tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post2678743835674687073..comments2024-03-28T02:31:38.608-07:00Comments on DSHR's Blog: The Stablecoin Saga ContinuedDavid.http://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-33603048671667918402023-03-21T08:37:58.625-07:002023-03-21T08:37:58.625-07:00Russians Use Tether to Send Money to the West, Eva...<a href="https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/03/15/ukraine-russia-sanctions-tether/" rel="nofollow"><i>Russians Use Tether to Send Money to the West, Evading Sanctions and KYC – Transparency International</i></a> by Anna Baydakova illustrates the real purpose of cryptocurrencies, evading regulation, and that it has nothing to do with decentralization:<br /><br />"The Russian branch of Transparency International, a global anti-corruption nongovernmental organization (NGO), found at least eight over-the-counter (OTC) brokers in Moscow that can sell you tens of thousands dollars in stablecoins for cash and then exchange it in the U.K for pounds sterling – all for cash and without know-your-customer (KYC) paperwork."<br /><br />This is similar to the way DataFinnovation found stablecoins in Asia being used to fund trade flows.David.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-45631858656231000372022-11-30T16:33:59.956-08:002022-11-30T16:33:59.956-08:00I think that works because of the (too small) 1..1...I think that works because of the (too small) 1..1234 example, right?<br /><br />If we extend the example to say 1..99999999, the "pick a random x" doesnt observe the law.<br /><br />I'm not disagreeing with the gist of the article (I think there is something going on there..). I just think Wikipedia provides a better explanation: <br /><br />"...is an observation that in many real-life sets of numerical data, the leading digit is likely to be small"<br />Warren Strangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11832307765436664938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-78256715957455493132022-11-30T15:05:47.141-08:002022-11-30T15:05:47.141-08:00Datafinnovation's article does not say random ...Datafinnovation's article does not say random numbers obey the law. It says:<br /><br />"Very roughly: if you pick a random number x and count how many numbers between 0 and x start with 1 or 2 or 3 etc and plot the distribution"<br /><br />Lets take the (too small) random range from 1 to 1234. The first digit 1 occurs 111+234=345 times, the other digits occur 111 times. As the random range expands to span many orders of magnitude, the distribution approximates Benford's Law "very roughly".David.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-54582409041015746202022-11-30T08:13:48.983-08:002022-11-30T08:13:48.983-08:00The description of Benford's law on that Mediu...The description of Benford's law on that Medium article doesn't seem to match the Wikipedia entry.<br /><br />If I'm reading the Wikipedia definition correctly, truly random numbers do NOT follow Benford's law. I.e. the digits are uniformly distributed. Per wikipedia:<br /><br />"If the digits were distributed uniformly, they would each occur about 11.1% of the time."<br /><br />It's only "natural data" or real-life phenomena that show Benford's distribution.<br /><br /><br />Warren Strangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11832307765436664938noreply@blogger.com