cpu architecture - When will dynamic branch prediction be ...

Webbot Antarctica predictions

Regarding webbot, accuracy of reports were declinging because of the sheer volume of propaganda that started to infest the web around Trumps election. Clif High no longer felt it ethical to continue selling reports as it was basically pure guesswork at this point.
However, many temporal markers from 3-4 year old reports are confirmed hits now(pedo bankers, bitcoin values, UK royals pedo scandal, china riots), this year, meaning the timeline was off by about 2 years from his estimate.
At this rate the predicted Antarctica events might happen in 2020-2021, as well as the Vatican raid, BTC to 100k $, and new energy source prediction.
The silver to 600$ prediction turned out to be the silver of cryptos, aka Litecoin, which did go to 600$ making many people very rich indeed.
Time will tell, but the number of correct predictions this year, in some cases 5-6 years after the prediction, does give me hope this sub might get the information we crave.
Edit with old post of mine giving a synopsis of the Webbot Antarctica predictions:
"The ALTA reports are destilled summaries in changes of pretty much the sum total of english language written openly on the web. Bot's trawl the web and look for trends in how humans choose their words. The idea behind the technology originated when the programmer Cliff High read about experiments at PEAR: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/science/10princeton.html
These experiments showed that a group of people shown a random stream of images would react in advance if the next picture in the reel was of a highly emotional nature, sex, torture, death and loss etc.
To give an example of how this works: If asked to describe the pictures free flow style they might describe a red apple somewhat strangely as a bloody apple, if the next picture in the stream was of for instance a bloody corpse, or a lovely rock, if the next picture was a mother and child showing affection. So, the assumption behind the technology is that people tend to subconsciously choose words that reflect FUTURE emotional states.
The bots are programmed to pick up such emotional words and the words associated with them and track changes in them. The bigger the impact of an event on human emotions, the longer in advance our language will reflect that future state.
And one of the biggest, longest standing sets of changes picked up by the bots... Concerns Antarctica.
Can sum up my perception of what the bots are saying for you all since I've read every webbot report and paid attention to this Antarctica stuff in them since early 2K. I will try to use as much of the actual web-bot source language as possible in writing this, so you guys can look for these phrases and words in the news in the future.
There's an ancient civilization under the ice. It's human, not alien. It's connected to the later Vedic/Indus Valley civilization. The Discovery as it will be called will push human history and civilization much further back in time, possibly as much as 500 000 years(for moderne humans, homo sapiens, not first civilization). They were at least medically and philosophically very advanced. There are also indications that there will be technology found that surpasses our own, but not because it would be beyond our capacity. This tech is "brand new", at an off angle to our own, a "never thought of new branch of science" for our current civilization. Words to describe it include "new electrics(Another major long standing set)" "Creeping electricity" "Time as energy" and "field dynamics".
Note: the same words also describe new technology coming from Mongolia, China, India and specifically new mathematics from Africa and Germany. So, there might be a mix up here where these two events, The Discovery and New Electrics/Math happen in the same timeframe.
We will find actual books presumably written in something like proto-sanskrit and be able to read their own words. Their philosophy will have a profound, deep and long lasting effect on humanity, discribed as giving us back our "self-confidence" and "positivity" just in time for a "challenge" "period of climate change", "economic turmoil", "Earth changes" and "Change" in general.
The new generation will embrace the "mindset" of these ancients in dealing with all this chaos, and launch huge projects to "Clean the ocean", "Cleanse the corrupt", invent "new monetary system" and... "Go to Mars".
Later more evidence of this civilization will be found in Ireland(visual descriptors such as "deep caves exposed by erosion in seaside cliffs" hints to this being an actual "liberary" or at least "store of documents" there is even descriptions of "long, deep stairs behind crumbling wall leads to chamber of books" which might reflect a future video or media published photo series fitting this description). Australia("caves exposed by major earthquake "adjacent to precious metal vein" "mining"), and India("cities under water off coast").
The Discovery will catalyze "major reformations" of several major religions, in particular the Abrahamic ones. Islam and Orthodox Judaism will be the most changed.
The Discovery will be the largest "economic driver" of the early 2020's, as artifacts, technology etc gives rise to something of a "gold rush". People will be so "desperate to see" this with their own eyes that they will "enlist in the military on the off chance that they will be posted to Antarctica".
Also, evidence will be found that ice ages can happen much more quickly than we have previously believed and these people who were possibly the ancestors of all of us(ponder the scientific implications here) were basically "flash frozen" like so many of the frozen mammoths in Siberia found with fresh flowers in their stomachs."
"The reports describe this process like cold air being drawn down from the upper atmosphere, almost at the space boundary. There's also descriptors for snowfall so thick you can't walk through it without collapsing under the weight, not the snow on the ground but the snow still in the air. 40 feet of snow in a single night. Glaciers growing daily until everything is swallowed. Crop failures, herds of animals frozen to solid in hours, starvation, pretty "doom" stuff.
This might reflect actual words from eyewitness reports of the Antarcticans, then translated and published for us to read.
It can also be that we will see this happen ourselves as the bots seems to think we are heading into a new ice age, rather than a warm period. However, due to how the bots work, it might all derive from our future emotional reaction to reading the words of the last men in Antarctica.
There is also sets pointing to the future South pole ice cap moving into the ocean off one side of the continent just like how the North pole works(ie floating sea ice with no land underneath) until the actual continent of Antarctica is ice free and starts "greening". Funny enough, people will see this on Google Earth. Start tracking the ice shelf from year to year people!" "
submitted by rhex1 to AntarcticAnomalies [link] [comments]

Buratino Blockchain Solutions: we have found new solutions to old problems

The market of the mining equipment continues to develop strenuously contrary to adverse conditions on the crypto exchanges. Technologies are constantly improving, increasing growth of mining profitability at the reduction of energy consumption and partly compensating negative dynamics of cryptocurrencies rates. However, it automatically increases the complexity of production of new digital coins that form request for creation of more powerful equipment.
Industry is constantly changing and miners need to be able to understand modern trends of the branch. Let’s discuss market tendencies, new technology solutions capability to affect the efficiency of this business, and how exactly our team is ready to help miners.
Mining market today Lets begin with the general review of the market, with emphasis on forecasts of the authoritative research companies. Analysts of the American consulting company Coherent Market Insights are convinced: in the medium term (5–10 years) mining will be profitable. Demand for the new equipment will remain high even during the crypto -markets depression.
According to the last forecast of the company, by 2025 mining industry will exceed the capitalization level of $16,3 billion. The indicator of cumulative average annual growth rate (CAGR), according to experts, will grow by 18,68% from 2017 to 2025.
At the time of posting, the greatest share of computing capacities has been concentrated in Asia. Experts from other large consulting company Technavio consider that the Pacific Rim will take 51% of the general growth of the industry in 2018–2022. Then the share of the Pacific Rim will be reduced below 50% level.
The cause is a hard governmental line of China in relation to crypto industry. It makes miners migrate to other countries of North and South America and Eastern Europe.
According to the Technavio, 33% of the market is now in the New World, but the share of the USA will grow, forcing out China. Coherent Market Insights experts are solidary with colleagues, and also give the future world leadership to North America.
Improvement of production technologies of cryptocurrencies and increase in productivity of the hardware remains a key tendency of the current market. Along with it large producers of microelectronics, such as Samsung and United Microelectronics Corporation are entering the market as suppliers of hi-tech accessories.
The large manufacturing companies (Bitmain Technologies, BitFury, Advanced Micro Devices, etc.) actively develop ASIC systems with bigger energy efficiency and the increased hashrate coefficients. It is important for providing the more effective mining. However alternation of generations in available lines of the equipment happens slowly that opens opportunities for new players, such as our company.
According to the Coinshares company, hashrate of the only one Bitcoin network grows by 300% annually, the efficiency of chips increases by 80%, and their cost falls on average on 50%. So the profitability of digital coins production grows even in conditions of crypto rate instability with the introduction of new technologies in ASIC-mining . 74% of the mining market is the share of ASIC of all configurations in 2017. It is expected that they will continue to dominate.
The process of improvement of the hardware leads to the growth of volumes of the mined coins. But the more is mined, the quicker the algorithm of generation of new blocks in the network complicates. As a result — miners need capacities to grow.
Escalating levels of complexity become nearly the main factor of mining equipment market growth in the medium term. For example, analysts of Technavio predict the increase in growth rates for 2018 by 9,04%.
Increase in productivity as natural selection To be a successful miner means always to work proactively. Anyone who first manages to use more productive mining systems also remains in a prize or at least in the market.
The Forbes.ru magazine describes how the market of a mining is affected by the generation of more productive machines. All of us remember the last year's agiotage around the first ASIC systems for Dash cryptocurrency. Before it was mined only on video cards and brought the monthly income of $1-1,5 thousand from one farm. New miner (DM11G from iBeLink, Antminer D3 from Bitmain and DR-100 from Pinidea) promised income from $5 thousand from each installation.
Those who the first have managed to connect ASIC to Dash network succeeded the most. Their monthly income has made about $6 thousand, but it was not for a long time. The rapid growth of the number of ASIC devices in the network has provoked the same fast increase in complexity of calculations.
Therefore the payback period of one ASIC system has increased from 3-4 to 12 months. As a result, by the end of 2017, the profitability of Dash mining has decreased almost by 3 times (in comparison with September of the same year). In completion to everything, the Dash rate has fallen off in spring 2018.
Production of cryptocurrency is favorable only to those who quickly reacts to the production of the new hardware. Only being guided by new generation equipment or modernizing old ones it is possible not to lose.
Recent leaders VS perspective beginners BitFury and Bitmain remain recognized leaders in the global market in summer 2018. BitFury generally specializes in providing mining decisions under specific projects. Bitmain, on the contrary, is guided by production and sale of the ready-made mining systems.
Today the market is rather highly consolidated and more than a half of all computing capacities belongs to largest companies. Nevertheless, Coherent Market Insights analysts consider that in the near future deconsolidation of branch due to the appearance of new players is expected.
This segment is also interesting to us. With the support of the community on ICO, we will be able to impose market competition to the acting leaders. Just because present devices have a number of problems which are still not solved by anyone except for us.
Support of the only one cryptocurrency, the impossibility of the partial modification, high noise level, high costs of cooling and a lot of things still. Everything remains unresolved.
We plan to put on the market the multi-mining system of the new generation Papa Carlo. The equipment surpasses competitors in all key indicators: energy efficiency, productivity, customizability, the number of coins, etc.
With our development, it will be not just ASIC anymore, but the first real multi-miner, allowing to get fifteen digital currencies on the most popular algorithms SHA-256 and SCRYPT.
It is difficult to overestimate the potential of such a product. Papa Carlo is capable to take the worthy place in the market of the CIS and the whole world. It is enough to compare our technological product to the acting leader of sales - Antminer s9, to estimate all range of advantages of Papa Carlo.
Compare several key indicators of Papa Carlo and Antminer s9:
hashrate of Papa Carlo – 26 Th/s, Antminer s9 – 13,5 Th/s; Papa Carlo processors – 10 nanometers, Antminer s9 – 16 nanometers; the number of Papa Carlo chips – 210, Antminer s9 – 189; energy efficiency of Papa Carlo – 0,065 J/Gh, Antminer s9 – 0,1 J/Gh; Papa Carlo noise level – 35-45 dB, Antminer s9 – 75-80 dB. Conclusion Papa Carlo is a high-performance equipment which can compete with leaders of the market. Our Buratino Blockchain Solutions company provides its development and service.
The issue of own token will allow attracting the capital for scaling of business and distribution our multi-miner. Everyone who wishes to receive exclusive privileges from the producer at a stage of the closed sales can join our tokensale.
submitted by BuratinoBlockChainSo to u/BuratinoBlockChainSo [link] [comments]

Focus on the vision for Bitcoin, not just its price.

Preamble
The purpose of this post is not to discourage enthusiasm over the recent appreciation of Bitcoin. Everyone here is excited, and rightly so. I’ve put this together because I think people are getting a bit caught up in price mania and losing sight of the bigger picture.
The ideas I’ve pulled together here are pretty condensed as it is, so unfortunately I have no TLDR. I don't claim to have a prophecy to share, or concrete answers to questions about where Bitcoin will go in the future -- nobody does. But that doesn't mean there's nothing to talk about.
I would suggest reading slowly and giving your imagination time to picture or "render" things. There is no other way to grasp Bitcoin.
Final preamble: I know there are people in this sub who are here just for the gains -- they freely admit it, and they laugh at how "true believers" will be left holding the bag when they sell. My hope is that those of you who feel this way will have an open mind. You might see things in a new light, who knows?
Here we go…
The Medium is the Message
In the 1960s, a Canadian professor named Marshall McLuhan became widely known for his thorough analysis of the evolution of communication technologies. His central precept was that communication technologies have dramatic effects on populations regardless of the content they carry at any particular moment. The radio, for example, allowed private microphones to broadcast to widely distributed speakers, which enabled the amplification of private viewpoints on a public scale. This had profound effects on society that played out regardless of what particular messages were carried over particular radio frequencies at particular times.
McLuhan’s famous aphorism, “The Medium is the Message,” is a distillation of this precept. In point form: 1) each new communication technology changes the environment into which it is introduced; and 2) the net effect of a technology over time is both far more interesting and harder to discern than the effect of any particular use of that technology or phase of its development. In other words, it is harder to see the forest for the trees, but seeing the forest is everything.
So: what effect will Bitcoin have on the world over the long run? What is the meaning of Bitcoin?
The Roman Model
To understand where we might be going, we have to first understand how we got to where we are. In the West, our societies are founded on the Classical traditions which were seeded in Ancient Greece and “scaled” so to speak in Ancient Rome. McLuhan had a lot to say about this from a technological point of view:
The development of writing on lightweight media such as papyrus and parchment enabled the externalization of knowledge. Thus, the oral traditions of Ancient Greece were subsumed and replaced by written traditions which were far less lossy and could be refined over time. Writing on lightweight media also enabled the centralized control of vast resources over large distances, which would have been impossible using engraved stone or oral communication. This was perfected by the Romans and thrown into overdrive by Johannes Gutenberg's invention of the printing press around 1450.
In its abstract form, the Roman model takes the form of bureaucracy – hierarchical organization -- and this model has underpinned the structuring of society in the West for the past two thousand years. Look up "org chart" on Google Images if you can't picture one. Our societies are comprised of org charts within org charts within org charts -- try the following searches on Google Images: military org chart, bank org chart, government org chart, university org chart. Everything in our society is centralized, bureaucratized, and nested within the context of the nation state which is run by a central bureaucracy called the government, itself divided into departments within departments, orgs within orgs.
This is not to say that humans didn't organize hierarchically before ancient Rome -- of course they did, as do apes, dogs, chickens, etc. However, in a social hierarchy such as a tribe, there is a scale limit (Dunbar's number, 150) because each member must know his place and his role as well as the places and roles of all other members. The hierarchy lives inside its members' minds and looks more like a swarm than an org chart. Bitcoin is, of course, this type of network, where each node has full knowledge of the state of the network and participates in it voluntarily.
Bureaucracy, on the other hand, is based on the writing down of roles (job descriptions) and makes people interchangeable. There is no limit to scale as long as you map everything out carefully (management). The lifeblood of bureaucracy is the transmission of written forms of information (paper-pushing) from the center to the periphery along defined, linear routes. Each node receives its orders, performs its specialized role, delegates if the role requires it, and then awaits new orders. Privilege and planning are concentrated near the center -- as is risk.
These structures are inherently fragile and collapsible. If you undermine a high-value node as happened in the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the whole edifice collapses. The entire global financial system barely withstood the collapse of a single American bank - it is that fragile.
Each nation's banking system is likewise a matrix of bureaucracies operating as a single, hierarchical supply chain whose product (the national currency) flows outward from a central node (the central bank) through successively less privileged nodes (investment and commercial banks) down to the level of branches and ATMs. At each level of the banking system, additional product is created and loaned out (credit/debt) using the productfrom the level above as a stake (fractional reserve lending). The banking systems are insulated from competition by governments through the decree that taxes must be paid in national currencies. And to keep the currencies moving, everyone is raised from birth to want more and then given the appearance of more through the creation of more by fiat, meaning by arbitrary decree, without any necessary connection to the creation of new wealth. This is inflation: the steady creation of new money to repay debt and keep the show going. It is a Ponzi scheme by design, and it relies the continued "buying-in" of young people in order to survive.
Each national currency has value and utility only by decree and only within that nation's cell in the global mosaic. To move value from one nation to the next requires snaking it through tenuous international pathways, paying entrenched gatekeepers, and exchanging one national currency for another. You have to be somebody to access the banking system. The more somebody you are, the more access you get. It is principally through control of economic access that strong nations bully weaker ones, rich people bully poorer ones. There is tremendous pent up tension in our world as a result. This is where we are.
The Center Cannot Hold
McLuhan predicted that the advent of the electronic age and the emergence of global communication networks would lead to the dissolution of these centralized, bureaucratic structures from the bottom up. He died before the spread of the Internet but described the end result with crystal clarity in his writings. His vision of an interconnected world, which he called the "Global Village," is here now. Every person has the ability to broadcast information to others in their networks over the Internet. If a transmission is perceived as having sufficient value, the receiving people pass it on, and so on. Above a certain threshold of significance, transmissions are repeated by all people to all other people: this is virality and there is nothing that institutions can do to harness or stop it. The Arab Spring for example brought down an array of national governments in a span of months.
Like a rising tide, global communication networks are bringing about an inevitable dissolution of the Roman model all around us: the music industry was upended by Napster; newspapers are being displaced by twitter and blogs; radio stations are being displaced by podcasts; broadcasters are being displaced by Netflix and YouTube; brick-and-mortar stores are being displaced by Amazon and eBay; AirBnb is gobbling up rental supply; traditional transportation services are being displaced by Uber; and now decentralized currencies are coming after centralized ones. Quoting W.B. Yates: “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”
It is important to realize that even though the post-Dot-Com networks like Facebook and eBay were more effective than their institutional predecessors, they are still quite fragile since they are centralized. They can be hacked, compromised, back-doored, subpoenaed, or otherwise shut down. In contrast, a truly decentralized network is perfectly flat and impossible to shut down. The music industry could kill Napster by going after Sean Parker, but it cannot touch BitTorrent. True decentralization, at scale, is one of the principal reasons why Bitcoin is secure: whatever it becomes, it cannot be stopped because there is no center to hold, and nothing to attack.
At this point, I think it makes sense to explain how Bitcoin works, and why it has value. If those questions can't be answered clearly, there's no basis for thinking Bitcoin will disrupt traditional banking. I do, however, think there are very good answers to those questions which I'll try to present below.
Bitcoin and Blockchain
Imagine you live in a pre-historic tribe of ten people. As a group, you need to find a way to keep track of who did what work, and in what quantity. In other words, you need an abstract “work unit” that can be traded for work and held for use in future exchanges. You could use shiny rocks or something else similarly rare, but people would still be able to cheat the system: why do actual work if you can simply go on a hunt in the forest and find new rocks?
One solution is to create a ledger or list that keeps track of how many rocks each person has. If the ledger is the authority on who has what, people would not be able to inflate their balances by introducing new rocks or other work units from outside the system. The problem is, everyone has to trust the keeper of the ledger. If only one entity maintains the ledger, they ultimately control how much money everyone has (banks).
Decentralization is the solution to this problem. You can write down ten copies of the ledger and distribute a copy to each person in the tribe. At the end of the day, everyone could cross-check the transactions that took place with everyone else and a consensus could be formed about who has what without appealing to a central authority.
Eventually, the people might realize that the rocks themselves are unnecessary, and that it is actually the ledger that is important. The rocks, like all currencies, are meant to track work. If a ledger is already doing that, the rocks themselves become extraneous. The actual units of currency are the work units on the ledger. And if everyone agrees to use the same ledger, its work units have value.
The blockchain is that ledger and Bitcoin is its work unit.
Proof of Work
In the illustration above we can see that the utility of a blockchain is that it enables distributed peers to prove to each other that they have done work, and to trade their work units freely without appealing to a trusted intermediary. The obvious next question is: what proof do we have that we can trust the Bitcoin blockchain?
Bitcoin mining is based on a Proof of Work consensus mechanism. To put this as simply as I can, each and every mining node on the network is competing against the rest of the network to generate a small piece of data that proves it has performed an enormous number of computer operations using a batch of new, valid transactions as an input. The amount of work that it takes to successfully mine Bitcoin is dictated by how much computer power has voluntarily joined the mining network - and this is adjusted dynamically as miners enter and leave the network. Each operation requires a tiny bit of electricity since a computer must perform it, so as the difficulty of the Proof of Work operation scales, so too does the cost of generating it.
As of writing, the Bitcoin network is collectively performing about 8,250,000,000,000,000,000 operations per second, and it takes an average of about ten minutes worth of this grind for a single node on the network to successfully produce an acceptable proof of work and add a block of transactions to the blockchain. The winning node is awarded new Bitcoin by including a transaction in its block that credits its own wallet -- now we understand mining.
So you want to be a Bitcoin miner? Let's say you have a powerful gaming computer that can perform about 100,000 Bitcoin computer operations per second (a realistic amount by the way). It would have roughly a 1 in 82.5 quintillion chance of mining a block if you were to enter it into the mining race today. If you had a stack of 1000 of these gaming computers your odds of mining a block would improve to roughly 1 in 82.5 quadrillion. A million of them? 1 in 82.5 billion. Etc. Miners use specialize hardware to perform the computer operations, but the point still stands: it takes a staggering amount of computer power and thus a staggering amount of electricity to "get a word in" on the Bitcoin blockchain.
But let's say you get lucky and are able to generate a proof of work. That proof of work will be tied inexorably to whatever batch of transactions you are trying to add to the blockchain since those transactions were part of the input of the computer operation. Your transactions must be valid or else the rest of the network would reject your work. You wouldn’t be able to double-spend, create Bitcoin by fiat, or spend from balances that you don’t have the keys for. The network would reject your block.
The larger and more distributed the mining network is, the more cost-prohibitive it is to compromise it. In other words: the more people you have checking the ledger from different nations and backgrounds, the harder it is to override the distributed, international consensus. And that is why the Bitcoin blockchain can be trusted. It is audited by the largest computer network ever assembled and requires that an attacker control at least 51% of the network on a sustained basis.
The Open Blockchain
As more and more people use a blockchain, its units (e.g. Bitcoin) become more valuable. As the price of the base unit increases, it becomes more profitable to mine them at the prevailing level of difficulty, so more miners join the network. As more miners join the network, the level of difficulty increases and thus the robustness and security of the network increases. As the robustness of the network increases, it becomes more secure against attackers, so more users and investors are drawn to it. And so the price of the base unit increases. Which draws in more miners. Etc.
The adoption of a blockchain, like the adoption of any currency, is a virtuous circle -- one that Bitcoin has been nurturing successfully for nine years without any existential catastrophes. Bitcoin's heartbeat, the mining of a new block every ten minutes, has not skipped a single beat in nine years. There has not been a successful double-spend in nine years. There has not been a single accounting error in nine years. No balance has been mysteriously wiped off the blockchain in nine years. This track record has been established despite the fact that the blockchain is not protected by a firewall, or an institution, or shielded in a vault. It is not buried underground, or protected by obfuscation. It is out there in the wild of cyberspace for all to see and attack, secured purely by Proof of Work and sheer scale.
Bitcoin itself is valuable because it is the only work unit that can be included in a block of this particular, special blockchain: the open, global, transnational, borderless, censorship-resistant, permissionless, leaderless, most well-known, longest-running, and most-well-capitalized blockchain (credit to andreasma for this and many other insights). Because work units on this blockchain are scarce (per the 21-million cap), having the ability to sign for transfers of Bitcoin on the blockchain is a form of real control over scarce resources.
This is the pivotal point: to the degree that people around the world adopt and learn to trust the Bitcoin blockchain, its work units will have value. And it is Bitcoin's openness in particular that makes it the prime candidate for filling this role. Any computer on the planet can join the mining swarm at any time, just as anyone can join the network as a user, at any time, from any location. Even the Bitcoin development community is open-source and open to new developers provided they can prove their merits.
This is what is meant by The Open Blockchain: the Bitcoin blockchain is accessible everywhere and is open to anyone. It is welcoming. It enables people from different cells in the global mosaic to transact point-to-point, without snaking value through complicated interbank networks, without paying entrenched gatekeepers and intermediaries, and without having to convert from one currency to the next. If a country experiences a currency crisis, Bitcoin is a very real option because it enables people to transfer value out of hot spots and convert it into other currencies. The international monetary system is no match for this technology. Private blockchains are no match either.
Bitcoin’s Monetary Policy
Bitcoin is commonly referred to as "digital gold" since it is designed to function like a precious metal. The creation of new units follows something like the extraction curve of a natural resource. The issuance of new coins was steep at first but will taper off over time through successive “halvings” of the reward that miners receive for creating new blocks. Eventually, the issuance of new coins will approach an asymptotic limit of 21 million coins.
At each "halving", the rate of inflation is effectively cut in half, though it decreases ever so slightly with each new block. The current rate of inflation is about 4%. At the next halving in 2020, the inflation rate will be about 2%. In 2024, 1%. Etc.
The world has never before had access to a truly deflationary asset. Even currencies considered deflationary such as the Japanese Yen are not truly deflationary: the government can print an infinite amount even though deflation in Japan has inertia. Gold is not deflationary: new gold is mined every year. Bitcoin will eventually become truly deflationary, meaning the supply of available Bitcoins will contract year over year consistently. How is this possible, if there is no provision to destroy coins in the protocol?
There is guaranteed to be a year sometime in the future where more coins are lost due to people losing their keys than new coins are created. It will happen. As the miner reward decreases, years like this will become more common. In the distant future, decades will go by where every year is deflationary, and eventually it will be practically impossible for the supply of Bitcoin to not decrease in a given year.
Here is Bitcoin’s golden proposition: because it the first truly deflationary asset, it does not require interest payments or a never-ending influx of greater fools in order to provide a “yield” over the very long run. In the distant future, Bitcoin will have a low but predictable intrinsic expected return approximating its rate of deflation, as long as it remains secure.
When you combine Bitcoin's monetary policy with its robustness through distributed Proof of Work on a planetary scale, you end up with the basis for a global reserve asset more effective than anything else humans have ever had a chance to work with, including gold. Gold is modestly inflationary, it cannot be transmitted over a network, and it must be centrally secured and accounted for. Bitcoin has already obsolesced gold as a reserve technology, let alone Ponzi currencies like the dollar - most just don't know it yet. As people come to really understand Bitcoin’s monetary policy, they will flock to it as a safe haven, especially in troubled economies. If we have another 2008, Bitcoin will be very much in play.
Bitcoin as Money
People argue that Bitcoin's deflationary policy, high fees, and volatility make it ineffective as a medium of exchange. If you can expect a Bitcoin to be more valuable next year, why spend it this year? If it costs $20 in fees to buy a $3 coffee, who will use or accept it? If its value can double in a day, who will set prices in terms of Bitcoin exclusively? The truth is, Bitcoin is not yet ready for mass adoption as a day to day currency or unit of account. Anyone who tells you otherwise is getting ahead of the technology -- but this is temporary.
Just as the early Internet could only handle the transfer of simple text-based content but eventually scaled to allow everyone to stream 4k at the same time, so too Bitcoin will scale. The Lightning Network shows promise in this regard. It will enable and incentivize users to stake their Bitcoin on a second layer where payments are negotiated in a trustless manner between parties, instantly, and merely settled periodically on the blockchain. But even with today’s block congestion and high fees, Bitcoin is already cheaper and more efficient for large transfers of value than the banking system, especially internationally. People transfer hundreds of millions of dollars on the blockchain, securely, today.
Regarding volatility, we are still in the very early phases of adoption. Something like 10-20 million people own Bitcoin worldwide. Because the supply of Bitcoin cannot inflate to accommodate increased adoption, prices will continue to escalate in logarithmic fits and starts as adoption ramps up exponentially. Look up "adoption curve" on Google. We are still in the very early phases of the ramp-up, but eventually the curve will taper off and approach something like stability. We do not know how this will play out or how long it will take, and there will be serious volatility along the way; but if Bitcoin scales into a robust transnational currency trading on thousands or tens of thousands of exchanges worldwide, it will likely become more stable than most national currencies if not all.
Regarding deflation: over time, we will likely see new innovative uses of Bitcoin as a reserve for credit creation. People are clearly willing to operate in systems that use reserve-based lending, and they can work wonderfully: look at what humans accomplished in the 20th century! It is conceivable that Bitcoin could be used as a reserve for distributed, trustless, bank-like networks that issue their own tokens. We may end up using a modestly-inflationary cryptocurrency for day-to-day transactions and investment. There’s no way to know what people will come up with, but they will come up with things. And that is why Bitcoin must stay laser-focused on its role as the de facto reserve currency in the crypto-economy.
A Vision Statement for Bitcoin
Tying everything together: over the course of thousands of years, we have built our societies around the use of hierarchical principles of organization. These structures centralize control and privilege, but also risk. They are fragile. Too big to fail.
The invention and proliferation of the Internet paved the way for the dissolution of these structures, and over the past twenty years we have seen countless examples of entrenched institutions being wiped out by flatter, more effective networks.
Now we are seeing the early evolution of global, distributed, cryptographic value storage and transfer networks which will slowly displace traditional banking systems by offering faster, cheaper, more reliable routes, with better systemic risk profiles, infinitely better security, no access controls, and no entrenched monopolistic privileges over money creation.
Bitcoin was the first mover in this space and remains the incumbent. It is a global, secure, consensus-based currency that was bootstrapped from the ground up by ordinary people volunteering to participate in its development, mining, and use. It has grown exponentially in size since its inception, to the point where it is now upheld by the largest dedicated computer network in the world. Because it is secured principally by its unmatched scale, it is therefore the most secure accounting system in the world, which in turn makes the entries in its ledger the most trustworthy on the planet. If you can sign for a Bitcoin in the network’s eyes, you own it -- and nobody can stop you from owning it or signing for it.
Bitcoin is here, now. It is in the air all around us, accessible over wifi and cellular networks around the globe -- anywhere the Internet touches. The next time you walk down the street, look at the people around you. As they move through the air, displacing it with their bodies, recognize that they are literally wading through the Bitcoin network -- they just don't know it yet.
Suggestions for New People
1) Focus first and foremost on the vision and take an interest in the technology. I have a friend who is talking about putting $20k into Bitcoin, yet only a few nights ago he didn't know that Bitcoin isn't a company, or that a block isn't a single transaction. I have another friend who owns a whole Bitcoin but has never initiated a transaction. A co-worker of mine just bought $100 worth of Bitcoin but doesn't know that a wallet is key management software.
2) Bitcoin is an experiment with no precedent. Nobody knows if it will survive, what it will evolve into, or how it will be used. Even with its long-running track record, nobody can say with prophetic certainty that it won't suffer a catastrophic failure of some kind, so put only as much money into Bitcoin as you can afford to lose. I would offer the following as a good rule of thumb: if you have a negative net worth (meaning your debts exceed your assets) be very cautious with Bitcoin, and at the very least do not increase your debt to buy Bitcoin. If you have a positive net worth, do not go negative to buy Bitcoin. Having said all this, do keep in mind that any currency can suffer a catastrophic failure, including the US Dollar. Remember 2008. Don’t fall for illusions of security. We are all sailing in little boats on a big sea. Diversify.
3) If you believe in Bitcoin, try not to obsess over the value of Bitcoin in fiat terms, as tempting as it is. Try to conceptualize its value on the basis of its potential utility in emerging decentralized networks and look for ways to use it in these new emerging ecosystems. Look up OpenBazaar for example - it could be the new eBay without an eBay acting as an intermediary. I strongly believe that owning Bitcoin is exciting because it sets you up to have a stake in this emerging ecosystem. If your aim is to eventually get your value out of Bitcoin in the form of fiat, you’ll be giving up that stake. If you don't care about having a stake and are here just for the gains, that's perfectly fine too.
4) Learn how to take possession of your private keys. If you don't know what that means or how to do it, learn what it means and how to do it. Until you can say with confidence "I alone own my private keys", you do not actually own Bitcoin and you do not have a stake. Someone else owns it for you. It took me two years of owning Bitcoin before I actually clued in and took control of my own, and that is what forced me to take on the Bitcoin learning curve. The good news is, you can too.
(Edit: formatting)
submitted by noah6624 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Table] IamA (newly) full time, self-employed professional day trader. AMA!

Verified? (This bot cannot verify AMAs just yet)
Date: 2014-01-19
Link to submission (Has self-text)
Questions Answers
How many hours a day do you work? How many hours a day do you work? - 6.5 actually trading, and probably another 3-4 doing analysis, scanning, finding stocks for the next day, preparation in the morning, etc.
Are you in front if the screen for the whole trading day? Are you in front if the screen for the whole trading day? - Generally, yes. Unless I have a hot morning at which time I just quit and take the day off and go to the beach!
How do you handle being alone for the whole trading day if you are in front of your screen ask day? How do you handle being alone for the whole trading day if you are in front of your screen ask day? - Well, I talk to a lot of other traders on Skype and/or Google chat, and I try to get out of the house and trade in different locations to keep things interesting. It can get lonely, but I have a lot of friends and have no problem inviting people over to chill while I trade and it benefits them too cause a lot of people want to learn it and sitting here w/ someone doing it full time is a really cool and fun way to learn!
What do you use for analyzing your trade history? What do you use for analyzing your trade history? - www.tradervue.com, and lots and lots of Google doc spreadsheets lol.
However by the end I couldn't handle being alone and stuck in my chair all day. Did you have to cope with any of that? I'm curious as after the last 4 years or so where I've been studying and watching, I feel I've got a nice KISS method. I did 2 months of full time paper trading to see how I did. However by the end I couldn't handle being alone and stuck in my chair all day. Did you have to cope with any of that? - Yes it is definitely an adjustment. I worked in IT so I was pretty much glued to a computer all day anyway, so it wasn't AS much of a change for me, but I do read a lot and hear a lot that day traders start to go crazy after a while just from the lonliness/lack of human interaction. That's why I do things like this Reddit, and my courses that are taught via live webinar though. Keeps me from goin nuts and going postal ... on myself!
If I do go part time how do I keep my life balanced so I can watch the trades closely but not be consumed by them? The Importance of Happiness: Link to justanotherinvestingblog.blogspot.com
What's your P&L ? What's your P&L ? - I try to shoot for a $500-1k gain per day and keep my loss days when they do occur to $250-500. Per trade, I try to risk no more than $200-300 depending on market conditions, and during certain markets I will increase or decrease risk if I feel it is worth it. I also have a detailed risk management plan that I use to make sure if I have a string of losses they are cut to $0 within 3-5 days so I can re-evaluate, and if I have a string of wins, risk increases based on my wins so that I can capitalize when I'm on fire and minimize losses when I am in a slump.
What degree do you have ? What degree do you have ? - I have a bachelors in MIS (unrelated to finance, lol)
Are you interested in HFT ? Are you interested in HFT ? - Not really. As an IT geek I do find it fascinating that there are applications that can scalp all day long and consistently make money over the long term, but I just do not believe that in such a dynamic environment that anything like that is really sustainable. It would just be way too much work for me to try to develop something to trade for me, plus it would take all the fun and challenge out of it!
With how much money did you start ? With how much money did you start ? - I originally started investing with only $1k. I swung that very slowly (up and down) while saving from my job(s) up to about $5k. I then injected another $5k of savings and started getting very serious with trading with around $10k. Then I lost about 50% of that in like 2 months (lol). The whole time I worked full time and saved every penny I could until I had saved up enough to open a PDT (pattern day trading) account with $25k and also became fully immersed in trading talking to other traders and taking a few trading courses here and there to tweak my strategy. Now I trade that account (I keep $26.5k in it and build it up as much as I can each month then withdraw back to $26.5k and that is how I get paid) and I have a small $5k account that I use for swing trades and experimental strategies.
Are you interested in working for big firms (GS, JP, City...) Are you interested in working for big firms (GS, JP, City...) - Not really. I have debated it in the past but I think it is just way more satisfying to do it on my own. Also, I don't want to be part of the firms that everyone complains are corrupt/evil/etc. For me it is more fun and exciting to just trade on my own, and it is more rewarding because if I decide I want a raise I just work harder and trade better and boom! I get a raise!
I'm sure you're familiar with the high failure rate of day traders (80%-98% within two years, depending on your source). Not trying to be an ass, but how us your investing method different than the typical day trader? That's actually a very valid question. My method of picking stocks or buying/selling really is not different at all. What is different is that I have the emotional discipline to cut losses quickly and let my winners run. Most traders that fail, and I have seen many come and go even across the very few years I've been doing this, fail because they do not cut losses quickly and they are not good risk managers. I have always been frugal and very cautious with my money, and I am the same when I trade.
I trade very systematically, and analyze everything I do with statistical analysis so I always know the stats between each type of pattern I trade. For example, if you look on my tradervue link in the OP, you'll see tags like IFB (intraday flag break), IBD (intraday breakdown), TTB (triple tap breakout) identifying the patterns I am trading so that I can go back and find all those tags and see how profitable they are, by tag. I also very systematically trade with a 2:1 reward to risk ratio at a minimum, so if I am risking 10 cents on a trade I will always be able to make at least 20, 50 cents for a buck, 1 buck for 2 bucks, etc. It takes a lot of self control to actually cut those losses where they cross that level of risk, but if you can do that there is no reason 98% of people could not be profitable in this profession.
Obviously there are a ton of other factors that go into it, and I am still very new so who knows, maybe I will blow up and go insane and fail and go broke, but for now I'm doing ok, so I can only speak to what I currently know.
BTW, my blog is very reminiscent of my overall strategy and trading philosophy if you want to check it out (it's free). I just recently rolled it from Blogger to Wordpress so some of the links might point back to my old blog but all the info is at both places: Link to www.greenbartrading.com
If you have a consistently-performing strategy, how come you aren't rich yet? Consistency does not equal wealth. I live comfortably on what I make but I am not trading to become rich, really. I trade for a living because I like the freedom it offers me, being able to work for myself and go wherever I want and take my work with me (for example spending more time w/ family/friends, traveling, etc)
To answer your question, I am very new in this game so it would be foolish to assume I should be rich already. My strategy works so that I can pay my bills and have money to spend on the things I like and the things I want to do, but I am still limited to the money I have in my account and the buying power that it gives me. If I had millions of dollars in capital and $20m in buying power, sure I could use similar strategies and probably make $100k a day but it takes a long, long time to build up that kind of power in a trading account.
It is a common misconception in trading that as soon as you have a consistent strategy you will instantly be able to scale it to become super-wealthy. That theory leaves out the obvious aspects of being able to handle the swings in P/L emotionally and especially the issue of liquidity. I can identify a pattern on a chart and say I'm going to buy 100k shares and make $10,000 in 5 minutes, but actually getting filled on that 100k shares is a totally different story. It is much harder to execute strategies like mine when you are playing with huge sizes. That is why I try to rack up small gains with a consistent win rate vs just trying to home-run every trade and get rich quick.
What do you think of companies that are making software for retail investors to engage in HFT when they don't even know anything about coding, etc? I don't know much about that field so I don't want to say too much, but in general I think that like many people in this business they are just out to make a quick buck, by selling something to others who are trying to make a quick buck.
Don't you think its bad advice to tell a beginner to trade on 2:1 margin? Not at all. Margin is only dangerous if you don't know how to use it. If you understand that trading a $5k account on 2:1 margin means you're trading with $10k, but you still need to manage the risk as if you have $5k, you'll be fine. When I first started getting really serious with trading, I actually traded a $10k account with 10:1 margin but I never used more than 2:1 or 3:1 because I just didn't want to risk that much.
The margin is only bad if you let it get out of control. Also, it is impossible to short without margin and shorting is vital if you are going to be consistently profitable in the long term. Most people say shorting is more risky but if you short properly, managing risk with stop losses just like when you go long, then there is absolutely no difference between shorting and longing in terms of risk. I don't generally recommend swing shorting for beginners, only because news releases can make things really ugly, but in general, trading on margin and shorting is fine as long as you are smart about it and you understand it (which is not that hard with a little reading).
Edit: To clarify, most of the risk associated with margin comes when people get greedy. If you have a $10k account with 10:1 margin on it and you dump $100k into a stock and risk $2,000 to make $4,000 sure you could make 40% on your account but you could also lose 20%. It makes much more sense, especially with a small account, to trade w/ a reasonable amount of margin so that you can maximize your gains without destroying your account w/ too much risk. This is also just personal opinion. Whether or not trading on margin is a bad idea really depends on the person. I know people who have 50:1 margin and trade 100% in cash, and people who have like $5k and trade as if they have $100k cash rather than $95k of it being margin, lol. It all depends on your personality and how well you understand the risk you're taking.
"...there is absolutely no difference between shorting and longing in terms of risk." Fair enough. That is true. In my experience though I have only in very, very rare cases seen a stock double in an overnight session unless it was a penny stock or something very thin being pumped. In the stocks I generally trade I almost never see that. While I do see large gaps I don't really trade stuff that tends to gap more than 100%.
You can lose more than 100% of your investment overnight through shorting, which you can not do by going long. Stop losses do not guarantee that you can prevent this from happening - crazy things can happen while the markets are closed. In theory, you are correct though, and it is important to realize that for sure!
While this might be rare, it's still a critical difference that people should be aware of. Edit: BTW, it's worth noting that nothing in the market is guaranteed. I believe that if you trade with the fear of losing 100% on an investment overnight you are, in general, being a bit too paranoid. Yes it happens, and it blows bigtime when/if it does, but it is not common enough to really worry about IMO. Just something to be aware of.
Can you explain what it means to invest on a margin? I understand that it is investing money that you don't currently own, but where is the additional money coming from? Usually the broker. If you lose too much, they will do a margin call, which basically means they can protect themselves by forcing you to sell your positions to protect their money if you're investing with it.
This risk is generally mitigated though. I trade on margin every day but I am still only risking a very small percentage of my capital on each trade. If I were to hold trades for longer term timeframes, I might worry more about margin calls but still, in most situations you are going to be pretty well protected by stop losses unless the stock is making huge moves of 40%, 50%, 100% etc which is not all that common in the names I generally trade. In my experience I have not seen margin calls until people have lost like 70-80-90% of their account values on a single trade already. If you can't cut your losses before that point you probably should not even be trading :)
How do you feel about Fannie and Freddie? Release from conservatorship and skyrocket? Or wind down and loss of shirt for the common shareholder? On Fannie and Freddie I never touch them as they are super thick and riddled with manipulation. There are certain stocks I just do not trade and those are two (FNMA/FMCC)
Ariad Pharma (ARIA) - Thoughts? ARIA is actually another on my ban list. Don't know anything about it fundamentally but statistically I have lost money almost every time I traded it so I just don't anymore.
Zogenix (ZGNX) - Thoughts? ZGNX is a great trader. I actually recently bought 2500 shares at $3.59 average (building on a 500 share swing I held from $3.35 the day before) but like a fool I sold it flat after it didn't immediately take off. I caught the top of that recent GIANT 5m share block buy and it killed my average price so since I did not want to risk $800-1000 on the trade I opted to exit flat when it didn't go right away. I don't really know anything about the company itself but I have traded it several times over the last couple years and it usually behaves pretty predictably, so I like it for day/swing trading.
How much did you start with when you began day trading? When I got serious about day trading I started with $10k and traded through a prop firm (as an independent contractor so I was working on my own and only received whatever money I made, no paycheck or boss). I did that because it offered me 10:1 leverage and good trading software (DAS Trader Pro). Once I had the cash built up from that I opened a $25k ameritrade account and now I use that ... I bailed on the prop firm because their software was $125 a month and thinkorsim through TDA is free.
What is your daily routine? Do you spend some time reviewing the daily news before the markets open, do you spend time afterwards reviewing your performance, etc? Yes to both questions. I generally get up around 8:00am EST and do a quick breakfast and shower, maybe go for a run or get outside to do something active. Then I will go through Yahoo Finance inPlay (finance.yahoo.com/mp) and scan for any major news headlines (earnings misses/beats, FDA news, etc). I go through the stockmarketwatch.com premarket section (Link to thestockmarketwatch.com and look at anything that is gapping up or down and use finviz.com to determine why they are gapping. This gives me a bunch of ideas for the day. Also, I usually have a small watchlist prepared from the night before, which is prepared with a scanner I use called StockFetcher (www.stockfetcher.com). I pay 8 bucks a month for that (super cheap actually for how powerful it is!)
Right at 9:30 I am mostly just watching stuff. I seldom trade the first 15 minutes only because it is way too volatile and it is difficult to determine a pattern in only 15 minutes. After 9:45 I will look to see if any of the morning gappers held their gaps and perhaps find a couple trades in those ideas. I also have alerts set at various prices from the night before which will be triggering the whole time giving me ideas.
After the trading day, I usually just shut down and forget about trading for a while and then later at night I go back and upload all my stuff to tradervue.com and put in comments/details about why I took the trade, where I bought/sold, if it was a gain/loss, etc and post it publicly on twittefacebook. This keeps me honest and makes sure I am always on my game.
Also, each morning I am usually watching my open swing trades to make sure there is nothing crazy going on with them and I will usually sell into morning spikes to book profit on those and possibly re-enter later on to add back to my full position size.
Finally, every once in a while (maybe once a month) I will just wipe the slate clean, eliminate my entire watchlist, and build a totally new one just to keep my mind fresh and eliminate any bias I have developed toward individual stocks.
What kind of additional research you conduct when swing trading in comparison to daytrading? I always check to see when earnings are, and make sure that there are no major catalysts coming up (FDA panels, upcoming contract renewals, etc). I also go back on the chart for a year and look at all the major moves (gap ups, gap downs and big spikes/drops in price) and research why they moved, so that I can react quickly if I happen to see something similar happen. For most of my swing trades I don't tend to care much about fundamental stuff (PE Ratio, income, etc) because they are not long-term enough for that stuff to make a difference. I am a 98% technical trader, but definitely do pay attention to fundamental catalysts like earnings and things of the like.
One other thing is I will use sites like tickerspy.com to check the performance of the overall sector, and keep the general market (SPY) in mind as there are good and bad times to swing trade so I don't want to be swinging long when the market is going down and vice versa, in general.
I have an X amount of money I want to invest, but I don't have the slightest idea of how things work in the brokerage world. The "I'm cheap and don't wanna spend any money" (aka me) answer is to hit up investopedia.com. Everything you should need to know to get started is there, you'll just need to find it all yourself. You need to learn (at a minimum) order types, commissions, different types of trading, margin, and risk management. I teach all this stuff in my course and it's super cheap relative to the other crap that's on the market so feel free to hit me up via my website and I will hook you up w/ a discount code if you want. Let me know if you have any other questions!
Also, I don't have time for learning how to be a broker. The salesman-y answer is that you are the perfect candidate for my Fundamentals of Active Trading course. Check it out at my website in the OP.
How about brokers investing my money? How foes that work? How do I find a reliable broker? Funny you should ask that - you are one of many who has asked me that very same question and the short answer is I have no idea, because I don't like anyone else touching my money, lol.
I believe through any retail broker (scottrade, etrade, ameritrade, optionshouse, etc) you can probably get a dedicated licensed broker to invest for you while you do nothing but your returns in that situation are probably going to be minimal after the broker takes their cut and also all the commissions/fees and probably a service fee for the service itself. I really don't know though, so that's something you could ask a local branch or call one of the retail brokers and see if that is a service they offer.
I just have never done it because I always wanted to do things on my own so I understood exactly where my money was going and knew that I wasn't being ripped off.
Hope that helps!
Very good, thanks for your answers and good luck with your trading. Is it bad luck to say good luck to a broker? Lol. I don't know, but I'm not a broker so it doesn't matter! I'm just a lowly day trader, scraping by in my underwear, day by day. lol
I just wanted to tell you that you occupy the job I would hate the most, and thus I have immense respect for you. Thanks Joewith! It is definitely not for the faint of heart. I have had many people tell me I swear at my computer a lot when I'm trading, haha, as if that's going to make a difference. For me it is all about the challenge though. I love the challenge and the fact that if I fuck up it is 100% on me, and I can't blame anyone else!
Question: do you plan to/think you can get rich by doing this, considering the risks involved? To answer your question: It is not my plan but I do believe it is possible. I actually, right now, make less money than I did when I worked full time, but I am a lot happier because I have the freedom to do whatever I want whenever I want. In the future I do anticipate being able to far surpass my old level of income but I don't expect to be filthy rich. I would like to see my business grow to $1m+ within a few years and see annual trading profits in the $250-500k range on average, but I have a long way to go to get there. Before I left my job, my best month was September of 2013 in which I made $19.5k on a $25k account which was pretty awesome, so I know it is possible to do amazing things with this profession if we just work hard and manage our risks well.
What advice can you give to an 18 year old looking to trade? I am going to college next year and I have relatively no expenses, so I'm not afraid to lose a little bit of money. I just put some of my money I have saved into a brokerage account and am just trying to see what I can do with it. First, make sure that you REALLY can afford to lose that money. If you can that's great! The best way to get your feet wet is to just dive right in. Risk management is key. You can learn technical analysis pretty easily and use it to identify support/resistance levels on the chart. Always make sure that your risk is at a maximum, 1/2 your potential reward. This will make sure that if you take 100 trades, you lose $50 50 times and make $100 50 times, you have $2500 in loss against $5,000 in reward or a net profit of $2500 (less commissions).
Basically, do not assume that trading is a get rich quick scheme. If you do you will blow up your account faster than you can blink. Trading is a numbers game. Manage your risk and understand what you're investing in and always have a plan to enter AND exit the trade. If you trade with no plan you are doomed.
It's great you're starting to invest as young as you are. If you're a disciplined, controlled individual you will find this is a fantastic way to make extra money and possibly even make a living. Check out my website and look into the Fundamentals of Active Trading course...it might be perfect for you for right now. Email me from the contact page if you decide you're interested and I'll hook you up w/ a discount code.
Have you tried different apps for trading? Wich one is (for you) The Best? Yep! I use Thinkorswim from TDAmeritrade currently. Here is an analysis of four platforms I have used w/ their pros and cons: Link to www.greenbartrading.com
I have a finance degree and am very interested in transitioning to day trading for myself full time. What do you use for a trading platform? I have been looking into Cobra Trading and others that cater to active traders. I use Thinkorswim through TD Ameritrade. I also have used Lightspeed, Scottrade Elite, and DAS Trader pro. I did an analysis of those four here: Link to www.greenbartrading.com
I haven't heard of Cobra Trading, but I also know Interactive Brokers is very popular for day traders and active traders.
What is your opinion on index funds? I often wonder if day traders actually get higher returns or if their gains are just generally in line with the collective increases in the market. I'm not saying that's true in your case I'm just curious! I use index funds as a guideline for what to do in my day trades and swing trades. Most of the professional, full time and well-managed day traders I know are significantly outperforming the index funds. Personally, I don't know if I am because I have not been doing this professionally long enough to have the data to decide. I would say that most of the traders I know are definitely not inline with the market, but are proportionately in-line. For example, if they generally outperform the market, they will outperform it even more when the market rips, and if they generally underperform the market it will get even worse when the market starts to tank. I personally specialize in high-momentum stocks (stuff that is moving on earnings, news, fundamental catalysts), and many of those stocks simply do not care what the market does. They are going to go up (or down) regardless of the market because the volume and the feagreed/euphoria surrounding the news/catalyst outweighs general market sentiment.
Thanks for your answer. As a side note, are you familiar with day trading cryptocurrencies? I am a long term investospeculator of them myself but think day trading them might be a bit too high risk. I assume you're referring to things like bitcoin. If not, I don't even know what a cryptocurrency is, lol. If so, I don't know anything about trading them nor do I care to. Like you said, they are extremely volatile and way too risky. I stay away from very risky investments like penny stocks and bitcoin and try to trade only things that have decent liquidity, are easy to get into and out of, and that are not going to be too susceptible to manipulation by people with way more money than me.
Yes I mean bitcoin and its similar alternatives e.g. "peercoin". I agree its definitely highly volatile and I'm quite skeptical myself, I do find it quite interesting though. Yeah it is fascinating. I actually have a buddy who recently randomly threw $1k at bitcoin on the news that Congress was planning to make it a real currency (or something like that?) and tripled his money in three hours, haha. Fun stuff, but way too crazy for me.
Do you like showing people your fancy monitor setup when they come over? Haha! Actually, I only have one monitor :) That setup that you see in the link in the main post is all I use. I flip between the trade tab where I actually click buy/sell and the charts tab which has three different charts on it (a daily, a 30 min and a 5 min chart) as needed. Generally, since I am day trading and not investing, I only care about the 5 minute chart for snap decisions. I will look at the 30 min and daily to find ideas and identify support/resistance levels on the chart but when I trade, probably about 75% of my time is spent on the screen you see which can all fit on a 15" laptop!
I do have a 24" external monitor which is usually what I'm using, and occasionally I'll open my laptop to throw up my google chats w/ other traders so I don't have to hit alt+tab 8 million times throughout the day. lol if I did have a fancy monitor setup though, I would definitely show it off!
In trading, KISS principle works best IMO :)
Congrats on making the leap! I'm a slow-motion swing trader by comparison, just a step below Graham-style buy and hold. I'm at the saving up stage until I can start playing weeklies with 5k or so. I thought it funny that your ama appeared close to one about flipping items from thrift stores on eBay, as that's what I do now. My question would be, how often do you rebuild your watch list, and how large do you let it get? I know some traders who've been making a living on maybe 5 different stocks a year for the past decade. I like your thoughts on why you're not branching into options yet- when something works, you don't put it down to go try something else! You said you like to get out of the house sometimes while trading- do you ever have issues with WiFi speeds doing this? Or are your trades loose enough that a couple seconds one way or the other isn't a big deal? I rebuild my watchlist every night and mark stuff that I think is ready the next day. For any given day I usually only have 5-6 stocks that I am watching very closely. The rest are just kind of there as "back of my mind" ideas for later. At the end of the day if something didn't go then I will keep it on the list to stalk for a while and use those items if I run out of ideas during the day, to see if there are any opportunities in stuff I had been watching a couple days earlier. Then I usually wipe the whole thing clean and start over about once a month as it crosses 40-50 symbols because that just gets annoying and too much to manage. Interesting question about the wifi - yeah slippage can be annoying if I don't have a good connection, but I usually account for slippage in my position sizes so that if it slips a few cents it won't break me. If I have a slow connection I will usually scale back my risk and be more selective due to the added risk of disconnections, slippage, etc. That used to happen to me all the time at work: I worked in a lab where I couldn't have my cell phone and I'd be in a trade with no stop loss set (since I didn't want to get wicked out!) and the internet connection would randomly drop and I'd have to run out of the lab to get my phone and put in my stop loss or sell from my phone, lol. It cost me a bunch a couple times, so I started to take that into account when trading.
I also know traders who only trade 1-2 stocks and just know them so well that they can hit them over and over and make money for years. Those are a special breed of trader, IMO, and I would probably get bored out of my mind trading the same symbol every day lol.
Do you find technical analysis to provide reliable indicators of stock movements? I do find technical analysis to be reliable. It is a self fulfilling prophecy in a large way so it doesn't really provide any sound long term strategy but for short term strategy it works great. I use probably 98% technical analysis in my trading. EDIT: To clarify I mean that technical analysis is not a reason to make a long term investment in any one stock or financial instrument. However technical analysis can be used to make consistent short term gains over the long term.
Have you ever traded options, and what is your opinion of them? I've never traded options. I hear they are great for reducing risk and capitalizing with a small account but my philosophy in the market is to do what works until it doesn't work anymore. For me, trading equities has worked well so I'll keep doing that until it doesn't. Maybe someday I will get into options, but I have no plan to do that currently.
I don't know if I've ever heard a trader say it could be boring to only have a couple companies to worry about! That worries me more, having dozens and trying to keep an eye on all of them. Haha it's a personal thing I guess! I guess it could be nice to trade the same company over and over again but I like the excitement of finding new ideas all the time and the challenge of learning about different companies and how they behave in the market. I have even traded some companies that turned out to be total frauds and it's funny to me because I look back and see that almost all my trades in them were shorts and when they finally get crushed I am like HA! I KNEW IT!
I appreciate the ama, I'll be checking out your site. Thanks for the kind words - this AMA is a ton of fun.
Thanks for the detailed reply! I'm looking into trading and learning about options and the thinkorswim platform. Really interesting stuff. Perhaps in 30 years I will lose faith in technical analysis as well. Really though, I am pretty confident because more than I trust technical analysis I trust my risk management skills, and they, not technical analysis or fundamental analysis or economic analysis or anything else, are what ultimately make me my money.
Last updated: 2014-01-23 23:41 UTC
This post was generated by a robot! Send all complaints to epsy.
submitted by tabledresser to tabled [link] [comments]

Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 48, Issue 63 | Damian Gomez | May 11 2015

Damian Gomez on May 11 2015:
Btw How awful that I didn't cite my sources, please exucse me, this is
definitely not my intention sometimes I get too caught up in my own
excitemtnt
1) Martin, J., Alvisi, L., Fast Byzantine Consensus. *IEEE Transactions on
Dependable and Secure Computing. 2006. *3(3) doi: Please see
John-Phillipe Martin and Lorenzo ALvisi
2) https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/191.pdf One_Time Winternitz Signatures.
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:20 PM, <
bitcoin-development-request at lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Send Bitcoin-development mailing list submissions to
bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bitcoin-development-request at lists.sourceforge.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
bitcoin-development-owner at lists.sourceforge.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest..."
Today's Topics:
  1. Re: Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 48, Issue 62 (Damian Gomez)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Damian Gomez <dgomez1092 at gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
Cc:
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 13:20:46 -0700
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 48,
Issue 62
Hllo
I want to build from a conversation that I had w/ Peter (T?) regarding the
increase in block size in the bitcoin from its's current structure would be
the proposasl of an prepend to the hash chain itself that would be the
first DER decoded script in order to verify integrity(trust) within a set
of transactions and the originiator themselves.
It is my belief that the process to begin a new encryption tool using a
variant of the WinterNitz OTS for its existential unforgeability to be the
added signatures with every Wallet transaction in order to provide a
consesnus systemt that takes into accont a personal level of intergrity for
the intention fo a transaction to occur. This signature would then be
hashes for there to be an intermediate proxy state that then verifies and
evaluates the trust fucntion for the receiving trnsactions. This
evaluation loop would itself be a state in which the mining power and the
rewards derived from them would be an increased level of integrity as
provided for the "brainers" of a systems who are then the "signatuers" of
the transaction authenticity, and additiaonally program extranonces of x
bits {72} in order to have a double valid signature that the rest of the
nodes would accept in order to have a valid address from which to be able
to continuously receive transactions.
There is a level of diffculty in obtaining brainers, fees would only apply
uin so much as they are able to create authentic transactions based off the
voting power of the rest of the received nodes. The greater number of
faults within the system from a brainer then the more, so would his
computational power be restricted in order to provide a reward feedback
system. This singularity in a Byzantine consensus is only achieved if the
route of an appropriate transformation occurs, one that is invariant to the
participants of the system, thus being able to provide initial vector
transformations from a person's online identity is the responsibilty that
we have to ensure and calulate a lagrangian method that utilisizes a set of
convolutional neural network funcitons [backpropagation, fuzzy logic] and
and tranformation function taking the vectors of tranformations in a
kahunen-loeve algorithm and using the convergence of a baryon wave function
in order to proceed with a baseline reading of the current level of
integrity in the state today that is an instance of actionable acceleration
within a system.
This is something that I am trying to continue to parse out. Therefore
there are still heavy questions to be answered(the most important being the
consent of the people to measure their own levels of integrity through
mined information)> There must always be the option to disconnect from a
transactional system where payments occur in order to allow a level of
solace and peace within individuals -- withour repercussions and a seperate
system that supports the offline realm as well. (THis is a design problem)
Ultimately, quite literally such a transaction system could exist to
provide detailed analysis that promotes integrity being the basis for
sharing information. The fee structure would be eliminated, due to the
level of integrity and procesing power to have messages and transactions
and reviews of unfiduciary responsible orgnizations be merited as highly
true (.9 in fizzy logic) in order to promote a well-being in the state.
That is its own reward, the strenght of having more processing speed.
FYI(thank you to peter whom nudged my thinking and interest (again) in
this area. )
This is something I am attempting to design in order to program it. Though
I am not an expert and my technology stack is limited to java and c (and my
issues from it). I provided a class the other day the was pseudo code for
the beginning of the consensus. Now I might to now if I am missing any of
teh technical paradigms that might make this illogical? I now with the
advent of 7petabyte computers one could easily store 2.5 petabytes of human
information for just an instance of integrity not to mention otehr
emotions.
*Also, might someone be able to provide a bit of information on Bitcoin
core project?*
thank you again. Damain.
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:29 AM, <
bitcoin-development-request at lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Send Bitcoin-development mailing list submissions to
bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bitcoin-development-request at lists.sourceforge.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
bitcoin-development-owner at lists.sourceforge.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest..."
Today's Topics:
  1. Fwd: Bitcoin core 0.11 planning (Wladimir)
  2. Re: Bitcoin core 0.11 planning (Wladimir)
  3. Long-term mining incentives (Thomas Voegtlin)
  4. Re: Long-term mining incentives
    (insecurity at national.shitposting.agency)
  5. Re: Reducing the block rate instead of increasing the maximum
    block size (Luke Dashjr)
  6. Re: Long-term mining incentives (Gavin Andresen)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Cc:
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 14:49:53 +0000
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Bitcoin core 0.11 planning
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com>
wrote:
As softforks almost certainly require backports to older releases and
other
software anyway, I don't think they should necessarily be bound to
Bitcoin
Core major releases. If they don't require large code changes, we can
easily
do them in minor releases too.
Agree here - there is no need to time consensus changes with a major
release, as they need to be ported back to older releases anyhow.
(I don't really classify them as software features, but properties of
the underlying system that we need to adopt to)
Wladimir
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Cc:
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 15:00:03 +0000
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin core 0.11 planning
A reminder - feature freeze and string freeze is coming up this Friday
the 15th.
Let me know if your pull request is ready to be merged before then,
Wladimir
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan
<laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
The release window for 0.11 is nearing, I'd propose the following
schedule:
2015-05-01 Soft translation string freeze
 Open Transifex translations for 0.11 Finalize and close translation for 0.9 
2015-05-15 Feature freeze, string freeze
2015-06-01 Split off 0.11 branch
 Tag and release 0.11.0rc1 Start merging for 0.12 on master branch 
2015-07-01 Release 0.11.0 final (aim)
In contrast to former releases, which were protracted for months, let's
try to be more strict about the dates. Of course it is always possible for
last-minute critical issues to interfere with the planning. The release
will not be held up for features, though, and anything that will not make
it to 0.11 will be postponed to next release scheduled for end of the year.
Wladimir
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv at electrum.org>
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Cc:
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 18:28:46 +0200
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
The discussion on block size increase has brought some attention to the
other elephant in the room: Long-term mining incentives.
Bitcoin derives its current market value from the assumption that a
stable, steady-state regime will be reached in the future, where miners
have an incentive to keep mining to protect the network. Such a steady
state regime does not exist today, because miners get most of their
reward from the block subsidy, which will progressively be removed.
Thus, today's 3 billion USD question is the following: Will a steady
state regime be reached in the future? Can such a regime exist? What are
the necessary conditions for its existence?
Satoshi's paper suggests that this may be achieved through miner fees.
Quite a few people seem to take this for granted, and are working to
make it happen (developing cpfp and replace-by-fee). This explains part
of the opposition to raising the block size limit; some people would
like to see some fee pressure building up first, in order to get closer
to a regime where miners are incentivised by transaction fees instead of
block subsidy. Indeed, the emergence of a working fee market would be
extremely reassuring for the long-term viability of bitcoin. So, the
thinking goes, by raising the block size limit, we would be postponing a
crucial reality check. We would be buying time, at the expenses of
Bitcoin's decentralization.
OTOH, proponents of a block size increase have a very good point: if the
block size is not raised soon, Bitcoin is going to enter a new, unknown
and potentially harmful regime. In the current regime, almost all
transaction get confirmed quickly, and fee pressure does not exist. Mike
Hearn suggested that, when blocks reach full capacity and users start to
experience confirmation delays and confirmation uncertainty, users will
simply go away and stop using Bitcoin. To me, that outcome sounds very
plausible indeed. Thus, proponents of the block size increase are
conservative; they are trying to preserve the current regime, which is
known to work, instead of letting the network enter uncharted territory.
My problem is that this seems to lacks a vision. If the maximal block
size is increased only to buy time, or because some people think that 7
tps is not enough to compete with VISA, then I guess it would be
healthier to try and develop off-chain infrastructure first, such as the
Lightning network.
OTOH, I also fail to see evidence that a limited block capacity will
lead to a functional fee market, able to sustain a steady state. A
functional market requires well-informed participants who make rational
choices and accept the outcomes of their choices. That is not the case
today, and to believe that it will magically happen because blocks start
to reach full capacity sounds a lot like like wishful thinking.
So here is my question, to both proponents and opponents of a block size
increase: What steady-state regime do you envision for Bitcoin, and what
is is your plan to get there? More specifically, how will the
steady-state regime look like? Will users experience fee pressure and
delays, or will it look more like a scaled up version of what we enjoy
today? Should fee pressure be increased jointly with subsidy decrease,
or as soon as possible, or never? What incentives will exist for miners
once the subsidy is gone? Will miners have an incentive to permanently
fork off the last block and capture its fees? Do you expect Bitcoin to
work because miners are altruistic/selfish/honest/caring?
A clear vision would be welcome.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: insecurity at national.shitposting.agency
To: thomasv at electrum.org
Cc: bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:52:10 +0000
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
On 2015-05-11 16:28, Thomas Voegtlin wrote:
My problem is that this seems to lacks a vision. If the maximal block
size is increased only to buy time, or because some people think that 7
tps is not enough to compete with VISA, then I guess it would be
healthier to try and develop off-chain infrastructure first, such as the
Lightning network.
If your end goal is "compete with VISA" you might as well just give up
and go home right now. There's lots of terrible proposals where people
try to demonstrate that so many hundred thousand transactions a second
are possible if we just make the block size 500GB. In the real world
with physical limits, you literally can not verify more than a few
thousand ECDSA signatures a second on a CPU core. The tradeoff taken
in Bitcoin is that the signatures are pretty small, but they are also
slow to verify on any sort of scale. There's no way competing with a
centralised entity using on-chain transactions is even a sane goal.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
Cc:
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:47:47 +0000
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reducing the block rate instead of
increasing the maximum block size
On Monday, May 11, 2015 7:03:29 AM Sergio Lerner wrote:
  1. It will encourage centralization, because participants of mining
pools will loose more money because of excessive initial block template
latency, which leads to higher stale shares
When a new block is solved, that information needs to propagate
throughout the Bitcoin network up to the mining pool operator nodes,
then a new block header candidate is created, and this header must be
propagated to all the mining pool users, ether by a push or a pull
model. Generally the mining server pushes new work units to the
individual miners. If done other way around, the server would need to
handle a high load of continuous work requests that would be difficult
to distinguish from a DDoS attack. So if the server pushes new block
header candidates to clients, then the problem boils down to increasing
bandwidth of the servers to achieve a tenfold increase in work
distribution. Or distributing the servers geographically to achieve a
lower latency. Propagating blocks does not require additional CPU
resources, so mining pools administrators would need to increase
moderately their investment in the server infrastructure to achieve
lower latency and higher bandwidth, but I guess the investment would be
low.
  1. Latency is what matters here, not bandwidth so much. And latency
reduction
is either expensive or impossible.
  1. Mining pools are mostly run at a loss (with exception to only the most
centralised pools), and have nothing to invest in increasing
infrastructure.
3, It will reduce the security of the network
The security of the network is based on two facts:
A- The miners are incentivized to extend the best chain
B- The probability of a reversal based on a long block competition
decreases as more confirmation blocks are appended.
C- Renting or buying hardware to perform a 51% attack is costly.
A still holds. B holds for the same amount of confirmation blocks, so 6
confirmation blocks in a 10-minute block-chain is approximately
equivalent to 6 confirmation blocks in a 1-minute block-chain.
Only C changes, as renting the hashing power for 6 minutes is ten times
less expensive as renting it for 1 hour. However, there is no shop where
one can find 51% of the hashing power to rent right now, nor probably
will ever be if Bitcoin succeeds. Last, you can still have a 1 hour
confirmation (60 1-minute blocks) if you wish for high-valued payments,
so the security decreases only if participant wish to decrease it.
You're overlooking at least:
  1. The real network has to suffer wasted work as a result of the stale
blocks,
while an attacker does not. If 20% of blocks are stale, the attacker only
needs 40% of the legitimate hashrate to achieve 50%-in-practice.
  1. Since blocks are individually weaker, it becomes cheaper to DoS nodes
with
invalid blocks. (not sure if this is a real concern, but it ought to be
considered and addressed)
  1. Reducing the block propagation time on the average case is good, but
what happen in the worse case?
Most methods proposed to reduce the block propagation delay do it only
on the average case. Any kind of block compression relies on both
parties sharing some previous information. In the worse case it's true
that a miner can create and try to broadcast a block that takes too much
time to verify or bandwidth to transmit. This is currently true on the
Bitcoin network. Nevertheless there is no such incentive for miners,
since they will be shooting on their own foots. Peter Todd has argued
that the best strategy for miners is actually to reach 51% of the
network, but not more. In other words, to exclude the slowest 49%
percent. But this strategy of creating bloated blocks is too risky in
practice, and surely doomed to fail, as network conditions dynamically
change. Also it would be perceived as an attack to the network, and the
miner (if it is a public mining pool) would be probably blacklisted.
One can probably overcome changing network conditions merely by trying to
reach 75% and exclude the slowest 25%. Also, there is no way to identify
or
blacklist miners.
  1. Thousands of SPV wallets running in mobile devices would need to be
upgraded (thanks Mike).
That depends on the current upgrade rate for SPV wallets like Bitcoin
Wallet and BreadWallet. Suppose that the upgrade rate is 80%/year: we
develop the source code for the change now and apply the change in Q2
2016, then most of the nodes will already be upgraded by when the
hardfork takes place. Also a public notice telling people to upgrade in
web pages, bitcointalk, SPV wallets warnings, coindesk, one year in
advance will give plenty of time to SPV wallet users to upgrade.
I agree this shouldn't be a real concern. SPV wallets are also more
likely and
less risky (globally) to be auto-updated.
  1. If there are 10x more blocks, then there are 10x more block headers,
and that increases the amount of bandwidth SPV wallets need to catch up
with the chain
A standard smartphone with average cellular downstream speed downloads
2.6 headers per second (1600 kbits/sec) [3], so if synchronization were
to be done only at night when the phone is connected to the power line,
then it would take 9 minutes to synchronize with 1440 headers/day. If a
person should accept a payment, and the smart-phone is 1 day
out-of-synch, then it takes less time to download all the missing
headers than to wait for a 10-minute one block confirmation. Obviously
all smartphones with 3G have a downstream bandwidth much higher,
averaging 1 Mbps. So the whole synchronization will be done less than a
1-minute block confirmation.
Uh, I think you need to be using at least median speeds. As an example, I
can
only sustain (over 3G) about 40 kbps, with a peak of around 400 kbps. 3G
has
worse range/coverage than 2G. No doubt the average is skewed so high
because
of densely populated areas like San Francisco having 400+ Mbps cellular
data.
It's not reasonable to assume sync only at night: most payments will be
during
the day, on battery - so increased power use must also be considered.
According to CISCO mobile bandwidth connection speed increases 20% every
year.
Only in small densely populated areas of first-world countries.
Luke
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>
To: insecurity at national.shitposting.agency
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 13:29:02 -0400
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
I think long-term the chain will not be secured purely by proof-of-work.
I think when the Bitcoin network was tiny running solely on people's home
computers proof-of-work was the right way to secure the chain, and the only
fair way to both secure the chain and distribute the coins.
See https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/630d4a6c24ac6144482a for some
half-baked thoughts along those lines. I don't think proof-of-work is the
last word in distributed consensus (I also don't think any alternatives are
anywhere near ready to deploy, but they might be in ten years).
I also think it is premature to worry about what will happen in twenty or
thirty years when the block subsidy is insignificant. A lot will happen in
the next twenty years. I could spin a vision of what will secure the chain
in twenty years, but I'd put a low probability on that vision actually
turning out to be correct.
That is why I keep saying Bitcoin is an experiment. But I also believe
that the incentives are correct, and there are a lot of very motivated,
smart, hard-working people who will make it work. When you're talking about
trying to predict what will happen decades from now, I think that is the
best you can (honestly) do.

Gavin Andresen
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150511/8f777233/attachment.html>
original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008096.html
submitted by bitcoin-devlist-bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 48, Issue 62 | Damian Gomez | May 11 2015

Damian Gomez on May 11 2015:
Hllo
I want to build from a conversation that I had w/ Peter (T?) regarding the
increase in block size in the bitcoin from its's current structure would be
the proposasl of an prepend to the hash chain itself that would be the
first DER decoded script in order to verify integrity(trust) within a set
of transactions and the originiator themselves.
It is my belief that the process to begin a new encryption tool using a
variant of the WinterNitz OTS for its existential unforgeability to be the
added signatures with every Wallet transaction in order to provide a
consesnus systemt that takes into accont a personal level of intergrity for
the intention fo a transaction to occur. This signature would then be
hashes for there to be an intermediate proxy state that then verifies and
evaluates the trust fucntion for the receiving trnsactions. This
evaluation loop would itself be a state in which the mining power and the
rewards derived from them would be an increased level of integrity as
provided for the "brainers" of a systems who are then the "signatuers" of
the transaction authenticity, and additiaonally program extranonces of x
bits {72} in order to have a double valid signature that the rest of the
nodes would accept in order to have a valid address from which to be able
to continuously receive transactions.
There is a level of diffculty in obtaining brainers, fees would only apply
uin so much as they are able to create authentic transactions based off the
voting power of the rest of the received nodes. The greater number of
faults within the system from a brainer then the more, so would his
computational power be restricted in order to provide a reward feedback
system. This singularity in a Byzantine consensus is only achieved if the
route of an appropriate transformation occurs, one that is invariant to the
participants of the system, thus being able to provide initial vector
transformations from a person's online identity is the responsibilty that
we have to ensure and calulate a lagrangian method that utilisizes a set of
convolutional neural network funcitons [backpropagation, fuzzy logic] and
and tranformation function taking the vectors of tranformations in a
kahunen-loeve algorithm and using the convergence of a baryon wave function
in order to proceed with a baseline reading of the current level of
integrity in the state today that is an instance of actionable acceleration
within a system.
This is something that I am trying to continue to parse out. Therefore
there are still heavy questions to be answered(the most important being the
consent of the people to measure their own levels of integrity through
mined information)> There must always be the option to disconnect from a
transactional system where payments occur in order to allow a level of
solace and peace within individuals -- withour repercussions and a seperate
system that supports the offline realm as well. (THis is a design problem)
Ultimately, quite literally such a transaction system could exist to
provide detailed analysis that promotes integrity being the basis for
sharing information. The fee structure would be eliminated, due to the
level of integrity and procesing power to have messages and transactions
and reviews of unfiduciary responsible orgnizations be merited as highly
true (.9 in fizzy logic) in order to promote a well-being in the state.
That is its own reward, the strenght of having more processing speed.
FYI(thank you to peter whom nudged my thinking and interest (again) in this
area. )
This is something I am attempting to design in order to program it. Though
I am not an expert and my technology stack is limited to java and c (and my
issues from it). I provided a class the other day the was pseudo code for
the beginning of the consensus. Now I might to now if I am missing any of
teh technical paradigms that might make this illogical? I now with the
advent of 7petabyte computers one could easily store 2.5 petabytes of human
information for just an instance of integrity not to mention otehr
emotions.
*Also, might someone be able to provide a bit of information on Bitcoin
core project?*
thank you again. Damain.
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:29 AM, <
bitcoin-development-request at lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Send Bitcoin-development mailing list submissions to
bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bitcoin-development-request at lists.sourceforge.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
bitcoin-development-owner at lists.sourceforge.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest..."
Today's Topics:
  1. Fwd: Bitcoin core 0.11 planning (Wladimir)
  2. Re: Bitcoin core 0.11 planning (Wladimir)
  3. Long-term mining incentives (Thomas Voegtlin)
  4. Re: Long-term mining incentives
    (insecurity at national.shitposting.agency)
  5. Re: Reducing the block rate instead of increasing the maximum
    block size (Luke Dashjr)
  6. Re: Long-term mining incentives (Gavin Andresen)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Cc:
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 14:49:53 +0000
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Bitcoin core 0.11 planning
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com>
wrote:
As softforks almost certainly require backports to older releases and
other
software anyway, I don't think they should necessarily be bound to
Bitcoin
Core major releases. If they don't require large code changes, we can
easily
do them in minor releases too.
Agree here - there is no need to time consensus changes with a major
release, as they need to be ported back to older releases anyhow.
(I don't really classify them as software features, but properties of
the underlying system that we need to adopt to)
Wladimir
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Cc:
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 15:00:03 +0000
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin core 0.11 planning
A reminder - feature freeze and string freeze is coming up this Friday the
15th.
Let me know if your pull request is ready to be merged before then,
Wladimir
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan
<laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
The release window for 0.11 is nearing, I'd propose the following
schedule:
2015-05-01 Soft translation string freeze
 Open Transifex translations for 0.11 Finalize and close translation for 0.9 
2015-05-15 Feature freeze, string freeze
2015-06-01 Split off 0.11 branch
 Tag and release 0.11.0rc1 Start merging for 0.12 on master branch 
2015-07-01 Release 0.11.0 final (aim)
In contrast to former releases, which were protracted for months, let's
try to be more strict about the dates. Of course it is always possible for
last-minute critical issues to interfere with the planning. The release
will not be held up for features, though, and anything that will not make
it to 0.11 will be postponed to next release scheduled for end of the year.
Wladimir
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv at electrum.org>
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Cc:
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 18:28:46 +0200
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
The discussion on block size increase has brought some attention to the
other elephant in the room: Long-term mining incentives.
Bitcoin derives its current market value from the assumption that a
stable, steady-state regime will be reached in the future, where miners
have an incentive to keep mining to protect the network. Such a steady
state regime does not exist today, because miners get most of their
reward from the block subsidy, which will progressively be removed.
Thus, today's 3 billion USD question is the following: Will a steady
state regime be reached in the future? Can such a regime exist? What are
the necessary conditions for its existence?
Satoshi's paper suggests that this may be achieved through miner fees.
Quite a few people seem to take this for granted, and are working to
make it happen (developing cpfp and replace-by-fee). This explains part
of the opposition to raising the block size limit; some people would
like to see some fee pressure building up first, in order to get closer
to a regime where miners are incentivised by transaction fees instead of
block subsidy. Indeed, the emergence of a working fee market would be
extremely reassuring for the long-term viability of bitcoin. So, the
thinking goes, by raising the block size limit, we would be postponing a
crucial reality check. We would be buying time, at the expenses of
Bitcoin's decentralization.
OTOH, proponents of a block size increase have a very good point: if the
block size is not raised soon, Bitcoin is going to enter a new, unknown
and potentially harmful regime. In the current regime, almost all
transaction get confirmed quickly, and fee pressure does not exist. Mike
Hearn suggested that, when blocks reach full capacity and users start to
experience confirmation delays and confirmation uncertainty, users will
simply go away and stop using Bitcoin. To me, that outcome sounds very
plausible indeed. Thus, proponents of the block size increase are
conservative; they are trying to preserve the current regime, which is
known to work, instead of letting the network enter uncharted territory.
My problem is that this seems to lacks a vision. If the maximal block
size is increased only to buy time, or because some people think that 7
tps is not enough to compete with VISA, then I guess it would be
healthier to try and develop off-chain infrastructure first, such as the
Lightning network.
OTOH, I also fail to see evidence that a limited block capacity will
lead to a functional fee market, able to sustain a steady state. A
functional market requires well-informed participants who make rational
choices and accept the outcomes of their choices. That is not the case
today, and to believe that it will magically happen because blocks start
to reach full capacity sounds a lot like like wishful thinking.
So here is my question, to both proponents and opponents of a block size
increase: What steady-state regime do you envision for Bitcoin, and what
is is your plan to get there? More specifically, how will the
steady-state regime look like? Will users experience fee pressure and
delays, or will it look more like a scaled up version of what we enjoy
today? Should fee pressure be increased jointly with subsidy decrease,
or as soon as possible, or never? What incentives will exist for miners
once the subsidy is gone? Will miners have an incentive to permanently
fork off the last block and capture its fees? Do you expect Bitcoin to
work because miners are altruistic/selfish/honest/caring?
A clear vision would be welcome.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: insecurity at national.shitposting.agency
To: thomasv at electrum.org
Cc: bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:52:10 +0000
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
On 2015-05-11 16:28, Thomas Voegtlin wrote:
My problem is that this seems to lacks a vision. If the maximal block
size is increased only to buy time, or because some people think that 7
tps is not enough to compete with VISA, then I guess it would be
healthier to try and develop off-chain infrastructure first, such as the
Lightning network.
If your end goal is "compete with VISA" you might as well just give up
and go home right now. There's lots of terrible proposals where people
try to demonstrate that so many hundred thousand transactions a second
are possible if we just make the block size 500GB. In the real world
with physical limits, you literally can not verify more than a few
thousand ECDSA signatures a second on a CPU core. The tradeoff taken
in Bitcoin is that the signatures are pretty small, but they are also
slow to verify on any sort of scale. There's no way competing with a
centralised entity using on-chain transactions is even a sane goal.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
Cc:
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:47:47 +0000
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reducing the block rate instead of
increasing the maximum block size
On Monday, May 11, 2015 7:03:29 AM Sergio Lerner wrote:
  1. It will encourage centralization, because participants of mining
pools will loose more money because of excessive initial block template
latency, which leads to higher stale shares
When a new block is solved, that information needs to propagate
throughout the Bitcoin network up to the mining pool operator nodes,
then a new block header candidate is created, and this header must be
propagated to all the mining pool users, ether by a push or a pull
model. Generally the mining server pushes new work units to the
individual miners. If done other way around, the server would need to
handle a high load of continuous work requests that would be difficult
to distinguish from a DDoS attack. So if the server pushes new block
header candidates to clients, then the problem boils down to increasing
bandwidth of the servers to achieve a tenfold increase in work
distribution. Or distributing the servers geographically to achieve a
lower latency. Propagating blocks does not require additional CPU
resources, so mining pools administrators would need to increase
moderately their investment in the server infrastructure to achieve
lower latency and higher bandwidth, but I guess the investment would be
low.
  1. Latency is what matters here, not bandwidth so much. And latency
reduction
is either expensive or impossible.
  1. Mining pools are mostly run at a loss (with exception to only the most
centralised pools), and have nothing to invest in increasing
infrastructure.
3, It will reduce the security of the network
The security of the network is based on two facts:
A- The miners are incentivized to extend the best chain
B- The probability of a reversal based on a long block competition
decreases as more confirmation blocks are appended.
C- Renting or buying hardware to perform a 51% attack is costly.
A still holds. B holds for the same amount of confirmation blocks, so 6
confirmation blocks in a 10-minute block-chain is approximately
equivalent to 6 confirmation blocks in a 1-minute block-chain.
Only C changes, as renting the hashing power for 6 minutes is ten times
less expensive as renting it for 1 hour. However, there is no shop where
one can find 51% of the hashing power to rent right now, nor probably
will ever be if Bitcoin succeeds. Last, you can still have a 1 hour
confirmation (60 1-minute blocks) if you wish for high-valued payments,
so the security decreases only if participant wish to decrease it.
You're overlooking at least:
  1. The real network has to suffer wasted work as a result of the stale
blocks,
while an attacker does not. If 20% of blocks are stale, the attacker only
needs 40% of the legitimate hashrate to achieve 50%-in-practice.
  1. Since blocks are individually weaker, it becomes cheaper to DoS nodes
with
invalid blocks. (not sure if this is a real concern, but it ought to be
considered and addressed)
  1. Reducing the block propagation time on the average case is good, but
what happen in the worse case?
Most methods proposed to reduce the block propagation delay do it only
on the average case. Any kind of block compression relies on both
parties sharing some previous information. In the worse case it's true
that a miner can create and try to broadcast a block that takes too much
time to verify or bandwidth to transmit. This is currently true on the
Bitcoin network. Nevertheless there is no such incentive for miners,
since they will be shooting on their own foots. Peter Todd has argued
that the best strategy for miners is actually to reach 51% of the
network, but not more. In other words, to exclude the slowest 49%
percent. But this strategy of creating bloated blocks is too risky in
practice, and surely doomed to fail, as network conditions dynamically
change. Also it would be perceived as an attack to the network, and the
miner (if it is a public mining pool) would be probably blacklisted.
One can probably overcome changing network conditions merely by trying to
reach 75% and exclude the slowest 25%. Also, there is no way to identify or
blacklist miners.
  1. Thousands of SPV wallets running in mobile devices would need to be
upgraded (thanks Mike).
That depends on the current upgrade rate for SPV wallets like Bitcoin
Wallet and BreadWallet. Suppose that the upgrade rate is 80%/year: we
develop the source code for the change now and apply the change in Q2
2016, then most of the nodes will already be upgraded by when the
hardfork takes place. Also a public notice telling people to upgrade in
web pages, bitcointalk, SPV wallets warnings, coindesk, one year in
advance will give plenty of time to SPV wallet users to upgrade.
I agree this shouldn't be a real concern. SPV wallets are also more likely
and
less risky (globally) to be auto-updated.
  1. If there are 10x more blocks, then there are 10x more block headers,
and that increases the amount of bandwidth SPV wallets need to catch up
with the chain
A standard smartphone with average cellular downstream speed downloads
2.6 headers per second (1600 kbits/sec) [3], so if synchronization were
to be done only at night when the phone is connected to the power line,
then it would take 9 minutes to synchronize with 1440 headers/day. If a
person should accept a payment, and the smart-phone is 1 day
out-of-synch, then it takes less time to download all the missing
headers than to wait for a 10-minute one block confirmation. Obviously
all smartphones with 3G have a downstream bandwidth much higher,
averaging 1 Mbps. So the whole synchronization will be done less than a
1-minute block confirmation.
Uh, I think you need to be using at least median speeds. As an example, I
can
only sustain (over 3G) about 40 kbps, with a peak of around 400 kbps. 3G
has
worse range/coverage than 2G. No doubt the average is skewed so high
because
of densely populated areas like San Francisco having 400+ Mbps cellular
data.
It's not reasonable to assume sync only at night: most payments will be
during
the day, on battery - so increased power use must also be considered.
According to CISCO mobile bandwidth connection speed increases 20% every
year.
Only in small densely populated areas of first-world countries.
Luke
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>
To: insecurity at national.shitposting.agency
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 13:29:02 -0400
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
I think long-term the chain will not be secured purely by proof-of-work. I
think when the Bitcoin network was tiny running solely on people's home
computers proof-of-work was the right way to secure the chain, and the only
fair way to both secure the chain and distribute the coins.
See https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/630d4a6c24ac6144482a for some
half-baked thoughts along those lines. I don't think proof-of-work is the
last word in distributed consensus (I also don't think any alternatives are
anywhere near ready to deploy, but they might be in ten years).
I also think it is premature to worry about what will happen in twenty or
thirty years when the block subsidy is insignificant. A lot will happen in
the next twenty years. I could spin a vision of what will secure the chain
in twenty years, but I'd put a low probability on that vision actually
turning out to be correct.
That is why I keep saying Bitcoin is an experiment. But I also believe
that the incentives are correct, and there are a lot of very motivated,
smart, hard-working people who will make it work. When you're talking about
trying to predict what will happen decades from now, I think that is the
best you can (honestly) do.

Gavin Andresen
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150511/46bc687a/attachment.html>
original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008095.html
submitted by bitcoin-devlist-bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

2 1 9 Tournament Predictors and Branch Prediction Accuracy ... Problems With 1 Bit Predictions - Georgia Tech - HPCA: Part 1 2 Bit Predictor - Georgia Tech - HPCA: Part 1 Branch Prediction (1-bit and 2-bit predictors) - YouTube Dynamic branch prediction - Branch history table - YouTube

Dynamic market that claims to offer the global lead market in liquidity; Low fees (open positions 0.03%, close positions none) Multiple cycles for easy hedging and arbitraging; About OKEX. OKEX is a futures trading exchange recently launched by Chinese bitcoin giant OKCoin. Given a scalar 5-stage pipeline with a branch delay slot (and branch resolution in the decode stage) like the MIPS R2000, branch prediction would have almost no benefit since a branch would usually be resolved before the next instruction address is needed. This simple pipeline also has no support of speculative execution or fetching ahead. (A branch predictor might improve performance for such ... Bitcoin Price Prediction with 16 Machine Learning Algorithms. The datasets are given. To pull tweets use 'TweetsPull' class. In that case you have to authenticate with your twitter account. The workflow is 1.Pull tweets 2.calculate sentiment score 3.use machine learning algorithms to predict bitcoin price change according to sentiment. This project predicts weather the price of bitcoin is ... Index of references to Bitcoin in Global Information Space with daily updates HW 1 Out! January 15th: ISA / Pipelining Review / Branch Prediction. Lecture Slides-3 (ISA) Lecture Slides-4 (Pipelining) Lecture Slides-5 (Branch Prediction/Predication) Appendix A of HP. Skim Appendix C of HP. Chapters 3.1-3.3 of HP. An Analysis of Correlation and Predictability. Dynamic Branch Prediction with Perceptrons. January 22

[index] [13030] [35358] [49310] [40316] [1600] [37018] [16061] [30220] [32914] [31328]

2 1 9 Tournament Predictors and Branch Prediction Accuracy ...

This video covers two simple methods of branch prediction, namely, 1-bit and 2-bit branch prediction. Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. Computer Architecture About this course: In this course, you will learn to design the computer architecture of complex modern microprocessors. Subscribe at: ... Dynamic branch prediction - Branch history table - Duration: 9:07. GATEBOOK Video Lectures 8,522 views. 9:07. 18-740 Computer Architecture - Advanced Branch Prediction - Lecture 5 - Duration: 1 ...

#