|
vortex1878
|
 |
August 29, 2013, 09:11:46 PM |
|
Technically he didn't have to refund such a mistake. I am 0.0005 BTC poorer per share I own because of his damn integrity!
Wow. Congratulations. |
|
|
|
|
SebastianJu
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
|
|
August 29, 2013, 09:22:36 PM |
|
Technically he didn't have to refund such a mistake. I am 0.0005 BTC poorer per share I own because of his damn integrity!
Looks like integrity is worth practically nothing to you then. Good to know. I hope i remember before doing business with you. |
Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
|
|
|
SOFORTGELD
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 39
Merit: 0
|
|
August 29, 2013, 09:23:48 PM |
|
Technically he didn't have to refund such a mistake. I am 0.0005 BTC poorer per share I own because of his damn integrity!
multiply 200 shares (average shareholder) = 10 dollar lost! Anyways: I would have refunded as well. |
|
|
|
|
SebastianJu
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
|
|
August 29, 2013, 09:24:29 PM |
|
I don't pay for promises. I pay for results and delivery.
Others promise. And promise. And promise.
Friedcat delivers.
Friedcat once was a promiser only too. And i believed him luckily. There are significantly more promisers than miss their mark compared to ones that hit, like FC. And even FC has stumbled at times. When even FC has a hard time, it makes me wonder how in the world some of these other jokers will meet even half of their wild claims. When i invest in a couple of them and only one of them is a winner similar to Asicminer while all others fail... i still won more than enough... |
Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
|
|
|
herzmeister
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007
|
|
August 29, 2013, 09:53:38 PM |
|
About the 200 bitcoin - I wonder when the press picks up on it.
The value Mr. Cat created for the public perception of bitcoin is bigger than 200 coins.
Exactly, I already said elsewhere: Another remarkable aspect to this story is that despite all the talk about (pseudo-) anonymity in Bitcoin, how transparent it actually is when things are important. The media ought to pick up on this. |
|
|
|
stripykitteh
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
|
|
August 29, 2013, 09:57:02 PM |
|
About the 200 bitcoin - I wonder when the press picks up on it.
The value Mr. Cat created for the public perception of bitcoin is bigger than 200 coins.
Exactly, I already said elsewhere: Another remarkable aspect to this story is that despite all the talk about (pseudo-) anonymity in Bitcoin, how transparent it actually is when things are important. The media ought to pick up on this. Yes, if you are a big enough player, bitcoin really only offers pseudonymity, not anonymity. Bravo, friedcat. One only has to consider for a moment what a lot of other bitcoin luminaries would do with such a windfall to realize that friedcat is an unusual beast. |
|
|
|
|
donut
|
|
August 29, 2013, 10:04:44 PM |
|
Technically he didn't have to refund such a mistake. I am 0.0005 BTC poorer per share I own because of his damn integrity!
Looks like integrity is worth practically nothing to you then. Good to know. I hope i remember before doing business with you. You guys just don't understand sarcasm when you see it, do you? Let me chew it for you: it's a really really tiny sum in the grand scheme of things, and I posted the exact sum to illustrate the fact. I am sure those 200 BTC will go a long way in terms of trusting customers. |
|
|
|
|
SebastianJu
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
|
|
August 29, 2013, 10:38:19 PM |
|
Technically he didn't have to refund such a mistake. I am 0.0005 BTC poorer per share I own because of his damn integrity!
Looks like integrity is worth practically nothing to you then. Good to know. I hope i remember before doing business with you. You guys just don't understand sarcasm when you see it, do you? Let me chew it for you: it's a really really tiny sum in the grand scheme of things, and I posted the exact sum to illustrate the fact. I am sure those 200 BTC will go a long way in terms of trusting customers. Ah ok... you sounded so serious that i really thought you care about that sum...  Anyway... even if it would be a sum for a number of shares owned... its a way way bigger sum for someone who lost it. And we dont even know if its a normal bitcoiner that has more of it or only a developer that would have to work years to pay it back... only saying... |
Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
|
|
|
|
AngelSky
|
|
August 29, 2013, 11:00:09 PM |
|
What are you talking about guys ? Integrity ? Am I dreaming ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
August 30, 2013, 01:13:04 AM
Last edit: August 30, 2013, 01:37:10 AM by DeathAndTaxes |
|
There is a ~3% chance of 0 blocks vs 3.6 blocks expected in 6 hours is due to luck. There is a ~1% chance of 0 blocks vs 4.8 blocks expected in 8 hours is due to luck. There is a ~0.2% chance of 0 blocks vs 6.0 blocks expected in 10 hours is due to luck. Assumes AM is operating at 10% of network hashrate (well technically 10% of the hashrate required to sustain the current difficulty), if AM is lower then the chances would be higher. |
|
|
|
|
|
CMMPro
|
|
August 30, 2013, 01:35:21 AM |
|
Interesting that Slush's pool has had a run of shit luck too the past day or so.
Statistically it's bound to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Rebelution
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
August 30, 2013, 02:01:06 AM |
|
There is a ~3% chance of 0 blocks vs 3.6 blocks expected in 6 hours is due to luck. There is a ~1% chance of 0 blocks vs 4.8 blocks expected in 8 hours is due to luck. There is a ~0.2% chance of 0 blocks vs 6.0 blocks expected in 10 hours is due to luck. Assumes AM is operating at 10% of network hashrate (well technically 10% of the hashrate required to sustain the current difficulty), if AM is lower then the chances would be higher. Calculations to support these probabilities? They do not seem accurate to me. Also there are several errors in your post. All results are "due to luck" whether they are much lower than the expected value, exactly the expected value or much greater than the expected value. The word "chances" should be "probabilities." And it doesn't make any sense to say "~3% chance of 0 blocks vs 3.6 blocks." I think you mean to say "~3% chance of 0 blocks when the expected number of blocks is 3.6." Don't mean to be hard on you or anything. It's just that you write that as if you know what you talking about, but you clearly do not. So I don't want other readers to be misled by your post if it is completely inaccurate. |
|
|
|
|
dhenson
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 30, 2013, 02:05:14 AM |
|
There is a ~3% chance of 0 blocks vs 3.6 blocks expected in 6 hours is due to luck. There is a ~1% chance of 0 blocks vs 4.8 blocks expected in 8 hours is due to luck. There is a ~0.2% chance of 0 blocks vs 6.0 blocks expected in 10 hours is due to luck. Assumes AM is operating at 10% of network hashrate (well technically 10% of the hashrate required to sustain the current difficulty), if AM is lower then the chances would be higher. Calculations to support these probabilities? They do not seem accurate to me. Also there are several errors in your post. All results are "due to luck" whether they are much lower than the expected value, exactly the expected value or much greater than the expected value. The word "chances" should be "probabilities." And it doesn't make any sense to say "~3% chance of 0 blocks vs 3.6 blocks." I think you mean to say "~3% chance of 0 blocks when the expected number of blocks is 3.6." Don't mean to be hard on you or anything. It's just that you write that as if you know what you talking about, but you clearly do not. So I don't want other readers to be misled by your post if it is completely inaccurate. This is going to be good...  |
|
|
|
|
dree12
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077
|
|
August 30, 2013, 03:33:40 AM |
|
There is a ~3% chance of 0 blocks vs 3.6 blocks expected in 6 hours is due to luck. There is a ~1% chance of 0 blocks vs 4.8 blocks expected in 8 hours is due to luck. There is a ~0.2% chance of 0 blocks vs 6.0 blocks expected in 10 hours is due to luck. Assumes AM is operating at 10% of network hashrate (well technically 10% of the hashrate required to sustain the current difficulty), if AM is lower then the chances would be higher. Calculations to support these probabilities? They do not seem accurate to me. Also there are several errors in your post. All results are "due to luck" whether they are much lower than the expected value, exactly the expected value or much greater than the expected value. The word "chances" should be "probabilities." And it doesn't make any sense to say "~3% chance of 0 blocks vs 3.6 blocks." I think you mean to say "~3% chance of 0 blocks when the expected number of blocks is 3.6." Don't mean to be hard on you or anything. It's just that you write that as if you know what you talking about, but you clearly do not. So I don't want other readers to be misled by your post if it is completely inaccurate. Do you understand what a distribution is? |
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
August 30, 2013, 03:34:23 AM
Last edit: August 30, 2013, 06:16:10 AM by DeathAndTaxes |
|
Calculations to support these probabilities? They do not seem accurate to me. That is the great thing about numbers, they don't need to "seem" to be accurate. They either are or they are not. You can compute them yourself and know definitively their accuracy. It's just that you write that as if you know what you talking about, but you clearly do not. So you already know how to calculate and validate or invalidate it. |
|
|
|
|
|
FloatesMcgoates
|
|
August 30, 2013, 03:49:44 AM |
|
Assuming you control 10% network hash
As per blockchain.info, there is an average of 7.58 minutes in between each block.
Then in a period of 6 hours, 47 blocks would have been found.
The possibility that AM found 0 blocks in those 47 is a simple calculation especially given how we are using 10%
(1-.1)^47 = .007 , or 0.7%.
There are 120 chunks of 6 hours in a 30 day month. The possibility that at one point or another a 6 hour gap will open during a month is roughly
(1-.007)^120 ~ .43, or 43%
Not sure why people are arguing over statistics in here given how math is inarguable.
|
|
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
August 30, 2013, 03:56:05 AM |
|
There is a ~3% chance of 0 blocks vs 3.6 blocks expected in 6 hours is due to luck. There is a ~1% chance of 0 blocks vs 4.8 blocks expected in 8 hours is due to luck. There is a ~0.2% chance of 0 blocks vs 6.0 blocks expected in 10 hours is due to luck. Assumes AM is operating at 10% of network hashrate (well technically 10% of the hashrate required to sustain the current difficulty), if AM is lower then the chances would be higher. Calculations to support these probabilities? They do not seem accurate to me. Also there are several errors in your post. All results are "due to luck" whether they are much lower than the expected value, exactly the expected value or much greater than the expected value. The word "chances" should be "probabilities." And it doesn't make any sense to say "~3% chance of 0 blocks vs 3.6 blocks." I think you mean to say "~3% chance of 0 blocks when the expected number of blocks is 3.6." Don't mean to be hard on you or anything. It's just that you write that as if you know what you talking about, but you clearly do not. So I don't want other readers to be misled by your post if it is completely inaccurate. Google "Poisson distribution" and then calculate for yourself. D&T is using the PMF here, so it's not hard to calculate for yourself. BTW, you quote "~3% chance of 0 blocks vs 3.6 blocks." D&T actually wrote: "There is a ~3% chance of 0 blocks vs 3.6 blocks expected in 6 hours is due to luck." (my bolding) What he wrote makes plain sense. |
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
August 30, 2013, 04:04:38 AM |
|
As per blockchain.info, there is an average of 7.58 minutes in between each block.
Then in a period of 6 hours, 47 blocks would have been found.
Good point. I forgot the network is running faster than expected. I assumed 36 blocks in 6 hours. |
|
|
|
|
|
FloatesMcgoates
|
|
August 30, 2013, 04:16:10 AM |
|
Hmm now that the other guy brought it up I have been thinking of whether bitcoin block mining probability should be calculated using Binomial distribution or Poisson distribution. I'm fairly sure that Binomial is the way to go if we make determinations based on having a fixed % of the network as in this case we have a specific number of trials n (47) and a constant probability p (.10).
|
|
|
|
|
|
