Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

oh, btw:

Gold & Silver collapsing.  Bitcoin up.

[1714147902]

1714147902

[1714147902]

1714147902

[1714147902]

1714147902

[cypherdoc]

[cypherdoc]

Costa said the bank's activities "were in clear violation of Bank of Portugal rules" and used "fraudulent schemes." Police suspect former Chief Executive Ricardo Espirito Santo Salgado, who stepped down last month, of fraud, forgery and money-laundering at the bank, whose business dates from the 19th century and has been one of Portugal's most venerable financial institutions, as well as for years its biggest private bank.

Portugal Bank Collapse and Rescue Raises Questions

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/portugal-puts-66-bn-save-ailing-bank-24827430

dickheads.

[Trader Steve]

Costa said the bank's activities "were in clear violation of Bank of Portugal rules" and used "fraudulent schemes." Police suspect former Chief Executive Ricardo Espirito Santo Salgado, who stepped down last month, of fraud, forgery and money-laundering at the bank, whose business dates from the 19th century and has been one of Portugal's most venerable financial institutions, as well as for years its biggest private bank.

Portugal Bank Collapse and Rescue Raises Questions

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/portugal-puts-66-bn-save-ailing-bank-24827430

dickheads.

Portugal, Argentina. Someday those folks will discover bitcoin.

[Trader Steve]

it looks to me that mining would be best described as being in a Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium - cypherdoc
Highlights are mine:

"A pure strategy Nash equilibrium is a profile of strategies such that each player’s (miner's) strategy is a best response ((results in the highest available payoff (block reward)) against the equilibrium strategies of the other players (miners).

A pure strategy Nash equilibrium only requires that the action taken by each agent (miner) be best against the actual equilibrium actions taken by the other players (miners), and not necessarily against all possible actions of the other players (miners). In other words, it's expected for some miners to be malicious.

A Nash equilibrium has the nice property that it is stable: if each player expects 'a' to be the profile of actions played, then no player (miner) has any incentive to change his or her action (no incentive to start cheating). In other words, no player (miner) regrets having played the action that he or she played in a Nash equilibrium."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1968579

Nice. I hadn't looked at it that way but it makes perfect sense.

[NewLiberty]

it looks to me that mining would be best described as being in a Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium - cypherdoc
Highlights are mine:

"A pure strategy Nash equilibrium is a profile of strategies such that each player’s (miner's) strategy is a best response ((results in the highest available payoff (block reward)) against the equilibrium strategies of the other players (miners).

A pure strategy Nash equilibrium only requires that the action taken by each agent (miner) be best against the actual equilibrium actions taken by the other players (miners), and not necessarily against all possible actions of the other players (miners). In other words, it's expected for some miners to be malicious.

A Nash equilibrium has the nice property that it is stable: if each player expects 'a' to be the profile of actions played, then no player (miner) has any incentive to change his or her action (no incentive to start cheating). In other words, no player (miner) regrets having played the action that he or she played in a Nash equilibrium."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1968579

Nice. I hadn't looked at it that way but it makes perfect sense.

Nash equilibrium works well in theory, the real world is a little more messy.
Pre-mass adoption there are so many outside interests seeking bitcoin failure that there are other incentives at play.
Once there is more distribution and buy in, the full effects of the Nash Equilibrium will be much stronger than they are today.

[cypherdoc]

it looks to me that mining would be best described as being in a Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium - cypherdoc
Highlights are mine:

"A pure strategy Nash equilibrium is a profile of strategies such that each player’s (miner's) strategy is a best response ((results in the highest available payoff (block reward)) against the equilibrium strategies of the other players (miners).

A pure strategy Nash equilibrium only requires that the action taken by each agent (miner) be best against the actual equilibrium actions taken by the other players (miners), and not necessarily against all possible actions of the other players (miners). In other words, it's expected for some miners to be malicious.

