Topic: [1200 TH] EMC: 0 Fee DGM. Anonymous PPS. US & EU servers. No Registration! - page 122. (Read 499709 times)
March 16, 2012, 10:11:07 AM
Blocks this long aren't that uncommon. They've been 24+ hours before.
March 16, 2012, 09:57:12 AM
17hr BTC block? is it legit or is it stuck again?!
March 15, 2012, 07:18:03 PM
ARG WTH!
I will get that fixed sorry about that.
Thanks. Confirming it's fixed. I will get that fixed sorry about that.
March 15, 2012, 03:11:30 PM
16+ hour blocks sucks balls.
That is all.
That is all.
March 15, 2012, 11:38:24 AM
ARG WTH!
I will get that fixed sorry about that.
I will get that fixed sorry about that.
March 15, 2012, 10:59:55 AM
Something is dreadfully wrong with Namecoin. I am going to be swapping out the wallet and blockchain today and see if that resolves the issue. If it does not, then the namecoin block chain itself is broken, which seems unlikely.
Can't wait to receive my negative NMC bonus. 
March 15, 2012, 07:31:34 AM
Something is dreadfully wrong with Namecoin. I am going to be swapping out the wallet and blockchain today and see if that resolves the issue. If it does not, then the namecoin block chain itself is broken, which seems unlikely.
March 15, 2012, 06:15:45 AM
But... but... that Wikipedia example was soooooooo staring at me! 
I'd be toast if I quoted from Wikipedia for a research paper. As in "really burnt" toast.
I'm also no expert at probabilities, but I did have to chew a good dosage of stochastic processes while finishing college (EE)
And you were right on the money!
I'd be toast if I quoted from Wikipedia for a research paper. As in "really burnt" toast.
I'm also no expert at probabilities, but I did have to chew a good dosage of stochastic processes while finishing college (EE)
I'm not very good at stats, but this discussion falls under the heading of something that I understand which was the reason for my very first comment
And you were right on the money!
March 15, 2012, 05:20:12 AM
Not necessary - and also somewhat pointless quoting content from the Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is only as accurate as whoever happened to write the content or last edit it ...
My reference was only for the sake of naming the fallacy
(though your quote is valid, it's a bad idea to quote something from the wikipedia)
Assuming Math Man is doing actuarial studies, he should know a lot more about statistics than the contents of that page and leave it to him to argue with Meni who also clearly knows a lot of statistics theory if you have read any of the bitcoin statistical analysis he has done.
I'm not very good at stats, but this discussion falls under the heading of something that I understand which was the reason for my very first comment
(blame those damn nonce ranges for that)
Wikipedia is only as accurate as whoever happened to write the content or last edit it ...
My reference was only for the sake of naming the fallacy
(though your quote is valid, it's a bad idea to quote something from the wikipedia)
Assuming Math Man is doing actuarial studies, he should know a lot more about statistics than the contents of that page and leave it to him to argue with Meni who also clearly knows a lot of statistics theory if you have read any of the bitcoin statistical analysis he has done.
I'm not very good at stats, but this discussion falls under the heading of something that I understand which was the reason for my very first comment
(blame those damn nonce ranges for that
) March 15, 2012, 04:47:24 AM
A pic is in order
"Simulation of coin tosses: Each frame, a coin is flipped which is red on one side and blue on the other. The result of each flip is added as a colored dot in the corresponding column. As the pie chart shows, the proportion of red versus blue approaches 50-50 (the Law of Large Numbers). But the difference between red and blue does not systematically decrease to zero." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamblers_fallacy)
"Simulation of coin tosses: Each frame, a coin is flipped which is red on one side and blue on the other. The result of each flip is added as a colored dot in the corresponding column. As the pie chart shows, the proportion of red versus blue approaches 50-50 (the Law of Large Numbers). But the difference between red and blue does not systematically decrease to zero." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamblers_fallacy)
March 15, 2012, 02:29:43 AM
I agree with kano. The Gambler's Fallacy isn't restricted to just discrete cases. It's exactly what you described - the belief that recent bad luck increases the chances of good luck. For independent events (such as finding blocks) this is false. The LLN doesn't work by anticorrelating proximate events, and the fallacious belief that it does is, once again, the gambler's fallacy.
Meni,
I know exactly what you are getting at, and that is not what I intended with my original statement. I should have been more explicit what I was referring to. You're and kano are reading into what I said in one way, I meant it another.
As our average shares per block is significantly higher than the expected value, over the next X blocks, where X is arbitrarily "large", our average shares will tend toward the median. The only way for that to happen is to have rounds whose total shares are near or below the median. That's why now is a good time to mine here for the next X blocks.
I wasn't talking about this block, or the next, or the one after, etc. in my original statement. I talking about the next X blocks, even though I wasn't explicit in saying that.
Now, seriously. I'm done. I need to study.
