🏅 Top traders

@citrinitas your random number is: 120

Salt: 6OUaYR3mM9Q3qWz2i9nb, round: 2631493 (signature 98308249c13a819531721074c955ed5234cc2521571bfb9a20f2ef084c25945c7412a83d8c08abf5d9fc60ce15073bd80302ddc723953e5aa5c071fff8cdf9c2cbc5a71672a5e2a1e73909de2ea8016e4077d99e47b3ebc09e219ba1be97818d)

@FairlyRandom 301

Hmm. Do I need to do something else? I think FairlyRandom is acting weird
I manually ran the calculation and I think the result should be 120, but let's double-check the instructions

Alright, don't wanna wait, here's my reimpl

https://gist.github.com/antonpaquin/1fe712b62d8dbc87563a6703726d5b00

I used

python fairly_random.py aef32e678d178d28ce5de27e14cf914627f8381e712895fe89d3826b08a54cf5 6OUaYR3mM9Q3qWz2i9nb

and got 120, so I'm going with that

@citrinitas Sorry, the bug has been fixed now, thanks for your patience! (https://github.com/u0s41v/FairlyRandom/commit/33ed4630fe65f9bccb70750bb51f4e286de08d8f)

Indeed your calculation is correct:

$ python3 fairly_random_verify.py --round 2631493 --salt 6OUaYR3mM9Q3qWz2i9nb --max 301
Using the sha256sum of aef32e678d178d28ce5de27e14cf914627f8381e712895fe89d3826b08a54cf5-6OUaYR3mM9Q3qWz2i9nb, we get a hash starting with 30aaec13481d888a.
The final result should be:
120
Also make sure to confirm that the timestamp on the declaration comment is earlier than 1674375810 (2023-01-22 08:23:30 UTC)

@citrinitas you asked for a random integer between 1 and 301, inclusive. Coming up shortly!

Source: GitHub, previous round: 2631491 (latest), offset: 2, selected round: 2631493, salt: 6OUaYR3mM9Q3qWz2i9nb.

Not a valid request: Range is ambiguous. Please include only a single number, or explicitly state max=N

@citrinitas voted d5 (weight 66)

@TenShino voted Nf6 (weight 68)

@Fion voted d5 (weight 38)

@GanymedeAI voted d5 (weight 129)

Totals:

d5: 233

Nf6: 68

To be chosen from a random draw 1-301

1-233 = d5

234-301 = Nf6

@FairlyRandom 301

!VOTE d5

So I understand that the comments here let us vote for a move and that the probability of it being chosen is weighted by our shares in the other market... But am I right in thinking that the fact that this market is a market is kind of irrelevant? Like, we can bid and maybe make some money, but it doesn't affect the chess game?

Or is it more complicated?

Buying shares in this market doesn't affect anything, but the probabilites should still converge to the best move coming out on top. If you think you can find a dark horse move you can bid it up then post your findings. If your analysis is good people should shift their votes --> buying good moves is still profitable even if you don't have any stake --> voters should probably mostly listen to the market

!VOTE d5

!VOTE Nf6

Alright we've got another vote so more examples

Right now I'm voting d5 and @DesTiny is voting e5

I've got 15 YES shares and he has 19, so there's a 15/(15+19) = 44% chance the move is D5, and 19/(15+19) = 56% chance the move is E5. I'll ask FairlyRandom to make the call tomorrow night

Will this market resolve to the chosen move?

@ZZZZZZ Yep! Will add to the description

!VOTE e5

@DesTiny This is a valid vote, but you're not currently holding any YES shares in the stake market. If that's still true when I go to resolve this market, your vote will be weighted 0.

@citrinitas what

@DesTiny Everyone's vote is multiplied by the number of YES shares they're holding in https://manifold.markets/citrinitas/will-black-win-in-manifold-plays-ch

You're not betting in that market so your vote here is multiplied by 0

!VOTE d5

Here's an example of how voting works
I'm currently holding 15 YES in the other market, so this gets 15 votes