Hah, no worries, I just hope this ends up being sufficient.

edit... However, based on the dividend history (https://blockchain.info/address/1PYMwZt98TfTj8hWYKaEHUmubALqPC1Kgq) and the 11/24 dividend amount of 0.0000543/share, you had 650 shares, not 450.

For this message to carry any meaning whatsoever, it would need to be signed by the address mentioned above. 

Sign a message with the private key of the account you hold the shares under selling them to me for $1.  PM me your email address and I'll paypal you the payment (or obviously I could pay in btc). In the event FC comes back, your signed message would be sufficient for him to transfer me the shares so the sale should be binding. AFIAK

I'll answer that in a roundabout way: if Bitcoin doesn't die in the next ten years, then I'm 98% certain we will have another hyperbolic run-up within that same time frame.  I think the probability of Bitcoin dying in the next ten years is ~25% (yes, I'm an uberbull).  So I guess I think the chance of another bubble (not necessarily as big or as soon as the one I described) is about 75%.  

Let's say my guess is that there's a 25% of 1 BTC being worth $0 in ten years and a 75% chance of it being worth $10,000.

Expectation value of 1 BTC ten years from now: 25% x $0  + 75% x $10,000 = $7,500
Net present value of one Bitcoin today (assuming 6% cost of capital) = $4,187

So according to my interpretation of the probabilities, the price of a bitcoin is highly undervalued right now!  

Thank you to everyone for your acknowledgement of my paper--it is satisfying to see something you've worked hard on begin to make an impact in the discussion!  Like I said earlier, it was really just a formalization of some of the ideas we've been discussing here over the past months.    

I'm very happy with how the paper was received.  Between public and private comments (and Peter Todd calling it pseudo science) several aspects of the paper were challenged, and now I'm further convinced that the model and results are both useful and valid.  I think the most accurate criticism of the paper was that I should have spent more effort discussing the inter/intra communication issues (the "you don't orphan you're own block" point).¹ Hopefully, I'll have time to work on this in the fall.  

I exchanged emails with Greg Maxwell over several aspects of the paper that he questioned.  One point he did make, that I admit is valid but do not personally see as an issue, is that the most profitable "configuration" according to the results from the paper is a single "super pool" made up of ALL the network's hashing power (which would be centralizing).  This would minimize the propagation impedance.  While I agree that this is true, it seems like just another way of looking at the 51% problem.  We already know that if one entity controls a huge amount of hash power they can do nasty things and gain certain advantages.  But it would be nice to find a way to explain why this shouldn't happen with more rigour than the "game theory" or "anti-fragile" fallback positions…


The experiment with the $10 bounties produced a mixed result.  On the one hand, I think it got people who normally wouldn't read such a paper more involved in the discussion, but on the other hand (like brg444 pointed out) it may have made the thread less readable.  I ended up paying out $90 to catch several small errors.  The error I was most pleased to catch was Noosterdam's "innumerate" versus "enumerate."  I think I've been using these words interchangeably my entire life but they actually mean very different things!


¹Note that the math is valid nonetheless, as this just affects the propagation delay which was accounted for in the model.  

Its about 25£ a month. Its UK hosted, so probably a bit more expensive than usual. I can't run it from github as I need to be running a Bitcoin client, sometimes multiple ones.

So, a quick question to the community!

Not many people seem to be donating and I need to generate enough to at least pay for the VPS. I don't want to add advertising to the site, although Google ads would probably generate me quite a bit. Does anyone have any suggestions for generating donations? I suppose I could make it optional on the new transaction page to donate, or throw up a message now and again.

What do you all think would be least intrusive?

Actually just an uptrend is enough to get people buying

They cannot handle 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions then how will they handle 20 MB blocks with 200 MB uncorfirmed transactions ?

So I've been working (very) slowly on this section for the past few weeks.

https://coinb.in/#settings

The idea is to make it easier to retrieve your inputs for a transaction and broadcast a transaction via coinb.in or a number of other third parties, as well as making it easier to use bitcoin testnet (and eventually altcoins).

At the time of posting this, I have only added multiple hosts to broadcasts too, and have not yet added any services to retrieve your inputs for a transaction.

Once complete though this should make coinb.in even more resilient and decentralized than most wallets.

Feedback and suggestions are welcome.

F2Pool just published a block that contains a lot of UTXO dust spam:

https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000b2383470df04eaa7053c3171902a43ad8a67ae3bc594ca6

I think I've heard all the arguments, but I still cannot understand the opposition to increasing the blocksize.

yeah, not sure where it came from.  am going to ask the OP.

their ip address.  i think.

i find 21's two yr experience in mining very encouraging/exciting in anticipation of their ability to roll out relevant IOT asic chips, esp for smartphones.  that should drive things like batshit:

http://i.imgur.com/keXaz8c.png

Haha no chance, such an action would be akin to throwing in the towel. After all this history?

what's striking to me using the ignore is just how many pages and pages of posts TPTB-dick has been spamming to derail substantive and meaningful discussion.  there is no doubt he has an alternative motive which is anti-Bitcoin.