If it does work then go directly with bigger bets so that **people would really be convinced**...

Sorry to cut this quote in half; I will show where you were correct by the end. But first, I want to highlight the problem here.

Many people’s eyes glaze over when they see equations; so I will snip those beautiful equations, and cut everything down to “money quotes” (so to speak):

If the script does not yield 20% ROI 18 times out of 20, I will admit that I "lied", and will leave the forum. I will also send a few bits to people who warned against me.

If the script yields 20% ROI 18 times out of 20 (or more)... well, then I guess my point has been proven.

The chance of alia getting 18, 19, or 20 of these 82.5% chances in a group of 20 is...

**[Correct mathematical calculation.]**

This comes out to 0.294233 (rounded to the 6th decimal place), or 29.4233%.

**So basically, the chance of alia's script working (according to the known laws of probability) are around 29.4%.**

Otherwise stated:

**A user with a ruined reputation has a 29.4% chance of “proving” that the script works—***told you so!*—and a 70.6% chance of doing what was probably going to happen anyway.That’s about midway between betting on a die roll, and betting on a coin flip. For a person with

**nothing left to lose here,** it is close to

**a ⅓ chance of (imagined) instant redemption!** Not a bad bet for someone who managed to get red-tagged by theymos himself.

What is the point to open this thread?

For a

**29.4% chance of winning trust** based on pure luck, with the

**downside risk limited to a grand total**^{0} of 0.00004 BTC = 4000 satoshis (plus some unspecified “few bits”)!Every day, for the next 10 days, starting from 12:10 AM UTC, I will use the script.

1 bit will be wagered on Bustabit and 3 bits will be wagered on Cryptobust.

Whereas:

...but we do all the know the reality of gambling no matter how good the script is,sooner or later that thing will bust up no matter what 20% on bankroll is achievable **not because of script but on your pure luck.**

Exactly.

Yet notwithstanding the foregoing, I still entertain the notion that a winning script may be Alia’s

*idée fixe*. Consider here the argument set forth in

Alia’s negative trust feedback for RGBKey (2018-02-27):

*Lying in my trust rating about a thread I made, spreading false information. Nothing can predict the future, and this was made clear in my thread - apparently it did not get into this person's head. I requested spam and questions to be directed to my PMs, this person clearly did not get the memo. Stay far away.*

Proof of exactly what I said: https://gyazo.com/807f3e327ad66cfe191f6c7fd3dd0654?token=c07782fe2d0e87b3e786dfd42ba316ee

Further explanation:

You are absolutely right. However, in my experience, there are sections of games that are clearly different from one another. Quoting myself...

"Based on preceding games, the script can indicate (to a mathematical extent) what kind of games are about to come consequently. It is naturally not foolproof; but it can purely indicate."

Being a pure indication, these are generally unreliable, but can prove to be helpful. It is true that each game is individual and its odds are calculated individually, but if you think of games as sets of games, you can definitely see some mathematical odds. For example, there are 1-2 games with a 1000+x multiplier, but there has never been a game with two such games in a row. While the odds for a single game getting 1000x are (0.99/1000), the odds for two consecutive games hitting that are ((0.99/1000)^2). In the same way, let's think of a set of 10 games. The odds of all ten games busting above 1.1x are (0.9)^10 = ~35%. The odds of twenty games busting above 1.1x are (0.9)^20 = 12%. Thus, if 10 games bust above 1.1x, it can be reasonably assumed (as per the "gambler's fallacy") that the next ten games will probably have a bust below 1.1x. Naturally - this is a mathematical fallacy, because the odds of the ten games are calculated in an isolated fashion and are not involved with each other. However, in my practice and experience (while playing and tweaking the script), it has worked near-flawlessly, and I continue to make profit this way. Try it out yourself, if you don't believe me.

This user has no idea what he is talking about and remains a danger to the community if he continues to spread false trust ratings.So, Alia states that “nothing can predict the future”. Then advocates a method of predicting the future

*of a pseudorandom process*.

And so, Alia admits that the script is based on a “mathematical fallacy”. But in the next breath, “practice and experience” override the laws of mathematics.

Such blatant self-contradiction is oftentimes shown by those who are obsessed with an idea. “Nothing can create free energy—and this was made clear in my thread. However, I have here a machine which will run forever without any new energy input. It is based on a physics fallacy; but practice and experience have shown me that it works. Try it out yourself, if you don't believe me.”

For the non-gamblers like me who are unaccustomed to talk of games and “busting”, I have an analogy:

Alia outlines what I will here call a (fallacious) calculation over collective probabilities. A (correct) example of such a calculation is Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment. The mining process is pseudorandom, a probabilistic search—a sort of gambling. Difficulty is targeted such that

*on average*, the time between blocks will be around 10 minutes. Yet if you watch the blockchain, you will notice that

the time between blocks is quite variable.

Due to the targeting at 10 minutes, you might expect “intuitively” that too-short times would be followed by too-long times.

*Sometimes*, by happenstance, that is what occurs. But other times, not. Sometimes, a block is mined very quickly, followed by another block mined very quickly. Sometimes, the opposite. Sometimes, neither.

The only (almost-)true prediction

^{1} which could be made from this is that over the course of many blocks,

*assuming constant global hashrate*, the

*average* of block generation times will be

*close to* 10 minutes. This is analogous to predicting that

**over the course of many games, “ROI” will be ***close to* -1% (the house edge). The former won’t even be

*exactly* 10 minutes, and the latter won’t be

*exactly* -1% (negative one percent), because the processes are probabilistic.

Whereas what Alia claims this script to do is tantamount to claiming that you can semi-accurately predict the next block generation time based on the past few block generation times. Um, no. Try this concept for free: Watch the blockchain, and try to guess about how long it will take the next block to come in.

*Sometimes*, by pure luck, you will come close with your prediction. But mostly, you will just find the experience very frustrating.

0. Here interpreting “bit” per

BIP 176 as 0.000001 BTC = 100 satoshis.

1. Actually, I stated the matter somewhat backwards: The difficulty adjustment is done every 2016 blocks

*retrospectively*, by looking at

*how far away* from the desired 10-minute target the past 2016 blocks’ average comes out to. But this is only necessary due to changes in global hash rate; and I here oversimplify by omitting all discussion of fluctuations in hash rate.

*If* hash rate were constant,

*then* you could reasonably make a forward-looking prediction that the next

*n* block generation times would average out to about 10 minutes—for any large enough

*n*. Also then, difficulty adjustment would never be required.