The point is 50/50 yes/no or up/down is a gross simplification.
Its all about probability, and scaling your exposure to risk in line with your perception of that probability.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 16823. (Read 26711345 times)
August 01, 2017, 01:16:04 AM
The point is 50/50 yes/no or up/down is a gross simplification.
Its all about probability, and scaling your exposure to risk in line with your perception of that probability.
August 01, 2017, 01:15:30 AM
Issue in a nutshell:
- On a network where miners do not honor SegWit, all segwit transactions are 'anyone can spend' transactions
- On such a network, each successful miner can spend any 'anyone can spend' transaction to himself
- As segwit is used (e.g., on a segwit-honoring network), more value gets locked up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions
- As more value is built up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions, this increases the incentive for miners to flip the network from segwit-honoring to non-segwit
- This pressure increases with increasing use of segwit. Even if initially stable, the system tends further toward instability.
The net is that smallblockers need to trust the miners -- whom they seem to already believe to be evil -- to not steal their segwit transactions.
Of course, one can convert a segwit coin back to a bitcoin by spending it to yourself in a non-segwit transaction. But that also mandates a second transaction, thereby nullifying and even reversing segwit's so-called capacity increase.
- On a network where miners do not honor SegWit, all segwit transactions are 'anyone can spend' transactions
- On such a network, each successful miner can spend any 'anyone can spend' transaction to himself
- As segwit is used (e.g., on a segwit-honoring network), more value gets locked up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions
- As more value is built up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions, this increases the incentive for miners to flip the network from segwit-honoring to non-segwit
- This pressure increases with increasing use of segwit. Even if initially stable, the system tends further toward instability.
The net is that smallblockers need to trust the miners -- whom they seem to already believe to be evil -- to not steal their segwit transactions.
Of course, one can convert a segwit coin back to a bitcoin by spending it to yourself in a non-segwit transaction. But that also mandates a second transaction, thereby nullifying and even reversing segwit's so-called capacity increase.
Sounds very speculative and hypothetical to me.
No. Just No.
Please employ proper logic. Every bulleted item above is a factual statement. Would you like to challenge any of these factual statements on their own merit?
Whether or not those steps get chained together in reality is currently a matter of speculation, yes. But I made no such claim. A set of factual statements is not "speculative and hypothetical". Any speculation as to the consequences of the above has been left to the reader.
That is nonsense. I can make all kinds of factual statements, and then there is no consequence unless you can describe some kind of logical connection.
For example:
1) The sky is clear (meaning no clouds) today
2) Billy bob drives a Toyota Prius
3) That window is dangerous because it slams down without any restraints
4) The goat eats a lot of grass, especially for its size.
5) The Iphone will be damaged if you drop it in the toilet, because it is an Iphone 4
6) If any one of those lightbulbs burn out, then the whole chain does not work,
7) e = mc squared
No matter the string of facts, the jbreher Conclusion is: Segwit is going to be a disaster for bitcoin because it is too complicated, and even though segwit is a done deal, I am going to continue to whine about it and assert that we should employ a more simple and straight forward solution of increasing to 2mb block limits.
The problem here is that you can and you will find flaws for all solutions, and you can just repeat same phrases from you against SW like this
A: SW is tested and safe lets do it
B :Sounds very speculative and hypothetical to me.
A: No things are different in production compared to testnets, because miners dont cheat there....
.....
This type of discussion will never end since there are just no proper assesments behind and mathematical logic applied, missing probabilities for the desasters to happen.
What process do we need to agree upon a final logical assesment that anyone accepts as a proof?
August 01, 2017, 01:14:03 AM
your formula is too simple, but the essence of it is correct.
For example, they may have a 2% chance of surpassing the value of bitcoin.
They might have a 5% chance of equalling the value of bitcoin.
They might have a 10% chance of retaining 15% value of bitcoin.
They might have a 30% chance of retaining 1% value of bitcoin.
I don't really know what these exact numbers are, but it is true that you should attempt to cause your holdings to be in line with your view of the various probabilities, even if you cause such view to be a simpler formula... that might evolve a bit with the passage of time.. .. like what the fuck, they were able to survive 3 months past the hardfork, and then maybe looking at them 6 months down the road or 1 year or 3 years or 5 years etc.
August 01, 2017, 01:10:37 AM
[[edited out]
You are being disingenuous and deceitful. Your statement was "very speculative and hypothetical". There was neither speculation, nor hypotheticals in the post you were replying to. Merely a listing of some of the attributes of the SegWit system. You are the one listing nonsense, as the topic here is Bitcoin.
I thought that I was just taking your argument to a further logical extreme in order to emphasize its absurdity, and you are probably correct with your suggestion that i could have probably done that better. I'll give you that one. plus one jbreher.
August 01, 2017, 01:07:51 AM
If I give BCH a 0.1% chance of victory, I should hold 0.1% of my portfolio ($ value) in BCH not 50%.
Those that converge on the winning coin first have the most to gain or not to lose
The point is 50/50 yes/no or up/down is a gross simplification.
Its all about probability, and scaling your exposure to risk in line with your perception of that probability.
August 01, 2017, 01:06:10 AM
By Szabo's definitions if you are unsure about bitcoin/bcc's future then you should diversify... (self.Bitcoin)
This means if you are unwilling to selling half your bitcoin equity for bcc then the strategy you have chosen is that bitcoin will win out. This goes for r/btc'ers and anyone claiming to favor bcc.
Sitting on only a proportion of bitcoin and airdropped bcc is not a proper vote for being unsure of the outcome. If you don't at least split your equity, whether you admit it or not, your strategy is heavily weighted towards bitcoin
If I give BCH a 0.1% chance of victory, I should hold 0.1% of my portfolio ($ value) in BCH not 50%.
your formula is too simple, but the essence of it is correct.
For example, they may have a 2% chance of surpassing the value of bitcoin.
They might have a 5% chance of equalling the value of bitcoin.
They might have a 10% chance of retaining 15% value of bitcoin.
They might have a 30% chance of retaining 1% value of bitcoin.
I don't really know what these exact numbers are, but it is true that you should attempt to cause your holdings to be in line with your view of the various probabilities, even if you cause such view to be a simpler formula... that might evolve a bit with the passage of time.. .. like what the fuck, they were able to survive 3 months past the hardfork, and then maybe looking at them 6 months down the road or 1 year or 3 years or 5 years etc.
August 01, 2017, 01:05:46 AM
The amount of claimed fork coins will always be more uncertain that the amount of active bitcoins
It is natural to suggest that the perceived amount of active bitcoin will be more certain than its cloned counterpart.
It is natural to suggest that the perceived amount of active bitcoin will be more certain than its cloned counterpart.
August 01, 2017, 01:03:31 AM
Issue in a nutshell:
- On a network where miners do not honor SegWit, all segwit transactions are 'anyone can spend' transactions
- On such a network, each successful miner can spend any 'anyone can spend' transaction to himself
- As segwit is used (e.g., on a segwit-honoring network), more value gets locked up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions
- As more value is built up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions, this increases the incentive for miners to flip the network from segwit-honoring to non-segwit
- This pressure increases with increasing use of segwit. Even if initially stable, the system tends further toward instability.
The net is that smallblockers need to trust the miners -- whom they seem to already believe to be evil -- to not steal their segwit transactions.
Of course, one can convert a segwit coin back to a bitcoin by spending it to yourself in a non-segwit transaction. But that also mandates a second transaction, thereby nullifying and even reversing segwit's so-called capacity increase.
- On a network where miners do not honor SegWit, all segwit transactions are 'anyone can spend' transactions
- On such a network, each successful miner can spend any 'anyone can spend' transaction to himself
- As segwit is used (e.g., on a segwit-honoring network), more value gets locked up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions
- As more value is built up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions, this increases the incentive for miners to flip the network from segwit-honoring to non-segwit
- This pressure increases with increasing use of segwit. Even if initially stable, the system tends further toward instability.
The net is that smallblockers need to trust the miners -- whom they seem to already believe to be evil -- to not steal their segwit transactions.
Of course, one can convert a segwit coin back to a bitcoin by spending it to yourself in a non-segwit transaction. But that also mandates a second transaction, thereby nullifying and even reversing segwit's so-called capacity increase.
Sounds very speculative and hypothetical to me.
No. Just No.
Please employ proper logic. Every bulleted item above is a factual statement. Would you like to challenge any of these factual statements on their own merit?
Whether or not those steps get chained together in reality is currently a matter of speculation, yes. But I made no such claim. A set of factual statements is not "speculative and hypothetical". Any speculation as to the consequences of the above has been left to the reader.
That is nonsense. I can make all kinds of factual statements, and then there is no consequence unless you can describe some kind of logical connection.
For example:
1) The sky is clear (meaning no clouds) today
2) Billy bob drives a Toyota Prius
3) That window is dangerous because it slams down without any restraints
4) The goat eats a lot of grass, especially for its size.
5) The Iphone will be damaged if you drop it in the toilet, because it is an Iphone 4
6) If any one of those lightbulbs burn out, then the whole chain does not work,
7) e = mc squared
No matter the string of facts, the jbreher Conclusion is: Segwit is going to be a disaster for bitcoin because it is too complicated, and even though segwit is a done deal, I am going to continue to whine about it and assert that we should employ a more simple and straight forward solution of increasing to 2mb block limits.
You are being disingenuous and deceitful. Your statement was "very speculative and hypothetical". There was neither speculation, nor hypotheticals in the post you were replying to. Merely a listing of some of the attributes of the SegWit system. You are the one listing nonsense, as the topic here is Bitcoin.
August 01, 2017, 12:56:48 AM
What are 5 years compared to golds history?
Quote from: satoshi
The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost.
August 01, 2017, 12:51:56 AM
Funny how you keep spamming this nonsense of calling metals a "barbarous relic" while all other 999 million people in your country of India are buying metals like I am. You can be the one single guy in India with no gold or silver! Someone might even put you in an insane asylum for having such views there.
It's been getting smashed: http://goldprice.org/
What are 5 years compared to golds history?
August 01, 2017, 12:51:13 AM
As bitcoin's are being frozen around the world some people still NEED to use the network and this puts upward pressure on the price.
This pressure makes it increasingly difficult for would-be defectors to move their equity off the network.
Even if they are pro fork their greed stops them from unilaterally deviating.
This pressure makes it increasingly difficult for would-be defectors to move their equity off the network.
Even if they are pro fork their greed stops them from unilaterally deviating.
August 01, 2017, 12:49:05 AM
Funny how you keep spamming this nonsense of calling metals a "barbarous relic" while all other 999 million people in your country of India are buying metals like I am. You can be the one single guy in India with no gold or silver! Someone might even put you in an insane asylum for having such views there.
It's been getting smashed: http://goldprice.org/
August 01, 2017, 12:46:08 AM
If I give BCH a 0.1% chance of victory, I should hold 0.1% of my portfolio ($ value) in BCH not 50%.
Those that converge on the winning coin first have the most to gain or not to lose
August 01, 2017, 12:43:33 AM
The paper holds their folded faces to the floor. And every day, the paperboy brings more.
+1 for
August 01, 2017, 12:41:45 AM
You are not making a coherent argument.
Funny how you keep spamming this nonsense of calling metals a "barbarous relic" while all other 999 million people in your country of India are buying metals like I am. You can be the one single guy in India with no gold or silver! Someone might even put you in an insane asylum for having such views there.
August 01, 2017, 12:33:15 AM
The fork in November is the one to worry about, CrackCash is nothing.
August 01, 2017, 12:28:57 AM
By Szabo's definitions if you are unsure about bitcoin/bcc's future then you should diversify... (self.Bitcoin)
This means if you are unwilling to selling half your bitcoin equity for bcc then the strategy you have chosen is that bitcoin will win out. This goes for r/btc'ers and anyone claiming to favor bcc.
Sitting on only a proportion of bitcoin and airdropped bcc is not a proper vote for being unsure of the outcome. If you don't at least split your equity, whether you admit it or not, your strategy is heavily weighted towards bitcoin
If I give BCH a 0.1% chance of victory, I should hold 0.1% of my portfolio ($ value) in BCH not 50%.
August 01, 2017, 12:28:07 AM
The market cap of above ground silver and bitcoin is similar now. Bitcoin is no longer some cheap penny stock. The US gold vs debt chart with 92% correlation shows gold will hit at least $2200 in the next bull run, which would bring the GSR to 30:1 or lower ($73 silver). Bitcoin would need to hit $12,000 to compete with that almost guaranteed silver upside in the near future.
But that's a very conservative number for just a stable market situation. In a real crisis situation and rush to hard assets, gold would be more like $5000 and $166 silver or more. Or a government metals revaluation of gold to $10k and silver to 1:15 ratio of astronomically high numbers like $600 silver. Bitcoin would need to be able to hit $100k each to compete with that possible silver upside. It will never happen. Big corporations will just create their own scamcoins and try to force people into them and the crypto market cap will be divided up between 50 different coins (also due to poor scalability and high fees), unlike the metals market where you can't just "invent" a new gold or silver and are forced to buy the real thing.
50 coins? The markets are split well beyond 50 coins. You are not making a coherent argument. You cannot invent a new bitcoin which is the standard the markets have converged on, we are about to witness proof of this.
And how is it your conclusion can be based on the markets accepting scamcoins from corporations. You are constantly denying observable reality.
August 01, 2017, 12:27:09 AM
The market cap of above ground silver and bitcoin is similar now. Bitcoin is no longer some cheap penny stock. The US gold vs debt chart with 92% correlation shows gold will hit at least $2200 in the next bull run, which would bring the GSR to 30:1 or lower ($73 silver). Bitcoin would need to hit $12,000 to compete with that almost guaranteed silver upside in the near future.
But that's a very conservative number for just a stable market situation. In a real crisis situation and rush to hard assets, gold would be more like $5000 and $166 silver or more. Or a government metals revaluation of gold to $10k and silver to 1:15 ratio of astronomically high numbers like $600 silver. Bitcoin would need to be able to hit $100k each to compete with that possible silver upside. It will never happen. Big corporations will just create their own scamcoins and try to force people into them and the crypto market cap will be divided up between 50 different coins (also due to poor scalability and high fees), unlike the metals market where you can't just "invent" a new gold or silver and are forced to buy the real thing.
Revelation 13:16-18
Maybe the mark is a QR code.
If such a thing as the "mark of the beast" was actually real, I'm sure a lot of cucks in the west will take it, but it has around zero hope of spreading worldwide so you can always go somewhere else. Does it look like you can force the "mark of the beast" on the Chechens for fucks sake? The national pastime is pretending to be rambo:
You would need to nuke all of Russia and all kinds of other groups to make it happen. Which is probably exactly why the evil Jews who have taken over the US govt are attempting to do exactly that.
I'm sure these guys will be enough to take care of any self anointed Rambos
August 01, 2017, 12:24:17 AM
Roachy, gas the kikes.
Jump to: