly-thought out flip on the Monty Hall Problem
edit:^^^

Doesn't the Monty Hall problem involve Monty Hall? (Meaning that the actions Monty Hall does take are influenced by your choice, if you have chosen the car first hand he has two goats to choose from but if you choose a goat first he has only one goat to reveal)

I'm fairly certain this is a different problem, and I am almost certain there is a name for it already....

[Frozenlock]

Are the bots keeping it stable?

They're using what's called an anti-volume.
When anyone is trying to make a trade, they cancel it out!  

[crumbcake]

Phew.  *wipes brow*  Good for me, it was my badly-thought out flip on the Monty Hall Problem
edit:^^^

Doesn't the Monty Hall problem involve Monty Hall? (Meaning that the actions Monty Hall does take are influenced by your choice, if you have chosen the car first hand he has two goats to choose from but if you choose a goat first he has only one goat to reveal)

I'm fairly certain this is a different problem, and I am almost certain there is a name for it already....

Yes and no -- yes it's a different problem, hence "badly thought out flip."  What's the name?

[ElectricMucus]

Phew.  *wipes brow*  Good for me, it was my badly-thought out flip on the Monty Hall Problem
edit:^^^

Doesn't the Monty Hall problem involve Monty Hall? (Meaning that the actions Monty Hall does take are influenced by your choice, if you have chosen the car first hand he has two goats to choose from but if you choose a goat first he has only one goat to reveal)

I'm fairly certain this is a different problem, and I am almost certain there is a name for it already....

Yes and no -- yes it's a different problem, hence "badly thought out flip."  What's the name?

Well there is the TWO envelopes problem, according to wikipedia there is no consensus about it - and this seems to be a variant of it, you evil bastard

[thoughtfan]

For bitcoin to really go up it needs normal people to regularly see things offered for sale in BTC, such as when they're shopping on Amazon or their local supermarket website, or even in the supermarket itself.  It also needs to be as easy to buy things with as normal money, or at least as easy as paying with a debit card.  Bitcoin conferences may be a good thing but the existence of bitcoins isn't news to those who attend them, even now if you stop people in the street and ask what they know of bitcoins most will say they've never heard of them.  If the average Joe had £20 worth of bitcoins that'd be a huge increase in the amount of fiat invested in BTC.

I think you've got it the wrong way round.  For the average Joe to have $20 worth of bitcoins and for it to be accepted in all the places you're saying the price will have had to have increased enormously.  You've probably seen similar calcs before but give you an idea, given 21m bitcoins divided by pop. usa would mean 66.3 mBTC p/p (assuming all mined, none lost, all non-USA citizens sold).  For 66.3 mBTC to be worth $20 1 BTC would be worth $3,316.

This assumes your 'average Joe' holds an average amount.  However, given many worldwide are also interested, given there'll likely be fewer than 3/4th, given that many of those are either put away for posterity or lost and given that a small number are likely to hold a huge quantity, for the 'average Joe' to carry about $20 worth a single bitcoin is likely to be much much higher.

There are many many steps between where we are today and the scenario you describe.  I don't see the benefit of looking at bitcoin as unsatisfactory today simply because those steps have not been taken yet.  More important is that the steps taken so far are leading to the next steps and it is here I believe we have significant momentum.

[crumbcake]

Phew.  *wipes brow*  Good for me, it was my badly-thought out flip on the Monty Hall Problem
edit:^^^

Doesn't the Monty Hall problem involve Monty Hall? (Meaning that the actions Monty Hall does take are influenced by your choice, if you have chosen the car first hand he has two goats to choose from but if you choose a goat first he has only one goat to reveal)

I'm fairly certain this is a different problem, and I am almost certain there is a name for it already....

Yes and no -- yes it's a different problem, hence "badly thought out flip."  What's the name?

Well there is the TWO envelopes problem, according to wikipedia there is no consensus about it - and this seems to be a variant of it, you evil bastard

I swear i'm back from searching for Monty Hall variations & finding esoterica  Give me a pointer!

[ElectricMucus]

Phew.  *wipes brow*  Good for me, it was my badly-thought out flip on the Monty Hall Problem
edit:^^^

Doesn't the Monty Hall problem involve Monty Hall? (Meaning that the actions Monty Hall does take are influenced by your choice, if you have chosen the car first hand he has two goats to choose from but if you choose a goat first he has only one goat to reveal)

I'm fairly certain this is a different problem, and I am almost certain there is a name for it already....

Yes and no -- yes it's a different problem, hence "badly thought out flip."  What's the name?

Well there is the TWO envelopes problem, according to wikipedia there is no consensus about it - and this seems to be a variant of it, you evil bastard

I swear i'm back from searching for Monty Hall variations & finding esoterica   Give me a pointer!

Did you also read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_envelopes_problem ?

[crumbcake]

Did you also read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_envelopes_problem ?

In a sec.  I just realized there's a whole bunch of stuff added to the Monty Halls page on WikiP. Tons of stuff.
edit: And i'm reading it now

[ChartBuddy]

[icekiss]

If you are offered to swap as often as you want, with your new envelope randomly holding double or half the money of the one before, then you should swap endlessly often (lets say: as often as feasable).
After all of your swaps, the chance that you get more than 100$ from your envelope is almost 50%, the chance that you get less than 100$ is also almost 50% (and a small chance that you hold exactly 100$).
However, if you get more than 100$ in your envelope, you get at LEAST 200$, but possibly much more. If you get less than 100$, you will still never get less than 0$.
Every swap will increase your expected return (too lazy to research the exact equation though).

 

[crumbcake]

If you are offered to swap as often as you want, with your new envelope randomly holding double or half the money of the one before, then you should swap endlessly often (lets say: as often as feasable).
After all of your swaps, the chance that you get more than 100$ from your envelope is almost 50%, the chance that you get less than 100$ is also almost 50% (and a small chance that you hold exactly 100$).
However, if you get more than 100$ in your envelope, you get at LEAST 200$, but possibly much more. If you get less than 100$, you will still never get less than 0$.
Every swap will increase your expected return (too lazy to research the exact equation though).

 

see electricmucus's link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_envelopes_problem ?

[TheKoziTwo]

If we look at the market cap of ripple (which now apparently is TWICE that of bitcoin), we're only decimal shifting away from the price of bitcoin exploding. The human psyche is interesting. The same applies to alternative currencies. It's like if people are unable to think in anything but units. "Oh, 1 BTC costs $122, that's very costly". Yet, ripple costs twice that, if you where to divide by total units. Pretty ridiculous, and a very good reason to adapt mBTC.

A similar effect could even be accomplished by multiplying all bitcoins in existence with say 100x. So everyone who now owns 1 BTC will suddenly own 100 BTC, with a limt of 2100 million instead of 21 million. There is no difference, but I'm convinced the psychological effect of a change like this would cause massive increase in the price.

The evidence is right in front of our eyes, ripple has nowhere the same adaption as bitcoin.

[Rampion]

If we look at the market cap of ripple (which now apparently is TWICE that of bitcoin), we're only decimal shifting away from the price of bitcoin exploding. The human psyche is interesting. The same applies to alternative currencies. It's like if people are unable to think in anything but units. "Oh, 1 BTC costs $122, that's very costly". Yet, ripple costs twice that, if you where to divide by total units. Pretty ridiculous, and a very good reason to adapt mBTC.

A similar effect could even be accomplished by multiplying all bitcoins in existence with say 100x. So everyone who now owns 1 BTC will suddenly own 100 BTC, with a limt of 2100 million instead of 21 million. There is no difference, but I'm convinced the psychological effect of a change like this would cause massive increase in the price.

The evidence is right in front of our eyes, ripple has nowhere the same adaption as bitcoin.

What's happening with Ripple is a joke. A couple of months ago they gave away 50K to anybody with a bitcointalk.org account who asked for it. A lot of members bought forum accounts, and have accumulated hundreds of thousand/millions of XRP.

