687000+ entries in 0.476s
fluffypony: if I didn't know any better I would say
that's OS X Guhurkagurkle
BingoBoingo: fluffypony: Done right XFCE looks much better
than OSx
fluffypony: they should just pay for Apple people
to work for
them
punkman: that
trash can definitely needs more work
punkman: BingoBoingo: is
there a log of ATC diff changes somewhere?
BingoBoingo: Indeed.
The most profitable move in ATC might be
to bet large on yes, wait for people
to match it and
then add 1TH/s a week
to ATC's baseline hashpower until
the bet resolves.
punkman: you'd also make ATC
to offset
the costs
punkman: I'm wondering if it will make sense for
the Yes side
to rent some extra hashing power at certain points
BingoBoingo: punkman: Well considering ATC alternates between difficulty periods
that
take 4 days and
those
that
take... much longer... No seems like a safe bet, but
too safe.
assbot: BitBet - ATC
to reach block 50000 on
time :: 2.25 B (24%) on Yes, 7.05 B (76%) on No | closing in 1 month 2 weeks | weight: 51`392 (100`000
to 1)
BingoBoingo: Sigh, I guess I'm going
to have
to explain how
this longshots
thing works...
TheNewDeal: this year it has
typically
taken 12.66 days per change
TheNewDeal: if we have 3 changes
that
take 13 days
TheNewDeal: the last
time
there was a 6% change was ?
BingoBoingo: I just don't
think we are getting
that
third change.
BingoBoingo: I
think it is going
to be hard
to add enough hashpower
these next 34 days
to keep up with dying equiptment and raise
the difficulty all
that much.
BingoBoingo: And I only
thing we are getting
two changes
TheNewDeal: the network has
to average around 6% over 3 diff changes
BingoBoingo: TheNewDeal: Maybe we wait a week. At
the moment I
think it looks like a bit like your side is more likely, but it is close
to a coin flip.
TheNewDeal: how do you
think
the outcome will look?
BingoBoingo: Ah,
there's
the problem. We're looking at different
things. You have a large stake in a probable bet, and I'm willing
to offer a hedge so you can avoid a
total loss. I'd be willing
to unload part of my position, but... I am not an insurance company.
TheNewDeal: and i'm
trying
to figure out exactly how much would reduce your return and also mitigate my losses in case of some rare event
TheNewDeal: so I really only have incentive
to offer you less return
to reduce your loss
TheNewDeal: you bet later
than i did, and on
the less probable outcome (in my opinion)
BingoBoingo: TheNewDeal: I
think you might be
trying
to complicate
this
thing more
than it needs
to be complicated.
TheNewDeal: I'm using
the current no and yes
totals
BingoBoingo: TheNewDeal:
The Bitbet.py numbers are a bit off for
these new bets because it figures
the new sum into
the No pile.
TheNewDeal: the
thing is I have
to
take in my whole stake
BingoBoingo: I might be amenable
to .33 BTC at 25000 weight...
the line looks like No 25000 0.33000000 1.65041127 1.32041127
TheNewDeal: then I
think we're both stuck
to
the waiting game
TheNewDeal: if I send .25 btc
to you representing 50k
timeweight you would win .63 btc on No
BingoBoingo: Looks like [ 53] No 50000 0.25000000 2.24095491 1.99095491 when added
through BitBet.py
TheNewDeal: which would be drastically reduced from
the 370%+ you have now
TheNewDeal: one I was
thinking of was buying .25 stake at 50k weight
BingoBoingo: Selling a .33 stake at 30,000 weight for.33 BTC isn't going
to be feasible.
BingoBoingo: As an example of fresh bet of .33 BTC on No returns
the line [ 52] No 30000 0.33000000 1.93420100 1.60420100 covering 32.8% of your 5.9 BTC stake.
BingoBoingo: TheNewDeal: I
think something about
the math you presented for your example is wrong.
BingoBoingo missed some lines on initial entry and
tacked
them on at
the end.
smickles: easily a few more bil in
things like BPOs and BPCs
TheNewDeal: even if
they are made,
they are not going
to be large ones
BingoBoingo: Well it keeps people from betting when
the outcome might be obvious.
TheNewDeal: i dont
think bets are going
to be made
BingoBoingo: And lets say at 16`367 you spent .33
to purchase 0.5, 0.6 or whatever on No (In case miners betting late on No make covering
the offer at a higher weight a challenge, Spz. No becomes obvious and a member of
the math challenged drops 1000 BTC on No)
TheNewDeal: I've got
to go get some food before
the bar closes
TheNewDeal: you on
the other hand, would bring in 1.06 BTC for an investment of (1-.33 = .67 btc)
TheNewDeal: for me I would be winning 10% on my investment of 5.9 BTC on YES, or returning 27% of
that investment on no
TheNewDeal: if I were
to purchase .33 BTC at 30K
timeweight
BingoBoingo: Ah, so what works again? You want
to pay ? for a stake with
the
timeweight adjusted upwards? Wouldn't it be easier
to adjust
the price paid or
the portion of
the stake purchased?
TheNewDeal: the yes pays less
than half a percent at 1 btc
TheNewDeal: secondly, if
there are, it will only help my position
TheNewDeal: first off, I don't
think
there will be any late bettors here
[]bot: Bet placed: 3 BTC for No on "BTC worth over $5000 before 2015"
http://bitbet.us/bet/716/ Odds: 42(Y):58(N) by coin, 43(Y):57(N) by weight.
Total bet: 13.25076814 BTC. Current weight: 54,957.
[]bot: Bet placed: 10 BTC for No on "1BTC >= $10,000 USD"
http://bitbet.us/bet/635/ Odds: 16(Y):84(N) by coin, 19(Y):81(N) by weight.
Total bet: 474.9239018 BTC. Current weight: 45,777.
BingoBoingo: TheNewDeal: I'm
thinking rather
than adjusting
time weight which could create a bit of a pickle if a lot of large late betting acticity swoops in we consider
the matter of pricing a 0.5 stake in
terms of
the premium or discount applied
to 0.5 BTC
to purchase it.
assbot: BtcAlpha.com F.MPIF
Tracker estimated NAV per share: 0.00021706 BTC (Total: 434.13 BTC). Last
trade for F.MPIF on MPEX was at 0.00021725 BTC [+]
TheNewDeal: My position will currently pay out 1.22 per 1 invested, but I have like 4X more invested, so it doesn't make much sense
to buy a small fraction
BingoBoingo: asciilifeform:
That explains
the problem historically, but not why it persists.
BingoBoingo: TheNewDeal: I'd actually be more interested in swapping a fraction of
the no for a fraction of
the Yes. If we are
trading Bitcoin against
the position... I'd maybe be interested in offering a bit of extra
timeweight.
TheNewDeal: let's say I were
to send you a fraction of a BTC (let's say a half) on
the no bet. Would you consider giving me a larger
timeweight
than what you have bet at?
BingoBoingo: TheNewDeal: Assume we are hedgine and
trading smaller amounts. Who would we price deciBitcoin portions of each position.
TheNewDeal: the maximum i stand
to make on my yes prop is 1.25 btc with 5.6 bet (assuming no more NO bets come)
BingoBoingo: TheNewDeal: Yeah, but I usually like
to survey
the whole field at once. Creates a real appreciation of
time weight
TheNewDeal: but it's easy enough for me
to quickly find
the payout of one or
two bets
mike_c: old skool. it should grab
the json.
BingoBoingo: TheNewDeal: It's a simple
tool. You past in
the lines from bitbet and get
the whole
thing laid out.
mike_c: i do :) i should clean up some of my scripts and publish
them sometime..
BingoBoingo: TheNewDeal: Do you have a more interesting
tool for calculating Bitbet outcomes
then?
assbot: Iran unveils finger amputating machine for use on
thieves -
Telegraph
BingoBoingo: TheNewDeal: It could
though which is why
the pricing of
these
things and how
to do it is so important.
TheNewDeal: well it wouldn't really make
too much sense for me financially, unless you had much more
timeweight
BingoBoingo: How do we go about pricing No at a weight
TheNewDeal versus yes at a weight?
assbot: BitBet - Bitcoin network difficulty > 14Bn on Bastille day :: 112.84 B (85%) on Yes, 19.55 B (15%) on No | closing in 3 days 20 hours | weight: 2`243 (100`000
to 1)
pgrewr: homosexuals should be put
to death