Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 3320. (Read 26715794 times)

Gambler’s Fallacy


It is classic Gambler’s Fallacy.

No, I am not trying to be persnickety.  The Bitcoinland urban legend of “blocks take about 10 minutes” is Gambler’s Fallacy:  A practical expectation that you are “due” for a win based on a statistical average.

Don’t forget that Bitcoin’s mining algorithm is a giant lottery—and that on the flipside, many Provably Fair crypto-casinos use SHA2 to roll virtual dice.  Waving hands over some important technical differences, it is useful to keep that in mind.

In practice, although they are discrete and not continuous processes, games of chance that pick winners based on a uniform distribution can be usefully modelled as Poisson processes.  Wins accordingly have a statistically “expected” arrival time based on the average of an exponential distribution—just like Bitcoin’s 10-minute target for blocktimes, a targeted average calculated over numerous blocks.

By this model, the “fastest” quartile of wins feels so lucky that it gets gamblers excited—just like how 25% of Bitcoin blocks arrive within 173 seconds.  The median is much faster than the average, which means that fully half of all games feel luckier than they really are.  Tell me, how many times have you exclaimed, “Wow, I am so lucky—the confirmation of my tx was much faster than I expected!”?

The “slowest” quartile of wins then drains the gamblers’ funds as they keep playing, believing themselves “due” for a win.  Those are the blocks that seem to take forever, as you are awaiting confirmation.  That long tail is long, indeed!

The exponential distribution plays games with your head.  It defies and exploits human intuitions in almost every possible way.  It is a dice site’s best friend.

Maybe some stats textbooks say the same thing.  Maybe not.  I figured this out myself, many moons ago.

Upside down world:

• BTC keeps going lower even in the face of ridiculous fiat inflation
• Fiat inflation is supposedly Putin's fault even though the west printed ridiculous sums of fiat out of thin air for years.
• The G7 / NATO and its silent allies actively want to have a cold war
• Ursula von der Lies joins the G7 even though she doesn't represent a country and no citizen was able to vote for her and they continue to talk about how we must
  impose democracy on Russia
• You vote conservative in your country and you keep getting bashed with ridiculous green policies and increased taxes
• Clowns and demented imbeciles are our leaders
• Propaganda media outlets keep bashing Russia whose leader talks far more sense than any of our pathetic clowns
• The Russian ruble keeps strengthening despite suicide sanctions and restrictions. All other currencies against the dollar are deflating even faster than the dollar itself.
• Western leaders promote economic migrants even though there is supposedly no space for us already (see increased taxes) and fuels illegal people trafficking. immigration has been sold as a virtue signalling option to supposedly help the poor in other countries. The reality is the real poor in those countries can never escape. Only the strongest and usually they are young men.
• Upside down policy example Netherlands #1: Farmers need to close their business as they are too polluting. The entire country was founded on farming!
• Upside down policy example Netherlands #2: You will soon have to pay for driving each kilometre, even if you drive abroad. Who in their right mind thinks that's fair AND you will still need to get an EV no doubt.
• Upside down policy example Netherlands #3: You will need to install a heat pump because gas is simply too polluting even though much of the Dutch economy was built on using and exporting gas.
• Upside down policy example Netherlands #4: The leader literally said "Ukraine's war is our war." even though citizens firmly rejected closer association with Ukraine in a referendum years ago.
• Upside down policy example Netherlands #5: Gas and everything is too polluting and citizens will have to pay but in a general sense because of the sanctions on importing Russian gas and the evil Adolf Putin burning coal will be fine if required.
• The general consensus appears to be carry on and just do more of the same of the failed policies.
• The CIA appears to be in control of the USA and in fact much of the western world. Puppets in the form of diaper Biden and Kameltoe Harris appear to be so incredibly stupid, pathetic with race baiting and ultimately hypocritical, this bad leader joke thing is just sad to watch for me. Boris Johnson is no better.

Unbelievable.

 

You have some interesting ideas, here and subsequently.

As you understand, if I merely wanted to talk hypothetically, I could chit-chat as much as I wanted in public; but then, there would be no point.  I am taking this idea seriously—perhaps not for immediate implementation, but maybe to consider for a mid- to long-term goal.  I appreciate this discussion.  I read this post carefully.


I don’t know.  Maybe, but it sounds doubtful to me.  I have had some negative experience attempting to apply for grants anonymously from legally constituted corporate entities (whether for- or nonprofit)—not in Core, not even in Bitcoinland, but I would anticipate similar issues.  I would be pleased to be wrong about that.  Nowadays, it’s gotten so bad that with some exceptions, it seems that even most whitehat security bug bounties cannot be claimed without a full KYC doxing (LOL!).


True.

I will keep thinking about this.

---

On another note:


With your way of seeing things, on the flipside, you can never have some of the positive life experiences that I have (very rarely) had in cypherspace.  If you are too detached, you don’t much care either way—you can never make much of a deep connection with anyone.  I am not only saying this now:  I have had that thought about you before, years ago.  It hit me when you declared somewhere, with a distinctly absolutist attitude, that “nobody gives a shit about you on the Internet” (here paraphrasing from recollection).  Well, it is true in the overwhelming majority of cases.  But with your outlook, you will miss the one-in-a-million outliers.

If someone were to offer me a billion dollars right now to give up some of those positive life experiences, I would tell him to take his money straight to hell.  That is not hyperbole.  Some things are priceless.

On the negative side, I dislike permitting those who are beneath me drain my time and energy on nonsense.  Whether IRL or online, I oughtn’t trouble myself too much to swat a troublesome fly, if it is inconvenient.  Most of all, I must mind the proverb about wrestling with a pig.  It is best to take the high road, to focus on important things, to comport oneself with poise and professionalism.  But I never forgive, if someone seriously crosses me—never forgive, never forget.  Despicable characters tend eventually to lay out enough proverbial rope to hang themselves, anyway.

Explanation

Proof:  “JayJuanGee” is proudhon’s alt.

=

Quote ridiculously cherry-picked, for comedic effect.  For the record, my sarcasm meter pegged here.

Global inflation rates:

🇺🇸 - 8.6%
🇪🇸 - 8.7%
🇳🇱 - 8.8%
🇬🇧 - 9.1%
🇧🇷 - 11.7%
🇵🇱 - 13.9%
🇷🇺 - 17.1%
🇵🇰 - 30%
🇦🇷 - 60.7%
🇹🇷 - 73.5%
🇻🇪 - 167%

This is absolute Distruction in our Region and I'm worried about aseets Devaluation because with Inflation the assets real time value also got effected still assets are better to hold then Currency.

#Bitcoin is the escape hatch.

I know Warren Buffet, and you are no Warren Buffet.  



Well that sucks.  


You mean there is still a chance?  One of my friends asked that same question, once (in a movie).


I did not realize that I was trying to win.

I do prefer to win in regards to the creation of the parameters of my own interactions and how or if I choose to respond to ideas presented in these thread posts including but not limited to exercising my own discretion and independent judgment in respect to what I consider to be relevant, interesting or important considerations.

I wonder how much SBF is willing to risk on private bailouts that create future moral hazard.

I don’t hate him the same way that some here do.  I recognize that he is very smart.  I tend to have a certain respect for smart people.

Just saying that if he overextends himself—a hell of a question mark—then his attempt to buy future moral hazard may be a self-solving problem.  He does not have the ability of a government to create unlimited money out of thin air, then let the burden fall on the people through taxation, inflation, and the kind of unbounded debt that happens when debtors can pass laws raising their own credit limits.  Billionaires with MIT degrees can get rekt, too!

In 2008, I said that “too big to fail” needs to fail fast and hard—no matter what short-term pain may result.  Because the alternative is unlimited long-term pain.  In 2022, should I say differently here?  It is now patently obvious that numerous corrupt billionaires laid land mines throughout our market.  Now, they bring “The Times 03/Jan/2009” into Bitcoinland.  Insofar as I can see, the only way to clean up that mess is to let the mines detonate—right in their faces.

If Buddy makes you sad, look on the bright side:  Perhaps in the long run, a really awful-more-awfuller crash right now could be good for Bitcoin.  Perhaps, perhaps...  #justsaying

Explanation

I still like my rendition, even though D_W established that "technically" my framing is not accurate.  I still like it.. because it is fun.. tick tock next block.

How did Craig frame the matter?


I am waiting for the BTC price to go below $1,000.. just like back in the good ole days.. but this time will be different for yours truly.  This time, I will buy mining equipment and also BTC (at the same time), too.  I am going to start mining even though I have no fucking clues.. but it will be profitable if I wait and I will learn, too.  I'm a fast learner if I put my mind to it, especially for sub $1k BTC prices,.  Cannot go wrong with that... It's only about a 95% drop from here, and historically speaking BTC has had 95% price drops before, and this time is special too.. Look at the macro circumstances, there are  alot of problems in the world, and bitcoin tends to drop more than everything else, at least in the short term, so $1k is almost guaranteed.. inevitable..

Cut looses your gooses, people!!!!.


Good, and you?

I am going to buy miners and BTC once we reach sub $1k..

How we all doing?

There's no misinterpretation. I responded, and my response speaks for itself..


I don't know.  Each of us chooses how to interact in the world, and sometimes we might feel that there is a need to change some of our own self-imposed limitations - and other times we might feel that we need to place limitations.

I had an interaction with a relative of mine the other day, and  I was telling that relative about several interactions that I had with someone that I had perceived as a beggar and even someone who I considered to NOT be respectful of boundaries.  I said that the beggar had asked me for x, y z, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h and j, and I gave a and e, but I regretted giving anything because that beggar had done several things to create such a bad situation, and I did not feel that it was my responsibility to be paying attention to so many asks of such person.  I said that the continuous begging was wearing me out, and I was largely just ignoring the asks (the latest of which had been sent to me by text messages from the beggar), and I was about ready to explode at some point.. The beggar had been engaging in conduct that I felt was forcing me into a position to be mean to the beggar, and I had actually already exploded one time previously, and I said that I feel that the beggar should not be asking me for so many thing.  

My relative was considering contacting the beggar and giving some things that I refused to acknowledge, and I told the relative to do whatever.. I am not doing anything.  So it is quite true that reasonable people come to differing conclusions in regards to how to treat situations, and I do not claim to have all the answers or even to know about some of the ways that I might need to change some of my ways of interacting.. or even how I might consider certain characteristics that I consider to be important.


Sure there are differences between what might trigger boundaries on the interwebs versus boundaries in person, and I had made some interactions with folks in regards to various virtual assistant work, and it is not always easy to figure out which duties might be farmed out and show much trust to give with some personal information.  I know that some virtual assistance relationships have had meeting in person components, but surely there are some that only involve phone calls and video interactions and do not go as far as having actual physical meetings/interviews.  

One time, I had an in-person personal assistant working on attempting to set up parameters for finding and hiring a virtual assistant (and getting that assistant remotely), but I could not get my in-person assistant to do certain things.. so it was like a BIG waste of time to go through that process - even though I have some of the notes related to some of the efforts that we were making in going through the process.


I asked you a question (or raised some issues), and you answered and clarified.  There seems to be hardly any reason to take any of my reading or even my attempt to frame the matter as if it is personal, which seems to be your default route... and even if there were some reasonable ways to take it personally, why get worked up about it and escalate?..  You do what you want.. and sure maybe the taking matters personally will start to subside, but I have my doubts..and maybe when you take matters personal then it triggers folks to make personal digg statements, too?

By the way, there have been a few times in which I had taken some statements on the interwebs personally, and surely sometimes such statements are personal.. but still reacting to such statements in emotional ways is not usually a good approach (I am not talking about how it looks, but I am talking about actually losing composure).. and I would be careful to interpret a few cuss words here and there as if the person has lost composure..

I know that there are some members who really have personal issues with me, and sometimes they will harbor those resentments for a long time, even for years, and then come out with a bunch of anger posts... hahahaha it is kind of funny how some folks can hate certain peeps on the interwebs so much.


Yeah, we might have been talking past each other a wee bit, and I have spent some time grappling with some of my own considerations about how to set up such a fund, and I was thinking about starting a thread on the topic - or alternatively to post in my already existing thread.. but it might well be a topic that would be better suited for its own thread.

I was initially considering setting up the thread with a hypothesis of having a fund that would be initially seeded with 100 BTC, so the ideas would relate to my ideas about how much can be used from the funds on a regular basis to support the administration of the funds and also the sending out of funds to target projects.  Of course there might be some flexibility in the amount of funds that would be in the seed round and if the fund might be able to able to receive additional funds from private sources or .. but the original assumption is that the fund is established by a private donor or a closed group that already grants full plenary authority to the fund administrator whether hypothetically that administrator would be me or whether it could (or should) be contracted out.  

My initial thoughts about any extra funds that would be accepted would involve NDAs and even legal disclaimers and granting full discretion to the fund administrator regarding the distribution of donations, so of course, when we get into those kinds of possible receipt of outside funds, it is probably better to establish a track record and a set of clear distribution standards, criteria (and practices) first, as we already referred to some of these ideas.  I have been thinking about variations of this for more than 2 years, so it is not like I have really gotten into the nitty gritty details of working towards carrying it out.


Well, let me change the numbers a wee bit, and if a fund were to have 100 BTC as it's initially starting out principle, so how much it can spend per month may well depend on the valuation of the 100 BTC, and I had surely been considering using the 200-week moving average as the valuation of the funds, which surely is problematic currently because BTC's spot price is currently under the 200-week moving average.
 yet it is possible that the fund could withdraw into cash a year in advance, and/or even have withdrawal parameters on a quarterly basis that are measured in terms of how far above or below the spot price is from the 200-week moving average.  It is possible that if the BTC price is below the 200-week moving average then the fund is not allowed to cash out any BTC into dollars during that time.  

Of course, it is quite possible and even likely that some of the contracts would stipulate that if payments are in BTC (and some (and maybe all) would be required to be in BTC), then there might be ways to still pay out in BTC when the spot price is under the 200-week moving average with an understanding that the valuation of how much is paid is based on the 200-week moving average, and the fund is not allowed to pay based on dollar valuations that are lower than the 200-week  moving average.  Accordingly the recipient gets the same amount of BTC as if the BTC price were at the 200-week moving average, but it results in a lower dollar value based on spot price because the fund is not allowed to go below the 200-week moving average when calculating how much to pay to target recipients (fund administrators and any administrative assistants, too).


Fair enough.


I think that the fund can be comfortable with the developer,  so there might be some uncertainties regarding how comfortable the fund might feel about funding developers who fit that definition.  I thought that square had one developer who was ONLY a pseudonym.. and surely it helps if precedent is set or some kind of comfortable contract language (or lack of contract) that might be comfortable for the fund... and maybe the fund might not be comfortable having all of its developer funds to be distributed in that kind of way, and might even impose a restriction on itself in terms of funding 50% of all developer funds to be able to be used within such category... probably some legal consultation would be beneficial depending how the fund is set up and in which state or country it has a license or whatever set up it might have. and there might be some se t ups(arrangements) that fall into special categories in terms of the funding that the fund chooses to distribute within its budget)


For sure there are reasons to have those kinds of set ups and even to figure out ways to fund those kinds of set ups, and surely some of the discussions of the details of how to set them up might be less valuable to carryout in a public thread or even through private messages but  instead through more secure communication channels that hopefully are sufficiently comfortable (and secure) for everyone including funding sources and funded persons/pseudonyms... surely not easy.. and surely some of the relationships are made at conferences or private introductions and surely some pseudonyms don't want to be met, but they still need to be comfortable enough for the funding sources to feel it is a good ideas to fund in such an arrangement.

Explanation

Good job losing the respect I’ve held for you for more years than you realize.

Please be advised that I’ve simply been replying when I think the discussion may be beneficial to an unseen readership.  It is, after all, a major purpose of a public forum.  You sometimes raise good points, which make for a productive back-and-forth dialectic.  You are one of the savvier ones here, when you are not being deliberately obtuse.

Since you have never crossed the line of all-out attacking me personally, I can simply pass by your evasiveness, misdirection, and occasional pointless insults as hereby.  It won’t work with me—not even when you sometimes attempt to win by bluster and bombast what you cannot by ratiocination.

Explanation

I am glad that you are here to save us and to let us know that "bitcoin is fine."

Thanks for that.  You are so



helpful.


 





Where would we be without uie-pooie? 


It's a rhetorical question no need to actually answer it.     

In principle, I neither admit nor deny the allegation that I am Jorge Stolfi.  No comment, save to note that it makes almost as much sense as the widespread rumour that I am Warren Buffet’s secret Bitcoin Forum account.

---

In the worst case, if you take an infinite random walk on a plane, you will return to your origin a.s.

#justsaying ...but cryptically refusing to reveal what I’m just saying, in the sense of offering the answer to an unknown question.

42

---

Good luck refining Buddy’s reliability.  IMO, price updates add to the thread—even moreso retrospectively than in the present.  Reading older discussions in WO, in periods with no Buddy, necessary context is missing; it is necessary either to remember approximately what the price was, or to look it up from other price history sources.  And the bid/ask depth visualization is appropriate to the Wall Observer.

Not to mention the lulz.

Explanation

If bitcoin keeps falling soon it won't be enough to just hold BTC. Every holder will have to buy a miner and make it work at home. Because falling under $ 17 000 will force many miners to turn off their equipment. Those who mine with S17 and pay $0.1 per kilowatt lose $1.2 every day if 1 BTC costs $ 20 000.