Amoveo ♥🧿
6 August 2018
OK
22:52
O K
not USD
22:52
They try to get more BTC at the end of their trades
22:52
not USD
Z
22:52
Zack
I don't see how that matters.
We could measure the price in grams of copper and the math is still all the same.
OK
22:52
O K
Because you want to make changes that impact the price positively, but you are pricing in the wrong currency
22:53
Take the other side, why don't we price in Bolivars?
22:53
Bolivar fuerte
22:53
Saying the price will go up 100% in bolivar fuerte would not tell us very much, would it?
S
22:54
Sebsebzen
Maybe Zack is right but as a math noob I guess I’d misunderstand the bet and it would affect my vote
Z
22:54
Zack
[P(VEO > $300 | we update) - P(VEO > $300 | do not update) ]
[P(VEO > 0.5 Eth | we update) - P(VEO > 0.5 Eth | we do not update ]

There are either both above 0.5 or they are both below 0.5
There is no way one is above and the other below.
22:54
Unless the Eth-USD exchange rate somehow depends on whether we do a hard update.
Which is impossible, since VEO isn't popular enough among either ETH users or USD users.
OK
22:55
O K
In reply to this message
Hmm
S
22:55
Sebsebzen
ELI5 proof bets please
22:55
Haha
OK
22:57
O K
In reply to this message
I think I get it. It only matters in cases where the price is exactly 50
22:57
Thanks for the nuanced explanation
Z
22:57
Zack
In reply to this message
http://bitcoinhivemind.com/papers/3_PM_Applications.pdf
Paul Sztorc probably explains better than me.
22:58
In reply to this message
if the price is exactly 50, then it is a failed market that isn't giving us useful info in either direction.
OK
22:58
O K
In reply to this message
Exactly
22:58
Like if we priced 10% higher in Bolivar Fuerte but everyone knows the inflation rate is in the thousands
22:58
It would not be useful
22:59
How many decimals will the current markets let you input for price?
Z
22:59
Zack
Does it accept decimals? it might only do integers
23:00
Deleted Account
I still don't get why you want to set price as a condition for updates. Any random event can influence price levels
23:00
Deleted Account
Its pretty easy: once the fork happened, the bets are only on the $300 part. Id say more likely to not happen. This is why the bets were matched
Z
23:01
Zack
In reply to this message
We only want updates that positively influence the price.

The price isn't a condition for updates. Our expectation of the change in price due to the update is the condition.
23:01
Deleted Account
Perhaps the bets should have been closed before you announced the intention to fork?
23:01
I think most people agree that the fork is positive for Amoveo
Z
23:01
Zack
In reply to this message
Good point!
This is a limitation of our current design we should think about more.
23:02
Deleted Account
I tried to grab 5 veo for myself yesterday, but couldnt figure out the interface
23:02
I was late for work as a result :)
Z
23:02
Zack
In reply to this message
Announcements of intention are cheap.
Until an update is buried under POW, the community hasn't made a decisionn.
23:03
Deleted Account
Perhaps a different wording could alleviate the issue. Ill think about it
Z
23:03
Zack
In reply to this message
Send me a message next time you try. I can walk you through it.
23:05
Deleted Account
There is also inflation, which is related to emission rates. Demand would have to equal the emission rate for the price to be stable. And only growing adoption will offset inflation. It's also difficult to predict which feature addition will generate more adoption. What am I missing here?
23:06
Deleted Account
I think perhaps any decisions that affect VEO price should not be in markets, or else outside considerations may become more important than the actual question being bet on
23:07
Futarky might not work unfortunately. (Just a thought right now)
Z
23:07
Zack
In reply to this message
yes the price does depend on emission rate and community adoption.
That doesn't make any difference to the accuracy of our futarchy markets because the futarchy markets are only measuring the correlation between the price and whether we do an update.
23:08
In reply to this message
That is a big claim to make without any evidence.
23:08
Deleted Account
@zack i think I got it now. Ill try to get aquainted with betting at a more leisurely pace. Im not a big better though :-/
Z
23:08
Zack
How would an "outside consideration" have any effect on the price of our futarchy markets?
23:08
Deleted Account
Sorry, i know Im borderline trolling here. Give me time to think more...
MF
23:10
Mr Flintstone
looks like @tallakt is going to match all the buys on the market?
23:11
Deleted Account
In reply to this message
Your approach is different from mine, but you have an idea for an experiment. All experiments are useful. This I agree with.
23:14
I'm here because I want to see how a prediction market ecosystem is born. So far it's fascinating 👍
Z
23:24
Zack
In reply to this message
I can use math to show how this isn't a problem.
First review this tautological fact:
P(A) = P(A | X) + P(A | !X)

X = is adoption rate fast.
A = price goes up
B = we do a hard update

Our formula for correlation:
P(A|B) - P(A|!B)

Add in the X factor:
P((P(A|B) - P(A|!B)) | X) + P((P(A|B) - P(A|!B)) | !X)
distributive property of multiplication
= P(P(A|B) | X) - P(P(A|!B)|X) + P(P(A|B)|!X) - P(P(A|!B)|!X)
switch order of the 4 values.
= P(P(A|B)|X) + P(P(A|B)|!X) - ( P(P(A|!B)|X) + P(P(A|!B)|!X))
Now we apply the tautological fact twice. once the the first 2 values, and once to the second 2 values.
= P(A|B) - P(A|!B)

As you can see, the X completely cancels out.
So the rate of adoption does not make any difference to the result of the futarchy market.
[
23:25
[Riki]
Animation
Not included, change data exporting settings to download.
242.2 KB
23:26
Nice
Z
23:28
Zack
Conditional probability algebra is one of my favorite parts of math. I got so much better at texas holdem after learning it.

It is great for making decisions. You can estimate how much a decision will impact your income, you can use data from actuary tables to accurate calculate the risk of your behaviors.
23:30
Deleted Account
The problem is we cant easily state that «price goes up» relative to forking or not?
23:31
I think its natural that the standings in a market of bets change as outside facts evolve and become more certain
23:32
Eg. At the beginning, i would rate the probability of a fork happening as 70%, and price above $300 as 30%. Now i rate them 99% and 10%, based on recent observations
Z
23:33
Zack
In reply to this message
Sure we can. one way is to estimate is to measure the correlation like this:
P(VEO > $300 | we do the upgrade) - P(VEO > $300 | we do not do the upgrade.)

We could combine it with a CFD to precisely measure the change in price depending on whether we upgrade.

Mr Flinstone came up with a clever way to do this where we only modify the oracle question, and don't have to make any new smart contracts.
OK
23:34
O K
In reply to this message
Now that I understand this a little better, maybe it would be good to in the beginning days to have full ELI5 explanations on market pages explaining the math behind different bets
Z
23:34
Zack
P(VEO > ($300 * RAND) | we do the upgrade) - P(VEO > ($300 * RAND) | we do not do the upgrade)

Where RAND is a random value to be decided based on a block's hash after the betting is closed.
23:35
In reply to this message
good idea
23:36
if RAND sets the price uniformly between $200 - $400, then the contract acts like a CFD, so we can use the price in the market to determine the expected change in value of VEO if we do the upgrade.
23:37
I watched some lectures about financial derivatives from some masters degree program. They are on youtube.
The math for financial derivatives can get intense.
23:38
Deleted Account
In reply to this message
Thanks Zack! Now I have to dig into the math 😳👍
23:38
Deleted Account
I believe the rand scheme does not change much, as the distribution will be around some value. Also the users of the market will be more confused. If many people are confused, the accuracy of the prediction is bound to deteriorate
Z
23:40
Zack
In reply to this message
We can build a simple interface on top.
The resulting mechanism is simple for users to understand.
Users don't have to understand the complicated math tricks we use for building simple mechanisms.
23:46
Deleted Account
But is there a big difference between $300 and rand($200..$400)? The mean expected value is still $300
23:49
Once the people in the market consider that someone will probably take some action based on the results of the bet, they will consider how outside conditions change based on the bets, which may be more valuable than the bets/rewards thenselves
23:49
Kind if recursive problem there
23:53
If you stored the $x in a text file, and used the hash in the market question. Then later reveal the text before the oracle resolves, but after the betting ends
Z
23:54
Zack
It is the difference between trading an over/under binary derivative vs trading a CFD.

A market for CFD's has a price that can be used to estimate the price of the underlying asset.
A market for over/under only tells us the odds that the price will cross a threshold.

So CFD's can be used for synthetic assets.
And in the case of futarchy, a CFD can be used to measure exactly how much the value of VEO will change if we do an update.
23:54
Deleted Account
Then you are betting on some unknown value.
Z
23:55
Zack
using randomness is not necessary for CFDs. that is just a cool trick that Mr Flintstone invented so we can use a single oracle question to make CFDs, so we can immediately start using CFDs without having to write a new smart contraact.
23:55
it is much easier to make an oracle than it is to write a smart contract.
23:55
Deleted Account
Also you dont know anything about the range of the value
Z
23:55
Zack
I don't know anything about the range of what value?
23:56
A more precise way of making CFDs is to express a scalar value in binary, and have every bit of the binary be a different oracle question.
Then the smart contract can piece the bits back together to calculate the scalar value.
7 August 2018
MF
00:01
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
Great stuff, thanks
00:05
In reply to this message
the way to think about how this would work is that in a traditional CFD, you may pay x% of the notional each day, where x is the percent change of the asset
00:06
if we want to use a binary outcome to act like a cfd, you would pay the entire notional x% of the time, where x is the percent change of the asset
00:06
this way, since you either send the entire notional or you don’t, we can constrain this cfd to one bit of oracle output
M
00:09
Mike
Is there an option on VEOscan to switch between mVEO and VEO
MF
00:12
Mr Flintstone
I don’t believe so but catweed is the master of that domain
00:18
Deleted Account
No. Let's get used to mVEO.
00:20
I think keep using both units is confusing. Let's switch.
00:26
Deleted Account
@zack if you set the price at $9999 the winners in the markets would be the losers in the market. Because when you decide to fork based on the result. So it only makes sense to place any bets to match other orders, but not change the result of the market. And then hope some random person does not change the outcome...
00:27
To explain: the betters in minority will cash in
00:28
The situation might be alleviated if there was only a single batch in the market
S
00:34
Sebsebzen
In reply to this message
Get it now
Z
00:36
Zack
In reply to this message
The price of the market does not determine the outcome. Nakamoto consensus is the ultimate decider.
So it isn't exactly a minority-wins game.
S
00:43
Sebsebzen
This is definitely something for UX designer to ponder upon
00:43
How to make it as simple as possible
00:43
Deleted Account
Well you being the creator of Amoveo have considerable social power over the community. Given the good mood in the group in general, i would not expect a fork or non fork against your recommendation
00:45
Now with the assumption that few people believed that VEO would reach $300, with the statement above, I believe I have proven that people behaved 5 VEO worth of irrational. Either they did not understand the implications of the market question, or they were more concerned with outside effects
00:46
I think the takeaway is that the community showed strong support for the fork
00:46
The oracle/market is some of the most interesting thing Ive seen in a while. Some crypto or even general publication should cover it...
00:52
That would in identally probably cause the price to pass the $300 mark and make the oracle true
Z
00:53
Zack
In the futarchy market, irrational actors will continue to lose money to accurate actors. The market will get more accurate as time goes on.
00:59
Deleted Account
Thats true
01:04
Proposal/brainstorm: what if you made two market questions: 1) Amoveo forks and price is > $300 and 2) Amoveo doesnt fork and price is > $300. — now you could just compare the two markets to see which is more positive. They would be kind of balanced and less of a paradox. If outside forces wanted to push a fork by betting irrationally, others will bet against to get the free money
01:04
Im not sure if it adds up though
01:04
I think it does tho
01:06
And make sure you dont publish the fork code until after the markets are closed
Z
01:07
Zack
In reply to this message
That measures something non-useful.

We want to measure how much the update will change the price of VEO.

The markets you describe are measuring (probability that we fork) * (probability that price is above $300)
01:08
In reply to this message
Whether or not I write software should not make a difference.
Ray R invited Ray R
OK
01:14
O K
In reply to this message
Actually, isn't it the opposite? The market is a chance for a code audit
01:15
Deleted Account
Revised: 1) Amoveo forks and price is > $300 (This Q is only good if A forks) and 2) Amoveo doesnt fork and price is > $300. (This Q is only good if A doent fork)
01:16
By holding back the sw, someone else would have to write the fork and that would be unlikely
Z
01:16
Zack
In reply to this message
If the software is unwritten, then we probably shouldn't make a market. since it the futarchy is like a audit, yes.
01:17
Deleted Account
I dont agree that we are not measuring anything: we are predicting which of the two scenarios are most likely, reflected in the market price
01:17
With bad question, those betting on a nonexistent future get a refund, no?
01:18
With this structure it doesnt matter if you guess if we fork. You are betting only on the chance of either side crossing a price
01:19
If more people think that possible with a fork, that would be reflected in the order book
01:19
Yes, its probably better to let people look at the code. My mistake
OK
01:20
O K
I think the market in its current form actually accomplishes this already though
01:20
The question is a fancy way of asking "does making this change make it more or less likely that the price will go up?"
01:20
It actually gives us the answer to that question
01:21
I didn't understand that a few hours ago, but I think it's starting to click
01:22
Even if it's not at all likely that the price will hit $300, as long as it's *more* likely that the price will hit that with the change than without it, the market should reflect that. Right?
Z
01:24
Zack
In reply to this message
yes, it sounds like you understand my intentions now.

I may have an error in my math somewhere.
MF
01:39
Mr Flintstone
20 more blocks until we update.
01:40
for anyone who thinks the price will not be over 300 usd in 2 weeks or so, there is 1100 mVEO in free money available
01:41
In reply to this message
nobody took the other side of the bet, so we would need to think that not only the bettors of that 5 veo are irrational, but that the entire universe of veo paying attention to this market is irrational too
Z
01:47
Zack
In reply to this message
That assumes that we will do the update.
01:47
In reply to this message
We need more than 1 confirmation before we are sure the update will happen. Currently we have 0 confirmations.
MF
01:48
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
yeah true
01:48
but you could wait until the update, then bet
01:49
In reply to this message
what do you mean ?
Z
01:49
Zack
would you accept a 0th confirmation payment?
Currently there are 0 blocks using the updated code. 0 confirmations if we will update.
01:51
Deleted Account
The point is you should not be rewarded for guessing if there is a fork.
01:56
Even more revised: Q1: Price of Veo > $300, only valid if Amoveo forked Q2: Price of veo > $300, only valid if Amoveo didnt fork
+
01:57
++
In reply to this message
Can the bet be finalized and paid out prior to the ~2 weeks?
01:59
Deleted Account
The recursion that comes with guessing the fork leads to majority wins market if price is too low, and minority wins if the price is too high. The former will make it difficult to change initial sentiment, all bids must be matched. The latter leads to markets as close as possible to tie
01:59
Both we want to avoid
Z
02:03
Zack
In reply to this message
you are confused because you think that the futarchy market is controlling the fork.
Nakamoto consensus controls the fork, not the market.
02:03
futarchy is just for gathering information.
02:05
Deleted Account
The market is effectively controlling the fork, otherwise there would be no use for it. If what you say is true people would have forked earlier, I believe on the quite strong sentiment that a fork would be a good thing
02:06
But everyone waited for you to write the fork and pull it into main branch. Everyone was expecting you to listen to the outcome of the prediction market
02:07
The nakamoto fork would only happen if many people were displeased with how things are going
02:08
To say the fork is independent of the market would be very strange imho
02:09
Recursion exists here.
02:13
Admit there is a dependency, but make the bets about everything except wether the fork will happen, then you wont have issues
MF
02:38
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
can’t be finalized before two weeks because on of the oracle conditions is related to price around block height 32000
02:38
at least I think it’s 32000
02:39
but if veo starts pumping or dumping you could sell your true or false shares for closer to full value respectively provided the chain updated
+
02:39
++
Thx.
MF
02:41
Mr Flintstone
I feel like there are a ton of things we can use this kind of oracle question for...
OK
02:43
O K
In reply to this message
Someone who understands how to do this should do a writeup on how to buy and sell shares
+
02:44
++
In reply to this message
Confused. In Zack’s oracle design description, it says that that the bets finalizes after a certain number of blocks pass without a change in output type. Couldn’t someone create market with a bet that finalized prior to an actual outcome being known?

“If the output type doesn’t change for a certain number of blocks, the oracle is finalized in this state.”
OK
02:44
O K
How could it possibly finalize before the block where there is a variable check
+
02:47
++
In reply to this message
I had a similar thought but just reading the oracle design, seems possible, non?

https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/blog_posts/oracles_overview.md
02:48
Here is relevant section from paper.

Bets of different types will get matched on a 1:1 basis. The type with the highest unmatched balance determines the output type of the oracle. If the output type of an oracle has not been changed for a certain number of blocks, the oracle can be finalized with that output type and betting ends. Placed bets are locked up until the oracle is finalized, at which point you are paid out according to the final output type.
OK
02:51
O K
But the oracle will be deciding after that block
02:53
Deleted Account
(This is what I believe to be true now, tho i am not sure) There is a difference between market bets and oracle bets. Market bets are done buying shares at a certain price based on the current situation. Trades are done in batches to prevent frontrunning (?) as the odds change with every new bet
02:53
Oracle bets are strictly odds 1:1
+
02:56
++
In reply to this message
From Zack’s description, I’m not sure how to actually make sure the oracle is decided after a certain block. I think you might be able to specify the number of blocks with no change required for finality and make sure that number pushes you past a certain point in the worst case scenario, but oracle finality is tied to inactivity not to a date or specific block as far as I can tell...
03:00
In reply to this message
The downside of requiring too many blocks of inactivity in order for there to be finality is maybe you never get finality ... perhaps someone could game it by creating periodic activity so there is not resolution ?
Z
03:01
Zack
In reply to this message
the oracle market is different from the channel markets.
Oracle market is on-chain and only matches bets at 50-50 odds.
channels are off-chain smart contracts in the lightning network. you can bet at any price.
03:01
In reply to this message
obviously you can't close an oracle before we had a chance to bet on it.
03:03
In reply to this message
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/api/commands_oracle.md
that is what "Start" is for when you make a new oracle. it decides when we can start reporting on the outcome.
03:09
I did a bunch of math.
It seems like the correlation (which we are using in the current futarchy oracle) is not the same thing as P(high price|update) - P(low_price|no_update).

These are both metrics which may be useful for futarchy type oracles.
I wonder what the ideal metric would be.

I found some other interesting results, like
P(high_price|update) - P(high_price|no_update) = P(low_price|no_update) - P(low_price|update) = how much more likely we are to achieve our goal if we update.
+
03:10
++
Thx. I read the link you attached. Didn’t see the section on “Start”.
Does start initiate the beginning of betting?
Z
03:10
Zack
start is when you can start betting in the oracle mechanism.
+
03:12
++
In reply to this message
Right. So you would begin betting before the outcome is known and betting ends and oracle state is determined once there have been a certain number of blocks of inactivity?
MF
03:12
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
Betting starts only in the oracle, which is on chain
03:12
markets can start betting whenever
Z
03:14
Zack
In reply to this message
lightning network betting in the channels happens before the outcome is known.
oracle betting, also called "reporting", happens after the result is known.
+
03:15
++
In reply to this message
Thx. That is helpful.
03:17
Didn’t realize there are actually two markets, prediction market and reporting market.
03:31
Deleted Account
@Afterwit me neither. I though the oracle transitioned from prediction to truth over time
T
03:41
Topab
In reply to this message
Bringing this back from yesterday. Perhaps we should have done it this way?
TG
03:41
Toby Ganger
market seems to be responding bearishly to the impending fork...unless it's just bearish overall crypto market in general causing the bleeding
Z
03:48
Zack
In reply to this message
Almost every aspect of a blockchain needs to be designed as a market in order for it to be secure.

There is a market for miners. A market for getting txs into a blocks. A market between channel hubs for getting users to make channels.
TG
03:49
Toby Ganger
seems like either all the buyers dropped off...or all the sellers ate up the buy orders without them being replaced
03:49
should be interesting to see how this plays out with the fork
+
03:52
++
In reply to this message
This sounds right and is very thought provoking. Kinda back to the cryptoeconomic alignment point...
03:53
Deleted Account
Expect a small currency like Amoveo to be volatile
TG
03:56
Toby Ganger
In reply to this message
I expect volatility to be an understatement on a 4 million market cap coin
03:56
does that mean it will be listed on Binance? or am I missing something
TG
03:59
Toby Ganger
that's quite a nice stash
Z
03:59
Zack
In reply to this message
I wish binance didn't make our white paper into a PDF. it is supposed to be a page on github.
TG
04:00
Toby Ganger
In reply to this message
is there a downside to this?
Z
04:01
Zack
the links are all broken. When I update the white paper on github, their version will not update.
The Binance version is slower to load.
04:10
"Naval & Nick Szabo follows him on twitter"
04:16
We’re building an exchange for Amoveo, one of the most undervalued coins that we know which is currently being traded by OTC. You may register at amoveo.exchange to learn when it is launched.
MF
04:50
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
haven’t seen this
04:51
Info.binance looks like a cmc clone kind of?
04:58
Deleted Account
That sight just gives info on coins. You can find most coins in it. It doesn't mean they'll be listed on Binance.
MF
05:47
Mr Flintstone
net hash around 25 th/ second right now
05:48
Which is around 25 min blocks ?
05:49
so miner revenue should roughly double some time after the update provided no new hash comes online
I
05:53
Iridescence
Amoveo on binance 😱
05:56
Deleted Account
Binance claims the high ground of exchanges. All they do is extort projects for listing. The only benefit of getting listed there is for a price pump. Other than that, pursuing them for honest listing is not worth it. Better chances are Bittrex and likely have the same price action.
Z
06:08
Zack
it seems like qtrade and amoveo.exchange work fine
[
06:12
[Riki]
In reply to this message
This needs to be updated @demiculus
S
06:19
Sy
In reply to this message
fun fact, if the ap miner would turn on again current diff would actually be pretty close to normal
OK
06:19
O K
He told me he will be back eventually
06:19
🤷‍♀️
S
06:20
Sy
xD
06:20
that would put us on roughly 120 blocks
I
06:28
Iridescence
Eventually
DY
06:42
Demi Yilmaz
In reply to this message
Lol, there was an add coin button and I just filled the form.
06:42
In reply to this message
Hmm yea, im on vacation might look at it in a week
TG
06:43
Toby Ganger
In reply to this message
Let explains that.
06:44
In reply to this message
If you’re content with it being a small top 300 coin then sure.
Z
06:45
Zack
In reply to this message
That isn't how I want to win.
Paying people to advertise us is a short-term solution for pump and dumpers.
I want to build a useful product that will create value for decades.
TG
06:48
Toby Ganger
In reply to this message
I didn’t say that you should pay extortions. I just said that those exchanges are the path to getting out of the minor leagues. There is a symbiotic relationship between value and development/use.
06:50
can value come to the coin with just one self made exchange? sure it's possible...but MUCH less likely..
06:50
people have to onboard somewhere new....trust somewhere new...you have a vastly smaller liquidity pool because there aren't other coins drawing liquidity to the platform..etc..
Z
06:58
Zack
There are 3 exchanges, I only made one.
DY
07:02
Demi Yilmaz
In reply to this message
I agree with zack. Getting on bigger exchanges doesn’t help out the coin as a matter of fact it may even cripple the coin. Check out sky & nas listings on binance. Most coins which get listed there lose a lot of momentum afterward.
TG
07:03
Toby Ganger
depends on when the listings happen...premature listings can kill a coin
MF
07:03
Mr Flintstone
I do think Toby has a point in that liquidity is better for a coin, regardless of price pumping
07:03
we want to make it easy for people to get veo
TG
07:03
Toby Ganger
liquidity is everything
MF
07:04
Mr Flintstone
if we focus on tapping into the vast potential amoveo has, everything else will follow
[
07:04
[Riki]
Sky is quite advanced yet it ended up as a binancd listing pnd
DY
07:04
Demi Yilmaz
In reply to this message
True we want everyone to easily get access to veo & its platform. Getting only veo doesnt work. Accessing the oracles & markets is the key here. The bottle neck is not getting the coins but using them in the markets.
TG
07:04
Toby Ganger
from an economic perspective saleability is one of the main factors that makes something a monetary instrument...it's much harder to build your own liquidity pool than to piggy back on a larger one....not saying it's impossible..it's just MUCH harder because liquidity begets liquidity
Z
07:05
Zack
Adding more exchanges doesn't help liquidity.
It increases the number of arbitrage opportunities, which decreases liquidity.
TG
07:06
Toby Ganger
In reply to this message
increasing arbitrage opportunities decreases liquidity? wtf?
DY
07:06
Demi Yilmaz
In reply to this message
What is your definition of liquidity?
MF
07:06
Mr Flintstone
before we go down this path let’s make sure we are on the same page with definitions lmao
07:06
what zack just said may seem outrageous on the surface but maybe he means something else
TG
07:06
Toby Ganger
yeah that was a baffling statement unless he's using a totally different definition
Z
07:07
Zack
"liquidity" means how many veo you can buy without moving the price very much.

If you break up the market into many small exchanges, then an individual trade on one of those exchanges moves the price further.
07:08
There is nothing outrageous here. liquidity and arbitrage both have precise definitions that I am using correctly.
MF
07:08
Mr Flintstone
liquidity can refer to money that is not currently in veo, but in bitcoin
07:08
by adding an exchange, you can increase access to this liquidity
07:09
liquidity is not defined by an order book, but this may be one definition
TG
07:09
Toby Ganger
The more an asset is saleable the more useful it becomes and thus it tends to be used more...so the liquidity depth increases across all exchanges...
07:09
because people feel comfortable holding and buying something they know they can sell
Z
07:09
Zack
Liquidity describes the degree to which an asset or security can be quickly bought or sold in the market without affecting the asset's price.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquidity.asp
[
07:10
[Riki]
In reply to this message
More useful or more valuable? Value should follow usefullness.
TG
07:10
Toby Ganger
more useful and thus more valuable
MF
07:10
Mr Flintstone
sometimes people use “liquidity” interchangeably with “money”
07:11
this is the case in professional finance
07:11
I guess the precise investopedia definition would preclude this, but I know this is the case
TG
07:11
Toby Ganger
we're operating under the same definition...just seems like Zack has a different "theory" in regards to how money becomes money that isn't rooted in any school of economic thought
Z
07:12
Zack
Toby is a troll, right?
TG
07:12
Toby Ganger
Zack what is your problem man?
OK
07:12
O K
😂
07:13
You're not the first person Toby who has studied econ and been confused by Zack's strange econ
07:13
Try to read Zack's words tongue-in-cheek
07:13
He has a subtle sense of humour
07:13
🙂
MF
07:13
Mr Flintstone
I guess zack’s order book logic is technically correct
TG
07:14
Toby Ganger
I used to teach econ...the things he says don't seem to make any sense...and I WANT to understand where he's coming from
MF
07:14
Mr Flintstone
but not in the beginning when order books on binance and bittrex would definitely be deeper than qtrade and amoveo.exhanfe
07:14
Deleted Account
money = liquidity makes perfect sense IMHO
07:15
Nice metric to measure tokens - by aggregated orderbooks
MF
07:15
Mr Flintstone
it looks like this (along with most disagreements) is driven by semantics
07:16
in this case colloquial vs textbook
TG
07:16
Toby Ganger
In reply to this message
it's only technically correct if you operate from a starting point of abundant liquidity....but the key to attracting liquidity is increasing saleability....when people have multiple, trusted, liquid markets into which they can sell an asset then they feel more comfortable buying it.....the saleability is the useability which brings value....it's a feedback loop
[
07:16
[Riki]
Coin velocity makes them valuable too
TG
07:17
Toby Ganger
In reply to this message
I disagree...velocity is a symptom of saleability not a cause
Z
07:18
Zack
Ideally we would have one big exchange with 80-90% of trade volume, and have many other exchanges that technically support us, but are almost always empty.
TG
07:20
Toby Ganger
In reply to this message
oy...velocity is created because of the saleability of the token...it does not come the other way around....of course there's a correlation...but the causation you're proposing is backwards
07:20
In reply to this message
for goodness sakes...I should just dump my VEO and be done with it
Z
07:21
Zack
You guys really think he isn't a troll?
TG
07:21
Toby Ganger
ooops...can't dump anything because they're no liquidity
MF
07:21
Mr Flintstone
that’s what all the cool kids are doing
[
07:21
[Riki]
😂
MF
07:21
Mr Flintstone
pretty sure he’s not a troll
TG
07:22
Toby Ganger
why would I be around for months in this chat with almost no comments if I was a troll...it's because I hold a lot of VEO and I believe in the tech and want to see it succeed
MF
07:22
Mr Flintstone
yeah, I remember Toby from a few months ago
07:22
I seem to recall you were pushing the mveo agenda? lol
OK
07:22
O K
In reply to this message
Yup we did this for you toby
07:23
You're stuck here now
TG
07:23
Toby Ganger
yes I was the first gnat at the mveo picnic
MF
07:23
Mr Flintstone
lol
OK
07:23
O K
Does this look like troll to you zack? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbzNJr26H-4
TG
07:28
Toby Ganger
In reply to this message
👍
S Z joined group by link from Group
I
08:24
Iridescence
Liquidity across multiple exchanges assumes that arbitrage between exchanges is easy
08:24
In crypto that is often not the case
08:25
In crypto the less people / institutions you trust, the better. And institutions that have a good track record gain more trust
08:26
Hence trading and liquidity tends to centralize on exchanges that they can reach.
08:26
Deleted Account
In reply to this message
Looks legit 🤣 when the amoveo song
I
08:27
Iridescence
If you are willing to sell VEO at an attractive enough price I'm sure you will find enough liquidity to sell into 😬
08:27
Deleted Account
Agree
I
08:29
Iridescence
You could argue that crypto is so volatile precisely because there isn't as much liquidity as, say, the foreign exchange markets
Z
08:43
Zack
I am thinking of making a tool where we can pay VEO to post to a feed.
I will use the block retargeting algorithm to determine the price of posting, that will regulate the speed at which posts are made.
08:44
kind of like reddit or steemit, but extremely simplified, and using fees to regulate posting rate.
S
08:49
Subby
In reply to this message
I don't know what the rules are here but that's not exactly right. There's a project from Japan by Quoine (called Qash, soon to be rebranded to Liquid) they have an MMO that connects multiple exchanges (the WorldBook) it basically removes arbitrage. I can grab a video of it tightening JPY/BTC to SGD/BTC from $45 SGD to 10cents
08:54
Not sure if this knowledge is of any value but figured I'd share
MF
08:54
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
feed would be on a central server?
08:54
like an amoveo node
Z
08:54
Zack
yes.
08:55
Eventually we could integrate channel payments, so you don't trust the server with any money.
JL
10:06
Josh L
Lower diff yet?
+
10:08
++
In reply to this message
You both are right given a different set of assumptions.

I think Zack assumes a world where there are a fixed number, eg 10, of people that want to trade a coin. For market depth, you would be better off having these 10 people on 1 exchange, than each person on different exchanges. If there is minimal friction to arbitrage, arbitrageurs might help to re-aggregate demand across multiple exchanges by doing the work of moving supply from where it is plentiful to where it is scarce. Reality, though, is you need some friction to make the arb worth it so arb isn’t the best aggregator of liquidity and if there is truth to Zack’s assumption that nearly anyone that would be Interested in trading VEO is already trading it across the existing exchanges, then siphoning some of this demand onto another exchange would indeed decrease average market depth.

I think Toby assumes that listing on a new exchange brings potential new investors into the fold that wouldn’t have otherwise been willing to invest in VEO. This would be a source of new demand and eventually new supply and all else equal would increase average market depth.
MF
10:17
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
In 2 blocks I think diff will start dropping every block
B
10:18
Ben
It's a proven fact that listings on markets with different demographics brings awareness to new potential investors. In classical markets, the exchanges were consolidated, and the broker-dealers began building internal orderbooks and Alternative Trading Systems to enhance liquidity, primarily cater to big block trading (eg. 10,000 shares min). In crypto, OTC infrastructure is similar to the old days of stockroom floor trading with people running around with paper slips yelling across the room to find a counterparty. Hence, the public markets remain more efficient mechanisms for many investors to gain awareness and access to new asset liquidity.
TG
10:27
Toby Ganger
In reply to this message
I agree that each respective view is rational within the frameworks you described however only the latter is an accurate representation of anything that can be considered a monetary instrument...especially in crypto due to the unique market dynamics
S
10:37
Sebsebzen
++ is right, for example Bithumb, or Korea in general is quite isolated as a market and trades are in Korean Won. Getting listed there gives you access to many new potential investors that maybe don’t trust other exchanges’ security.
10:37
In an ideal theoretical situation Zack is right
10:38
But there will never be complete frictionless markets
MF
10:54
Mr Flintstone
ok
10:54
28102
10:54
34129 th per block
Z
10:56
Zack
We found the recent blocks so quickly that the exponential weighted average hashrate says the difficulty is currently within the target range.
So it didn't update the difficulty either way.
MF
10:56
Mr Flintstone
ahh
10:56
yeah, those were 3 quick blocks
10:56
within 6 minutes
10:58
about 30 th/s net hash
10:59
so diff should decrease eventually
Z
11:00
Zack
yes it will probably decrease some soon. I am guessing by about a factor of 2.
MF
11:00
Mr Flintstone
yeah around there
Z
11:00
Zack
within 40 blocks
11:01
The light node is still syncing correctly
Deleted invited Deleted Account
MF
12:00
Mr Flintstone
28103 is apparently quite the block
Z
12:04
Zack
I made a mistake.
The exponential weighted average is calculating 10 minute blocks all through our recent history.

At low difficulties, all the tests were passing fine.
I will find out why it is not estimating the block time accurately on the main net.