Yes, there will be rounds whose total shares are below the median. No, the frequency of such rounds over the next X blocks is not affected whatsoever by the fact that we've had recently some rounds with total shares above the median. No, now is not a better time to mine here than any other.
It is instructive to understand that while (number of occurences / number of attempts) approaches the probability of occurrence for n->Infinity, (number of occurences - expected number of occurrences) does not approach 0, rather it increases in absolute variance for larger n.
You don't need to discuss this further if you don't want. Either you take my word for it or, when you have the time, read up on the matter, gain some experience, run simulations etc.
Man nice run of blocks
I know, right!? 99.95%, 99.99%, 98.24%, all in a row. Keep 'em coming! March 15, 2012, 12:06:13 AM
Man nice run of blocks
I know, right!? 99.95%, 99.99%, 98.24%, all in a row. Keep 'em coming! March 14, 2012, 10:58:46 PM
Man nice run of blocks
I know, right!? 99.95%, 99.99%, 98.24%, all in a row. Keep 'em coming! March 14, 2012, 09:46:01 PM
Man nice run of blocks
March 14, 2012, 09:18:57 PM
I Was about to say, this is some of the hugest variance Ive ever seen on a pool =P 3 blocks back to back...man rofl!
March 14, 2012, 05:43:45 PM
Yeah, there were a couple stuck blocks, and there is still a stuck NMC block I'm trying to figure out. Something isn't quite right with NMC, and I can't figure out if it's the blockchain or the wallet - likely the later.
March 14, 2012, 05:24:28 PM
I guess are bad luck was not as bad as it seemed. Looks like the same issue as before.
March 14, 2012, 04:53:19 PM
I agree with kano. The Gambler's Fallacy isn't restricted to just discrete cases. It's exactly what you described - the belief that recent bad luck increases the chances of good luck. For independent events (such as finding blocks) this is false. The LLN doesn't work by anticorrelating proximate events, and the fallacious belief that it does is, once again, the gambler's fallacy.
Meni,
I know exactly what you are getting at, and that is not what I intended with my original statement. I should have been more explicit what I was referring to. You're and kano are reading into what I said in one way, I meant it another.
As our average shares per block is significantly higher than the expected value, over the next X blocks, where X is arbitrarily "large", our average shares will tend toward the median. The only way for that to happen is to have rounds whose total shares are near or below the median. That's why now is a good time to mine here for the next X blocks.
I wasn't talking about this block, or the next, or the one after, etc. in my original statement. I talking about the next X blocks, even though I wasn't explicit in saying that.
Now, seriously. I'm done. I need to study.
March 14, 2012, 04:35:58 PM
Its me, Im bad luck Im telling ya, but I love this pool! LOL
And where did all the crazy hashrate come from the last 10hrs?!?!?!?!?
And where did all the crazy hashrate come from the last 10hrs?!?!?!?!?
I believe the jump in hash rate is due to hoppers calculating that there's a high probability of us finding blocks. In other words, we're so down on our luck that there's bound to be a bright future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamblers_fallacy
No, not really. I was referring more to the law of large numbers.
The Gambler's fallacy is more concerned with discrete cases or the following event. That was not my original point, and you are mistaking my intentions with a completely separate idea.
Don't let the "large" in the name of the law fool you. The law of large numbers doesn't depend upon what you may think is a "large" number. In fact, the largeness is arbitrary. The law of large numbers simply states that "as the number of trials of a random process increases, the percentage difference between the expected and actual values goes to zero,"
If you really want to continue this debate, we can do so via PM. Although, this is about all I'm going to say about this for a while. I have an actuarial exam that I'm studying for. So, don't expect an immediate response from me.
Of course, regardless of how you call it, the premise - that now is a better time to mine because we haven't found a block for a while - is wrong, and if it was true, the pool would be hoppable.
You could also read up on Memorylessness.
March 14, 2012, 04:25:22 PM
Its me, Im bad luck Im telling ya, but I love this pool! LOL
And where did all the crazy hashrate come from the last 10hrs?!?!?!?!?
And where did all the crazy hashrate come from the last 10hrs?!?!?!?!?
I believe the jump in hash rate is due to hoppers calculating that there's a high probability of us finding blocks. In other words, we're so down on our luck that there's bound to be a bright future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamblers_fallacy
No, not really. I was referring more to the law of large numbers.
The Gambler's fallacy is more concerned with discrete cases or the following event. That was not my original point, and you are mistaking my intentions with a completely separate idea.
Don't let the "large" in the name of the law fool you. The law of large numbers doesn't depend upon what you may think is a "large" number. In fact, the largeness is arbitrary. The law of large numbers simply states that "as the number of trials of a random process increases, the percentage difference between the expected and actual values goes to zero,"
If you really want to continue this debate, we can do so via PM. Although, this is about all I'm going to say about this for a while. I have an actuarial exam that I'm studying for. So, don't expect an immediate response from me.
If I remember correctly back when I was at university, the students in stats that were doing actuarial studies had to get distinction level grades or they failed.
Jump to: