[XC][XCurrency] Decentralised Trustless Privacy Platform / Encrypted XChat / Pos

[mikemikemike]

Wow. Glad I woke up. Looks like we're going to test 0.001225 again, probably rebound @ 0.001. If we fall through 0.001 then I suggest everyone gets their buy orders in above 0.00075, anything lower than that is crazy.

I agree that it's trying to retest.  At first glance there is about 100btc of buy support between 12 and 125.

Yea. Problem is I don't think even if we rebound off of 0.0012 range we will last that long, I think we will keep retesting it until we break through. And It is only 100BTC. I've got 80k coins left that might have to go, will prob then rebuy @ 0.001. Lets wait for this bull trap to finish then ill decide

Yup.  It makes that triangle (I don't know the name of it) that keeps bouncing off the floor until it breaks through it.  I don't know the name of these things.

Descending triangle

[JakeThePanda]

Any such 'dynamic trust system' seems vulnerable to the iterated prisoners dilemma by design. The goal of any blockchain based currency is fully trustless transactions. That's the entire killer app of bitcoin and bitcoin like systems. 'Dynamic trust models' represent a clear problem that has been *long* known about in the literature.

People should not keep deferring to somebodies resume to assume infallibility. Just because someone is obviously very smart does not mean they are not prone to attempting to 're-invent the wheel' without reference to fields they are not perhaps as familiar with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoners.27_dilemma

Great to see some argumentation given. Nothing more refreshing after the trollriver. I'm very keen to hear you out.

For clarity in conversation, can you state exactly how the prisoners' dilemma plays out here? I'm aware of the nature of the scenario, but it's seldom applied in the purely standard way.

I'm not sure but I was thinking that someone that has the ability to steal will eventually attempt it at the moment they don't want to hold XC anymore.  It's like a last turn just before they want to liquidate their position.  Is this wrong?

[akula999]

Wow. Glad I woke up. Looks like we're going to test 0.001225 again, probably rebound @ 0.001. If we fall through 0.001 then I suggest everyone gets their buy orders in above 0.00075, anything lower than that is crazy.

I agree that it's trying to retest.  At first glance there is about 100btc of buy support between 12 and 125.

Yea. Problem is I don't think even if we rebound off of 0.0012 range we will last that long, I think we will keep retesting it until we break through. And It is only 100BTC. I've got 80k coins left that might have to go, will prob then rebuy @ 0.001. Lets wait for this bull trap to finish then ill decide

80k?!?!?! WOW! I have 180 and I thought that was a lot..

[adhitthana]

Any such 'dynamic trust system' seems vulnerable to the iterated prisoners dilemma by design. The goal of any blockchain based currency is fully trustless transactions. That's the entire killer app of bitcoin and bitcoin like systems. 'Dynamic trust models' represent a clear problem that has been *long* known about in the literature.

Would you be able to explain the problem in plain english, or give a"dumbed down" version for people like me.
thanks 

[synechist]

Any such 'dynamic trust system' seems vulnerable to the iterated prisoners dilemma by design. The goal of any blockchain based currency is fully trustless transactions. That's the entire killer app of bitcoin and bitcoin like systems. 'Dynamic trust models' represent a clear problem that has been *long* known about in the literature.

People should not keep deferring to somebodies resume to assume infallibility. Just because someone is obviously very smart does not mean they are not prone to attempting to 're-invent the wheel' without reference to fields they are not perhaps as familiar with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoners.27_dilemma

Great to see some argumentation given. Nothing more refreshing after the trollriver. I'm very keen to hear you out.

For clarity in conversation, can you state exactly how the prisoners' dilemma plays out here? I'm aware of the nature of the scenario, but it's seldom applied in the purely standard way.

I'm not sure but I was thinking that someone that has the ability to steal will eventually attempt it at the moment they don't want to hold XC anymore.  It's like a last turn just before they want to liquidate their position.  Is this wrong?

I don't think that would be very profitable. Nodes would only hold fragments of transactions at any given moment. I think the strategy would be to find a way to run masses of nodes and steal a whole lot simultaneously.

[synechist]

Any such 'dynamic trust system' seems vulnerable to the iterated prisoners dilemma by design. The goal of any blockchain based currency is fully trustless transactions. That's the entire killer app of bitcoin and bitcoin like systems. 'Dynamic trust models' represent a clear problem that has been *long* known about in the literature.

Would you be able to explain the problem in plain english, or give a"dumbed down" version for people like me.
thanks  

We'd need to get Alpharisc to state it for the scenario he foresees for XC. But the problem in general concerns two "rationally self-interested" prisoners who (a) get out of jail if one betrays the other prisoner, (b) get a longer sentence if both prisoners betray each other, or (c) get a shorter sentence if neither of them betray the other.


Edit: the idea is that it's rational to betray the other prisoner. However things get more complicated in the iterative version of the dilemma: prisoners get to repeatedly choose to betray or not betray one another. Alpharisc, to my mind this plays into the hands of a WOT model as long as it's combined with a means of punishment. What's your view?

[mikemikemike]

Wow. Glad I woke up. Looks like we're going to test 0.001225 again, probably rebound @ 0.001. If we fall through 0.001 then I suggest everyone gets their buy orders in above 0.00075, anything lower than that is crazy.

I agree that it's trying to retest.  At first glance there is about 100btc of buy support between 12 and 125.

Yea. Problem is I don't think even if we rebound off of 0.0012 range we will last that long, I think we will keep retesting it until we break through. And It is only 100BTC. I've got 80k coins left that might have to go, will prob then rebuy @ 0.001. Lets wait for this bull trap to finish then ill decide

Thanks for the advance warning. Hanging out here with the trolls has some benefits.

Lol no worries. I feel kinda sorry for all the small holders who get caught up in whale games, always good to give them a headsup, makes me feel a little bit better at the end of the day.

[synechist]

Wow. Glad I woke up. Looks like we're going to test 0.001225 again, probably rebound @ 0.001. If we fall through 0.001 then I suggest everyone gets their buy orders in above 0.00075, anything lower than that is crazy.

I agree that it's trying to retest.  At first glance there is about 100btc of buy support between 12 and 125.

Yea. Problem is I don't think even if we rebound off of 0.0012 range we will last that long, I think we will keep retesting it until we break through. And It is only 100BTC. I've got 80k coins left that might have to go, will prob then rebuy @ 0.001. Lets wait for this bull trap to finish then ill decide

Thanks for the advance warning. Hanging out here with the trolls has some benefits.

Lol no worries. I feel kinda sorry for all the small holders who get caught up in whale games, always good to give them a headsup, makes me feel a little bit better at the end of the day.

Thanks man. Keep going and a few of us might learn to anticipate the odd whale. (But alas, I think emotion will prevail on the whole.)

[Grifftech]

Is the official site down?

[synechist]

Is the official site down?

Not for me.

[myelbow4]

It's only a matter of time before XC takes off. 

[mikemikemike]

Wow. Glad I woke up. Looks like we're going to test 0.001225 again, probably rebound @ 0.001. If we fall through 0.001 then I suggest everyone gets their buy orders in above 0.00075, anything lower than that is crazy.

I agree that it's trying to retest.  At first glance there is about 100btc of buy support between 12 and 125.

Yea. Problem is I don't think even if we rebound off of 0.0012 range we will last that long, I think we will keep retesting it until we break through. And It is only 100BTC. I've got 80k coins left that might have to go, will prob then rebuy @ 0.001. Lets wait for this bull trap to finish then ill decide

Thanks for the advance warning. Hanging out here with the trolls has some benefits.

Lol no worries. I feel kinda sorry for all the small holders who get caught up in whale games, always good to give them a headsup, makes me feel a little bit better at the end of the day.

Thanks man. Keep going and a few of us might learn to anticipate the odd whale. (But alas, I think emotion will prevail on the whole.)

Ahhh best thing to do is just take a break. Step back for a while. Like I'm gonna go for a quick swim, take a breather, clear my head and come back in a bit, this is going to go on for another few hours anyways.

[akula999]

Well, if you dont want your XC, send some my way. Message me. Im at exactly 181.32 - I need more, but im tapped out. I dont mine.

[synechist]

Wow. Glad I woke up. Looks like we're going to test 0.001225 again, probably rebound @ 0.001. If we fall through 0.001 then I suggest everyone gets their buy orders in above 0.00075, anything lower than that is crazy.

I agree that it's trying to retest.  At first glance there is about 100btc of buy support between 12 and 125.

Yea. Problem is I don't think even if we rebound off of 0.0012 range we will last that long, I think we will keep retesting it until we break through. And It is only 100BTC. I've got 80k coins left that might have to go, will prob then rebuy @ 0.001. Lets wait for this bull trap to finish then ill decide

Thanks for the advance warning. Hanging out here with the trolls has some benefits.

Lol no worries. I feel kinda sorry for all the small holders who get caught up in whale games, always good to give them a headsup, makes me feel a little bit better at the end of the day.

Thanks man. Keep going and a few of us might learn to anticipate the odd whale. (But alas, I think emotion will prevail on the whole.)

Ahhh best thing to do is just take a break. Step back for a while. Like I'm gonna go for a quick swim, take a breather, clear my head and come back in a bit, this is going to go on for another few hours anyways.

Indeed. I learnt that one the horrible way. Trading fatigued or stressed is idiocy.

[synechist]

Any such 'dynamic trust system' seems vulnerable to the iterated prisoners dilemma by design. The goal of any blockchain based currency is fully trustless transactions. That's the entire killer app of bitcoin and bitcoin like systems. 'Dynamic trust models' represent a clear problem that has been *long* known about in the literature.

People should not keep deferring to somebodies resume to assume infallibility. Just because someone is obviously very smart does not mean they are not prone to attempting to 're-invent the wheel' without reference to fields they are not perhaps as familiar with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoners.27_dilemma

Great to see some argumentation given. Nothing more refreshing after the trollriver. I'm very keen to hear you out.

For clarity in conversation, can you state exactly how the prisoners' dilemma plays out here? I'm aware of the nature of the scenario, but it's seldom applied in the purely standard way.

We'd need to get Alpharisc to state it for the scenario he foresees for XC. But the problem in general concerns two "rationally self-interested" prisoners who (a) get out of jail if one betrays the other prisoner, (b) get a longer sentence if both prisoners betray each other, or (c) get a shorter sentence if neither of them betray the other.


Edit: the idea is that it's rational to betray the other prisoner. However things get more complicated in the iterative version of the dilemma: prisoners get to repeatedly choose to betray or not betray one another. Alpharisc, to my mind this plays into the hands of a WOT model as long as it's combined with a means of punishment. What's your view?

Alpharisc, you still there? Damn, there I was getting excited for a real live intellectual conversation.

[adhitthana]

We'd need to get Alpharisc to state it for the scenario he foresees for XC. But the problem in general concerns two "rationally self-interested" prisoners who (a) get out of jail if one betrays the other prisoner, (b) get a longer sentence if both prisoners betray each other, or (c) get a shorter sentence if neither of them betray the other.

Edit: the idea is that it's rational to betray the other prisoner. However things get more complicated in the iterative version of the dilemma: prisoners get to repeatedly choose to betray or not betray one another. Alpharisc, to my mind this plays into the hands of a WOT model as long as it's combined with a means of punishment. What's your view?

Ok I think I see. The node holders need to decide whether they betray (and take coins)??

Or have I been taken in by FUD?

[DRobert]

I'm not going to play the risk game and sell my XC in anticipation of a further sell off. Did that already almost a week ago when it was at 140,000 satoshi and got burned when it hit a rebound. I'm just gonna hold and wait this whole thing out. Maybe in the future I can have an opportunity to acquire more XC then whales play their games...

[synechist]

We'd need to get Alpharisc to state it for the scenario he foresees for XC. But the problem in general concerns two "rationally self-interested" prisoners who (a) get out of jail if one betrays the other prisoner, (b) get a longer sentence if both prisoners betray each other, or (c) get a shorter sentence if neither of them betray the other.

Edit: the idea is that it's rational to betray the other prisoner. However things get more complicated in the iterative version of the dilemma: prisoners get to repeatedly choose to betray or not betray one another. Alpharisc, to my mind this plays into the hands of a WOT model as long as it's combined with a means of punishment. What's your view?

Ok I think I see. The node holders need to decide whether they betray (and take coins)??

Yup, I presume Alpharisc anticipates something like that. But I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth.

He would need to state the scenario - if not with rigour then we'd have to build up a rigorous account of the problem (if it is a problem) through conversation - after which we'd be able to present it to the dev and improve the coin.

[DRobert]

What is with this sell off. Price has gone from 200,000 satoshi to almost 100,000 satoshi in a day. I
haven't seen anything but good news from dev.

[synechist]

We'd need to get Alpharisc to state it for the scenario he foresees for XC. But the problem in general concerns two "rationally self-interested" prisoners who (a) get out of jail if one betrays the other prisoner, (b) get a longer sentence if both prisoners betray each other, or (c) get a shorter sentence if neither of them betray the other.

Edit: the idea is that it's rational to betray the other prisoner. However things get more complicated in the iterative version of the dilemma: prisoners get to repeatedly choose to betray or not betray one another. Alpharisc, to my mind this plays into the hands of a WOT model as long as it's combined with a means of punishment. What's your view?

Ok I think I see. The node holders need to decide whether they betray (and take coins)??

Yup, I presume Alpharisc anticipates something like that. But I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth.

He would need to state the scenario - if not with rigour then we'd have to build up a rigorous account of the problem (if it is a problem) through conversation - after which we'd be able to present it to the dev and improve the coin.

THIS is what these forums are for. How I wish they were employed appropriately.