Quote from: oda.krell on April 26, 2014, 07:51:48 PM

Quote from: windjc on April 26, 2014, 07:23:37 PM

Look. The bet is for 30 days. Not 90. 90 is just a way for Rpietila to try to hedge his bet. The guy is deathly afraid of losing. In 90 days we could retest 270 and be back above 500.

In fact, if we are no longer in a bear market it matters not if its 30 days or 90 days or 4 years, as we will not see 435. However, if are bear, opposite to what Rpietila suggests, then 30 days gives me a chance to prove him wrong and win the bet.

90 days I will not do. There's no sport in a bet where there is 90%+ chance of a tie and 8% in losing.

30 days is fair.

No one is going to manipulate the market. I am assuming a certain amount of honor here.

Can Rpietila also agree to real risk and honor? We will find out. I expect him to make excuses and not join the bet.

+1

At 30 days the bet is already at a real risk of ending in a tie. At 90 days, under the original conditions, that's almost guaranteed.

The way I see it, this bet is about making a rather strong, unconditional statement in the middle of a crucial time for the market. At 30 days, it does that just fine.

EDIT: I obviously have no say in this, it's not my bet. But since this is discussed in a public place, you should expect it to be discussed.

I believe 30 days is more than enough time to call Rpietila on his request for a bet. Initially Rpietila's bet request was somewhat general concerning the conditions and the timeline, which Windjc, narrowed some of those terms.

I like the idea of charity contribution - and maybe it shoudl be better that the charity goes towards some knid of BTC infrastructure or something BTC related (besides a BTC mansion); however, I doubt that the bet needs to be so large as $50K in order to prove the point.

If someone, such as Rpietila, is asserting that we will "never" see $435 again, then he certainly should feel confident that will NOT occur in the next 30 days. If the bet is for a smaller amount, let's say $5k or less, then there should be considerable less incentive to manipulate the market (and on honor both parties are already asserting that they will NOT engage in BTC manipulation tactics - which could be included and defined in the bet terms - eg no buying or selling within a certain amount during the time parameters of the bet).

It seems tome that you guys are very close - and really, you should NOT see a lack of balls, to bring down the amount of the bet - b/c the point seems to be putting some stake (not steak) and commitment into the short-term prediction - which does NOT need to be $50K, in order to be meaningful.