Search content
Sort by
Showing 16 of 16 results by Azlan
[snip]
Without art and all the great artists we have had, our world would be much different today. Everything in life plays a role, every job in society plays a role and if it were taken out, society would crumble.
The reason we have art is not (entirley) related to money, markets or IP.
Artists would continue to create for free. They have no choice in the matter. Ask any artist and they will explain.
Ghash is back to 33%, you can go back to sleep now, nothing to see here.
They are hiding their real power.
I think the 51% we witnessed was a demonstration of power. I do not know for what reason.
They could have blocked miners as to keep their hash rates down as they did before, but they didn't.
I would say that GHash has MUCH more than 51%.
That being said, I do have some of my miners pointed at them.
EDIT: On the subject, NO, I don't believe that BTC is decentralized anymore.
In fact, the fact that we depend on the core dev team for anything means it is centralized, and from what I understand the core dev team is under the TBF orders.
Apart from that BTC mining is completely centralized.
WTF man! You think they have over 51% and you still point miners at them... Where is your logic?!?
Its a classic common resource problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
"... individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group's long-term best interests by depleting some common resource."
Historically, only 2 viable solutions exist:
1) An authority to regulate (% in this case)
2) Privatization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Modern_solutions
Pick your poison..... but be quick about it.
If bitcoin can't survive this, and we also can't fix it, it's fundamentally broken. If it's fundamentally broken, it's better that we find that out sooner rather than later.
Bitcoin is not fundamentally broken, the system just assumes people are not idiots and will not work against their own interest. That assumption is obviously wrong. Majority simply doesn't want to think, it is too painful. It's just much easier to be in a heard. Being in heard is so comfortable, that way somebody else is guilty when shit happens.
You can't successfully, long term, defend any system from the inside. If you are saying that Bitcoin is broken because people depending on a system don't give a shit about the system, then - yes, it is broken. Also is any system who's insiders behave like that.
Its not broken, it just suffers from a classic common resource problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
"... individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group's long-term best interests by depleting some common resource."
Historically, only 2 viable solutions exist:
1) An authority to regulate (% in this case)
2) Privatization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Modern_solutions
Pick your poison..... but be quick about it.
Ref: "The Tragedy of the Commons". Science 162 (3859): 12431248. 1968. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
Its a classic common resource problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
"... individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group's long-term best interests by depleting some common resource."
Historically, only 2 viable solutions exist:
1) An authority to regulate (% in this case)
2) Privatization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Modern_solutions
Pick your poison..... but be quick about it.
Ref: "The Tragedy of the Commons". Science 162 (3859): 12431248. 1968. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
"... individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group's long-term best interests by depleting some common resource."
Historically, only 2 viable solutions exist:
1) An authority to regulate (% in this case)
2) Privatization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Modern_solutions
Pick your poison..... but be quick about it.
Ref: "The Tragedy of the Commons". Science 162 (3859): 12431248. 1968. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
Its a classic common resource problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
"... individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group's long-term best interests by depleting some common resource."
Historically, only 2 viable solutions exist:
1) An authority to regulate (% in this case)
2) Privatization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Modern_solutions
Pick your poison..... but be quick about it.
"... individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group's long-term best interests by depleting some common resource."
Historically, only 2 viable solutions exist:
1) An authority to regulate (% in this case)
2) Privatization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Modern_solutions
Pick your poison..... but be quick about it.
next step: joint savings address (long term) that has 2 private keys that you give to your families for safe keeping. In other words, it takes the 2 of you cooperating to withdraw any value from the address. Put aside a small amount monthly.
It will take years for divorce law to catch up with that one.....
It will take years for divorce law to catch up with that one.....
The whole point I am making is that there is a difference between "the expected number of rolls to see a 6" and "the number of rolls you need to have a 50% chance of seeing a 6".
Agreed, and its a point worth making.
Read about what "expected value" means.
Just looked it up. Seems to mean the average. But expected value misses VERY important stuff. For example, the expected value of playing 6 rounds of russian roulette (1 bullet in 6 chambers and spinning the barrel EACH time...so its like the die) ...
... is that you are 1/6 dead. Not very useful info.
Im saying something similar to you - that its more interesting that with 6 plays (1 bullet) you will live 33% of the time.
You are asking about 50%.
with 5 plays, you live 5/6 ^ 5 = 40% of the time
and, as you pointed out, with 4 plays 5/6 ^ 4 = 48% of the time.
But that's not what expected value means. Your expected value for each roll is +$999.001:
(1 * 1e6 - 999 * 1) / 1000 = 999.001
(1 * 1e6 - 999 * 1) / 1000 = 999.001
yes, but thats the average and assumes infinite rolls.
given finite rolls (like 1000 for example), the more interesting fact pertains to your question about 50% ..... and the answer is greater then 500 rolls (for 1/1000 event).
...its 692 rolls (.999 ^ 692)= 50% : the chance of seeing it one or more times
Consider rolling a 6 sided die until you roll a six. The expected number of rolls to get a six is 6.
True, but incomplete - according to the small sample bias - rare events (<0.5) go 'unseen' more often then expected when the number of observations is small. Im sure the links offered by others goes into this.
Take your die: You want to roll a six. You roll 6 times. Whats the probability of not seeing the six?
5/6 ^ 6 = 33.48% So a third of the time (with six observations) you will not see the 6 at all.
It gets better. Imagine a 1000 sided die. You bet against the outcome "1000" and you roll exactly 1000 times.
The probability of getting away with it (not seeing the '1000' even once) is 0.999 ^ 999 = 36.8%
Many of your players are implementing this logic with bets with 98% chance of winning. The small sample bias predicts that, in 100 rolls, they will lose less then expected.
Since there is no free sandwich in life you can guess what happens the other 63.2% of the time you roll the 1000 sided die 1000 times..... You will see the rare outcome ('1000') one *or more* times.
Back to a streak of 28 reds (p=0.5). If you expect it to happen 1 in 236M rolls, the small sample bias (relative to the probability) predicts you will see such a steak once *or more* 63% of the time in 236M rolls but wont see it at all ~36% of the time.
M_acchi
21- I agree, he has no big incentive to get more investors.
My thinking was that if the site was shut down by the 'powers that be', he might be less vulnerable if everyone was made whole.
On second thought, maybe you are right..... If funds are seized (rather then 'dumped/returned) or stored for safe keeping in the block chain.... that gives the owner (in this case doog, but *any* owner) lots of leverage at a time he would need it the most..... so, maybe I would do that instead.
Regardless, I remain curious. No offense intended here and im not implying anything about the character of anyone.
My thinking was that if the site was shut down by the 'powers that be', he might be less vulnerable if everyone was made whole.
On second thought, maybe you are right..... If funds are seized (rather then 'dumped/returned) or stored for safe keeping in the block chain.... that gives the owner (in this case doog, but *any* owner) lots of leverage at a time he would need it the most..... so, maybe I would do that instead.
Regardless, I remain curious. No offense intended here and im not implying anything about the character of anyone.
In terms of investment risk, I put full trust in the owner of the site.
I have a question about the risk of 3rd party attack (in particular gov't or regulatory) -
One can imagine emergencies where Doog is not able or available to perform the necessary transactions and 'dump' the sites assets (investments and balances) into the emergency addresses.
Can I assume a 'fail-safe' process is in place to ensure the safe return of all deposits (and investments)?
Ideally, the default mechanism would 'dump' the entire holdings into emergency addresses every single day *unless* the site owner prevents this (because he is both able and available) by saying the 'magic word'.
Knowing that such a mechanism is in place (without the actual details.... of course) might increase investors confidence when news of BTC attacks and seizures is still recent history.
Thoughts?
I have a question about the risk of 3rd party attack (in particular gov't or regulatory) -
One can imagine emergencies where Doog is not able or available to perform the necessary transactions and 'dump' the sites assets (investments and balances) into the emergency addresses.
Can I assume a 'fail-safe' process is in place to ensure the safe return of all deposits (and investments)?
Ideally, the default mechanism would 'dump' the entire holdings into emergency addresses every single day *unless* the site owner prevents this (because he is both able and available) by saying the 'magic word'.
Knowing that such a mechanism is in place (without the actual details.... of course) might increase investors confidence when news of BTC attacks and seizures is still recent history.
Thoughts?
2% fee's will solve all the BTC problems: slow-confirmation-risk, seller-risk, etc. Mom&Pop will use it. *Not* because BTC is so great but because there is no reason not to use it (a bit like PayPal).
With a 2% fee there is absolutely no reason to use it. Merchants gain nothing but added complexity and expense. They can simply keep using PayPal. The largest advantage for merchants is a significant boost to their net margins by the removal of the 2% overhead by bypassing the credit card network. It makes no sense to bypass the credit card network to pay the same amount in fees to a different third party. Merchant adoption would be essentially zero.
Not entirely. Merchants may adopt it at 2% for the same reason they adopt AMEX at 3%.
But even if we agree that 2% *is* the limit and that merchants have no reason to adopt..... that doesn't mean we are back to 0%.
we have a zone of possible agreement between 0-2% of most consumer transactions. All that value is created by BTC. We'll see how much gets claimed by the consumer, by the seller, and how much by the middle men. It will (i.e. should) depend on who has a better alternative to adoption.
You won't need the whole blockchain, or confirmations, or 51 character private keys. That will be managed by whatever replaces Visa & Mastercard (unless they are more flexible then I predict).
I know nada about how the network works
Then you will need to place as much trust in those "managers" of your BTC, as you currently often have to do with fiat. What's the point of having BTC if you are going to be using it in a way that will let others easily deprive you of it?
I agree with you. I *do* enjoy the new freedom and control . But I know that, if I want BTC to reach it's full potential, there are 2 things that will contribute significantly:
1) regulators have to tolerate the system
2) 'mom & pop' have to use BTC (even if they dont understand it and couldnt care less about it).
2% fee's will solve all the BTC problems: slow-confirmation-risk, seller-risk, etc. Mom&Pop will use it. *Not* because BTC is so great but because there is no reason not to use it (a bit like PayPal). Similarly, BTC brokers need to have mandatory reporting to the IRS just like stock brokers. This will keep the gov't happy.
I WANT that to happen so we can all continue to enjoy our new (and growing) economic freedoms. I dont see this as black-or-white: (freedom vs. regulation) but rather a mix that moves in the right direction. Same thing happened with the internet. Providers have lots of control, take big fee's and have to give up data to the gov't when asked. But look at the freedoms gained......right? Huge!
So, just like the revolution in "how we get information".....I'm hoping for a similar revolution in how we get/use/transfer 'value'
I think people are more likely to gamble when the price is going up. Wealth effect. More money means more disposable income.
Lottery ticket purchase per capita is inversely correlated with income (and considered by some to be a regressive tax).
The wealth effect is valid as well.
I assume there is a selection bias for now regarding BTC...... Poor people don't have BTC. (Hypothesis)
I was thinking to cut the chain down in size would be to:
1. Delete any BTC addresses that has less than .001 BTC. Add a merge function button in the wallet that moves any BTC too small together. Let everyone know the chain will restart and only keep btc addresses over .001 in the new chain.
2. The blockchain is filled with the same BTC bouncing around everywhere, do we really need to keep that information, just delete it and keep the current address amounts.
That should cut down the size dramatically and it could be done once a year. Just implementing #2 would be most helpful, #1 would also be helpful but not necessary.
1. Delete any BTC addresses that has less than .001 BTC. Add a merge function button in the wallet that moves any BTC too small together. Let everyone know the chain will restart and only keep btc addresses over .001 in the new chain.
2. The blockchain is filled with the same BTC bouncing around everywhere, do we really need to keep that information, just delete it and keep the current address amounts.
That should cut down the size dramatically and it could be done once a year. Just implementing #2 would be most helpful, #1 would also be helpful but not necessary.
Addresses with <.001, or even .00000001 make up the most important part of the blockchain for those who invision BTC micro payments as the solution to problems like spam email
There is a similar case to be made for the history of every coin ever transacted. You and I couldn't care less a about that info, but regulators find it an attractive feature so if you want regulators to like BTC then you will want that info available.
I know nada about how the network works but I'll bet on the smart guys here finding a solution that does not involve every casual user downloading the entire blockchain onto their little mom&pop chromebook. There is enough value being created by BTC to solve all these problems. There will be more fees and I'll bet they will total close to 2% of every transaction with 5yrs. small price to pay for all the other benefits.
You won't need the whole blockchain, or confirmations, or 51 character private keys. That will be managed by whatever replaces Visa & Mastercard (unless they are more flexible then I predict).
Rant over.
Great! I was fearing you were in the gambler's fallacy :-)
May I ask you why you are so interested in the busting probability of funny martingales?
May I ask you why you are so interested in the busting probability of funny martingales?
You can ask, but I don't know what to tell you.
I'm interested in mathematics, and this seems like it should have a neat solution.
I don't know that you can call it a "martingale" by the way, since it doesn't reset on a win.
If you are interested in martingale / gamblers fallacy / hothand (as I am) Its worth looking at the Fibonacci variants of Martingale. I havnt read all 216 pages of this thread but I did do a search for the term Fibonacci and nothing came up. For example:
Start with the Fibonacci series: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21 .... starting with 1:
a) Place 50/50 bet
b) If win, increase 1 step
c) If lose, go back 2 steps
The psychology is that you lose only 1 unit 50% of the time, but the other 50% of the time the sky is the limit! So the "bust" in this case is not losing your pot in a streak of bad luck, but rather, having a streak of good luck and hitting the just/dice limit.
From an entertainment point of view, i believe you can play fibonacci much longer then classic Martingale (assuming 1 unit as the initial bet). I dont think it changes the houses expected value, aside from possibly increasing the propensity for he user to play again through positive reinforcement.
Just a few years ago a psychologist (Daniel Kahaneman) won the nobel prize in economics for related work in behavioral economics. ANyhow.... great discussion, and I think the math behind the JD website is very very cool!
(Fibonacci caveat - Strictly speaking, you want to start with 1 unit, then multiply repeatedly by Phi [~1.68=sqrt(5)+1)/2] which quickly converges to the more popular integer series. Phi is one of those cool constants related to DaVinci, Pi, pythagoras and that 3x3 grid on your iphone camara. )