Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 28 results by Picklee
Re: Selling Advice - 60GH/s (early order) BFL Miner arrived last week
I am considering buying one for $1500, but after reading these posts and looking at the rising difficulty, it doesn't seem like it would really be worth the effort in 3-6 months when difficulty has increased 10-fold more. Now I am thinking $1000-1200 is a reasonable price point, considering the payout and risk. They are selling on eBay for about $1500. The prices are falling literally every day locally as buyers become more scarce. My guess is you would be lucky to get $1500 by mid-November.
True, but bitcoins generally are denominated in another currency
No, no... That's like saying "USD are denominated in EUR". (And let's be frank, we all know that USD is really denominated in CNY!)
APPL is denominated in USD.
SD is denominated in BTC.
You could buy oil with USD, but that doesn't mean that oil is also denominated in APPL.
What matters more to me is the ultra-steady 1.9% edge line because that's indicative of longer term profits and this month - the last few days in particular- have shown it getting pretty close to flat.
Can someone remind me why we care about the 1.9% margin? I mean, if I wanted to make 1.9%, on average, for a term of say one year, then I might as well keep my fiat in the bank and not assume the risks associated with the stock price or SD being out-competed. Not to mention the risk associated with BTC/USD rate that apparently influences SD share price.
Profit This Month: 2160.51349078 BTC
This number looks better with each report.
So who is stacking up the most BTC? SatoshiDice or MtGox!
Trick question: VirtEx.
The chance is not 0%, but it is very small, perhaps <<0.001%.
I think you may have misunderstood. If after 1 bet the house has a profit, it's a 99.5% profit (0.5% is returned to the player). It's never a 1.9% profit.Yup, I stand corrected.
It's complicated by the fact that with 1 trial, there is a 0% chance that the house will take within 1.89 to 1.91 percent.
The chance is not 0%, but it is very small, perhaps <<0.001%.
Markov chains are more useful when there's a relationship between the states of the system. In this case, it would be more like "losing 3 in a row changes your chances of winning the next one". Since we don't have that, you can use regular IID statistics.
It seems to me that SD could be modelled as a markov chain since the game is stochastic and has a markov property; that is, the outcome of trial B is not dependent on the outcome of trial A (I'm not sure if that's what you meant?). Although the probability of consecutive lessthan1 "successes" is very remote, it is still possible and a probability is associated with it. Given infinite number of trials, its bound to happen and there is no "losing 3 in a row changes your chance of winning the next one" for the markov model because the game has a markov property (or maybe it doesn't?). Maybe I'm misunderstanding the application of markov models, so please correct any errors I've made.
Over the whole lifetime of the game so far the profit has been around 2.042% before you take transaction fees into account, and 1.952% after deducting transaction fees.
It is mathematically 'supposed' to be 1.9% before subtracting transaction fees, so they're doing better than expected.
I don't remember the details, but the house edge has been adjusted a couple of times. Not recently, mind you. I think the most recent adjustment was taking the edge down from 2.0% to 1.9% when a clone site appeared which was offering a lower house edge. It looked like Erik's way of saying "we can afford to out-compete you so don't even try". I think before that, the house edge may have been lower than 1.9%, but I really don't remember for sure.
Your question is a little confusing. The site pays out 1.9% less than true odds. So in the long run you lose 1.9% of everything you bet. Every game is effectively random, so you can't say "the profit will be 1.9% over 3 months". You can't say for certain that the profit will ever go back down to 1.9% from its current level. All we can say is that the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.
It is mathematically 'supposed' to be 1.9% before subtracting transaction fees, so they're doing better than expected.
I don't remember the details, but the house edge has been adjusted a couple of times. Not recently, mind you. I think the most recent adjustment was taking the edge down from 2.0% to 1.9% when a clone site appeared which was offering a lower house edge. It looked like Erik's way of saying "we can afford to out-compete you so don't even try". I think before that, the house edge may have been lower than 1.9%, but I really don't remember for sure.
Your question is a little confusing. The site pays out 1.9% less than true odds. So in the long run you lose 1.9% of everything you bet. Every game is effectively random, so you can't say "the profit will be 1.9% over 3 months". You can't say for certain that the profit will ever go back down to 1.9% from its current level. All we can say is that the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.
Perhaps I should have asked instead, how many trials would it take to theoretically reach 1.9% with a 95% confidence interval?
It seems to be doing so.
750 BTC profit after 2 days. That clearly means we'll be up 11,250 BTC by the end of the month.
lol
Out of curiosity, does anyone know over what period of time the profit is actually 1.9%? Is it 3 months? 9 months? a year? infinity? Obviously we have good months and bad months, but when we are talking about the moving profit average, over what window of time does it actually approach 1.9%?
Not inconceivable to see $120 next week and $200 in April. IF we take a breather at $100 it will just last 1-2 weeks and allow for big boys to ship some moar money in the exchanges.
I agree. What's more is that as the price increases overall, price increases in the future will require more $$ movement in order to sustain the same % of growth each day/week/month, etc. So it's conceivable, as well, that someday soon we will be adjusting our bids in increments of $10-20 rather than dimes and quarters as we transition to trading µBTC.
That makes the Bitcoin market value up to (87$ x 21M) 1.8 Billion $.
This doesn't make sense. Assuming your price of $87, the market capitalization of BTC is not $2 billion dollars. Maybe in the 22nd century
, but right now we only have 11 million BTC, so market cap is $800-900 million. Besides, how would any government justify buying something just to burn it? especially when other programs actually 'do' something like war on drugs, war of terrorism, war on vaginas, etc.
This x1000. 100$/BTC really scares off small investors.
And $800/share of Google doesn't? Come on now.
In my opinion, this will culminate with a confidence crushing crash, and that's unfortunate, because IMHO, it's due to greed not fundamentals.
I would say the market is in for some correction, but I don't think it's due to greed. The markets are over-bought and some big sellers will cash out as the price rises.
And how would that change my statement?
Did I say that it would? No need to get personal, it's just bit coin.
their algorithm is probably a more accurate predictor of interest than this community's most advanced sociologist/economist.
lol
Google's 'forecast' looks only like a weighted mean. And we must also understand that the further out the prediction goes, the higher the uncertainty becomes.
I don't understand why an exchange like cavirtex needs to charge such a high fee per trade, and why that fee needs to be charged as a % of the transaction? Even Gox charges a %. I am aware there are costs in running an exchange but these exchanges should be mostly automated by machines.... So why does it cost so much more to facilitate a $1000 trade vs a $1 trade? It's just a computer processing a different number, there is no need for it to cost so much extra.
To be fair, it is not only computer processing. Legitimate exchanges like VirtEx and Mt.Gox still have to operate within legal frameworks depending on where the customer is. And remember that big exchanges are the glue between the bit coin network and the fiat markets, which are heavily regulated. I know that Virtex spends a lot of their money on legal and consulting fees.
As far as fees go, the proportional fee structure makes it cheaper for smaller trades to occur. On other markets, like TSX or NYSE, brokers generally charge flat fees between $4-$10 which is better for large volume trades. VirtEx fees are insane; though, I still profit from using their services.
We could mend wounds a lot quicker if we don't pick at them.
In general, I would agree. However, can we "get over" race/racism? I don't think so..