rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[AnonyMint]

I not only believe there is only one possible future, but also that the whole existence has been "written" before being played. But from the human mind perspective that is shut-down in the space-time illusion, probabilities is the only way to make assessments, preparations, investments in relation with the future.

there is no evidence for that argument, and there is some pretty interesting evidence against that argument in the realm of quantum physics.

 - anything is possible. did you know that in the highest study of philosophy, even the validity mathematics is being debated.

Maha, i say this.

There are infinitely possible futures, which are all the realisation of the outcome of the probabilistic nature of everything around us. When time 'T' happens the wave function of probable outcomes collapses into that instant's reality. The macro scale resolves, based on the quantum scale.

All our individual consciousness appear to exist in that instant 'T' - the present. The future exists insomuch as it is the set of probable outcomes, the past (lets call it anti future) only exists as a collective memory (echo?) of actual outcomes, observed by 'T' collapsing the wave function(s).

Consciousness is observation, our perception of time is based on the repeated collapse of probable outcomes. Everything past is definite, everything future is probabilistic.  

So ass chestnut says anything is possible. (my caveat being within the scope of what can possibly be probable e.g. 'time going backwards' isn't possible because time doesn't have a direction, it doesn't exist, it is just a 'memory')

practically speaking. HODL

Well I have to disagree.

Even the past is not definite. How do you prove what happened in the past? It is an argument about whose memory is accurate, yet each of us have a different aliasing error in our sampling (because no one samples the entire universe).

I dump this here for lack of a better place to quickly record this publicly in such an unpolished state.

Someday I want to blog in careful detail about Eric's insightful refutation of Schrödinger’s Cat (which parallels some of the ways I initially thought about it, yet he adds some details such as the decoherence aspect):

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=690

The quick, uncareful dump of my thoughts is to tie this into my existing articles on my blog. Eric S. Raymond is correct that observation doesn't have an absolute point (everything in our universe is relative), but he missed is the conclusion from his own point which that the classical physics objects are also superimposed. There is no absolute point where classical objects exist and are no longer superimposed. Every day the earth has billions of simultaneous realities going which do not connected to your life in any way that you could possibly measure scientifically unless the speed-of-light was not finite and you could measure forever to capture all the possible long-tail butterfly effects of zillions of interactions of events that are not observable to you now.

There are few times I have been able to see things that Eric didn't and corrected him... (more to read at this post)

[Trolololo]

I would say it is a 50/50 coin flip, but if you win, you get 10 times return, if you lose, you just lose what you had. Invest accordingly.

+1

[AnonyMint]

You realize we said the same thing mathematically. You are simply saying it is worth betting a smaller amount on smaller probabilities.

In that case, you should be buying altcoins but you don't. Ostensibly you don't want any development that could actually help humanity. You talk about how Bitcoin is going to help the world, but the facts are it is fully centralized and is driving us towards a fiat result and thus it can only be a world governance fiat result.

How you could possibly deny that, I can not comprehend. You would have to explain it to me.

And that is why I am not happy with you. At least I don't hide it.

Perhaps you don't comprehend why diversity is critical to freedom?! But I find it very difficult to believe you don't understand that already.

I can't figure you out. Have you joined the cabal?

Edit: it like, "dude what happened to you, did you get infected with a Bitcoin delirium virus". Why not continue to be a speculator and play to the resilience of diverse bets? What caused you to become so monotonically myopic on Bitcoin at the cost of every other smaller probability with higher potential gains?

That is why you need for that $100,000 to be true. Because you don't want to admit to yourself that you need to be buying altcoins.

Did you just get lazy? Yeah that is the only rational explanation (and add also your fantasy about being a Baron and having a roundtable with Knights). I'm sure you didn't join the cabal literally, but sort of figuratively with your goal to have lifestyle as an aristocrat blueblood.

I am thinking that you actually hate nerds. You don't want it to be true that a nerd could be more powerful than a blueblood. I am thinking it makes you very uncomfortable the prospect that there could be continual competition and technological disruption.

Or maybe you believe in the Moldbug theory, "there can only be one" (winner in crypto-currency). If Moldbug is correct, it is in direct opposition to his philosophy of the Dark Enlightenment.

There is this problem that I try to coordinate with you but you make it difficult. That's why you don't know what I am up to, and accuse me of inaction. But since you know so well, why not post here what I should be doing! That I can review without revealing my plans.

Okay mea culpa me. After writing that I remembered you mentioned publicly about buying some Auroracoin.

I guess I am aghast that you don't ever talk critically about Bitcoin. It is always rose colored glasses. Yes Bitcoin provides some things, but it taketh other things.

I think you will find that creekbore and I just are wishing you would be more forthcoming on balance and transparency about Bitcoin's pluses and minuses.

I suppose I hate snake oil salesmen.

[AlexGR]

A different kind of question:

Taking the three following assumptions as correct:

1. Bitcoin was not a creation of the Elite / NSA

2. Bitcoin will inevitably compete with fiat - at least as a store of wealth, primarily because of the debasement of fiat

3. Bitcoin will be attacked with all means, including NSA trying to 51% attack it, in order to preserve the multi-trillion $$$ fiat system

...has anyone calculated the window of opportunity that NSA has in order to attack it, before the network becomes too large to gain 51%?

I think, financially, the expiration of this window plus a year or so just to be certain, will be the moment when uncertainty can be substantially reduced against the possibility that an investment can be rendered worthless due to a 51% rape. It's actually when big money, like government* money that wants to diversify their foreign exchange with things beyond gold and silver, can actually flow in.

* of non-globalized countries, as it is also assumed that globalized countries act in accord under one shadowy leadership and would try to maintain the fiat scam.

[sgbett]

Everything past is definite, everything future is probabilistic.  

No, there is no difference between the past and the future. Causality is not probabilistic, neither in the past nor in the future.

Einstein:

 "I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants,[Der Mensch kann wohl tun, was er will, aber er kann nicht wollen, was er will]' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper." Schopenhauer's clearer, actual words were: "You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing." [Du kannst tun was du willst: aber du kannst in jedem gegebenen Augenblick deines Lebens nur ein Bestimmtes wollen und schlechterdings nichts anderes als dieses eine.]

I dunno why you brought causality into it. I'm 100% with nagarjan on that one, its his most fundamental thought...

Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

If my words misled you (highly probable! i get excited and just spraff sometimes) into thinking that, then I apologise that wasn't my intention.

My original hypothesis still stands the future is probable outcomes, the past is memory of what happened. I think that makes the different (in fact I believe they are opposites hence the term anti-future).

You can make them semi-equivalent by suggesting that what happened becomes probabilistic based on the observer. (You said X, no I said Y. both remembering different) but I have since discarded this, as it felt the 'future/anti-future' concept sat better with everything else. Yin yang etc.

Maybe anti-future is just another way of viewing observation, it cancels out future (possibility) leaving us with a concrete instant in 'time'. (I kept calling it 'T' but I guess planck time would be better) 1 unit later fresh observation, fresh new reality! Probably not much different from the last one, but possibly is The reason we find it so hard to see is because its all happening so fast, and our observational capacity is just so woefully underpowered on the quantum scale. We can see a tiny fraction of electromagnetic radiation, we careen through ~10^42 outcomes in the blink of an eye. Its bound to look complicated to us

[chessnut]

Well I have to disagree.

Even the past is not definite. How do you prove what happened in the past? It is an argument about whose memory is accurate, yet each of us have a different aliasing error in our sampling (because no one samples the entire universe).

agreed. there is no authentic 'evidence' of the past. there is no way to prove theories of statistics without probing the past. in philosophy, it is still not proven that 1+1=2. simplified, that is 1=1. I know that 1 is 1, but 1 is not necessarily equal to 1. In science they are different by nature simply by that fact that they are distinguished on either side of the equation, in a different space and time etc...
maths is invalid.


besides, if we had indeed scientifically collected a statistical pool of data enough to 'prove' the past, we would have changed the past entirely. quantum physics.

[sgbett]

Well I have to disagree.

Even the past is not definite. How do you prove what happened in the past? It is an argument about whose memory is accurate, yet each of us have a different aliasing error in our sampling (because no one samples the entire universe).

I assume you are disagreeing with HODL, how can I possibly be wrong about the other stuff

anyway yeah I considered that, I rejected it (As per above post) I agree a memory of what happened can be subject to probabilistic outcomes, but it doesn't make sense that everything else seems to be made up of stuff between zero and one, but somehow the future and past are actually the same. They need an opposite. Clyde needs his bonnie.

[rpietila]

To raise Bitcoin's price to $100k, the marketcap would have to rise to $1,300 billion. This would mean about $130 billion new investment.

Anony:
As can be seen, I did take it into account. Please read before commenting.

And it has always been that Bitcoin liquidity is weak when we go to several thousand bitcoins at once. This was the reason why I also did not buy more when I started. If a $100millionaire considers buying into bitcoin now, why not just buy BTC5,000 and forget about it. With similar strategy I am doing very good.

Fact about Bitcoin
It does not matter, how much you paid for your bitcoins. It only matters, how many you have.

For this reason people, corporations and states who wait until "it grows bigger" are not acting smartly because they could buy the same amount for less now. Especially now, I mean this week.

[AnonyMint]

...has anyone calculated the window of opportunity that NSA has in order to attack it, before the network becomes too large to gain 51%?

See my earlier posts today on this topic.

2 or 3 mining pools already control 51%. Government can just regulate them.

It is getting worse over time, not better as you assumed.

[AnonyMint]

To raise Bitcoin's price to $100k, the marketcap would have to rise to $1,300 billion. This would mean about $130 billion new investment.

Anony:
As can be seen, I did take it into account. Please read before commenting.

I didn't quote your post, because I couldn't find it. I was operating on memory. And I am in a rush to go eat.

And it has always been that Bitcoin liquidity is weak when we go to several thousand bitcoins at once. This was the reason why I also did not buy more when I started. If a $100millionaire considers buying into bitcoin now, why not just buy BTC5,000 and forget about it. With similar strategy I am doing very good.

Waste of time for most wealthy in their estimation. And you are not talking to them here. You need to find a different forum to reach them.

Fact about Bitcoin
It does not matter, how much you paid for your bitcoins. It only matters, how many you have.

For this reason people, corporations and states who wait until "it grows bigger" are not acting smartly because they could buy the same amount for less now. Especially now, I mean this week.

This is the kind of comment from you that drives me crazy.

I emphatically disagree with that. It is like snake oil salesmen talk.

I will explain when I get back from eating.

[chessnut]

Risto (and all),

Where do you think we will find the 100GW of electricity that we will need in order to sustain a 100k$ bitcoin ?

I really dont see the logic. I could pay $100k for a bitcoin today and tomorrow regardless of the mining network.

If there's not enough power, there's not enough power..... but it will still be worth while to mine if you can. machines may become more efficient, and the cost of electricity may rise to make the market more competitive.

[jmw74]

To raise Bitcoin's price to $100k, the marketcap would have to rise to $1,300 billion. This would mean about $130 billion new investment.

Anony:
As can be seen, I did take it into account. Please read before commenting.

And it has always been that Bitcoin liquidity is weak when we go to several thousand bitcoins at once. This was the reason why I also did not buy more when I started. If a $100millionaire considers buying into bitcoin now, why not just buy BTC5,000 and forget about it. With similar strategy I am doing very good.

Fact about Bitcoin
It does not matter, how much you paid for your bitcoins. It only matters, how many you have.

For this reason people, corporations and states who wait until "it grows bigger" are not acting smartly because they could buy the same amount for less now. Especially now, I mean this week.

This is what baffles me.  Waiting makes no logical sense at all.  Let's say I'm a big shot with $500 million to invest.  I can take 0.1% of that and buy BTC1000.  If bitcoin gets huge ($100k each), then I've increased my assets to $600 million (significant gain), and risked basically nothing.  And the reason I don't do this is, ostensibly, because it's small potatoes?  It makes no sense.  If their reason was they believe that bitcoin will go to zero at odds of 99.5% or greater, ok, that at least makes logical sense.  But I don't think any of them believe it will go to zero with that much certainty.

[RAJSALLIN]

To raise Bitcoin's price to $100k, the marketcap would have to rise to $1,300 billion. This would mean about $130 billion new investment.

Anony:
As can be seen, I did take it into account. Please read before commenting.

And it has always been that Bitcoin liquidity is weak when we go to several thousand bitcoins at once. This was the reason why I also did not buy more when I started. If a $100millionaire considers buying into bitcoin now, why not just buy BTC5,000 and forget about it. With similar strategy I am doing very good.

Fact about Bitcoin
It does not matter, how much you paid for your bitcoins. It only matters, how many you have.

For this reason people, corporations and states who wait until "it grows bigger" are not acting smartly because they could buy the same amount for less now. Especially now, I mean this week.

This is what baffles me.  Waiting makes no logical sense at all.  Let's say I'm a big shot with $500 million to invest.  I can take 0.1% of that and buy BTC1000.  If bitcoin gets huge ($100k each), then I've increased my assets to $600 million (significant gain), and risked basically nothing.  And the reason I don't do this is, ostensibly, because it's small potatoes?  It makes no sense.  If their reason was they believe that bitcoin will go to zero at odds of 99.5% or greater, ok, that at least makes logical sense.  But I don't think any of them believe it will go to zero with that much certainty.

I think the main reason the big millionaires aren't buying bitcoins:

- Not what they usually buy. They listen to people like Buffet and so they invest in stocks and bonds. Products out of their comfort zone aren't even considered.
- They listen to financial advisors and no advisor is going to be recommending bitcoin today.
- They don't know nearly enough about it to even consider buying it.
- They think it's some kind of geek fad that will never get big.
- Even if they are some what interested they have no idea how to buy it, at least not in the quantities that would mater for them.

[SlipperySlope]

Risto (and all),

Where do you think we will find the 100GW of electricity that we will need in order to sustain a 100k$ bitcoin ?

I suppose that a financial treaty between a sufficient number of developed countries could establish a mining pool cartel. The cartel would consist of a majority of the current mining pool incumbents. Cryptographic virtual medallions would be one-time generated and sold to the cartel. Each such virtual medallion would give the bearer the legal right to consume a certain amount of electric power for the purpose of mining bitcoin. The virtual medallions would be treated as property and could be sold. Furthermore, they could be somehow combined and divided by some mathematical mechanism.

