PT Share price has gone in a comatose state. I guess no-one bothers and just holds?
And then someone dumps 150+ shares.
Edit: And a whole bunch more.
Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 738. (Read 3917468 times)
August 30, 2013, 06:34:02 AM
And then someone dumps 150+ shares.
Edit: And a whole bunch more.
August 30, 2013, 06:09:13 AM
PT Share price has gone in a comatose state. I guess no-one bothers and just holds?
August 30, 2013, 06:07:52 AM
I'll just leave this here...
and the winner for the most awesome bitcoin related meme goes to..
August 30, 2013, 03:23:09 AM
I'll just leave this here...
I'm not getting into this I'll let you all do the math since it is AM releated, for once its not my grammar at issue.
All this talk about granularity's is an interesting change of pace.
But I'll throw in a hat
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/introduction-to-modern-cryptography-246307
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/average-block-generation-time-1682
Bitcoin Wiki
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Generation_Calculator
August 30, 2013, 03:21:20 AM
I also stated I think Flotes' calculations are reasonable but a bit low. Please read the coin analogy to understand my principle principal issue with the DnT's conclusions.
Since we are correcting people's english...
August 30, 2013, 02:56:43 AM
Quote
1. Why do you guys think that AM’s rate of finding blocks is poission distributed? It is definitely not a poisson process, but I admit that that fact does not preclude its results from being poission distributed. That being said, due to the variance in AM's hash rate that friedcat has admitted, we know that it is not poisson distributed.
Block discovery is still Poisson distributed.
According to Wikipedia: "[...] the Poisson distribution [...] is a discrete probability distribution that expresses the probability of a given number of events occurring in a fixed interval of time and/or space if these events occur with a known average rate and independently of the time since the last event."
What matters is the average rate. It does not matter that the rate fluctuates.
So we do have a Poisson distribution, though we don't know the average rate exactly.
Quote
2. Many of you are missing a crucial point. The difference between the expected value for a GIVEN 6 hour period is a VERY DIFFERENT question from the probability that 0 blocks will be found in ANY ONE 6 hour period. Allow me to illustrate with an example, and I think even you condescending / smug posters will understand. The probability of flipping a coin 3 times and getting heads each time is VERY DIFFERENT from flipping a coin 50 times a getting a string of 3 heads in a row. I really hope you guys see why... Now, I know thinking is difficult but please try. Now think for an example how this concept applies to this situation. Do you see now?
Using your coin flipping analogy: Why not flip the coin 500 times? 5000? An infinite number of times? This is uninteresting. Given very long time periods we can expect any number of unlikely events (e.g. Boltzmann brains).
What we are interested in is a given 6 hour period.
August 30, 2013, 02:45:20 AM
In the world of Bitcoin, the positive value of -200BTC is beyond our wildest dream. Luckily, we got that for free.
I guess you are from China,right?
Physically, no; originally, yes.
August 30, 2013, 02:39:03 AM
In the world of Bitcoin, the positive value of -200BTC is beyond our wildest dream. Luckily, we got that for free.
I guess you are from China,right?
August 30, 2013, 02:30:36 AM
In the world of Bitcoin, the positive value of -200BTC is beyond our wildest dream. Luckily, we got that for free.
August 30, 2013, 02:22:35 AM
Technically he didn't have to refund such a mistake. I am 0.0005 BTC poorer per share I own because of his damn integrity!
wow - you must be fun to have as a friend
August 30, 2013, 01:55:48 AM
EDIT: Never said I knew how to calculate, just that DnT's calcs were clearly wrong.
OK, well you've managed to confuse me again. When you wrote:
Calculations to support these probabilities? They do not seem accurate to me.
I thought you'd calculated your own results and had already compared them to D&Ts - otherwise how would you know if they looked accurate or not?
It's called a back of the envelope calculation and common sense.
August 30, 2013, 01:49:11 AM
Simple answer: we don't know because AM's hash rate does not conform to any common distributions. Also I am quite comfortable admitting that it is a difficult problem, and other posters on this board could probably make better calculations than me. IMHO Admitting your own limitations is perfectly OK...
I also stated I think Flotes' calculations are reasonable but a bit low. Please read the coin analogy to understand my principle issue with the DnT's conclusions.
August 30, 2013, 01:38:27 AM
EDIT: Never said I knew how to calculate, just that DnT's calcs were clearly wrong.
OK, well you've managed to confuse me again. When you wrote:
Calculations to support these probabilities? They do not seem accurate to me.
I thought you'd calculated your own results and had already compared them to D&Ts - otherwise how would you know if they looked accurate or not?
August 30, 2013, 01:37:26 AM
I apologize for starting WWIII. Who knew?
How about a nice game of chess?
And the winner is...
The only winning move is not to play.How about a nice game of chess?
WWIII is Word War III, right? With all these grammatical corrections, someone may have forgotten the letter "L" somewhere...
Everyone is too busy arguing to notice how clever my post was. This is rather upsetting...
August 30, 2013, 01:28:40 AM
Haha yea, I admit I got a little overly heated... Sorry for the derail all... Except the people who accused me of being of course 
You guys are idiots
EDIT: Never said I knew how to calculate, just that DnT's calcs were clearly wrong.
You guys are idiots EDIT: Never said I knew how to calculate, just that DnT's calcs were clearly wrong.
August 30, 2013, 01:27:39 AM
It's a non-homogenous poisson process wrt time. If the hashrate is kept stable, then it's a homogeneous poisson process with respect to time.
LOL no shit you idiot. If it we knew that the hash rate was constant, this entire discussion would be irrelevant. We would just be able to more accurately predict the hash rate as we collected more data. Nonstationary data would not be an issue.
I didn't realise you understood that - since if you did you could have just posted that you understood the difference (which you didn't, not by name anyhow) and also calculated probabilities for blocks solves in n minutes for a given day and time yourself. Since you didn't I thought perhaps you didn't know about or understand the difference. I was not trying to imply I was an idiot.
So if you understand non-homogenous Poisson processes, then you understand it's possible to estimate the intensity function and cumulative intensity function yourself - then you can easily calculate the probability of n blocks in a given time period and set this discussion to bed.
When you post the results I'll be quite interested to see how different the probabilities actually are.
August 30, 2013, 01:27:02 AM
I apologize for starting WWIII. Who knew?
How about a nice game of chess?
And the winner is...
The only winning move is not to play.How about a nice game of chess?
WWIII is Word War III, right? With all these grammatical corrections, someone may have forgotten the letter "L" somewhere...
August 30, 2013, 01:23:19 AM
I'll just leave this here...
August 30, 2013, 01:21:42 AM
I apologize for starting WWIII. Who knew?
How about a nice game of chess?
And the winner is...
The only winning move is not to play.How about a nice game of chess?
August 30, 2013, 01:14:32 AM
This is going to be good...
And the winner is...
the guy who made most accurate prediction : )
Jump to: