871800+ entries in 0.668s
dexX7: i didn't know
the dax is capped
smidge: thats why i
think a 25% cap would be a compromise between a pure mkt cap index with asicminer having 60,70% and a pure equal weight with 10 securities each having 10%
smidge: its working for real world indices. dax has a cap at 10% per security, 30 of
them in
there in
total.
mircea_popescu: smidge you can't arbitrarily cap
things out, it makes no sense.
Chaaaang-Noi: i dont know of every week but
they have in
the pass paid out millions]
smidge: but i agree
that
there should be a max value for
the index share, like 25% for asicminer
smidge: unless we switch
the whole index wo equal weight
smidge: the smallest security in
the index is cognitive with ~5k
smidge: dex
the last price of
the day would be used as reference for
the next
dexX7: smidge: would you
then
take
the end of day (or whatever interval) price of each asset or some averaged value?
smidge: as you described,
the variance would be
too low
smidge: dexX7 very good question, i currently plan on setting
the interval
to daily
dexX7: smidge: in which intervals are p1 and p0 calculated?
this seems
to be critical, because if you do
the calc.. well, let's say every new
trade,
the difference is very small (as only one number changes) and
the result oscillates very close
to 100
ozbot: DCX -
The Digital Currency Index Project
Chaaaang-Noi: it was his own good he had
to place me on ignore, i made him look
to silly
Chaaaang-Noi: im not sure mp went on
the internet in
the 90s. it was pretty much 90% americans...
Chaaaang-Noi: since he has me on ignore, he will
think you are going
to agree with him.
Chaaaang-Noi: the internet or anything
tech has never been bigger in europe
than
the usa
mircea_popescu: i
think maybe in
the 90s irc was bigger in europe
than in
the states
smidge: been on irc since
the mid 90s
tbh
smidge: ok, ill cut
the crap. 35
smidge: stop it with
the personal questions already
smidge: if noone else wants on stage
today, ill ipo an index
thats been running for 18 hours
smidge: good idea, i should ipo
that
thing
VanCleef: is
that why you dusted off dcx project and putting it up for ipo?
smidge: i
think
the market is so full of get rich quick adventurers, you could ipo an usb stick (non-miner)
VanCleef: i dont know but is
there a new ipo yet, i'm bored
kleecksj: Today is going
to be a wild one. I feel it.
Neil_: I've made my point,
that is all.
mircea_popescu: it'd seem
to me
this is an explanation not a hand-weaving.
mircea_popescu: the 2nd was decided on "whether it
trades or doesn't
trade" not on whether it's 0 or isn't 0.
Neil_: OK,
then consistency please. Either price is zero or it isn't. If zero, market cap is zero. If not, market cap isn't zero. Unless contortious logic is applied.
mircea_popescu: the 1%
theory is also weak, as
the site charges
the same
total no matter who wins.
mircea_popescu: but i
think
the drama
theory is weak. seems going
the other way would have generated more.
Neil_: mircea_popescu: If you can't see
the contradiction in
the resolution of
the
two bets, I can't help you. I've written it off. But IMO it's a black mark against
the neutrality of
the resolutions. I don't know how
they were decided, but IMO
the benefit of drama and 1% fees cannot be ruled out.
mircea_popescu: but anyway,
the
text : "S.DICE on MPEx will
trade at or below .0016 BTC before October 2013."
Neil_: Bet size is irrelevant
to falsehood.
ozbot: BitBet - S.DICE
to hit .0016 or below before October 2013
ozbot: BitBet - BitBet will we worth more
than Satoshi Dice
Neil_: But "SIDE less
than 0.0016" resolved
to false.
mircea_popescu: right. so anything is higher
than 0, so
there yo uhave it.
Neil_: So price should be nil
too.
mircea_popescu: well
the idea is
that undefined variables are nil. if
there's no X
trading on Y,
the correct value for X on Y is 0.
Neil_: Anyway, I lost money from
the decision and cannot be considered unbiased, but IMO it wasn't "right".
Neil_: mircea_popescu: So, returning
to SDICE, I personally saw contradiction in (someone)'s decision
to decide
that while
the market cap of SDICE went
to zero,
the share price didn't. I don't see
this as black-and-white, and
that if you say
the share price didn't go
to zero, it's inconsistent
to claim
the market cap did.
The
third choice of "no meaning" would have been a more reasonable resolution IMO, but of course would have cost BB
mircea_popescu: s.dice used
to be
the bitcoin dice site, but seems justdice stole
that crown
mircea_popescu: looky : s.mpoe is
the bitcoin stock exchange. bitbet is
the bitcoin betting site.
dandate2: they seem
to be both stock in satoshi dice?
dandate2: they look
the same but operated by 2 different people?
frb: you should only gamble for entertainment, not profits. mircea_popescu shouldn't have
to aplogize for your gambling losses
frb: you have no right
to be upset over anything done on a gambling site
mircea_popescu: frb
that's often
the case actually. like with
the josh-zerlan.com bet
frb: or influences
the game in some way
frb: it's a betting site, part of
the risk is
that
the party being betted on makes a bet :|
mircea_popescu: actually 6 months ago sdice closure was completely off
the books.
dandate2: what is
the difference between s.bbet and s.mpoe ?
Neil_: I'm sure you didn't. But
that's not
the point. I believe you like drama, with reason.
mircea_popescu: well if it makes you feel better i didn't have a bet in
there.
Neil_: Yeah
the SDICE vs BBET I lost quite a lot.
Neil_: I didn't like your resolution of
the SDICE issues, which cost me quite some $$$, but I just sucked it up, I don't read it as malice.
Neil_: Personally I, for no really good reason,
trust your attempt at independence. But it's never
the same
thing as real independence.
kakobrekla: irc people seem
to like reading. how strange.
Neil_: Sure. It's fun. But I
think you lose in
the long run.
Neil_: I like
to read, from my POV most people don't like
to be unambiguous, or worse, don't realize
they're being unambiguous.
Neil_: Well I
think you could be more
transparent, and if you lack it, it's
to your detriment not mine. But whatever.
mircea_popescu: and yes. bitcoin is what it is. you either
trust or watch.
Neil_: And like much else in your world, depends on
those deciding
to participate
trusting you.
Neil_: OK, I
think I get it. I assume your own bets are in your own name and not commingled and in such cases you cannot influence
the decision of
the resolution, and in all other cases "house bets" refers
to
the initial distribution. Which is cool, it's just not clear,
that's all.
mircea_popescu: well,
the people resolving
the bets are not betting. i occasionalyl make bets, but i don't
think
theres
to date been an actually contentious one.
mircea_popescu: in principle it could split 101/102 or some shit, as unlikely as
that may be. in which case 101 would go
to proposer. but in no case wil lproposer be assigned more
than half
the house bet.
Neil_: I assume
that your "ethics"
then are preventing you from punting for
the house?
The only reason for my question is
the vagueness of
the word "house bets" without further explanation.
Neil_: OK cool, glad we're on
the same boat. I worried for a while.
mircea_popescu: sometimes it splits 5/6 in which case 5 goes
to
the proposer
Neil_: Right but it's split so
that 0.06 or higher is house bet, and 0.04 is given
to proposer, from what I've seen at least.
Neil_: So "house bets" is
the gain on
the 0.06 or higher
that
the house bets, less
the 0.04 or lower
that
the house unconditionally loses?
mircea_popescu: if
the bet is even
the person makes about half, roughly.
mircea_popescu: if
the bet is a crapshot,
the person usually makes nothing but sometimes makes a bunch.