The treaty would specify the total amount of power that could be spent worldwide for Bitcoin mining. The free market would allow the exchange of virtual medallions from one mining pool to another. I think that this could be done without forking the blockchain, provided that another shared database contains the cryptographic proof that a coinbase block was signed by a certain virtual medallion.

There are likely loose ends and various faults with this scheme, but the main idea is similar to how New York City controls the number and profitability of its taxi cabs. Because a small number of mining pools effectively control bitcoin, I believe they could reject as invalid any new blocks created outside of this medallion process.

[hdbuck]

i think millionnaires are buying bitcoin. they just do so by other channels than public exchanges and/or if they deal with the latest, they probably paid someone to sneak in at a greater profit, which could then explain such volatility: with weak hands actually selling their coins to huge whales/funds/banks/greedymillionaires without noticing it.

[RAJSALLIN]

Risto (and all),

Where do you think we will find the 100GW of electricity that we will need in order to sustain a 100k$ bitcoin ?

I suppose that a financial treaty between a sufficient number of developed countries could establish a mining pool cartel. The cartel would consist of a majority of the current mining pool incumbents. Cryptographic medallions would be one-time generated and sold to the cartel. Each such medallion would give the bearer the legal right to consume a certain amount of electric power for the purpose of mining bitcoin. The medallions would be treated as property and could be sold. Furthermore, they could be somehow combined and divided by some mathematical mechanism.

The treaty would specify the total amount of power that could be spent worldwide for Bitcoin mining. The free market would allow the exchange of medallions from one mining pool to another. I think that this could be done without forking the blockchain, provided that another shared database contains the cryptographic proof that a coinbase block was signed by a certain medallion.

There are likely loose ends and various faults with this scheme, but the main idea is similar to how New York City controls the number and profitability of its taxi cabs. Because a small number of mining pools effectively control bitcoin, I believe they could reject as invalid any new blocks created outside of this medallion process.

That sounds like something out of a sci fi novel

[RAJSALLIN]

i think millionnaires are buying bitcoin. they just do so by other channels than public exchanges and/or if they deal with the latest, they probably paid someone to sneak in at a greater profit, which could then explain such volatility: with weak hands actually selling their coins to huge whales/funds/banks/greedymillionaires without noticing it.

A few are buying without a doubt and probably doing so off exchanges. It's just that those few are probably a drop in the ocean..

[SlipperySlope]

Risto (and all),

Where do you think we will find the 100GW of electricity that we will need in order to sustain a 100k$ bitcoin ?

I suppose that a financial treaty between a sufficient number of developed countries could establish a mining pool cartel. The cartel would consist of a majority of the current mining pool incumbents. Cryptographic medallions would be one-time generated and sold to the cartel. Each such medallion would give the bearer the legal right to consume a certain amount of electric power for the purpose of mining bitcoin. The medallions would be treated as property and could be sold. Furthermore, they could be somehow combined and divided by some mathematical mechanism.

The treaty would specify the total amount of power that could be spent worldwide for Bitcoin mining. The free market would allow the exchange of medallions from one mining pool to another. I think that this could be done without forking the blockchain, provided that another shared database contains the cryptographic proof that a coinbase block was signed by a certain medallion.

There are likely loose ends and various faults with this scheme, but the main idea is similar to how New York City controls the number and profitability of its taxi cabs. Because a small number of mining pools effectively control bitcoin, I believe they could reject as invalid any new blocks created outside of this medallion process.

That sounds like something out of a sci fi novel

Not really, this sort of marketplace mechanism has also been used to control pollution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

[creekbore]

Risto (and all),

Where do you think we will find the 100GW of electricity that we will need in order to sustain a 100k$ bitcoin ?

Good question.

I have seen presentations on internet power consumption and its pretty frightening.
All the spam, porn and twitter-echos add up to the same daily power usage as Germany or similar (IRCC the internet would be the sixth largest 'national' consumer if you classed it as a country).

But most here are strident climate change deniers, so it becomes a moot point.

Keep burning that coal boys*

*This message was brought to you by the Australian Department for Trade and Energy

[AlexGR]

Risto (and all),

Where do you think we will find the 100GW of electricity that we will need in order to sustain a 100k$ bitcoin ?

Part of that can be found from saving other energy resources. Mining equipment can also be used as heating equipment for the winter where the energy expended is simultaneously giving heat to a certain space. Thus the money, in this scenario, can be found from the money that were saved in burning gas, diesel etc.

Thing is, mining must then rotate around the globe as the mining-heater boxes are plugged in alternate sequence between the two hemispheres.

It is a way that can actually provide free heat for the masses, as they work to secure the network.