I have been a huge Tether skeptic for years. There is almost no chance they are a legitimate operation in my opinion. When they are shutdown BTC/USD will drop, BTC/USDT will go up and USDT/USD will drop.
I don't think the poker world would be happy with us if we did that. Heads-up limit hold'em isn't really played professionally anymore, but six-player no-limit hold'em is very popular.
It depends who you ask. I think it's inevitable that it's released one day. By not releasing you're just delaying it.
All the top high stakes players already have solvers that they've spent a lot of money developing and studying privately. They would definitely be upset with you, but by releasing the code you are democratizing the information to all the midstakes pros who want to study but don't have the resources to pay developers and solve the game privately.
Doesn't that make it a rather poor candidate for a scientific paper? Chest-thumping without data and code is, well, chest-thumping without data and code.
Have you thought about open sourcing the non-AI pieces? It would be great for other researchers so they wouldn’t have to build the poker pieces from scratch
a. Is CFR applicable in single player hidden-information games? (e.g. state is initially hidden, gradually revealed to the agent, but there is not adversary)
b. How much more efficient is the improved search algorithm? the $150 number sounds like a couple of order of magnitudes..
This is falsifiable by any number of cases, but Isaac Haxton spurning PokerStars is probably one of the best examples so others see your comment is not universally applicable.
PokerStars offered to make him - and him alone - whole through sponsorship dollars. Haxton used to be their lead pro and is widely considered one of the very best players in the world.
It could just be for ethical reasons. I think anbop has a good reason even for unethical folks: hitting the best players hard in their wallets will definitely make it harder to recruit them for comparisons that validate these experiments. My prediction is that releasing this software will lead to profitable cheating like what people do with Blackjack at casinos.
As other commenters have said, I do too think you're delaying the inevitable but releasing now would mean you get credited with the first free solution.
I think you're confusing value investing with looking at a simple Price/Book ratio. Value investing is much more than that. One method of fundamental analysis involves making a prediction about ~10 years earnings/cash flows and comparing that to the 10 year risk free rate (usually the US 10 year treasury).
The fundamental analysis models don't fall apart with tech companies, it's just much harder to project revenues for a new, volatile, growing business than an old mostly stagnant or slow growing company.
Buffett structured his bet in a very specific manner to maximize management fees of the other side. His bet was the S&P 500 vs any five funds of funds hedge funds. This is like betting the S&P 500 vs the average return of 20 hedge funds. Of course Buffett is going to be a favorite when the investments are diluted so much and you take into account all the fees on top of fees. I think he would be a dog vs a single hedge fund or five hedge funds.
In aggregate the market is zero sum so if you think 1 or 5 hedge funds would beat the average easily who are the suckers taking the other side of those bets?
The stock market is not zero sum. The people taking the other side of well managed hedge funds are usually poorly managed pension funds/hedge funds, index fund ETFs that blindly buy a bunch of stocks without looking over their financial statements, or dumb public retail investor money.
All securities are held by someone and the total return of the market is the total return of all those securities. For someone to outperform the market he has to hold a mix of securities that outperforms and whoever holds the opposite mix underperforms. Sock market returns are very much zero sum.
>the other side of well managed hedge funds are usually poorly managed pension funds/hedge funds
How do you pick ones from the others?
>index fund ETFs that blindly buy a bunch of stocks without looking over their financial statements
That's the point of those ETFs, replicate the index exactly. If they're replicating the market average then they're doing exactly their jobs.
The fundamentals are at the current price of $17,000/btc bitcoin mining costs are about $14.5B annually(144 blocks of 12.5 btc/block plus ~3.8 btc/block in fees) in electricity expenses due to paying off miners which is about on par with the 8th largest company in the world Facebook. Bitcoin's revenue/year is however much money people feel like FOMOing in + however much tether money bitfinex feels like printing which right now is more than the mining costs. Once this figure changes, the price will decline. For reference, Facebook has ~$24B in revenue/year.
It isn't crazy to imagine crypto becoming adopted for actual transactions. Even if people are currently speculating, they're still downloading wallets they can spend from and loading it up with currency. For all these users there is now nearly zero obstacles to spending. This isn't even to say bitcoin is the transaction layer, but bitcoin still provides liquidity to any alt/2nd layer solution.
The vast majority of novice speculators are using Coinbase. They at least attempt to maintain the appearance of compliance; but I suspect a large market run would wipe them out of USD fairly quickly.
The fact that “experienced” Bitcoin speculators are getting nervous is a sign the bubble is about to pop. Tether volumes are hockey-sticking up as a result. There has been enough technical analysis to show that USDT volume drives BTC price and not the other way around. USDT volume is hockey-sticking over the last few weeks. Feels like a Ponzi scheme and the whales are cashing out.
The price of one bitcoin is arbitrary. $1 is no more crazy than $1 million. It's all crazy. But the question is, what's the supply and what's the demand.
At some point there will be a correction. This velocity can't be maintained forever. But this is also a technology that heavily relies on going viral to become functional (payments/contracts) - and based on real world interactions I think crypto is heading towards an adoption curve that justifies its price.
This is incorrect. Firstly, it's 10 per second. Secondly, it shouldn't be all that hard to imagine "side chains" or even "local-party networks" being built to handle transactions and use the underlying blockchain as a settlement mechanism. This is, as I understand it, how the lightning network works/will work, and I see no reason to think it wouldn't improve Bitcoin's adoption, which is already orders of magnitude better than other cryptos.
>Croman, Kyle; Eyal, Ittay (2016). "On Scaling Decentralized Blockchains" (PDF). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-53357-4_8. Retrieved December 10, 2017. The maximum throughput is the maximum rate at which the blockchain can confirm transactions. Today, Bitcoin’s maximum throughput is 3.3–7 transactions/sec [1].
I’d be interested in seeing evidence that USDT “drives” the USD-BTC exchange rate. I do think it’s a good indicator of sentiment about the exchange rate. Typically it’s within $0.02 of its supposed $1.00 value, but today it reached at least $1.08 and is still at $1.06. That means people are willing to pay a 6% premium just to be able to cash out of BTC today.
This doesn't make sense. Caffeine has a half time of 4 hrs (3-7 according to this source [1] but lets assume 4 for the sake of argument). So if you consume a cup, in 4 hours, you got 50% of caffeine remaining. If you then drink another cup, you go from 0,5 to 1,5 and after 4 more hours you are on 0,75 which is 75% of your first dose. We're then 8 hours in the day. 12 hours into the day you're on 0,375 and at that point you're winding down.
If you'd drink one week a month decaf (assuming you can enjoy the taste. I dislike it) you get caffeine withdrawal the first day, and the other days you don't. But as soon as you start consuming coffee again, you also get withdrawal symptoms because the half time is ~4 hours.
The way I deal with it which is the correct way is limit coffee intake to 2-3 cups a day in the morning/afternoon. None in the evening because it will cause sleep deprivation.
No it doesn't. It's pure nanny statism. The government has no business telling people what they can and can't invest in or spend their money on. Yes startups are risky. So are lots of things. Why should the wealthy have no restrictions on them, but the poor do? This is literally "class warfare".
The government isn't telling people what they can invest in; it's telling companies whether they can take people's money. It's not illegal to hand money to a private company (you will not be charged with a crime); it's illegal to, as the company, accept that money.
Private companies are a very specific kind of company—they're supposed to be a temporary condition, a way for companies to not have to go through the effort of going through disclosure, underwriting, etc. right away, because they're still just two guys in a garage and don't have the resources to do so. Private companies, as a special case, don't get to participate in all the things public (i.e. "normal") companies do. Private companies are to public companies as minors are to adults.
In your phrasing, you could say that government also "tells people what they can and can't" eat, in the form of the FDA. But, just like this case, it should be clear that the FDA never goes after someone for eating a poisoned cucumber; it just goes after the company for selling poisoned cucumbers.
(The DEA, on the other hand, is pure nanny-state-ism.)
Regarding the FDA I don't think the government should be telling me what drugs I can and can't take. Plenty of people are denied from taking early stage drugs because they are not FDA approved and dangerous, but if people are aware of the risks I think they should have every right to take them.
In your poison cucumber example I think this would qualify as knowingly poisoning someone else which is clearly illegal and we do not need the FDA for that. As long as the cucumber is labeled as "poison" I have no problem with people selling them.
The FDA doesn't tell you what drugs you can and cannot take. (That's what the DEA does, and why I don't like them.) The FDA just tells companies what drugs they can and cannot sell in the US. If the DEA didn't exist, and you wanted an early-stage drug, you could just mail-order it from another country where they do sell such drugs, and nobody would stop you from taking it. Or you could get in on an informal "clinical study" of your friend making it in their chem lab, and take it. As long as no money was changing hands, the FDA wouldn't care.
To be clear, the strict purpose of the FDA is to ensure that for things-where-you-can't-easily-tell-what's-in-them, like food or drugs—but which have ingredient labels (or names that serve as common-sense ingredient labels), the thing must actually contain what it's labelled (or common-sense expected) to contain.
The FDA looks for poisoned cucumbers, because the FDA's job is to define "cucumber" and stop people from selling something as a "cucumber" if it's not one.
That's about poisoning; but it's also about high levels of weird things like potassium, that are fine normally but which people don't think of as being in a cucumber and might interact with the drugs some people take. It's also about products that don't contain the right ingredients (i.e. why Cheez Whiz isn't Cheese Whiz.)
And, for drugs, it's about the name mapping to a registered claim of a particular effect, such that manufacturing pills that don't have that effect means you can't call them by the registered name. (Otherwise you could sell "ibuprofen" with 2 nanograms of ibuprofen per cap. The ingredients list wouldn't be a lie, per se; it would still contain ibuprofen.)
First one is an expression of your perspective; the second one is mine.
The FDA's actions do effectively stop you from having any source to buy a poisoned cucumber, or homeopathic ibuprofen, or whatever else, where said source is a US corporation. But only because it's going after those corporations. It doesn't care what you do.
(In a world where the FDA did care about such things, we'd probably have "drug tourism" laws the way we have "sex tourism" laws, where you could be prosecuted for drugs you used while abroad.)
> The FDA deals with how drugs can be marketed, not what people can take.
If that's all it did, the FDA would be an ideal system. However, that's not true; the FDA also deals with which drugs can be marketed. Effectively, the FDA is indirectly preventing citizens from taking experimental drugs, whether they have a terminal illness or not.
> It's not illegal to hand money to a private company (you will not be charged with a crime); it's illegal to, as the company, accept that money
IANAL, but I'm fairly certain it's actually the solicitation part that's illegal. In theory, the company could accept it without an issue if they could prove that they didn't solicit at any point. In practice, there's no way to do that reliably, though.
