You don't use Markov Chain Monte Carlo to model data. You use it to optimize finding solutions by reducing the number of samples required, which allows more complex models with less expensive hardware. You still need the rest of the picture to solve for the data........That's like saying catalysts cause chemical reactions.
TFA researchers definitely misused the Markov Chain Monte Carlo model, and I'm happy someone pointed it out.
They "reverse engineered" a statistically significant result. It's not science, no hypothesis was tested but that is exactly how many of these research studies get published.
but I wouldn't call it any "lower" of a viewpoint in the sense that they don't do anything that the other news agencies don't do themselves
it is lower...it started that way and sunk ever since
Fox News is about population control, not informing decision makers in an entertaining way as the 4th Estate in a Social Democracy
you're giving them way too much credit
Now, if you said that CNN is getting so bad it has **devolved** into being almost as ignorant as Fox News I would agree...
but there's a key difference! Both Fox and CNN are below standard...the standard hasn't shifted...quality news will always have essential characteristics (which Fox & increasingly CNN dont exhibit)...no...Fox and CNN have gotten worse!!!!
I'm with you in wanting to combat "groupthink" but I don't think the technology in TFA will do it
First, who 'scores' the viewpoints? how is one organization weighted against another? ex: Fox News should be in the tabloid/nonsense news category but because Fox is kind of 'grandfathered' in as the 4th national network they are considered 'mainstream'
does this mean a person who goes to motherjones.com alot would get Fox News in this system? who determines that?
i would consider Fox News a 'lower' viewpoint...different sure, but not in any value added way....ignorance isn't an "opposing viewpoint"
2nd, is this going to be an "add-on"? Is the goal to get Google, etc to use it by default?
because people would ignore this tech for the same reason they don't bother seeking out differing viewpoints!!!
unless you force it on them the people who need it won't do it!!!
3rd, if forced upon them, people will inevitably train themselves to ignore the 'suggested alternate viewpoint' box just like they train themselves to ignore Google.com's "sponsored results" or tune out a commercial
To me, this is an example of why academics fail in public policy. They look at a problem and see human opposition as something uncategorizable so instead of understanding that **the problem isn't that people don't get opposing viewpoints...the problem is they willfully choose not to listen**
as they say, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't force them to drink"
this is like holding the horse's face in a water fountain
There is a solution for people in your position, they will take a cut though. https://bitpay.com/
I looked at bitpay.com same problem as Mt. Gox...
But yes, I agree that theoretically I could set up a BTC wallet, take BTC orders online then process each of them at the end of the day into my $$$ account via Bitpay
first, you only "solved" one part of the Mt Gox problem...Bitpay still isnt a brick/mortar place I can demand redress for an error.
but to continue...since Bitpay "takes a cut" of each transaction, **i'm actually paying for my customer to use Bitcoin**
Please understand what I just said...the system now makes the vendor pay for the customer's convenience...
That's why if I ever **do** take BTC I'm making my own flat BTC fee or giving the customer a surcharge...which would incite anarchy...which is why i'm not taking BTC at all for now.
why should I have to take a cut in profits so my customer can use BTC???
this is fun...I appreciate that you know how the system works, for real
As for the hidden ways Bitcoin can be influenced... can you name some examples?
I just said a bunch, plus other points (what happens after 21,000,000 BTC)...but you can always come up with an academic response that makes your argument at least seem plausible
like this:
Some times miners do solve the next block more or less simultaneously.....The shorter chain then gets discarded, its blocks becoming 'orphaned'. This happens regularly and is expected.
not exactly! it is **expected** to happen regularly...that's the whole point...
you basically admit that my idea would work with enough computing power...in theory...
but whatever...I'm not doing this for posterity anymore as anyone who is still undecided about BTC at this point in the conversation can't be pursuaded by any other evidence
good luck to you...if I had BTC i'd be parlaying that shit...
I know BTC per block mined is "dictated by protocol"
what we don't know is how blocks are chosen
with so many blocks mined, there are several acceptable solutions to start the next block, but they are not rewarded which was found first...they have to match each other another way...
ex: my local fiber ring...from an IT networking perspective I could initiate BTC transactions with myself and get first in line b/c the transmission of the record of my transaction has to go out to the BTC 'core'...if I mine solution numbers for transactions ****AND**** initiate transactions from inside the same fiber ring, I can guarantee my solution number gets picked as the one for the next block, because it's ***closer***
that's just one example...I understand and thank you for your response. I appreciate you acknoledge that hte 21,000,000 BTC limit is arbitrary...what you dont discuss is how things will change as the next "halving" approaches and finally as the last BTC gets mined...then you have infinite inflation unless you allow more BTC to be mined...then it becomes ***another arbitrary choice***
there **are** ways for mystery hands to pull strings behinds the curtains and **no one would know**
I know when you mine you add blocks to the chain....but it is not just "mathematically it is controlled"...it is allocated by a rule...a rule that is not made public or checkable...you are **assuming**
a couple Stanford undergrads could have the abilityo to change how the system finds the next transaction to process...that varies by alot of unsated factors
right...getting technical...but my core critcism still applies...thanks for getting that text btw...its the text from the BTC wiki if I'm not mistaken...something quasi-official.
So, true, **according to this random block of text** with no source...the "reward for solving a block" is automatically adjusted.
We can't verify that, but lets assume it's true.
**how** is it automatically adjusted????
this paragraph was written with assumptions that are no longer true, requiring more explanation.
BTC mining has increased more than anyone anticipated with the +$1,000.00 valuation. That means that when this says,
"Blocks are mined every 10 minutes on average"
That average is completely blown out...(we can't verify this but logically it must be much larger now)
Also, the 'difficulty factory' is arbitrary....2016 blocks is not part of the alleged "automatically adjusted reward for solving blocks" yet it directly affects it.
Again...you presented **no citations or source**...I am trying so I gave the benefit of the doubt...
Still, none of the factors that comprise the "automatically adjusted" part of the block creation are publicly known and are, at any rate, based on a much smaller scale than is at work today.
because you think the exchange rate of BitC against some other currency is too high. Why? Are you SURE about that? Because lots of people were saying the same thing all along, at much lower values. What if BitC doubles in value again? Then you would have been an idiot to exchange it away.
I wanted to address this part specifically b/c there's some important distinctions.
I don't "think" the exchange rate of BTC is "too high"....I know this.
I know because I don't know. What I mean is, the ammount of uncertainty in BTC is much, much higher than in dollars. Uncertainty in every way. From it's relative value to its ability to be exchanged w/o electronics. There is just too much uncertainty.
The **CORE** of that uncertainty is the number of BTC awarded per transaction mined.
That number is set arbitrarily...by unknown actors.
You tacitly acknowledge this, I just want to draw attention to how important this is...you make BTC by mining BTC....when you mine BTC you compete by using an algorythm to find a number for a transaction...the number of BTC awarded to who finds the proper number/transaction is arbitrary.
I'm not saying I wouldn't be messing around w/ BTC if I was like, an independent day trader or wealthy or w/e but that's not really at issue here.
^this is how I actually feel. I'm using strong language b/c it seems this is the miinority view.
I really don't hate BTC. I think the concept is cool. I totally swear I bought 5 BTC back in late 09 when I was in grad school but I have no clue wtf I did w/ my wallet...
I just want to hear some common sense. The world is watching! This is tech if anything is....and we have gotten the behemoth to stop and scratch.
IDK the solution...IMHO maybe we need to pin BTC to the dollar until a major bank accepts it transactionally.
The mining exchange rate is a major problem to all that...its arbitrary. How much BTC does a miner get per found/completed transaction? Who decides that? If you research it the answer is......um.....Mr. Bitcoin?.....it just 'is decided'......
The problem is exchanging Bitcoin for real currency
in theory you don't need to do that often
in theory...
when I only need to pay my bills "in theory" then you might have made a productive statement...
I know **all about** how Bitcoin works, not just how you store it. I have a business that sells online and have considered accepting Bitcoin. I researched it through and through.
**that** combined with my other skills & the fact that I have common sense means that I'm a fool to accept Bitcoin at these exchange rates ***UNLESS I CAN SEE IT PLACED IN MY $$$ BANK ACCOUNT IN REAL TIME***
I typed that all bold b/c you irrational fanbois need to re-read it and think aobut it over and over b/c it is the core of what makes anything have value in this economy.
If a customer buys one of my products, WooCommerce (grumble...) can show me in real time the path of the money to my bank, then I can check my business bank account and see those $$dollars added to my bank account...then i can withraw that cash right at the ATM and buy ****anything****
Until bitcoin can do that it's just a game for hackers...
my point was about how music lovers will always want to compensate **artists**...you get that right?
buying an album new from a chain store is a horrible way to do that...the best thing is to buy straight from the Artist...attending live shows helps...wearing a tshirt...telling friends...all of these count
are you saying you won't do ***any of those things*** for the artist you like?
I love how you took the time to *link* to the comment, but you couldn't just quote the specific words from the post...
**because they don't exist**
that post you linked to...I read it when it was first posted and again now from your link
IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM
If it does, then just quote it...you already took the time to type out a hyperlink...just blockquote where that comment you linked to claims that the Genesis account is litteral truth
in an authoritative tone while using extra keystrokes to emphasize the badly used non-word, it undermines the credibility
Hey I appreciate that you gave a real answer...
I know it doesn't matter but I know that my typing style can be grating, and I have been properly instructed in using the English language in print.
I type this way because I choose to...I do it with intention. You don't have to believe me but I do have a reason....
I'm trying to subvert the typical "point/counterpoint" babble that passes for intelligent conversation these days. People don't communicate...they *react* to words with retorts that are equally pre-determined. It is very much like "newspeak" from the oft-cited '1984'
I make my words a bit grating precisely for that reason. I *want* people to pay attention...I am not making the same point everyone else has made. I **DO** believe we can all agree and move forward and I have had some very interesting conversations this way.
Also, I must note, that if GP was bothered by the fact that I speak with authority making interesting points but do it using text are....welll....
Are we seeing the Zenith of Bitcoin? Is it all downhill from here?
I'm not anti-Bitcoin philosophically, but I have worked in academic level IT & networking so I know what's going on...
The problem is exchanging Bitcoin for real currency...there is no accountability for the value exchange. Mt. Gox? Seriously? How do you even pronounce it? "mount Gox"? "M. T. Gox"? Who do you call if you have a problem? Bank Of America even has a brick and mortar location at least...
These aren't trivial issues.
In order for Bitcoin to work, people have to believe it is a trustworthy place to abstract and store economic value.
People have to **USE** Bitcoin or Bitcoin dies...until you can directly exchange Bitcoin to currency this will just be an elaborate hoax.
I would contend that even a lot of 'music lovers' have opinions based on social perception. They like what is 'cool' and they attempt to be 'cool' in what music they listen to.
no...see, that's the defining characteristic...persuing music b/c you **actually like it** is the thing
don't you get it?
whatever example you can think up, if the person likes the music **because they like how it sounds** then they are **active listeners**
I responded to a post from someone who was claiming that TFA supports the biblical flood.
sigh
I want to say "fuck you asshole" but I wont...
I'll just point out that nowhere did I say that...(see other comments on this thread for a fun definition of 'believe')
I didn't claim that...anyone reading, please understand that it's exactly this kind of crap that causes these discussions to be acrimonous and horribly unhelpful
When we act like GrumpySteen it makes us just as bad as young-earth creationists on the Texas school board
Slashdot Mirror
TFA researchers definitely misused the Markov Chain Monte Carlo model, and I'm happy someone pointed it out.
They "reverse engineered" a statistically significant result. It's not science, no hypothesis was tested but that is exactly how many of these research studies get published.
n/t
it is lower...it started that way and sunk ever since
Fox News is about population control, not informing decision makers in an entertaining way as the 4th Estate in a Social Democracy
you're giving them way too much credit
Now, if you said that CNN is getting so bad it has **devolved** into being almost as ignorant as Fox News I would agree...
but there's a key difference! Both Fox and CNN are below standard...the standard hasn't shifted...quality news will always have essential characteristics (which Fox & increasingly CNN dont exhibit)...no...Fox and CNN have gotten worse!!!!
I'm with you in wanting to combat "groupthink" but I don't think the technology in TFA will do it
First, who 'scores' the viewpoints? how is one organization weighted against another? ex: Fox News should be in the tabloid/nonsense news category but because Fox is kind of 'grandfathered' in as the 4th national network they are considered 'mainstream'
does this mean a person who goes to motherjones.com alot would get Fox News in this system? who determines that?
i would consider Fox News a 'lower' viewpoint...different sure, but not in any value added way....ignorance isn't an "opposing viewpoint"
2nd, is this going to be an "add-on"? Is the goal to get Google, etc to use it by default?
because people would ignore this tech for the same reason they don't bother seeking out differing viewpoints!!!
unless you force it on them the people who need it won't do it!!!
3rd, if forced upon them, people will inevitably train themselves to ignore the 'suggested alternate viewpoint' box just like they train themselves to ignore Google.com's "sponsored results" or tune out a commercial
To me, this is an example of why academics fail in public policy. They look at a problem and see human opposition as something uncategorizable so instead of understanding that **the problem isn't that people don't get opposing viewpoints...the problem is they willfully choose not to listen**
as they say, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't force them to drink"
this is like holding the horse's face in a water fountain
...
I *want* to take BTC...but if I do, it is **not free** for me!
I don't consider the transaction complete until it is $$$dollars$$$ in the bank
That goes for *anything*...you can't run a business with any other notion.
BTC is a wallet is not currency. It becomes currency when it is transfered to legal tender.
I don't have a fiat problem, I have a troll problem
taking BTC for commercial transactions **adds a new fee**
yes fees suck...using BTC makes it worse...
because it adds another fee layer to get to the cash
yes...banks charge ridiculous fees...everyone knows this...
***your solution is to add another processing fee***
the processing fees are the whole problem that BTC was made to solve...now I have to **pay** for the privilidge of accepting the currency???
I looked at bitpay.com same problem as Mt. Gox...
But yes, I agree that theoretically I could set up a BTC wallet, take BTC orders online then process each of them at the end of the day into my $$$ account via Bitpay
first, you only "solved" one part of the Mt Gox problem...Bitpay still isnt a brick/mortar place I can demand redress for an error.
but to continue...since Bitpay "takes a cut" of each transaction, **i'm actually paying for my customer to use Bitcoin**
Please understand what I just said...the system now makes the vendor pay for the customer's convenience...
That's why if I ever **do** take BTC I'm making my own flat BTC fee or giving the customer a surcharge...which would incite anarchy...which is why i'm not taking BTC at all for now.
why should I have to take a cut in profits so my customer can use BTC???
this is fun...I appreciate that you know how the system works, for real
I just said a bunch, plus other points (what happens after 21,000,000 BTC)...but you can always come up with an academic response that makes your argument at least seem plausible
like this:
not exactly! it is **expected** to happen regularly...that's the whole point...
you basically admit that my idea would work with enough computing power...in theory...
but whatever...I'm not doing this for posterity anymore as anyone who is still undecided about BTC at this point in the conversation can't be pursuaded by any other evidence
good luck to you...if I had BTC i'd be parlaying that shit...
I know BTC per block mined is "dictated by protocol"
what we don't know is how blocks are chosen
with so many blocks mined, there are several acceptable solutions to start the next block, but they are not rewarded which was found first...they have to match each other another way...
ex: my local fiber ring...from an IT networking perspective I could initiate BTC transactions with myself and get first in line b/c the transmission of the record of my transaction has to go out to the BTC 'core'...if I mine solution numbers for transactions ****AND**** initiate transactions from inside the same fiber ring, I can guarantee my solution number gets picked as the one for the next block, because it's ***closer***
that's just one example...I understand and thank you for your response. I appreciate you acknoledge that hte 21,000,000 BTC limit is arbitrary...what you dont discuss is how things will change as the next "halving" approaches and finally as the last BTC gets mined...then you have infinite inflation unless you allow more BTC to be mined...then it becomes ***another arbitrary choice***
there **are** ways for mystery hands to pull strings behinds the curtains and **no one would know**
yes...and that is set at 2016 blocks by whom?
I know when you mine you add blocks to the chain....but it is not just "mathematically it is controlled"...it is allocated by a rule...a rule that is not made public or checkable...you are **assuming**
a couple Stanford undergrads could have the abilityo to change how the system finds the next transaction to process...that varies by alot of unsated factors
the block network has arbitrary controls
GP seemed to think they were "grating" enough to take the time to correct my spelling of "alot"
and actually you as well have taken the time to type out a response to something you think is "irrelevant"
if my words didn't get noticed, GP would have never corrected my usage of "alot"
I know what started the thread, it was a guy making a joke about the fact that Y-E nuts would use this to say it proves the Bible true...
I get all that...
That was a joke...that everyone gets...I started a thread talking about mythology and science...
where...the...fuck...did anyone say anything that you're complaining about?
the comment you linked to did not say Genesis was true anywhere...the original GP was a joke...
who said it???
who said Genesis was true, therefore provoking your comment?
right...getting technical...but my core critcism still applies...thanks for getting that text btw...its the text from the BTC wiki if I'm not mistaken...something quasi-official.
So, true, **according to this random block of text** with no source...the "reward for solving a block" is automatically adjusted.
We can't verify that, but lets assume it's true.
**how** is it automatically adjusted????
this paragraph was written with assumptions that are no longer true, requiring more explanation.
BTC mining has increased more than anyone anticipated with the +$1,000.00 valuation. That means that when this says,
"Blocks are mined every 10 minutes on average"
That average is completely blown out...(we can't verify this but logically it must be much larger now)
Also, the 'difficulty factory' is arbitrary....2016 blocks is not part of the alleged "automatically adjusted reward for solving blocks" yet it directly affects it.
Again...you presented **no citations or source**...I am trying so I gave the benefit of the doubt...
Still, none of the factors that comprise the "automatically adjusted" part of the block creation are publicly known and are, at any rate, based on a much smaller scale than is at work today.
bottom line: it's still arbitrary!
hey thanks for the comment...
I wanted to address this part specifically b/c there's some important distinctions.
I don't "think" the exchange rate of BTC is "too high"....I know this.
I know because I don't know. What I mean is, the ammount of uncertainty in BTC is much, much higher than in dollars. Uncertainty in every way. From it's relative value to its ability to be exchanged w/o electronics. There is just too much uncertainty.
The **CORE** of that uncertainty is the number of BTC awarded per transaction mined.
That number is set arbitrarily...by unknown actors.
You tacitly acknowledge this, I just want to draw attention to how important this is...you make BTC by mining BTC....when you mine BTC you compete by using an algorythm to find a number for a transaction...the number of BTC awarded to who finds the proper number/transaction is arbitrary.
I'm not saying I wouldn't be messing around w/ BTC if I was like, an independent day trader or wealthy or w/e but that's not really at issue here.
^this is how I actually feel. I'm using strong language b/c it seems this is the miinority view.
I really don't hate BTC. I think the concept is cool. I totally swear I bought 5 BTC back in late 09 when I was in grad school but I have no clue wtf I did w/ my wallet...
I just want to hear some common sense. The world is watching! This is tech if anything is....and we have gotten the behemoth to stop and scratch.
IDK the solution...IMHO maybe we need to pin BTC to the dollar until a major bank accepts it transactionally.
The mining exchange rate is a major problem to all that...its arbitrary. How much BTC does a miner get per found/completed transaction? Who decides that? If you research it the answer is......um.....Mr. Bitcoin?.....it just 'is decided'......
That's gotta change IMHO
who decides how many BTC you get for mining a transaction?
remember how it halved not too long ago? who made that call? **kind of a big deal**
in theory...
when I only need to pay my bills "in theory" then you might have made a productive statement...
I know **all about** how Bitcoin works, not just how you store it. I have a business that sells online and have considered accepting Bitcoin. I researched it through and through.
**that** combined with my other skills & the fact that I have common sense means that I'm a fool to accept Bitcoin at these exchange rates ***UNLESS I CAN SEE IT PLACED IN MY $$$ BANK ACCOUNT IN REAL TIME***
I typed that all bold b/c you irrational fanbois need to re-read it and think aobut it over and over b/c it is the core of what makes anything have value in this economy.
If a customer buys one of my products, WooCommerce (grumble...) can show me in real time the path of the money to my bank, then I can check my business bank account and see those $$dollars added to my bank account...then i can withraw that cash right at the ATM and buy ****anything****
Until bitcoin can do that it's just a game for hackers...
whats the deal here?
my point was about how music lovers will always want to compensate **artists**...you get that right?
buying an album new from a chain store is a horrible way to do that...the best thing is to buy straight from the Artist...attending live shows helps...wearing a tshirt...telling friends...all of these count
are you saying you won't do ***any of those things*** for the artist you like?
I love how you took the time to *link* to the comment, but you couldn't just quote the specific words from the post...
**because they don't exist**
that post you linked to...I read it when it was first posted and again now from your link
IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM
If it does, then just quote it...you already took the time to type out a hyperlink...just blockquote where that comment you linked to claims that the Genesis account is litteral truth
Lets see it
Hey I appreciate that you gave a real answer...
I know it doesn't matter but I know that my typing style can be grating, and I have been properly instructed in using the English language in print.
I type this way because I choose to...I do it with intention. You don't have to believe me but I do have a reason....
I'm trying to subvert the typical "point/counterpoint" babble that passes for intelligent conversation these days. People don't communicate...they *react* to words with retorts that are equally pre-determined. It is very much like "newspeak" from the oft-cited '1984'
I make my words a bit grating precisely for that reason. I *want* people to pay attention...I am not making the same point everyone else has made. I **DO** believe we can all agree and move forward and I have had some very interesting conversations this way.
Also, I must note, that if GP was bothered by the fact that I speak with authority making interesting points but do it using text are....welll....
why didn't GP just say that???!?!?
Are we seeing the Zenith of Bitcoin? Is it all downhill from here?
I'm not anti-Bitcoin philosophically, but I have worked in academic level IT & networking so I know what's going on...
The problem is exchanging Bitcoin for real currency...there is no accountability for the value exchange. Mt. Gox? Seriously? How do you even pronounce it? "mount Gox"? "M. T. Gox"? Who do you call if you have a problem? Bank Of America even has a brick and mortar location at least...
These aren't trivial issues.
In order for Bitcoin to work, people have to believe it is a trustworthy place to abstract and store economic value.
People have to **USE** Bitcoin or Bitcoin dies...until you can directly exchange Bitcoin to currency this will just be an elaborate hoax.
no...see, that's the defining characteristic...persuing music b/c you **actually like it** is the thing
don't you get it?
whatever example you can think up, if the person likes the music **because they like how it sounds** then they are **active listeners**
that's it...no counterpoint...
sigh
I want to say "fuck you asshole" but I wont...
I'll just point out that nowhere did I say that...(see other comments on this thread for a fun definition of 'believe')
I didn't claim that...anyone reading, please understand that it's exactly this kind of crap that causes these discussions to be acrimonous and horribly unhelpful
When we act like GrumpySteen it makes us just as bad as young-earth creationists on the Texas school board
by your definition I have zero beliefs...
0
none...
I don't "assume" anything is true without evidence
BTW: your definition of "believe" is non-standard and guaranteed to cause confusion in ANY conversation about religion, science, or spirituality...
this is why people get into so many pointeless arguments...stupid "personal" definitions of common terms