995800+ entries in 0.717s
mircea_popescu: just sell
the fucking
tbills and forget govts even exist.
mircea_popescu: anyone still extending credit
to a government
these days is absolutely loony.
Namjies: Can someone explain how
the UN can enforce
taxing billionaires around
the world? >.>
smickles: that
thing
they
thought of after seeing hitler fail?
mircea_popescu: Fox News claims in an exclusive report published
this week
that among
the global
taxes slated
to be considered by
the UN
this year are a 1 percent
tax on billionaires around
the world, a “tiny”
tax on all financial
transactions worldwide and even yet another fee
tacked on
to already heavily-taxed airline
tickets.
jcpham: splish splash i was
taking a bath
smickles: and
that's assuming I have
the correct data
to begin with
smickles: according
to my math, if
the fish is 10, and you repeatedly go after it with a .1 fish, you should lose over
the long haul average
smickles: but you wouldn't expect
to profit if
the odds are a certain way
mircea_popescu: the reason it makes sense
to attack a large fish if you have more money
than his weight is gambler's ruin
smickles: if i've done it right, it makes sense
to attack an 11 or higher fish when you are .1
mircea_popescu: anyway, enemy weight * your chance
to bite it should always be equal
to your own weight.
smickles: self-chance = 1-enemy-chance
tho
smickles: yeah, now
that I have all
the data in
there
mircea_popescu: you realise you can just simplify "chance" out of
that ?
smickles: half
the enemy is
taken as winnings, and 90% of winnings go
to you
mircea_popescu: the odds are 1:101 for B
to win and 100:101 for A
to win.
mircea_popescu: A stands
to gain .5 and
to lose 50, B
to gain 50 and lose .5
mircea_popescu: basically
the way i see it, 100 btc fish A and 1 btc fish B
smickles: kk, one sec, i don't
think i can copypasta
mircea_popescu: can you just quote
the
thing here so i don't have
to make a new fish ?
smickles: and click "click here
to read how
to play"
smickles: mircea_popescu: it varies based on
the given fish weights
smickles: probabilistically, you want
to aim at
the fish which gives you
the least odds of winning, so long as it is large enough compared
to you
smickles: and
the odds of loss in consideration of 50% of your own weight
smickles: consider
the reward of 90% of
the larger fish
to
the odds of loss
smickles: kakobrekla: i
think
that is a good position
to hold
tho
kakobrekla: I would probably play a .5 fish 20
times
tho...
kakobrekla: wait, doesnt
the size of
the fish reflect your odds of winning a battle
smickles: where he said he wanted
to buy
the fish game and make it 0-conf
smickles: kakobrekla:
the question stemmed from my calling him famous
pigeons: yes freemoney owns sealswithclubs and micon is paid as
the pro and
to promote last i heard
mircea_popescu: support : we are sorry but we are out of cash
today and it was a holiday in japan.
smickles: Ok, well, i'm asking
them if
they are related now :)
mircea_popescu: smickles i don't know
that he isn't, which is whuy im asking.
smickles: mircea_popescu: oh? i
thought fremoney was significantly involved
mircea_popescu: you're
the goatse ? i fed you earlier a little. like
the idea.
smickles: iirc, it's
the most active online bitcoin poker site
mircea_popescu: why buy
them out ? "very low barrier
to entry" "anyone could make a game"
gribble: BTCUSD
ticker | Best bid: 12.26859, Best ask: 12.30000, Bid-ask spread: 0.03141, Last
trade: 12.31000, 24 hour volume: 60247.09652593, 24 hour low: 11.67000, 24 hour high: 12.43000, 24 hour vwap: 12.08073
smickles: we'll see, did you actually point your article out
to him?
mircea_popescu: i'm curious if
the biggest fish guy makes
the changes proposed.
mircea_popescu: smickles what's worth mentioning is
that mpoe actually existed one week before bitcoinica.
pigeons: well at
the very least,
they both stopped paying
pigeons: mircea_popescu issued cdoish
things invested into such
top rated securites as usagi's issues and patrick harnett
mircea_popescu: it's on
the forum somewhwere, i
think if you search for mpcd it'll pop
thestringpuller: what was
the mpcd series? I am still uninformed, I apologize.
pigeons: EskimoBob defrauded me, he lied
that he owend one share of something usagi had, and usagi
the honaorable said he didn't, so by some way i haven't figured out yet, bob scammed me
mircea_popescu: but
the explanation is quite simple : everyone left.
the only guy left is some schmuck from Ro by
the name of mihai something
mircea_popescu: smickles you wouldn't expect bitcoin magazine
to make sense would you.
smickles: yeah, I didn't look into it far enough
to find out why you were redacted
smickles: lol,
timesink,
that one should be
smickles: I finally got my wife
to stop acting like a drunk person (bringing a whole
tree into
the house)
smickles: and
that's still 30 cents away
smickles: if you
trust icbit,
there are still futures pretty low
smickles: You still expect
the exghange rate
to go apeshit here sooN?
gribble: Estimated
time of bitcoin block reward halving:
Thu Nov 29 02:40:44 2012 UTC |
Time remaining: 6 days, 2 hours, 50 minutes, and 0 seconds.
smickles: I'm actually a little suprised
that sudoghost say my blog,
that page has only had 170 views, and
that's about half as many as
the biggest fish page has had
Namjies: If
the
tidbit was reworded
to "has been accused of", I'd be quite fine with it.
Namjies: But yes, it was not worth
the mention on wikipedia.
Namjies: so I didn't read
the statement as saying Bitcoin was a Ponzi.
Namjies: and I don't rely on someone criticizing something as a Ponzi
to be a proof it is...
jurov: there's
thorretical semantics and
there's practice
jurov: Namjies, yeah, but i wouldn't rely on
that in election campaign, for example :p
Namjies: I would have read it as being a Ponzi if
they said
the owner/administrator admitted it was a ponzi and could link
to articles/investigation/reports/etc quoting/claiming so.
Namjies: "Some people criticize
the US government for not being a democracy" <--
Namjies: It implies
the person who criticize it believes it's a fact/fault
jurov: implication
that can be pretty damning,
too
Namjies: Perfectly valid usage, yet it doesn't prove what you criticize is
true.