Today, $1 buys you roughly 50 Ripples - that means that the Ripple founders just "gave away" $1,000 to everybody who asked for them a couple of months ago, and they are sitting on +$1B potential profit at this very moment - with their buggy software in early Beta, with only a trusted Gateway in the system (Bitstamp) and without having proved anything (there's a lot of security concernes that need to be tested). Obviously the $1,5B market cap is just "theory", because there is no market for 100B Ripples ATM, but it illustrates how crazy is this shit, and how rich the OpenCoin founders can become with their business model.

Even if Ripple is "half a failure", they will be all set for life. IMO it's an horrible product from a philosophic point of view (actually it allows anyone to create "money out of thin air" through IOU's, I can foresee epic scams coming, everybody can be a bank running fractional reserve), but it is a BRILLIANT idea for their creators.. It's the ultimate get-rich-quick scheme.... But only for them.

As soon as they want to cash out, they will destroy the market - heck, they say the will hold onto 20% of the total currency that will ever be created. And now tell me about the FED. They are the ultimate centralized power.

[Its About Sharing]

Now, if it jumps up $100 or $200 in a day, your going to be there sitting in cash. Moral...

Don't try to time a Black Swan.

 

And if it drops 100$ in a day?

Even if you have a world changing invention, markets can remain blind to it for years.
Worse: the invention could simply be discarded and forgotten.

For example, the Greeks invented the steam engine, but we had to wait for thousands
of years before any of its potential was really used.
"Guys! Hold to it! It's world changing invention!" - A guy, 2000 years too soon.

I really wish Bitcoin will go up, but you guys remember me too much of how I was in 2009.
"How can it go down? It's the most important invention since fire!"
The market didn't care.

The more I see scareless permabulls like you, the more I fear for Bitcoin.  

What if it drops $1000 in a day? - oh but wait, it can't!, and though I really do get what crumbcake was getting at invoking Pascal's Wager it is a fact only one side has a limit to its movement in a day.

Again, in principle I see your parallel with inventions lying un-built and unused for millennia yet it takes some stretch of the imagination to put Bitcoin in this category.  I see it as closer to the steam train having been built and refined and tested and is now pulling a long mixed consist of goods and savers and speculators.  We may well have hit a bit of a hill that is a struggle for the engine at this stage of its development but there's a lot of momentum behind it and I doubt this will be its nemesis.  But even if it did fail to make the crest of the hill (or the next) its unmaking is by now impossible.  Whether it's Bitcoin or something else the cat is well and truly out of the bag.  There'll be no languishing for millenia for the idea and technology of stateless decentralised money.

And my last query is regarding fear of permabulls.  OK, I get it was at least partially in jest but my question is how can someone who, based on a decent understanding of the concept and its implications, is as convinced as Its About Sharing is be a threat to Bitcoin?  There's a hard core of believers in this technology who would ride the price down to one cent if that's what happened - providing the technology still does as it ought our net worth loss might smart but the hope in the idea would not be smothered.  Holders like that are surely very healthy for Bitcoin.

There is a danger that those looking for an excuse to believe Bitcoin is a get-rich-quick scheme will feed from such positive writings and we probably should be wary of their affect on the market as they alternate between buying without understanding what they're getting into and disillusioned selling when in disbelief they see price can go down too!  But that's not the fault of the permabulls.

For bitcoin to really go up it needs normal people to regularly see things offered for sale in BTC, such as when they're shopping on Amazon or their local supermarket website, or even in the supermarket itself.  It also needs to be as easy to buy things with as normal money, or at least as easy as paying with a debit card.  Bitcoin conferences may be a good thing but the existence of bitcoins isn't news to those who attend them, even now if you stop people in the street and ask what they know of bitcoins most will say they've never heard of them.  If the average Joe had £20 worth of bitcoins that'd be a huge increase in the amount of fiat invested in BTC.

I'm not even thinking so large. I just see it in the short term as a competitor to pay pal, western union and credit cards. But that alone is a huge industry. If you are a store and can increase your monthly profits by 3% or so, you do and don't think twice (barring security and other valid concerns).

Pay Bal is huge and it's not in the supermarket. That is years and years away for BTC imo, but who knows.

I think it is so early in BTC's history that we really don't know what we are dealing with here.