A Nash equilibrium has the nice property that it is stable: if each player expects 'a' to be the profile of actions played, then no player (miner) has any incentive to change his or her action (no incentive to start cheating). In other words, no player (miner) regrets having played the action that he or she played in a Nash equilibrium."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1968579

Nice. I hadn't looked at it that way but it makes perfect sense.

Nash equilibrium works well in theory, the real world is a little more messy.
Pre-mass adoption there are so many outside interests seeking bitcoin failure that there are other incentives at play.
Once there is more distribution and buy in, the full effects of the Nash Equilibrium will be much stronger than they are today.

the Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game; therefore, i think the Nash Equilibrium takes those hostile actors into account.  the minimum # of participants required to apply the theory is 2 and doesn't depend on large #'s.  what's also important for all actors to know and understand, and to know that the others know, is that the longest blockchain and the POW required to construct it is mathematically immutable. b/c we know that the hashrate of the Bitcoin Network is thousands of times larger than most of the supercomputers on Earth makes the strategical decision making of each individual actor clear; don't cheat.

[cypherdoc]

pm selloff in progress...

[cypherdoc]

it's so nice to know that none of this ever has to be paid back. what a great country!:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/706025967449751-federal-debt-7t-under-obama#.U-A8IyRXELo.twitter

we want moar.

[cypherdoc]

oh heavens.  everyone eventually capitulates:

http://coinfire.cf/2014/08/05/exclusive-alex-jones-announce-tonight-will-begin-accepting-bitcoin/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiGxd5de68c&feature=youtu.be&t=12m40s

[vuduchyld]

I do small business valuations as part of my job.  I'd discount them to 2 BTC if I could get people to pay me that way.  Or 600 XMR.

[cypherdoc]

[cypherdoc]

[cypherdoc]

i wish i was in this stock mkt:

[fortif78]

i wish i was in this stock mkt:

it's ok, we'll all be looking at a similar chart here soon. 

[sidhujag]

Thats some massive pips!! wonder what the spread is.

[sidhujag]

it looks to me that mining would be best described as being in a Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium - cypherdoc
Highlights are mine:

"A pure strategy Nash equilibrium is a profile of strategies such that each player’s (miner's) strategy is a best response ((results in the highest available payoff (block reward)) against the equilibrium strategies of the other players (miners).

A pure strategy Nash equilibrium only requires that the action taken by each agent (miner) be best against the actual equilibrium actions taken by the other players (miners), and not necessarily against all possible actions of the other players (miners). In other words, it's expected for some miners to be malicious.

A Nash equilibrium has the nice property that it is stable: if each player expects 'a' to be the profile of actions played, then no player (miner) has any incentive to change his or her action (no incentive to start cheating). In other words, no player (miner) regrets having played the action that he or she played in a Nash equilibrium."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1968579

Nice. I hadn't looked at it that way but it makes perfect sense.

Nash equilibrium works well in theory, the real world is a little more messy.
Pre-mass adoption there are so many outside interests seeking bitcoin failure that there are other incentives at play.
Once there is more distribution and buy in, the full effects of the Nash Equilibrium will be much stronger than they are today.

Wasn't Nash's basic premise also that you win and lose as a team in that if you have actors (miners) competing to achieve the same goal (bitcoin block reward) then it is favourable to act as a team to achieve that goal rather than individually? So doesn't that mean to collude with each other to try to get the block as team (or 51% attack a network as a team to push it to an extreme?), because it doesn't make sense to try to do it individually.

Or maybe its just that the team notion he talks about is analogous to mining pools working to try to get that carrot, and the size of the pools is a side-affect of the size of the teams which is an external byproduct of an unregulated ecosystem.

[cypherdoc]

everything down except USD.

silver dipped below $20; again.

what will happen to BTC if we go into a recession or get another stock mkt crash?  i say UP until proven otherwise.  it should act as a safe haven.  altho i could be wrong.

[cypherdoc]

if you feel bad about Bitcoin, feel worse about silver and gold.

at least Bitcoin is still above support:

[cypherdoc]

Dow clearly in a short term sell signal.  Breaking down thru support: