Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1047. (Read 2032266 times)
nom, nom, nom, nom
Bank of America Near $16 Billion to $17 Billion Settlement
http://www.housingwire.com/articles/30946-bank-of-america-nears-record-rmbs-settlement#.U-Kfkuzh_A8.twitter
guess what? no one goes to prison. can i have that job, please?
http://www.housingwire.com/articles/30946-bank-of-america-nears-record-rmbs-settlement#.U-Kfkuzh_A8.twitter
guess what? no one goes to prison. can i have that job, please?
Can I be your CXO? You can replace X with any letter you'd like
Bank of America Near $16 Billion to $17 Billion Settlement
http://www.housingwire.com/articles/30946-bank-of-america-nears-record-rmbs-settlement#.U-Kfkuzh_A8.twitter
guess what? no one goes to prison. can i have that job, please?
http://www.housingwire.com/articles/30946-bank-of-america-nears-record-rmbs-settlement#.U-Kfkuzh_A8.twitter
guess what? no one goes to prison. can i have that job, please?
movin up:
Chamath: "look at the volatility of gold. and the ppl in the gold market are thousands of times dumber than the ppl in the Bitcoin ecosystem."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AoPHNsX2x8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AoPHNsX2x8
The crunch increased interest in tenders divorced from a single nation’s strength, spurring the International Monetary Fund to boost almost 10-fold the allocation of special drawing rights, a reserve asset whose value is based on a basket of currencies, and fueling demand for so-called virtual currencies, such as bitcoin.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/russia-sanctions-accelerate-risk-to-dollar-dominance.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/russia-sanctions-accelerate-risk-to-dollar-dominance.html
Interesting. Also note that the cheaters would then go and donate the money! This eliminates an as an explanation persistent economic disadvantage (i.e. east germans needed the $ more).
"However, dividing the sample in subjects who had on average 50 percent high rolls or less and those subjects who had on average more than 50 percent high rolls (potential cheaters), we did not find any difference in donations (p=0.52)."
"However, dividing the sample in subjects who had on average 50 percent high rolls or less and those subjects who had on average more than 50 percent high rolls (potential cheaters), we did not find any difference in donations (p=0.52)."
it looks to me that mining would be best described as being in a Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium - cypherdoc
Highlights are mine:
"A pure strategy Nash equilibrium is a profile of strategies such that each player’s (miner's) strategy is a best response ((results in the highest available payoff (block reward)) against the equilibrium strategies of the other players (miners).
A pure strategy Nash equilibrium only requires that the action taken by each agent (miner) be best against the actual equilibrium actions taken by the other players (miners), and not necessarily against all possible actions of the other players (miners). In other words, it's expected for some miners to be malicious.
A Nash equilibrium has the nice property that it is stable: if each player expects 'a' to be the profile of actions played, then no player (miner) has any incentive to change his or her action (no incentive to start cheating). In other words, no player (miner) regrets having played the action that he or she played in a Nash equilibrium."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1968579
Highlights are mine:
"A pure strategy Nash equilibrium is a profile of strategies such that each player’s (miner's) strategy is a best response ((results in the highest available payoff (block reward)) against the equilibrium strategies of the other players (miners).
A pure strategy Nash equilibrium only requires that the action taken by each agent (miner) be best against the actual equilibrium actions taken by the other players (miners), and not necessarily against all possible actions of the other players (miners). In other words, it's expected for some miners to be malicious.
A Nash equilibrium has the nice property that it is stable: if each player expects 'a' to be the profile of actions played, then no player (miner) has any incentive to change his or her action (no incentive to start cheating). In other words, no player (miner) regrets having played the action that he or she played in a Nash equilibrium."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1968579
Nice. I hadn't looked at it that way but it makes perfect sense.
Nash equilibrium works well in theory, the real world is a little more messy.
Pre-mass adoption there are so many outside interests seeking bitcoin failure that there are other incentives at play.
Once there is more distribution and buy in, the full effects of the Nash Equilibrium will be much stronger than they are today.
the Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game; therefore, i think the Nash Equilibrium takes those hostile actors into account. the minimum # of participants required to apply the theory is 2 and doesn't depend on large #'s. what's also important for all actors to know and understand, and to know that the others know, is that the longest blockchain and the POW required to construct it is mathematically immutable. b/c we know that the hashrate of the Bitcoin Network is thousands of times larger than most of the supercomputers on Earth makes the strategical decision making of each individual actor clear; don't cheat.
Understood, I'm more referring to the folks that are the non-participants in the game. Lest we forget these currently vastly outnumber the participants with respect to potential game resources available to them. Game-ending scenarios are often dismissed as impossible when in fact they are merely unlikely, as are the application of non-monetary/computing power factors. Threats to date have generally been within the game players, and Nash applies well.
In general I not only agree but the also salute the application of the principle.
Consider however the implications if one were to throw something like stuxnet into the works or a fab level exploit into each of the main chip makers, say by coercion or covertly, and subsequently activated? There are defenses certainly, but it would be disruptive and could be timed with other types of interference. Unlikely but possible. Thankfully, we are not under serious attack or opposition, but I'd still give a BTC =~ 0 a >0 p value, and Nash holds the rest in place.
we're ALL part of a Nash Equilibrium. even the gubmints, banks, and skeptics.
when i decided to mine in 2011, i was fully aware that a non-economic attacker like a gubmint or bank could potentially screw my investment in BTC and mining equipment. but after reading thread after thread about the theoretical basis of a 51% attack, i decided it was worth the risk and that any such attempt would fail. that was my assessment. all the other miners are fully aware of that potential as well, yet we all plow forward. why?
the open source phenomenon that represents Bitcoin should shine enough light on any such potential attacker to prevent such an attack from happening. any such attack should be temporary and able to be dealt with. Gavin has already stated what could be done as a counter measure. i think the attacker could even be identified through various means.
corruption and dishonest behavior likes to be hidden. crooks don't want to be identified. i think a gubmint or bank will make the assessment that it's too politically risky an endeavor to take on which would cost them millions (billions?) in losses, not only in dollars but in trust. see this interesting study:
From 1961 to 1989, the Berlin Wall divided one nation into two distinct political regimes. We
exploited this natural experiment to investigate whether the socio-political context impacts
individual honesty. Using an abstract die-rolling task, we found evidence that East Germans
who were exposed to socialism cheat more than West Germans who were exposed to
capitalism. We also found that cheating was more likely to occur under circumstances of
plausible deniability. Subjects were more likely to cheat by mis-reporting the chosen side of
the die than by making up rolls altogether. These results indicate that most people are
motivated to hide their dishonesty – either from others (Hao and Houser, 2011) or from
themselves (Mazar et al., 2008).
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2457000
note this comparison chart btwn the Russell (purple line) and oil. oil peaked first, followed slightly by the Russell.
things aren't well:
things aren't well:
CNBC has *really* turned around on bitcoin recently:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000298809&play=1
They're now talking effortlessly and seriously, and with almost no back-pedaling, about both the tech potential and price potential of bitcoin.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000298809&play=1
They're now talking effortlessly and seriously, and with almost no back-pedaling, about both the tech potential and price potential of bitcoin.
good find and assessment. it really is fascinating to watch all these major players come around. we're on our way.
U really think it would survive then? Power to the people! but in reality it woul dbe a big hit... but i think it would recover... just a big hit... probably signify a major top or something on the chart.
thing is, it will never happen.
Gavin and all the other devs aren't stupid enough to make such a change. they're constantly monitoring the sentiment pulse of the community and they wouldn't even dare try to increase the 21M. this is the advantage of an open source system. it enforces rational, honest behavior.
Hey Cypher, have you looked at the hashrate distribution yet today? 
https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrs
https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrs
nice. ghash down to 27%.
the Nash Equilibrium in full display.
Yeah, I should have screen capped it but Discus Fish had briefly surpassed them earlier today.
who cares? all of them take turns being the leader w/o anything ever becoming of it.
i'm tellin' ya, you'd better look the hell out if you're short:
Hey Cypher, have you looked at the hashrate distribution yet today?
https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrs
https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrs
nice. ghash down to 27%.
the Nash Equilibrium in full display.
Yeah, I should have screen capped it but Discus Fish had briefly surpassed them earlier today.
Hey Cypher, have you looked at the hashrate distribution yet today?
https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrs
https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrs
nice. ghash down to 27%.
the Nash Equilibrium in full display.
Hey Cypher, have you looked at the hashrate distribution yet today?
https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrs
https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrs
i think gold collapse thats will not affect anything with bitcoin ?
gold always up
time to buy .
gold always up
time to buy . 
CNBC has *really* turned around on bitcoin recently:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000298809&play=1
They're now talking effortlessly and seriously, and with almost no back-pedaling, about both the tech potential and price potential of bitcoin.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000298809&play=1
They're now talking effortlessly and seriously, and with almost no back-pedaling, about both the tech potential and price potential of bitcoin.
Even you: as long as you are accumulating (let's say an altcoin), you erect sell walls and fud. When you are done, you let it fly.
Their net accumulation is soon over, perhaps by the next halving.
CNBC has *really* turned around on bitcoin recently:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000298809&play=1
They're now talking effortlessly and seriously, and with almost no back-pedaling, about both the tech potential and price potential of bitcoin.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000298809&play=1
They're now talking effortlessly and seriously, and with almost no back-pedaling, about both the tech potential and price potential of bitcoin.
Who pays the piper right?
The banksters are not coming, they are already here ... don't look around they are watching you and might stab you in the back.
Hint: Morgan Stanley knows ...
Jump to: