Quote from: Liquidfire on August 21, 2013, 07:31:29 PM

Quote from: cverity on August 21, 2013, 07:23:41 PM

Quote

Its not gamblers fallacy to predict the expected outcome of a series of events given a probability.

Like saying, given a set of 5 coin clips, we predict 3.125% of the time it will be all heads.

Gamblers fallacy would be:

I just had 4 heads, I am due for tails now!

or

I just had 4 heads, I am on a steak and will get heads

Calling probability gamblers fallacy is a complete reversal of the situation, the casino relies on probability to even out variance and ensure their profit over time.

When we predict the average time to find block, we are like the casino predicting the number of times the dealer wins on a game OVER TIME.

In other words, it is not gamblers fallacy to say given a hashrate of x, and a difficulty of y, we RELIABLY EXPECT it to take Z seconds to find a share.

Correct. I'm not speaking of probability of the expected outcome of a series of events that have not happened yet. I'm directing that link to anyone that thinks that they calculated part of a share and lost something when we move to a new block.

Well if anyone really thinks that, excellent use of the fallacy.

Nobody has calculated "part" of a share. What I was saying earlier, getting accused of gamblers fallacy in the process, is that when you statistically are expected to only get a share 80% of the time on a given block, due to the race condition between you finding your share and the pool finding a block, it is FUNCTIONALLY the same (over time) to say it is "AS IF" you lose 20% of your hashpower, or, put another way, 20% of each share/total shares.

Different ways of mentally imagining the scenario, each mathematically correct, while technically there is no partial share.

What people aren't realizing is that the system is set up to give a rate of x%. That's mathematical.

If your rate is below that, for it to become accurate it then has to boost above it.

Ex. there are two blocks. The blockchain has a time of 30s.

Block 1: 15s
Block 2: 30s

For the average (average means add all three and divide by the total number) to equal 30 ((15+30+x)/3=30) you would need the last one to be:

Block 3: 45s

This is an ongoing process. If every block was above 30s, it would be impossible for the average to be 30s. That's just not how math works. The average is the average; if you change it, the average is no longer the average. For some reason, a lot of people here somehow can't grasp that concept.

So why does this matter?

You have a hash rate that statistically will take 1m to submit a share. A block is found in 30s.

Statistically, you will submit a share on a very small number of the blocks. For every block you DO submit one on, statistically speaking there are a MINIMUM of two more that you didn't. Why?

Block 1: 60s
Block 2: x
Block 3: x

(60 + x + x) / 3 = 20, x = 20

If the block took longer than 60s to be found, the number of blocks you would miss would go up even more. Let's say one was two minutes:

(120 + x + x + x + x + x) / 6 = 20, x = 20

Now you got a submit on one block but you missed 5 more in the process.

In other words, STATISTICALLY (mathematically proven, by the sheer nature of what an average is) you will always lose more than you gain. There's no other possible way to view it. If it were any other way, the average would no longer be the average and the entire concept of Bitcoin (and its derivatives) would be thrown out the window as being a failed concept.