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: 1184
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: 1085
|
|
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: 1184
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: 1184
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).
|
|
|
|
|
Rebelution
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
August 30, 2013, 04:23:24 AM |
|
Wow, 4 people that think they know statistics because they know what a distribution is and can google simple statistics concepts. But really you aren’t thinking critically enough. 1. Why do you guys think that AM’s rate of finding blocks is poission distributed? It is definitely not a poisson process, but I admit that that fact does not preclude its results from being poission distributed. That being said, due to the variance in AM's hash rate that friedcat has admitted, we know that it is not poisson distributed. 2. Many of you are missing a crucial point. The difference between the expected value for a GIVEN 6 hour period is a VERY DIFFERENT question from the probability that 0 blocks will be found in ANY ONE 6 hour period. Allow me to illustrate with an example, and I think even you condescending / smug posters will understand. The probability of flipping a coin 3 times and getting heads each time is VERY DIFFERENT from flipping a coin 50 times a getting a string of 3 heads in a row. I really hope you guys see why... Now, I know thinking is difficult but please try. Now think for an example how this concept applies to this situation. Do you see now? You guys are really my major problem with the bitcoin community in general. At first it seems like a community full of really intelligent people. But the more time you spend, you realize its actually full of condescending people that are pseudo-intellectuals. You guys think that because you have tons of posts that you are intelligent. But really that is not the case at all. Just because you took intro to stats you think that you know probabilities well, but you guys are misapplying the concepts. On top of that you act like egotistical dbags to people that are trying to help you see the error in your ways. Really concerns me about this community, and bitcoins' longevity... Especially you members with a ton of posts and activity. People assume that you guys are intelligent and know things--couldn't you at least take a little bit of responsibility? Sorry for ranting, but it really is saddening  |
|
|
|
|
Rebelution
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
August 30, 2013, 04:24:36 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? Yes, do you know how to apply distributions to answer probability questions? |
|
|
|
|
Rebelution
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
August 30, 2013, 04:27:26 AM |
|
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 if they are or are not. 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. Fair, next time I will avoid being polite and state it more frankly. You do not know what you are posting about, your numbers are wrong, and you are misleading posters that don't know probability and statistics well. The calculations depend greatly on assumptoins, parameters, length of time to view, etc. That is why I wanted you to post your calculations, so as a community we could work through them and arrive at a reasonable result. |
|
|
|
|
|
FloatesMcgoates
|
|
August 30, 2013, 04:28:04 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? Yes, do you know how to apply distributions to answer probability questions? Okay genius, if they do not seem accurate why dont you give an "accurate" figure. I am sure you will be able to do so given how you are a self proclaimed expert in such matters. |
|
|
|
|
Rebelution
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
August 30, 2013, 04:50:06 AM |
|
Simple answer: we don't know because AM's hash rate does not conform to any common distributions. Also I am quite comfortable admitting that it is a difficult problem, and other posters on this board could probably make better calculations than me. IMHO Admitting your own limitations is perfectly OK...
But I said 4 posters weren't thinking critically enough, but I was not counting you because I believe your calculation is reasonable. You were the only one to recognize the concept that a GIVEN 6 hour period is different than ANY one 6 hour period.
You assume a distribution function that is not accurate, but it is reasonable. Realistically, given that we know that AM's hash rate is varying (sometimes it is higher and sometimes lower as friedcat as mentioned several times that blades occasionally go down), your percentage is probably too low. But really from any given hash rate estimation (ie 10 blocks found in 6 hours), all you can do is construct confidence intervals about the hash rate. For example, we can say things like, AM's hash rate is likely between 30 and 60 THash/s for a X time period. As you get more data you can improve the accuracy of the hash rate, but the problem with collecting more data is that you now you have an issue with nonstationary data.
We will never know what AM's hash rate was exactly over a given time period, but we can construct reasonable ranges. Just all the pseudo-intellectualism and misleading of other posters kind of infuriates me, so I apologize if I come off too strong. Its just that the smugness / condescending posts bother me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