Luckily this failure mode isn't dangerous, we are trapped at the current difficulty until we do a hard update to fix it.
AK
12:48
A K
Can you elaborate? The way I read it, it's exponential, so whole long tail shouldn't matter much
Z
13:01
Zack
the update failed. it didn't have any change.
so we are turning it off until we can fix it.
ŽM
15:23
Živojin Mirić
Is this good old Batman again?
J
16:31
Jurko | Bermuda capital 📈
good ol' batman saviour
A
20:38
Angelos | Coinomi Wallet (I will never PM you first)
In reply to this message
Another victim of FUD
MF
20:38
Mr Flintstone
rip
20:39
did amoveo push you over the edge? lol
IP
21:04
I P
In reply to this message
me too when almost got liquidated on shitmex a day earlier 😂😂
21:05
Deleted Account
A
21:15
Al
In reply to this message
Some kind of scam coin commercial?
OK
21:28
O K
@Tandrax2188 this is a place to discuss Amoveo
IP
21:31
I P
In reply to this message
did diff adjustment algo went smooth?
OK
21:35
O K
In reply to this message
😂smooth as in nothing happened
IP
21:35
I P
Sticker
Not included, change data exporting settings to download.
😁, 36.6 KB
21:35
Deleted Account
Sticker
Not included, change data exporting settings to download.
💪, 38.5 KB
21:35
😭
Z
22:09
Zack
It seems like my original instinct was correct.
We shouldn't average hashrate, we should average inverse-hashrate.

At low difficulty I could not get this to work correctly, but now that I am testing on mainnet blocks, it seems to be very accurate. I will share some test data here.
22:10
28100 EWAH estimate: 18267 time: 32506
28101 EWAH estimate: 17495 time: 2824
28102 EWAH estimate: 16665 time: 902
28103 EWAH estimate: 18171 time: 46791
28104 EWAH estimate: 17332 time: 1385
28105 EWAH estimate: 19131 time: 53316
28106 EWAH estimate: 21345 time: 63400
28107 EWAH estimate: 21047 time: 15392
28108 EWAH estimate: 20634 time: 12797
28109 EWAH estimate: 19713 time: 2204
28110 EWAH estimate: 18857 time: 2603
28111 EWAH estimate: 18356 time: 8826
28112 EWAH estimate: 18936 time: 29963
28113 EWAH estimate: 18330 time: 6806
28114 EWAH estimate: 17988 time: 11495
28115 EWAH estimate: 18264 time: 23507
28116 EWAH estimate: 17477 time: 2530
28117 EWAH estimate: 17358 time: 15091
28118 EWAH estimate: 16786 time: 5923
28119 EWAH estimate: 16278 time: 6624
28120 EWAH estimate: 17091 time: 32538
28121 EWAH estimate: 17902 time: 33321
28122 EWAH estimate: 17775 time: 15347
28123 EWAH estimate: 17203 time: 6354

estimate is the average blocktime lately. time is the exact block time for one block.
they are both measured in 1/10ths of a second.
6000 = 10 minutes.
MF
22:52
Mr Flintstone
how do we know what to adjust the next block’s difficulty by?
Z
22:54
Zack
we use the EWAH = "exponentially weighted average hashrate" to estimate the current block time. We compare this estimate of the current block time with our target block time to know how much to adjust.
22:54
6000 = 10 minutes is our target block period.
MF
22:57
Mr Flintstone
how do you use EWAH to estimate current block time? what is the reference difficulty used
Z
22:59
Zack
I use the difficulty from the previous block.
It isn't precise as it could be, but it seems to work ok.
22:59
it would be more accurate if we estimated the next blocks difficulty and used that to estimate EWAH.
23:01
The EWAH estimates I posted above are the calculated average blocktime in 1/10ths of seconds.
Not the hashrate.
S
23:41
Sy
So we are 3-4 times too high?
Z
23:49
Zack
20k / 6k = about 3x too high yes.
23:53
The new difficulty retargeting seems to be working well.
I guess we should do this soon, before we lose too much hashrate.
OK
23:55
O K
That would be ideal
Z
23:55
Zack
each block is 30 minutes.
so lets give ourselves about 5 hours to upgrade.
How does 28135 sound for the update? @potat_o @Simon3456
OK
23:56
O K
I'm okay with that, Sy?
S
23:57
Sy
Np
23:57
Im Up for the next 4-5h
Z
23:57
Zack
great
S
23:58
Sy
No resync this time?
8 August 2018
Z
00:00
Zack
it will require a resync.
I was just running final checks, and I found one more thing I need to test. It will be another 30-60 minutes.
Z
00:18
Zack
http://139.59.144.76:8080/explorer.html

I am resyncing this node with the new code. It if works, then we should resync everything else.
00:32
it synced well.
We are ready to update the network.
00:36
@Simon3456 @potat_o time to update and resync
MF
00:50
Mr Flintstone
🤞
Protovist invited Protovist
S
00:58
Sy
syncing...
Z
00:59
Zack
great
01:00
when you say you will be awake 4-5 hours, does that mean you think we should do the fork even faster?
Blocks are so slow, I think we can handle doing an update by 28130
S
01:00
Sy
btw do you zip the data or is it send plain text when we sync?
Z
01:00
Zack
It is sent worse than plain text. it is JSON formatted.
So binaries get expanded out into base64 format, etc
S
01:01
Sy
cant you zip it? should compress really well since its text
01:01
stuck at block 5143
Z
01:01
Zack
I compress blocks before storing to the hard drive,
S
01:01
Sy
which in return might make it slower
Z
01:01
Zack
I fully synced. probably the node you are talking to broke contact
01:02
sync:start(). does this fix it?
S
01:02
Sy
disk space is easy to get, bandwith might be a bottleneck tho
Z
01:02
Zack
currently sending blocks has an extra step of decompression we could skip.
01:03
I will add a new endpoint to the api, that way javascript can use the old api.
S
01:03
Sy
yeah something like that, might increase syncing speed and we should be able to get more than 10 per thread
Z
01:04
Zack
We could also make a version of the api that sends the blocks without proofs.
Full nodes already store the proofs locally, so they don't need to re-download them.

This would significantly slow down block verification, and it would prevent us from verifying in parallel.
S
01:05
Sy
2nd try, went past 5143
Z
01:05
Zack
it might be preferable on some systems
01:12
I used a $20 per month vps to sync the blocks in about 10 minutes.
01:13
you should be able to use different ports to run 2 instances of amoveo on the same machine. so you can resync without turning off your mining pool.
or you can sync on a different machine, and copy the files over to the mining pool machine.
01:14
they can sync in parallel
01:14
we could make a script to work with scp to tell all of them to update at once
OK
01:16
O K
What is the size of the blockchain now?
Z
01:17
Zack
159 mb of blocks.
OK
01:17
O K
Pretty impressive
01:17
I wonder what was the size of bitcoin's blockchain at the same blockheight
MF
01:17
Mr Flintstone
I wonder how big btc was at 30k
01:18
lol
OK
01:18
O K
😄
Z
01:18
Zack
51 mb to keep track of recent merkle trees to be able to process blocks
01:18
In reply to this message
per transaction, I think we are a lot heavier than bitcoin.
Z
01:21
Zack
220 mb for the erlang release that gets packaged to make a standalone.

70 mb for the dependencies and source code
01:21
cool calculator
MF
01:22
Mr Flintstone
I think the bottleneck for sync speed is still verification time? Zack I think you may have said something about this when you were working on the parallelizafion
Z
01:22
Zack
the 159 mb of blocks are compressed. so this is what it would be like once we add compression for the api
01:23
In reply to this message
all machines are different.
I think for the important machines, the bottleneck is now in bandwidth.
S
01:24
Sy
In reply to this message
that never worked
Z
01:25
Zack
In reply to this message
thank you for telling me
S
01:25
Sy
i told you about a month ago when i started doing *.db backups
01:25
it resumes at height but cant build on top
Z
01:25
Zack
I will write it down this time
OK
01:38
O K
Do you use orgmode zack?
01:38
I have been using Zim Wiki lately for notes, I've found it quite nice
S
01:42
Sy
i could create a github issue aswell 😅
01:42
okay main node is synced for a while now
01:43
syncing backup and balance node...
Z
01:44
Zack
In reply to this message
I don't know what that is.
01:44
In reply to this message
There is a todo list in the github
01:46
I like to use emacs for typing when possible. It has so many nice tools.
AK
02:16
A K
when mainnet ^W, diff update?
02:16
28130 ?
MF
02:19
Mr Flintstone
28135
02:53
Deleted Account
Zack @Simon3456 @potat_o thanks guys for the effort youre putting into this. Truly first class
OK
02:59
O K
:'D
03:00
In reply to this message
That's why I thought you might use OrgMode, it's an emacs thing. You should check it out
03:00
If you like geeky videos, there is a nice youtube video lecture from some conference about it
Z
03:00
Zack
cool! I haven't heard of it.
md files are nice because they look good on github
OK
03:00
O K
In reply to this message
True, I was just talking about personal notes. Most people don't put personal notes on github
03:01
But you're weird 🤷‍♀️ that's cool
03:12
Deleted Account
I have lots of personal notes in github and also gists
OK
03:13
O K
Maybe I'm the weird one then
03:14
For me, I don't think Microsoft needs to know me that intimately
H W invited H W
S S invited S S
S
03:35
S S
How is this different frm augur
J
03:39
Jurko | Bermuda capital 📈
two more blocks 💪🏻
F
03:45
Fića
Animation
Not included, change data exporting settings to download.
95.1 KB
S
03:45
Sy
Deadpool 2 is disturbingly funny
F
03:46
Fića
why are block times so random?
03:46
there are 2 min blocks, then 1h blocks then some 30 min blocks
MF
03:54
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
markets are in channels rather than on-chain is one difference. another is that veo doesn’t have subcurrencies
03:55
also, parasitic interest is not an input into amoveo’s security model, but it is for augur
03:55
there are lots more differences that are outlined on zacks GitHub
Deleted invited Deleted Account
Z
04:02
Zack
I havent yet finished updating the light wallet.
I might not finish in the next 2 blocks.
Deleted invited Deleted Account
F
04:40
Fića
In reply to this message
MF
04:41
Mr Flintstone
Isn’t block time a Poisson distribution?
04:41
that’s why it has so much variance
F
04:41
Fića
i also excluded 26999 > 27000 that took 7 hours...
S
04:47
Sy
Thats why its an avg
OK
04:48
O K
In reply to this message
I wondered this too and thought, why doesn't this happen with bitcoin?
04:48
Then I looked at something similar for bitcoin, it kind of does
F
04:50
Fića
So that means we could have a 20 hour block if we simply wait long enough?
S
04:53
Sy
Unlikely
04:53
You can calculate the chance for that
F
04:58
Fića
Interesting
J
04:58
Jurko | Bermuda capital 📈
28135
MF
04:58
Mr Flintstone
nice
04:59
second times the charm hopefully
J
05:00
Jurko | Bermuda capital 📈
Zack everything ok now?
Z
05:02
Zack
the light node will be unable to sync until we fix it.
MF
05:02
Mr Flintstone
other than that, I guess next block we will find out if the update worked
S
05:03
Sy
Yep
05:03
Obviously a 2h+ Block 😂
MF
05:30
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
quarter the way there
Z
05:37
Zack
looks like the next block will have 1/2 the difficulty of the current block
05:37
I think I fixed the light node. I pushed the fix to my servers. we will see once the next block comes.
P
05:37
Protovist
(amoveo_core_prod@amoveo-node)22> block:get_by_height(28136).
{block,28136,
<<135,115,2,148,228,56,15,53,83,206,2,229,25,237,52,82,
200,97,40,245,54,104,117,142,97,73,...>>,
<<132,83,24,146,45,38,116,162,122,29,95,22,80,22,41,201,
87,115,122,134,170,63,188,74,141,...>>,
143825405,14053,5982,3,
MF
05:37
Mr Flintstone
yayyy we found a block
P
05:37
Protovist
same diff?
MF
05:38
Mr Flintstone
yeah, diff is the same?
P
05:38
Protovist
14053
MF
05:38
Mr Flintstone
on veoscan
Z
05:38
Zack
use potential_block:check(). to see the next block being worked on. it has a much lower diff.
MF
05:38
Mr Flintstone
oh, it’ll be next block
Z
05:39
Zack
potential_block:check().
{block,28137,
<<63,170,126,254,105,24,48,239,162,34,176,50,229,87,115,
82,10,99,165,6,35,52,119,16,22,6,...>>,
<<13,88,122,94,164,35,87,167,240,179,153,192,57,88,240,67,
112,245,13,121,156,82,58,225,27,...>>,
143825671,13796,5982,3,0,


13796 is about 1/2 as difficult.
OK
05:39
O K
In reply to this message
Awesome
MF
05:39
Mr Flintstone
so this should be like a 15 minute block?
P
05:40
Protovist 
(amoveo_core_prod@amoveo-node)29> potential_block:check().
[]
OK
05:40
O K
Damn proto
05:40
that looks real easy
P
05:40
Protovist
lol
OK
05:40
O K
almost too easy
Z
05:41
Zack
In reply to this message
your node isn't being used as a mining pool, so there is nothing being worked on.
You can do potential_block:new(). to generate a block to work on, then you can look at it with potential_block:check().
P
05:41
Protovist
ok, thanks
OK
05:41
O K
In reply to this message
What does it give you?
Z
05:41
Zack
I added checkpoints to the light node, so it syncs very fast now
P
05:42
Protovist 
(amoveo_core_prod@amoveo-node)31> potential_block:check().
{block,28137,
       <<63,170,126,254,105,24,48,239,162,34,176,50,229,87,115,
         82,10,99,165,6,35,52,119,16,22,6,...>>,
       <<114,158,19,24,16,204,5,59,191,72,17,152,252,222,100,184,
         40,198,28,21,150,92,33,73,31,...>>,
       143829185,13931,5982,3,0,
Z
05:42
Zack
his is 13931. that is a little worrysome.
that is a lot more difficult from what I calculated.
05:43
about 50% more difficult
P
05:43
Protovist
should they not be the same?
Z
05:43
Zack
you calculated your after mine, so it could be a little lower.
05:44
143830652,13789,5982,3,0
now I get 13789
05:45
@Protovist are you using the newest version of the software?
P
05:45
Protovist
commit 8dd1175a8462590f37d5a9705ea5e4037c6cd127
Z
05:46
Zack
now I get 13788
P
05:48
Protovist
I get 13925
Z
05:51
Zack
I checked on a second node, it is identical with my first node. they are both on 13784.
P
05:51
Protovist
143835094,13922,5982,3,0,
OK
05:51
O K
13783 looks like here...
Z
05:52
Zack
yes, it is decreasing. now my nodes are on 13783 as well
S
05:52
Sy
ofc since blocktime is increasing
05:53
13788 now
OK
05:53
O K
Why would it go up
05:53
do you mean 78
Z
05:54
Zack
Sy's is only 5 off.
256 off is a factor of 2x higher difficulty.
5 off is about 2% higher difficulty.
I guess Sy's clock in his computer is slightly off-sync with ours
05:54
Maybe Protovist's computer is very far off
05:56
If you mine blocks from the future, the rest of us will ignore the block until it was made in the past.
If you mine a block from the past, it has higher difficulty.
It is most profitable to have your clock be nearly accurate.
P
05:56
Protovist
$ ntptrace
localhost: stratum 3, offset -0.000023, synch distance 0.027690
05:57
my clock is synced
Z
05:57
Zack
I guess we should wait to see which nodes will sync the next block
S
05:57
Sy
mine is probably older
Z
05:58
Zack
Sy refreshes his potential_block work very rarely I think
OK
06:01
O K
It went up a bit after it went down
06:01
So, no not in the sense that you're thinking, I think
06:04
🙃
S
06:05
Sy
na its going down
06:05
its just like zack said, i dont refresh that often
Z
06:07
Zack
if you refresh the work more frequently, then the workers are spending more time working on stale problems.
S
06:11
Sy
i found 2 more
OK
06:11
O K
What's tophegiht
06:11
28138
06:11
?
S
06:11
Sy
yes
OK
06:11
O K
👍
S
06:12
Sy
i have to refresh the block more often now because the one after the block find has ofc the highest diff which is decreasing over time
OK
06:12
O K
Got one!
06:12
In reply to this message
Let's just do it at the default time for awhile
06:13
Form a handshake agreement, take down ethereum first
06:13
then come back for amoveo
S
06:13
Sy
there they are
06:13
block data reports the same diff tho
06:14
hmm
Z
06:14
Zack
28140
S
06:14
Sy
not on veoscan
06:14
am i parsing the wrong field? ^^
OK
06:14
O K
28141
Z
06:15
Zack
difficulty is at 13773. light nodes are able to sync. looks like a successful hard update.
S
06:15
Sy
yeah my parser is wrong
J
06:16
Jurko | Bermuda capital 📈 via @gif
In reply to this message
Animation
Not included, change data exporting settings to download.
407.1 KB
Z
06:16
Zack
5 blocks in 5 minutes was a little frightening, but it seems to have the right difficulty
OK
06:17
O K
In reply to this message
🎊
Z
06:18
Zack
oh, the light node is not working.
S
06:20
Sy
hmm but the diff only changed once?
06:20
ah yeah, blocks too fast -> ignored
Z
06:20
Zack
In reply to this message
correct. when the estimate is inside of the tolerance range, then the difficulty does not change.
S
06:21
Sy
the tolerance is?
06:22
im off to bed
as long as it doesnt ignore 100 fast blocks and doesnt increase diff we are good for now, cya tomorrow :)
Z
06:24
Zack
it is a factor of 2
06:25
from 3*target/4 -> 3*target/2
EP
06:30
Evans Pan
5 blocks in 5 mins, it's just lucky?
Z
06:31
Zack
it was just from randomness
IP
06:33
I P
sorry guys missed the action. do all full nodes need to update and resync?
Z
06:39
Zack
I fixed the light nodes.
06:39
In reply to this message
yes.
MF
06:46
Mr Flintstone
great stuff!
OK
06:48
O K
In reply to this message
No clean this time?
06:48
No 2nd clean for the 2nd fork light node fix
06:48
?
Z
06:49
Zack
In reply to this message
no. you only need a 'git pull'
06:49
it is only changing javascript stuff
06:54
well, you need to restart it after you git pull.
no resync.
06:58
last 5 blocks took 45 minutes.
Looks like it works.
AS
07:03
Aizen Sou
In reply to this message
Wait for next 100 blocks to be sure
M
08:17
Mike
Good work Zack, looks great
[
08:18
[Riki]
Animation
Not included, change data exporting settings to download.
236.3 KB
08:30
Deleted Account
👍👍
09:12
Deleted Account
Lol.
09:14
Vitalik definitely needs to pack on some extra pounds.
[
09:15
[Riki]
In reply to this message
You can submit a request on eth github
OK
09:18
O K
😂
Z
09:40
Zack
How about we make markets for bribing famous people to write about Amoveo?
09:41
"Vitalik uses the word 'Amoveo' in a tweet before the end of August."
MF
09:45
Mr Flintstone
would this be thru a dac?
TG
09:51
Toby Ganger
In reply to this message
this is actually wise marketing...it's similar in a sense to paying social media influencers to mention your product...except it's like a decentralized crowdfund
Z
09:53
Zack
In reply to this message
If the famous person sets up a server, or works with me, then we can make a dominant assurance contract. This would be the more profitable way to do it.

If we are trying to get their attention, we can make a normal market and see if the rumor of it gets to them.
MF
10:26
Mr Flintstone
cryptoinfluencers.io
MF
10:55
Mr Flintstone
though it seems like this list doesn’t include such luminaries as Justin sun for some reason
Z
10:55
Zack
I should make a list and let people pay to be on it.
Z
11:41
Zack
It seems like the blocks are staying near to 10 minutes each.
S
12:13
Sy
Diff didnt change again?
MF
12:38
Mr Flintstone
has it needed to?
S
12:49
Sy
its a "retarget every block" algo now, it should
12:49
and yes, we are still too high
12:50
lets wait and see, its still better than before ^^
Deleted invited Deleted Account
AK
13:27
A K
In reply to this message
🙏🏻
TG
14:33
Toby Ganger
just a heads up that qtrade withdrawals for VEO aren't working
14:34
never had an issue with it before..but alas here we are...any ideas on the technical side what it could be?
14:37
could they be separated from the network due to the fork/update?
Deleted joined group by link from Group
ŽM
16:01
Živojin Mirić
Almost 1000 users yaaay
B
16:04
Ben
maybe the Node they use is not updated yet
S
17:55
Sy
In reply to this message
again i think
18:31
Deleted Account
18:31
I update cosmos, but can't start it
AK
19:05
A K
1000 mveo )
MF
19:08
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
nah, only if outside target range does it retarget
AK
19:11
A K
and retarget %% is unlimited now, no steps?
19:12
range is 0.75 - 1.5 ?
S
19:18
Sy
In reply to this message
okay...so we might be a bit above or below and it wont change
19:18
which means, since its not changing, we will do above 200 per day
19:19
we are at 100 blocks 13h in the new diff
T
19:27
Topab
Thanks Zack and all the rest of contributors for the nice work. I got excited with Amoveo as soon as I read about but got my miners late, just when the difficulty skyrocketed so mined very little. Now it looks much better :) I persisted on mining on veo despite the difficulty. Really like the project and see the potential. To the point that I am thinking of start building something using Amoveo. I am not developer myself but I could get those resources if I present a decent proposal. I would welcome any ideas from you.
19:27
A stable coin has been always in my mind as one of the thingsI think Amoveo could do well, efficient and using a truly decentralized oracle
AK
19:42
A K
target range is calculated from the last block or from the EWHA or from the last updated diff?
windsurf2sky invited windsurf2sky
Z
20:16
Zack
In reply to this message
Target range is based on the current difficulty.
AK
20:16
A K
current = last adjusted?
20:17
i can see that 13773 is not updated for some time already
20:27
Sy mentioned that we're on to 200 blocks today - how can one easily calculate it?
OK
20:28
O K
Veopool's lazy block explorer I think shows you a 24 hour span
AK
20:29
A K
yeah indeed, but it's backwards looking
OK
20:29
O K
In reply to this message
News of building projects with amoveo is exciting Pablo, glad to hear it
T
20:31
Topab
Still not materialized but ... I am hoping to get things together and start it
MF
20:54
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
hmm - My guess would have been 50% more blocks would cause the diff to go up
20:54
though this would be like block time of 6m40s?
20:54
Zack what is the target range again?
Z
20:56
Zack
7:30 - 15:00
20:57
http://159.65.120.84:8080/explorer.html

Explorer says 11 minutes almost all the time.
AK
20:58
A K
So we can indefinitely hover at 200 blocks/day ?
20:58
Seems like any rational miner will optimize for that
MF
20:58
Mr Flintstone
I don’t think we should get 200 blocks per day
20:58
oh, actually I guess it would be 192 at most
20:59
if 7:30 blocks
20:59
coordination is hard
AK
21:00
A K
I don't think that's a huge problem, just want to understand how it works
21:01
144 vs 192 not a big deal probably
Z
21:01
Zack
81 vs 192
AK
21:03
A K
Yeah at extremes
Z
21:49
Zack
http://139.59.144.76:8080/explorer.html
Looks like we have 1 veo of confidence that the price will be above $300 in the next 2 weeks.
EP
22:30
Evans Pan
1 hour no block?
OK
22:32
O K
AP just found a block a couple minutes ago
S
22:34
Sy
a smaller window might be better, more little up and down movements but not such extremes as said earlier...but we can test this one for a while first :)
22:34
Deleted Account
I have registered mveopool.com mveo.info
22:34
😂😂
Z
23:45
Zack
In reply to this message
a windows of size 2x makes security proofs simple, because it means you would need more than 50% of the hashrate to cause oscillations in difficulty.

A smaller window can probably be secure too, but we would need to do some math to find out.
9 August 2018
S
00:02
Sy
👍
MF
00:39
Mr Flintstone
Zack how much work needs to be done to convert current market contract to a DAC?
Z
00:40
Zack
dominant assurance contracts are an open research problem. There is no agreed upon best way to build them.
MF
00:40
Mr Flintstone
how would you approach the problem
00:41
or if you’ve written about this before in depth on GitHub I’ll look there too
Z
00:41
Zack
An easy first iteration is to put a limit so that the market only accepts trades at a 1:9 price, and only the market maker is allowed to bet on "True".
MF
00:42
Mr Flintstone
interesting - that would require the bribee to create the market
Z
00:42
Zack
In this situation, the market maker, builder, and entrepenuer are all the same person.
00:43
today I am trying to deal with the issues and pull requests that have been building up on github.
Z
01:18
Zack
We were at 34 TH per block recently, now we are at 16 TH per block.
profitability of mining has more than doubled.
S
01:44
Sy
Price is down to 150 tho
01:44
So i think its about the same
01:50
125$ at qtrade, some deals even lower
TG
01:54
Toby Ganger
😢
MF
02:05
Mr Flintstone
let’s see how low it gets with all the new supply
02:13
over/under 80?
Z
02:19
Zack
http://139.59.144.76:8080/explorer.html
Looks like Amoveo will be worth more than $300 within 2 weeks.
02:19
If someone thought otherwise, they would participate in the market
02:20
Deleted Account
why do you think that zack?
Z
02:20
Zack
why do I think what?
02:21
Deleted Account
that amoveo will be worth more than 300 within 2 weeks
02:21
just curious not protesting
Z
02:21
Zack
I don't think that.
02:21
Deleted Account
Looks like Amoveo will be worth more than $300 within 2 weeks.
Z
02:21
Zack
yes. did you look at it?
02:21
Deleted Account
idk whats going on but is my brain farting
Z
02:21
Zack
have a look at the graph, you can see for yourself how it is mostly yellow.
02:22
Deleted Account
oh yea
А
02:22
Андрюхин
Can somebody explain what that graph means ?
Z
02:23
Zack
what part is confusing? did you read the page?
I understand there is a language barrier, but I don't want to re-explain everything
02:24
you understand the horizontal and vertical units on the graph?
S
02:24
Sebsebzen
Zack is this live yet https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/issues/173 ?
Z
02:24
Zack
1, 2, 3, and 4 are live.
02:24
and most of 6
02:25
oh, there is a problem with 4. It isn't working.
S
02:37
Sebsebzen
Ok, no problem
02:38
My designer colleague will start working on making it more user friendly interface
02:38
mostly CSS
02:38
just anticipating what changes are still upcoming
DV
03:01
Denis Voskvitsov
trying to understand last update.
am i right that difficulty retargeting will perform when total network hashrate shifts above 34Th/s or below 17Th/s (when upper / lower limits of current block period range are hit)? based on current difficulty/block period ofc
Z
03:29
Zack
I think 20 TH/s an 40 TH/s are the limits beyond which the difficulty would adjust.
03:29
so you could be right. my estimate is rough.
Deleted invited Deleted Account
+
04:13
++
In reply to this message
04:13
Clicking on link shows this
04:14
I feel like you ment for people to see something else?
Z
04:14
Zack
open up the graph on that page.
OK
04:15
O K
list markets
04:15
then click the market that is shown
+
04:16
++
Got it.
04:16
[
04:22
[Riki]
Veopool.pw vs http://explorer.veopool.pw vs mveo.net are not consistent regarding hashrates. Which one is correct?
Z
04:23
Zack
http://159.65.120.84:8080/explorer.html
This is the one I wrote.
+
04:23
++
In reply to this message
What happens in scenarios of
(X and !Y)
(!X and Y)
OK
04:24
O K
X and !Y, false wins
04:24
same for !X and Y
04:24
!X and !Y is true wins
04:24
same for X and Y
04:30
Animation
Not included, change data exporting settings to download.
304.3 KB
[
04:30
[Riki]
In reply to this message
This is not a reply to my question right?
OK
04:31
O K
I think it might be, if you click the button at the top it will tell you the network hashrate
04:31
... And it will probably give you a different number than the other sources 😂
Z
04:34
Zack
the network is 30.6 TH/s according to my estimation.
[
04:51
[Riki]
Ok. All values are around 30 +/-10% at least
+
04:53
++
In reply to this message
Thx. So something like this.
04:53
OK
04:53
O K
Preciesly
+
04:54
++
In reply to this message
Can you explain in words
area A
area B
area C
In the chart
04:54
MF
04:56
Mr Flintstone
for B
04:56
this is my understanding:
04:56
if you win, you gain 325 mveo
04:57
in order to match this bet, you need to match at a price of (1-0.55) and a committed mveo amount of (1-0.55)*325
04:58
I believe the UI will handle this for you. you just put 325 in the “amount” section, select “false” as your choice, then put 0.45 in the “price” section
04:58
then, 0.45*325 will be deducted from your non-bet channel balance
04:58
maybe I am wrong on some things here Zack
04:59
In reply to this message
so if you lose, you lose .45*325
+
04:59
++
In reply to this message
What does the 55 at area B designate?
MF
04:59
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
the price quoted in percent chance
04:59
odds basically
04:59
the x axis
+
05:00
++
In reply to this message
I hear that but it seems like the calc is just determining bet size, not odds
05:00
Also don’t see how it all ties to $300 price?
Z
05:01
Zack
for B, Mr Flinstone is very nearly correct.

This is an open order sitting in an order book.

If this order was matched with someone else's trade, then you could gain/lose veo depending on the outcome.

If you win, the contract is worth 325 mVEO.
If you lose, the contract is worth 0 mVEO.
To put an order like this in the order book, you pay 325 * 0.55 = 178.7 mVEO.
05:02
in a market price and odds are the same. they are both 0.55 in this case.
MF
05:02
Mr Flintstone
but to match it, doesn’t the price have to be 0.45 for false?
+
05:02
++
In reply to this message
Helpful. Thx.
So at B, you bet 178 and will either win 325 or lose 178
MF
05:02
Mr Flintstone
understood placing the bet costs 0.55*325
Z
05:02
Zack
In reply to this message
yes, if someone wants to match you, they need to agree to pay 0.45 or higher.
+
05:04
++
At C, you pay 375/2 or about 187 and either win 375 or lose 187?
Z
05:04
Zack
The grey bet cost 1.25 mVEO, and it has the potential to be worth 125 mVEO.
100x gains, because it is a bet at price 0.01
05:06
In reply to this message
The bet at C can only be worth 50 mVEO.
It is stacked on top of the other bet.

So if you are willing to buy shares of False at a price of 0.50, then you can match up to 375 in total.
+
05:09
++
In reply to this message
Can you relate the odds to the implied price?
Z
05:09
Zack
odds and price are the same thing.
+
05:10
++
In reply to this message
Not price of bet but implied price of VEO in market.
Z
05:10
Zack
if you are willing to trade at odds 0.2, that means you think there is at least a 20% chance your side will win, that means you are willing to pay a price of 0.2
+
05:11
++
In reply to this message
I mean how odds relate to Y and !Y
Z
05:11
Zack
In reply to this message
this market is only betting if we will be above or below $300.
since people are betting at price 0.5, and no one is matching them. That means there is a >50% chance that the price of VEO would be above $300 in 2 weeks.
05:11
If someone believed otherwise, they would bet on false and take the free money.
MF
05:15
Mr Flintstone
it’s hard to get an implied veo price from this market
05:16
you would need to use some kind of option pricing model I think
Z
05:16
Zack
it only has 1 veo at stake. not enough of a prize to draw people to participate
MF
05:16
Mr Flintstone
but even then, that would be more applicable to vanilla options rather than binaries
Z
05:17
Zack
45% profit in only 2 weeks is pretty significant returns.
05:17
I doubt the interest rate of VEO is higher than that.
05:19
Larkin Rose hasn't endorsed any blockchain, but he does use steemit to make a profit.
I bet we could use a market to get him to post about Amoveo on facebook.
OK
05:21
O K
In reply to this message
Cool idea
05:21
Maybe YouTube instead
+
05:27
++
What does the step up from 375 VEO to ~1150 mean?
Incremental VEO bet ~ 1150-375= 775
Betting true at 45

So betting false, is 100-45= 55.
Pay 55 to win 45 if false or lose 55 if true. Ignoring size for a moment.

Is that right?
05:35
Is this right:
The x axis gives the price you pay betting true and the returns you get is 100 minus price.

So the lower the price for true, the higher the return for true.

This is why the amount of VEO bet increases as the X axis gets smaller. It is because the payout for the “True” side is higher.

Conversely, as you go right on the X axis, you effectively pay a higher price for true. Since return is 100-price, the return for True is decreasing as price gets higher.

A price of 50 says there is little certainty either way on whether outcome will be True or False
05:41
Right now, someone can bet on False at price of 45.

If VEO is below or equal to $300 at specified block, this bet on False will receive 55/45=122% return on their investment.

If VEO is above $300 at specified block, this bet on False will lose 100%

So there is a larger upside to downside betting on False than Betting on true.
05:44
Question is what is the source used to determine what price of VEO is?
Also language on timing is fuzzy...”around height 30,000”. How do we know at what point it is around or is not around block height 30,000
Z
05:45
Zack
In reply to this message
Sounds like you understand.
05:46
In reply to this message
The Oracle decides. There is lots of documentation on the Oracle you can read.
+
05:49
++
In reply to this message
Don’t hate me for asking more about oracle. Still trying to understand.
Last time we discussed, you said there is a prediction market and a reporting market.

So, after the event has occurred, will you create a new market for reporting whether (X and Y) or (!X And !Y) is true?
S
05:51
Sy
the oracle is already there and the bet tied to it
+
05:53
++
In reply to this message
I used to think that, but in a prior convo, Zack said there is the prediction market and a reporting market.
I got the impression that ment there is an oracle for each market.
Zack, correct where I’m wrong...
S
05:53
Sy
afaik you cant change the bet afterwards, would be kinda pointless - it is on the block and thats it so the oracles have to be there
[
05:54
[Riki]
We need a veopedia, really. Much knowledge being shared here.
S
05:54
Sy
😝👍
05:54
thats true and it has to be written by someone else than zack, at least my mind doesnt work like his so many of his explanations dont explain much at all 😅
Z
05:57
Zack
reporting market = oracle
+
06:01
++
In reply to this message
Ok. Be patient with me but in your github doc, you said oracle resolved on side that most money is bet.

In the prediction market, you don’t need an oracle.

In the reporting you do.

If there is more money bet on the True side but in fact the VEO price is <=$300 will the false side still lose?
[
06:02
[Riki]
In reply to this message
Lets open up a bounty for hiring people to moderate the veo wiki Zack .
Z
06:02
Zack
reporting has betting involved, but that is only part of the oracle. The oracle uses nakamoto consensus as well.
The reporting market is optimized for being an oracle.
MF
06:07
Mr Flintstone
An oracle is just a data structure that sits on chain
06:07
markets are signed smart contracts that update their state in channels
06:07
these markets can reference one or many oracles. also, many markets can reference one oracle
06:07
markets pay out based on what the oracle says
+
06:14
++
In reply to this message
Both you and OK keep referencing nakamoto consensus as answer to my questions on the oracle. I’m slow and don’t see how it relates but maybe my understanding of it is different from yours.

I thought the point of nakamoto consensus was to get around the double spend risk implicit in the Byzantine general problem. Put simply, there is a coordination issue where it is unclear if a given passed message is the true message or whether it was corrupted in some way so as to enable double spend.

The POW protocol “solves” the problem by making a message hard to create but easy to verify. I can see how this assures certainty of accounting for all the VEO tokens and makes sure there is no double spend of VEO but I don’t understand how the POW protocol provides a disciplining function for Oracle accuracy.
06:17
In reply to this message
I thought an oracle was literally a fixed state of either 1 or 0?
I thought state was determined by dollars betting 1 v dollars betting 0. Effectively a vote weighted by dollars. Is this wrong?
Z
06:17
Zack
nakamoto consensus is for agreeing on a history of events.
06:18
it is expensive to use nakamoto consensus as an oracle. to cover this cost we use betting.
Betting escalates to the point where nakamoto consensus is affordable.
+
06:19
++
In reply to this message
Can you use a few words to explain what nakamoto consensus means in your mind ?
Z
06:20
Zack
pow mining to decide which block to include.
+
06:20
++
In reply to this message
Yes. Agree.
06:21
In reply to this message
This seems to be good for managing the accounting of your currency e.g. no double spend.

How does it relate to resolving state for an oracle ?
06:33
In reply to this message
Also, never got answer to this question:

If there is more money bet on the True side but in fact the VEO price is <=$300 will the false side still lose?
Z
06:34
Zack
read the docs again and come back if you still have questions. maybe it will make more sense this time.
MF
06:38
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
do you mean in the oracle? or the market
+
06:38
++
Ok. Just read the docs again.

Seems doc says Oracle resolves based on dollar voting. This would seem to mean VEO could be less than $300 and those that bet False would Lose even though they should have won. : /

Here is the section.

Bets of different types will get matched on a 1:1 basis. The type with the highest unmatched balance determines the output type of the oracle. If the output type of an oracle has not been changed for a certain number of blocks, the oracle can be finalized with that output type and betting ends. Placed bets are locked up until the oracle is finalized, at which point you are paid out according to the final output type.
06:41
In reply to this message
My read is oracle just reports on dollar weighted voting in the market. So VEO could be $250 and those that bet it would be above $300 would still win because there is more money betting True that VEO above $300 even though the facts might be that it is below $300
MF
06:46
Mr Flintstone
think about a blockchain that functions as an oracle, but does not have any betting to determine the oracle output
06:46
on this blockchain, we can only ask it one question at a time.
06:47
the valuable blockchain will be the one with the correct oracle output right?
+
06:47
++
To put in starker terms, I would be willing to bet VEO is below $300 if I knew I would get paid if the facts are that VEO is below $300 at a given date, however, given my understanding of the oracle I would lose $$ even if I was right just because a whale took the other side of the bet.
MF
06:48
Mr Flintstone
I think you should start from the perspective of having an oracle without any betting
06:48
and then focus on how we can use betting to make a blockchain have many oracles at once
06:48
In reply to this message
having a blockchain that acts as an oracle*
06:50
“Using Nakamoto consensus to answer questions like "Would it be better if block reward was increased?" is possible, but it is very expensive. The users and miners would have to manually answer that question as part of the process of syncing the blockchain.”
+
06:51
++
In reply to this message
Right, but now we are saying the miners determine the outcome of a bet and can override the documented protocol for how an oracles state is resolved. Basically the oracle state becomes a decision variable for miners to choose which chain to mine on...
Z
06:51
Zack
In reply to this message
Miners don't have power. They can only mine on the side with valuable tokens.
+
06:55
++
In reply to this message
If there is more money bet on the True side but in fact the VEO price is <=$300 will the false side still lose?
Z
06:56
Zack
if veo < $300, the false side loses.
+
06:57
++
In reply to this message
Huh?
06:57
Z
06:58
Zack
that is a chart of the channel market.
+
06:58
++
In reply to this message
Totally lost me...
Z
06:59
Zack
oh, my mistake. if veo > $300 true side wins
+
07:00
++
I thought False wins if VEO < = $300 and retarget gets merged.
This is upper right hand box.
07:00
In reply to this message
Ok. Phew
07:01
So,

If there is more money bet on the True side but in fact the VEO price is <=$300 will the false side still lose?
Z
07:01
Zack
if veo > $300, true side wins.
+
07:02
++
So,

If there is more money bet on the True side but in fact the VEO price is <=$300 will the false side still lose?
MF
07:03
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
bet in the oracle, or bet in the market?
Z
07:03
Zack
if veo > $300, true side wins.
I have answered this question more than once. If you repeat yourself, I will ban you.
+
07:05
++
In reply to this message
Sorry if I upset you. I honestly still don’t know the answer. Some of us are a bit slower on this. I thought I might get a yes or no to the question and maybe I missed it if you did say yes or no. My bad.
07:06
In reply to this message
Can you explain this? I don’t think I follow.
MF
07:08
Mr Flintstone
there are two betting mechanisms at work here. people bet at arbitrary odds in the market, then people bet at 1:1 odds in the oracle to determine how the market pays out
+
07:12
++
In reply to this message
Thank you. Sy and I discussed that above. That is what I thought but when I asked if there will be another round of betting for reporting on the outcome, it was unclear.

So there is betting around a prediction for which there is no need for an oracle.

Then there is betting for reporting purposes on what the actual outcome. This is effectively a dollar weighted vote on what people believe transpired.

Is that correct?
MF
07:13
Mr Flintstone
I wouldn’t use those words to describe the reporting process “dollar weighted vote”
Z
07:13
Zack
false. the betting is just escalation so that we can affordably use nakamoto consensus to determine the outcome.
+
07:15
++
In reply to this message
Doesn’t the oracle resolve on the true side or false side based on which side has more unmatched dollars? Isn’t that like treating dollars as voting tickets and the side with the most voting tickets wins ?
OK
07:18
O K
If you search for "dollar weighted vote" you can see several instances where ++ has been told that's not an accurate way to describe it
07:19
I know you really want it to be that ++, but it's just not accurate
+
07:21
++
In reply to this message
Thx OK. I recall you saying this before. I appreciate your conclusion but I’m having trouble understanding why or how.

Can you elaborate further on how the oracle wouldn’t resolve on the side with the most dollar support?
OK
07:22
O K
I think what's important is the driving force, maybe this is a chicken or the egg thing
+
07:24
++
Maybe talk through an example that negates my explanation. Eg can you describe a situation where more dollars bet on True but False wins?
MF
07:25
Mr Flintstone
if somehow someone with over 50% of the supply bet on a false outcome
+
07:25
++
In reply to this message
From what was said before, this only happens if miners make a decision to contrary...
OK
07:25
O K
I'm pretty tired right now, but here's what I've got for you.

For a coin whose value is in finding Truth, if it finds things that are commonly believed to be false true, then it has no value.

Nakamoto consensus is about keeping the coin valuable. Therefore the driving force is truth.

That might RESULT in the side with the most dollar support winning. But that is not what decided things
07:26
Cause vs effect.
+
07:26
++
In reply to this message
Thx. But doesn’t that support point that side with most dollars bet determines oracle outcome?
MF
07:27
Mr Flintstone
We can just fork the chain, so even though it had more veo bet, it doesn’t win
OK
07:27
O K
In reply to this message
And the fork that determines truth, is the valuable chain
07:27
Shittoveo that decides oracles with a coinflip, is not valuable
MF
07:28
Mr Flintstone
people value amoveo because it can be used to report truthfully about real world events. if it is not reporting truthfully, people will not value it
+
07:29
++
In reply to this message
Agree... I said the same above.

“From what was said before, this only happens if miners make a decision to contrary...”

But aside from fork, oracle will resolve on side with most dollars, right?
MF
07:29
Mr Flintstone
all of them will aside from fork
07:29
and this isn’t really the miner’s decision
07:29
they can decide to mine on a chain with valueless tokens, but this is not sustainable
07:30
what gives the tokens value is the fact that they are a part of a truth telling apparatus
+
07:34
++
Zack, Flintstone,OK - thx for your patience with my questions.

I guess the good news is we have a wonderful real time experiment.

There is a bet afoot.

So long as the merge happens, we get to see which side is determined to win relative to the price of VEO.

If VEO > $300, we don’t learn anything.

What will be interesting is if fork merged and VEO <=$300. If True wins, I think you guys are saying there should be a fork by the miners because True should not win if VEO < = $300

Do you guys agree with this characterization of what should transpire ?
OK
07:36
O K
If there is a fork, then there would be two chains, one where true was stated when it was false, and one where false was stated when it was false
Z
07:36
Zack
if the price is < $300, the oracle will return false.
I will stake all my VEO.
MF
07:37
Mr Flintstone
if true is somehow winning and veo is less than 300, and we’ve exhausted all of our veo betting against true, then there would be a fork
07:37
yeah I’ll go all in as well
+
07:38
++
In reply to this message
Yep. And your theory is that “false” stated when it was false should be the valuable chain that miners mine on. So truth is preserved through “nakamoto consensus”.
That is my understanding of what you guys have said so far.
07:39
In reply to this message
It’s really interesting. There is a dynamic where you might bet one way in the prediction market but “stake” on the opposite in the reporting market.
MF
07:40
Mr Flintstone
stake is a much better word than vote :)
OK
07:40
O K
In reply to this message
The question wasn't this though, it was 'around'
07:40
;)
MF
07:41
Mr Flintstone
u sure brah
07:41
betting on this: X = retarget branch gets merged into mainnet before block height 29000; Y = price of veo around height 30000 is > $300; (X AND Y) OR (!X AND !Y)
Z
07:41
Zack
In reply to this message
yes. if the result isn't clear, I would be hesitant to put much veo at risk.
Only if the outcome is obvious in one direction or the other, then I would stake a lot.
OK
07:42
O K
In reply to this message
Oh, 'around' height
07:42
✔️
MF
07:42
Mr Flintstone
yeah I got really worried for a second
07:42
In reply to this message
if the oracle system doesn’t work my veo is basically worthless anyways so why not go all in
07:43
plus you get to double your money
+
07:43
++
In reply to this message
I think around referred to block height not price. $300 is a non fuzzy price.
It is fuzzy determining which market to get the price from but the price is clear.
Z
07:44
Zack
price only has meaning at a point in time.
If the price is jumping over and under $300 around that height, then it would be unclear what the outcome should be.
MF
07:44
Mr Flintstone
Zack what happens in the current binary option market if the oracle resolves to bad question?
07:44
to the buyers of true and false
+
07:44
++
In reply to this message
As long as your specified a market and a time, no question about price , right?
Z
07:45
Zack
In reply to this message
it either undoes the bet, or it splits the money 50-50. I can't remember which.
07:45
we can program it either way, if people had a preference
MF
07:49
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
I feel like splitting 50/50 would be better
07:49
because it helps people understand when an oracle is worded poorly
07:49
and when to stay away
07:50
But idk
Z
07:50
Zack
we could make a market where you can bet on all 3 possibilities.
MF
07:50
Mr Flintstone
that would be even better
07:51
I forget sometimes that we can program literally whatever we want
Z
07:51
Zack
then a combinatory market would have at least 9 distinct outcomes.
07:52
Amoveo is putting the smart contract system in the right place.
We need the ability to experiment with lots of different market designs.
+
07:54
++
In reply to this message
You might consider making this as simple as possible at first. Adding more choices leads to “paradox of choice” and could stifle betting.
07:56
This is true, right ?
Z
07:56
Zack
just because there are 9 outcome states of the smart contract doesn't mean the user needs to know that.

The user could just select something like "I want to risk $200 at most, and I think that football team X has at least a 60% chance of winning, if player Y is playing in the first round of the game."
Then your computer can do the bets to reflect this.
07:57
If it is undetermined, I think it is best to either split the money, or to undo the bet.
MF
07:58
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
block height should be 29000 but ya
07:58
I would say this is incontrovertibly true
+
08:01
++
In reply to this message
Awesome!
So all that matters now is whether VEO price is > $300 or <=$300

This is a great real time experiment if betting market is saying > $300 while all the quoted prices are way below that.

Doesn’t that strike anyone else as odd?

There is a pretty obvious money making opportunity ...
MF
08:01
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
yes there is for anyone who wants to match it
08:01
however, there is one situation where it may not make sense to match the bet
+
08:02
++
In reply to this message
I’m on the edge of my seat ...
MF
08:02
Mr Flintstone
if the expectation from market participants is now that veo will drop more than around 50% in price in two weeks (plus or minus discount factors etc)
08:02
cuz then ya you doubled your veo, but lost dollars
08:03
this wouldn’t apply to all market participants, but definitely some
08:03
In reply to this message
roughly doubled since odds are around 50% not since its an oracle bet (which it isn’t)
Z
08:05
Zack
that is a great way of explaining it Mr Flintstone
+
08:05
++
That is a nice point.
If you stake one side of the bet, VEO is locked up and you win bet but depreciation of VEO value might decrease gain.

On the flip side, winning the bet ensures you are still better off than all other holders of VEO that either didn’t bet or lost since they all suffered greater decline in value than the bet winner
08:07
In reply to this message
Still makes sense to match the bet IF you plan to hold VEO over that time period.
Choice is
A) depreciation of value
Or
B depreciation of value offset by bet winnings.
MF
08:08
Mr Flintstone
what if veo goes up to 290? :)
08:08
you do get price appreciation from that
08:17
I meant in reference to the price of veo atm
+
08:17
++
Don’t you guys find it odd people are not betting price will be < $300
Seems like a no brainer given where trading price is and the fact diff decreased.
08:18
You guys have a big stack and know this intimately. At a minimum, I’d expect you to be taking the no bet.
08:19
True bet is a loser
08:19
But odds reward bet on “false”
08:19
Sorry. Substitute true for yes and false for no
MF
08:19
Mr Flintstone
there is an edit button in telegram chat
08:20
it isn’t like there is a ton of money bet rn tho
08:20
only 350 mveo or so bet better than 1:1 odds for the taker
08:20
I think
08:20
as you take liquidity out of the buyers, the payout gets worse for you
+
08:23
++
In reply to this message
Bet False and get paid return of 55/45
Bet True and get paid return of 45/55

Getting paid higher return for bet that price ends up closer to where it is now rather than jumping up.

Getting paid higher return for bet that lower diff increase inflation and lowers price.


These seem like no brainers...
Z
08:23
Zack
In reply to this message
I ran out of money in my channel, and I don't feel like making a second.
+
08:25
++
In reply to this message
Confused. You are the king in this kingdom with the lowest frictional costs and you won’t make the obvious bet. If friction costs are that high, why would anyone make the obvious money maker bet
MF
08:25
Mr Flintstone
there isn’t really any friction
+
08:26
++
In reply to this message
Otherwise how to explain why there is such a good money making opportuny ripe for the taking but no takers ?
MF
08:26
Mr Flintstone
you’d need to pay like 0.05 veo in channel fees (actually I guess that is a lot) to lock up the veo for 4K blocks
08:27
that is only cuz zack set his channel fee to 1250 sats per block per veo
+
08:28
++
Sounds like friction
MF
08:28
Mr Flintstone
I mean if it’s a sure thing
08:28
5% loss isn’t shit
08:29
the actual tx fees to lock up your veo are negligible
08:29
maybe there is a technical hurdle
Z
08:46
Zack
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/apps/amoveo_core/priv/oracle_bet.fs#L31

Looks like if the result is bad-question, then the bet is undone. Not a 50-50- split.
Deleted invited Deleted Account
Deleted invited Deleted Account
13:10
Deleted Account
The ui in amoveobook is slightly better for the market as it displays open orders in text format..
Z
13:11
Zack
you like text better. I guess I could show both.
13:11
Deleted Account
What happens if you place a bet to exceed an existing order in the order book? (Thiss thinking about the yellow chart)
13:11
Still
Z
13:12
Zack
your bet can be partially matched, and the rest of the bet sits in the order book.
13:12
the smart contract can handle this situation.
13:12
Deleted Account
Text is good because its difficult to see the exact price
Z
13:12
Zack
trades get matched in batches anyway
13:12
Deleted Account
But what would the price be?
Z
13:13
Zack
the order book is programmed to choose the price so that the largest amount of veo being bet is matched.
13:13
Deleted Account
In that case it seems important to be able to match a bet precisely
Z
13:13
Zack
it is game theoretically secure as well. the market maker cannot profit by changing this strategy any more than he can profit by gambling in the market normally.
13:14
no, when there are batches the nash equilibrium strategy is to write the highest price you are willing to pay. it is similar to a vickery auction.
13:14
you will pay that much or less, depending on the price of the batch.
13:15
but tables might make some people feel more comfortable. no harm in adding them.
13:15
I think I want to make so you can hide either if you only want to see one of them.
13:16
Deleted Account
Im thinking about a sketch. One moment
13:49
Deleted Account
13:49
This makes more sense to me at least
13:50
I think making this part of the ui more approachable is important if we want the markets to be effective
S
13:51
Sy
In reply to this message
👍
13:52
there are 2 important places for good UI
- wallet
- betting
aka the users end
13:52
creating markets etc is important too but thats more the "admin stuff" imho
13:52
at least for now
14:03
Deleted Account
The wallet ui could be simpler.
14:04
There is also the amount of matched bets and what price they were made at. This is not shown. I think a histogram could be an efficient means of showing this
14:05
At the very least we need the total amount of veo matched displayed somewhere
14:06
«The wallet ui could be simpler.» — by this i meant that simply selecting the odds and amount is sufficient in the wallet. Ideally the wallet and display of the market should be on the same page, but that would be a really large step...
S
14:08
Sy
In reply to this message
i disagree, you want seperated pages for everything - i dont see a reason why sendingt veo has to be on the same page as betting anyway tbh
14:10
Deleted Account
Thats how I would expect an exchange to work. Ideally i’d state my bet in the market then that would pop up in a wallet application that could be trusted, for signing only
14:11
This should be a long term goal imho. But right now I dont think its reasonable or wise to expect this
14:12
Actually the chrome extension is not that far off. Except i dont use chrome :-/
S
14:19
Sy
144 blocks in 24 h
14:19
spot on 😎👍
14:19
and we have a new pool running
14:20
anyone here owning
BNvMbSWWUxSBZUWrgOI/JWSeaOr93y3V8fqPaVaiZG8KTskrF1tneRdRrjzqyHB8SkBFtiDr+C8+QlAFYY+hb4s= so i can name it?
14:20
might be Bo Yan
IP
14:35
I P
In reply to this message
need to raise fees on veopool to incentivize people switching to other pools and decentralize mining again
S
15:01
Sy
i already have 25 times higher fee than ap
AK
16:31
A K
diff going up
ŽM
16:50
Živojin Mirić
@potat_o how often is amoveopool payout? Once a day?
OK
17:41
O K
In reply to this message
That's preferred setting but since there are intermittent tx dropping problems on the network it seems to help people get their veo faster if we pay more frequently
S
17:52
Sy
yeah i might move up payouts aswell
17:52
i really liked those big payout blocks tho 😎
17:57
Deleted Account
In reply to this message
No I am not a developler. I just bought one domain. I am a spine surgeon in fact.
17:57
😂😂😂
S
18:00
Sy
nice job tho 😎👊
AK
18:01
A K
current height: 28359
terahashes per block: 18296
gigahashes per second: 46436
seconds per block: 394
18:01
18:01
46 TH/s or 31TH/s ?
18:02
quite a difference now
S
18:02
Sy
pool sees shares and guesses hashrate from there
18:02
explorer and veo sees blocks, 10 fast blocks -> hashrate off
AK
18:02
A K
and node checks just the blocks/
18:02
ok
S
18:02
Sy
pool is always more accurate since it got more numbers
AK
18:02
A K
tnx!
S
18:03
Sy
shares are only diff 9900 i think one share is 0.15 TH or something, i did the math once
18:03
yep 0.15 TH
18:03
so they happen way more regular thus more accurate readings
18:04
pure blocks is a different number again...unless i did a mistake somewhere xD
AK
18:06
A K
but it's for 24H
18:06
lagging
S
18:06
Sy
if the pool hashrate is still climbing then yes, its less for the last 24h
Deleted invited Deleted Account
AK
21:00
A K
100% diff now..
21:01
21:01
current height: 28386
terahashes per block: 21674
gigahashes per second: 67942
seconds per block: 319
21:01
how can veopool be so conservative
MF
21:11
Mr Flintstone
luck
AK
21:13
A K
Or someone came and withdrew ?
S
21:15
Sy
fast blocks, nothing special
21:17
you draw 100 lots per hour, on avg every 10th is a winner, that doesnt mean you really get 10 wins/h, you will go from 2 to probably 30
you (the pool) still knows you do 100/h but the others (explorer) can only see how many per hour your win, they know that every 10th is a winner so if you handed in 10 you must have drawn a 100...
21:18
and i think the explorer is looking at less than 100 now
J
22:28
Jurko | Bermuda capital 📈
Photo
167×72
awesome
MF
22:45
Mr Flintstone
looks like we’re getting lucky with blocks and the algo has increased the diff by about 50%
22:45
it should come back down tho
[
22:46
[Riki]
being lucky is unlucky
22:46
or not?
MF
22:50
Mr Flintstone
guess it depends on your perspective
[
22:51
[Riki]
right. but i am thinking more in general or on average.
22:52
you should still be better off from being lucky i guess. i am just speculating.
MF
22:53
Mr Flintstone
on average we won’t be lucky
[
22:55
[Riki]
you are right
Z
23:17
Zack
In reply to this message
Will it?
Hashrate would have to fall by more than a factor of 2.
S
23:44
Sy
i just lost 3-5 TH, not sure if they just switched tho
J
23:48
Jurko | Bermuda capital 📈
yup
AK
23:50
A K
In reply to this message
What's that?
J
23:51
Jurko | Bermuda capital 📈
https://amoveopool.com/#pool-stats
23:51
also new pool?
AK
23:52
A K
So they switched to another pool, tnx
10 August 2018
EP
00:14
Evans Pan
In reply to this message
new diff put veo profit lower, miners switch fast
MF
00:22
Mr Flintstone
In reply to this message
now it’s easier for luck to push the blocks too slow than to have them too fast
0xLawrence invited 0xLawrence
EP
00:48
Evans Pan
everything back to normal, nice
t
08:40
tunez 💙🚀
Whats circ and max supply?
Z
08:41
Zack
https://veoscan.io/
We don't know the max supply.
The governance mechanism will decide.
08:51
http://139.59.144.76:8080/explorer.html
23.8 petahashes per block.
t
09:17
tunez 💙🚀
Thanks!
Deleted invited Deleted Account
Deleted invited Deleted Account