Author

Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 107. (Read 907212 times)

legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
So Risto. If I understand you correctly you now think the failure risk of bitcoins is 50%? Sounds much more reasonable to me than the dramatically smaller risk for failure numbers you were speaking of half a year ago. Does this have to do with Monero entering the stage and the fact that you see chances growing for alternative coins or does it have to do with your view of bitcoin itself?

Yes, if "failure" is defined to mean "will not rise to $5000+ ever".

Still if the probability for rising such is 50%, it is an incredibly good buy, and this is what I have been saying all along.

I appreciate your posts, but did you know, that in reality there is no such thing as a 'probability'?

The so-called "Master Argument" was apparently first formulated clearly by Diodorus. He argued that the actual is the only possible. He observed that if something in the future is not going to happen, it was therefore true in the past that it would not happen.

Modern philosophers like J. J. C. Smart like to think that the future is "already out there" in the relativistic space-time continuum of the "block universe."

Modern determinists/compatibilists on free will like to argue that just as the past cannot be changed, so the future cannot be changed. "Change it from what to what?," says Daniel Dennett.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
In Casino, the games of chance are also games of -EV. Now imagine that you could play a simple dice with the following payout table, but the play is limited to one round:

4-6: pay back 10:1
2-3: no effect
1: lose your bet.

How much would you bet?
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
50% of failure??

Damn, I'll be incredibly fucking fucked
I may not die but shit....
I would estimate it at 10% or 20% at most

Yes I would say that the chances that we are lower in 12 months than what we are now is 10-20%.

What an incredible +EV!  Grin
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
So Risto. If I understand you correctly you now think the failure risk of bitcoins is 50%? Sounds much more reasonable to me than the dramatically smaller risk for failure numbers you were speaking of half a year ago. Does this have to do with Monero entering the stage and the fact that you see chances growing for alternative coins or does it have to do with your view of bitcoin itself?

Yes, if "failure" is defined to mean "will not rise to $5000+ ever".

Still if the probability for rising such is 50%, it is an incredibly good buy, and this is what I have been saying all along.
hero member
Activity: 665
Merit: 500
So Risto. If I understand you correctly you now think the failure risk of bitcoins is 50%? Sounds much more reasonable to me than the dramatically smaller risk for failure numbers you were speaking of half a year ago. Does this have to do with Monero entering the stage and the fact that you see chances growing for alternative coins or does it have to do with your view of bitcoin itself?
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
Would it be considered slow growth if we were to stay within $600-$800 for a couple months, and then burst through ATH and beyond?

You think the next top will be higher then $6000?

Staying in 600-800 for some time is a possibility, but I give a higher probability to a rather short time (<2 months) than a longer one.

Going higher than 6000 is the more likely, the longer it takes for the boom to start.

- I don't pretend having a crystal ball.
You non-existent crystall ball is much better then mine or most anyone else's. 

I also don't pretend having a castle..

So Risto,  in early July you said that going higher than 6000 was more likely the longer it takes for the boom to start.  I guess the good news is that it is indeed taking longer to start!

I would still be totally thrilled to see 6000 on the next rally, and many are pessimistic of course. 

Are you still feeling fairly confident about this?  Any new predictions on what kind of time frame we are looking at?  Your "crystal ball" always seems to work a little better than mine.  Wink

The main way I see cryptocurrency rising (at present) is for Bitcoin to take the lead. Historically the 2011-6 top was taken only 21 months later, so many things are possible.

Then there is the about 50% probability that it does not make it to the next top. But imagine where we would then invest our money  Embarrassed

And then buy some XMR as a hedge Wink
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
Would it be considered slow growth if we were to stay within $600-$800 for a couple months, and then burst through ATH and beyond?

You think the next top will be higher then $6000?

Staying in 600-800 for some time is a possibility, but I give a higher probability to a rather short time (<2 months) than a longer one.

Going higher than 6000 is the more likely, the longer it takes for the boom to start.

- I don't pretend having a crystal ball.
You non-existent crystall ball is much better then mine or most anyone else's. 

I also don't pretend having a castle..

So Risto,  in early July you said that going higher than 6000 was more likely the longer it takes for the boom to start.  I guess the good news is that it is indeed taking longer to start!

I would still be totally thrilled to see 6000 on the next rally, and many are pessimistic of course. 

Are you still feeling fairly confident about this?  Any new predictions on what kind of time frame we are looking at?  Your "crystal ball" always seems to work a little better than mine.  Wink
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
Is anyone using data sets of facebook members on bitcoin & altcoin groups/pages for their (private*) projections? The rationale is that they should depict the network effect and expansion rate in a way which is perhaps more accurate than addresses.

* I haven't seen anything posted publicly, so...
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1000
Have you looked at the current "decentralization" of those who record transactions?  Half a dozen pools record the vast majority of all transactions.  And that assumes those pools aren't owned/controlled by same entities.

Do you understand what pool means?
legendary
Activity: 896
Merit: 1006
First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold
Have you looked at the current "decentralization" of those who record transactions?  Half a dozen pools record the vast majority of all transactions.  And that assumes those pools aren't owned/controlled by same entities.
legendary
Activity: 882
Merit: 1000
Apple adopting Bitcoin isn't even remotely likely. Simply put, it is impossible that Apple will adopt Bitcoin.

The term adoption when used in relation to Bitcoin is consistently misused. When merchants use a service that accepts Bitcoin from holders and converts it into fiat for themselves, they are not adopting Bitcoin. They are exploiting the popularity of the term and converting BTC into fiat. This is not a case of merchants helping Bitcoin but a case of Bitcoin helping merchants. Equally, overall fiat conversion into Bitcoin isn't increasing but decreasing.

Bitcoin is being stress tested and the question isn't which load will make it move faster but which push will make the load lighter. And I see no discussion regarding real Bitcoin development. NXT, Ethereum, Exocoin, NEM and maybe even to a certain degree Monero and Emunie are where development, not armchair discussions about development, is happening.

It is impossible to know which child will grow to be the greatest adult though even if we knew, we still would be left with a definition of great that may be incorrect.
Bitcoin has hit adulthood and is great but it is very limited. Trying to change the definition of 'great' only helps with making it impossible to call Bitcoin great without doing a single bit of work toward making it greater.

Actually I would say BitsharesX is probably better than any other competitor to bitcoin that you have listed there.. its got alot of things going for it and I think it would tag along with bitcoin for a while as bitcoin would be used as a currency and bitshares used for well, everything else including anything that shares are issued for (stocks, bonds, any assets(voting, music, dns)).. NXT tries to do the same thing but doesn't do it quite aswell.. and the other ones I dont think are even close (yet). I think the winner will be the ones that will complement bitcoin not replace it.

The winner is never defined as the one who complements number 1. To be the winner a cryptocurrency has to necessarily replace Bitcoin.

The most basic reason why Bitcoin cannot and will not persist long term is that it requires large processing power as well as storage capacity but offers a tiny number of transactions per second at 7. The exponential nature of technology doesn't concern me when it comes to the processing power and storage requirements. What concerns me is how little it delivers for so much consumption. Meanwhile NXT which is an early 2.0  is over there featuring 100tps right now and eyeing 1000tps. SPV nodes don't really offset this either.

Another reason that comes to mind is the fact that satoshi and at least whoever has gox stolen coins holds hundreds of thousands of BTC. So much for not trusting FIAT and going to BTC because it is 'decentralized' as the useful idiots keep repeating. FIAT is magnitudes more decentralized than Bitcoin as it is currently distributed.

I understand that Bitcoin could be changed to handle more but that increase will cause a proportional increase in processing power and storage requirements which means it will keep being really slow.

I think you misunderstand what "decentralized" mean. It has nothing to do with the distribution but who issue the coin, who record and verify the transaction.
sr. member
Activity: 952
Merit: 281
Lots of "Quality TA" going on in this thread the last few pages  Roll Eyes

btw you ought to be proud that this thread ranks #1 for "Quality TA" (use incognito)

https://www.google.com/search?q=quality+TA



Incognito still uses your history to tailor search results.  It simply just does not record any more history. Having said that, using a fresh browser and this thread is #1 for that key phrase  Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1010
he who has the gold makes the rules
Lots of "Quality TA" going on in this thread the last few pages  Roll Eyes

btw you ought to be proud that this thread ranks #1 for "Quality TA" (use incognito)

https://www.google.com/search?q=quality+TA


hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 501
Stephen Reed
Sounds interesting. Could I have a link to the whitepaper?

Whitepaper: Bitcoin Cooperative Proof-of-Stake Stephen Reed

Note that the May 2013 whitepaper above describes a hard fork of bitcoin. That cannot possibly happen unless TexaiCoin is successful and subsequently convinces the Bitcoin community that a good alternative exists for the current industrial mining method. Furthermore, the current approach is not proof-of-stake. Now the block rewards are used to pay for network infrastructure, developers and community support, e. g. through institutions such as the Bitcoin Foundation.

I will briefly speak, describing my approach, at the Hashers United Conference in Las Vegas next month on the mining algorithms panel.




You should take to Larimer about DPOS and maybe you can gain insight on a non proof of stake approach working in the field.. or maybe he can learn some things from your approach.. he is keynote on day 3 i believe
I was not aware that Dan will be at this conference. Awesome. Good that the conference organizers are reaching out to altcoins and treating cryptocurrency infrastructure provisioning and operation as an industry segment, e.g. at current prices, bitcoin mining revenue is $1.7 million daily.

I shared ideas with Dan a few months ago and look forward to meeting him in person as well as Charlie Lee (Litecoin), Phil Mayer (Mastercoin), Poramin Insom (Vertcoin) and Vitalik Buterin (Ethereum).
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
Sounds interesting. Could I have a link to the whitepaper?

Whitepaper: Bitcoin Cooperative Proof-of-Stake Stephen Reed

Note that the May 2013 whitepaper above describes a hard fork of bitcoin. That cannot possibly happen unless TexaiCoin is successful and subsequently convinces the Bitcoin community that a good alternative exists for the current industrial mining method. Furthermore, the current approach is not proof-of-stake. Now the block rewards are used to pay for network infrastructure, developers and community support, e. g. through institutions such as the Bitcoin Foundation.

I will briefly speak, describing my approach, at the Hashers United Conference in Las Vegas next month on the mining algorithms panel.




You should take to Larimer about DPOS and maybe you can gain insight on a non proof of stake approach working in the field.. or maybe he can learn some things from your approach.. he is keynote on day 3 i believe
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 501
Stephen Reed
Sounds interesting. Could I have a link to the whitepaper?

Whitepaper: Bitcoin Cooperative Proof-of-Stake Stephen Reed

Note that the May 2013 whitepaper above describes a hard fork of bitcoin. That cannot possibly happen unless TexaiCoin is successful and subsequently convinces the Bitcoin community that a good alternative exists for the current industrial mining method. Furthermore, the current approach is not proof-of-stake. Now the block rewards are used to pay for network infrastructure, developers and community support, e. g. through institutions such as the Bitcoin Foundation.

I will briefly speak, describing my approach, at the Hashers United Conference in Las Vegas next month on the mining algorithms panel.


full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
The most basic reason why Bitcoin cannot and will not persist long term is that it requires large processing power as well as storage capacity but offers a tiny number of transactions per second at 7. The exponential nature of technology doesn't concern me when it comes to the processing power and storage requirements. What concerns me is how little it delivers for so much consumption. Meanwhile NXT which is an early 2.0  is over there featuring 100tps right now and eyeing 1000tps. SPV nodes don't really offset this either.
I wrote a whitepaper back in May describing a simple solution to this problem that also has the advantage of providing instant acceptance of transactions. One nomadic mint agent creates the new blocks on a non-branching blockchain. Peers verify the result and copy new blocks to their own copies of the canonical blockchain. A single writer to the immutable blockchain should be very fast. Full nodes share the block rewards without proof-of-work mining effort. Fewer than one hundred lines of code are modified in Bitcoin Core, provided that suitable software agents operate the distributed network.

All core devs I speak to are skeptical, but some encourage my project anyway to see if there is a better way than Satoshi's proof-of-work.

Sounds interesting. Could I have a link to the whitepaper?
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
I also believe that the biggest problem will be Apple loading off the fees on the credit cards company. They can't do this with Bitcoin. CC-companies will be gladly paying their share if they can be part of that potential revolution. Who will pay that for Bitcoin? Maybe Satoshi? The Foundation? Cheesy
NFC bitcoin payment applications from mobile devices will likely be paid for, directly or indirectly, by the merchant. Even considering the cost of currency exchange, BitPay, for example, is less expensive for merchants than say Visa. Once a tipping point is reached after which merchants prefer to retain bitcoin revenue to pay some of their own expenses with bitcoin, then exchange to fiat is not required.

That tipping point cannot be reached without government backing of the currency. Great economic crashes come from regular people speculating. For this tipping point you mention to occur without government backing would require many normal people to become speculators. By many I mean almost everyone and this is not possible.
Bitcoin cannot be government backed because it is proof of concept and it is great at it. This said, crypo-currencies without a doubt will do to money what money did to land and titles. Bitcoin isn't the biggest player in this revolution, it is just the biggest player in the evolution.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 501
Stephen Reed
The most basic reason why Bitcoin cannot and will not persist long term is that it requires large processing power as well as storage capacity but offers a tiny number of transactions per second at 7. The exponential nature of technology doesn't concern me when it comes to the processing power and storage requirements. What concerns me is how little it delivers for so much consumption. Meanwhile NXT which is an early 2.0  is over there featuring 100tps right now and eyeing 1000tps. SPV nodes don't really offset this either.
I wrote a whitepaper back in May describing a simple solution to this problem that also has the advantage of providing instant acceptance of transactions. One nomadic mint agent creates the new blocks on a non-branching blockchain. Peers verify the result and copy new blocks to their own copies of the canonical blockchain. A single writer to the immutable blockchain should be very fast. Full nodes share the block rewards without proof-of-work mining effort. Fewer than one hundred lines of code are modified in Bitcoin Core, provided that suitable software agents operate the distributed network.

All core devs I speak to are skeptical, but some encourage my project anyway to see if there is a better way than Satoshi's proof-of-work.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 501
Stephen Reed
I also believe that the biggest problem will be Apple loading off the fees on the credit cards company. They can't do this with Bitcoin. CC-companies will be gladly paying their share if they can be part of that potential revolution. Who will pay that for Bitcoin? Maybe Satoshi? The Foundation? Cheesy
NFC bitcoin payment applications from mobile devices will likely be paid for, directly or indirectly, by the merchant. Even considering the cost of currency exchange, BitPay, for example, is less expensive for merchants than say Visa. Once a tipping point is reached after which merchants prefer to retain bitcoin revenue to pay some of their own expenses with bitcoin, then exchange to fiat is not required.
Jump to: