Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

ponzi.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 306 posts

Re: Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

#291

Post by gnaritas »

lutusp wrote: post #289
gnaritas wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Population growth is a fundamentally exponential process No it isn't. If everyone has one or less children, the population does not grow exponentially.

> If everyone has one or less children, the population does not grow exponentially. False. An exponential function, and a growing exponential function, differ only in the value of the exponent. Here's an equation that predicts future population based on the value of an exponential term: The equation: pt - p0 e^rt pt = population at time t p0 = present population r = rate of population growth, 1% = .01 t = time A resu…

False. Put all your bullshit math aside because that's what it is, bullshit trying to move the goalpost. The statement I made is absolutely factually true. If everyone has one or less children, the population does not grow exponentially.

We're not talking about how to model population growth, or functions, we're talking about whether every couple having one child results in exponential growth and it simply does not. If the population decreases, that is not exponential growth. An exponential result != exponential growth. You are wrong and we are done.

Re: Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

#292

Post by gnaritas »

lutusp wrote: post #290
hueving wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

skj was trolling by changing the common definition of exponential by saying the exponent could be 1 or less than one.

> skj was trolling by changing the common definition of exponential by saying the exponent could be 1 or less than one. That's not trolling. It's called "mathematics."

Which is trolling in a discussion that isn't about mathematics.

Re: Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

#293

Post by lutusp »

gnaritas wrote: post #292
lutusp wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> skj was trolling by changing the common definition of exponential by saying the exponent could be 1 or less than one. That's not trolling. It's called "mathematics."

Which is trolling in a discussion that isn't about mathematics.

Wait, what? Replying to a comment that is clearly about mathematics, with a comment that is clearly about mathematics, is trolling?

The OP's comment, including " ... changing the common definition of exponential by saying the exponent could be 1 or less than one" is (a) mathematical and (b) wrong and misleading. The "common definition of exponential" accommodates any valid argument to exp(x), and to claim otherwise requires a mathematical correction to avoid misleading people.

Re: Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

#294

Post by gnaritas »

lutusp wrote: post #293
gnaritas wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is trolling in a discussion that isn't about mathematics.

Wait, what? Replying to a comment that is clearly about mathematics, with a comment that is clearly about mathematics, is trolling? The OP's comment, including " ... changing the common definition of exponential by saying the exponent could be 1 or less than one" is (a) mathematical and (b) wrong and misleading. The "common definition of exponential" accommodates any valid argument to exp(x), and to claim otherwise r…

Trolling.

Re: Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

#295

Post by lutusp »

gnaritas wrote: post #291
lutusp wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If everyone has one or less children, the population does not grow exponentially. False. An exponential function, and a growing exponential function, differ only in the value of the exponent. Here's an equation that predicts future population based on the value of an exponential term: The equation: pt - p0 e^rt pt = population at time t p0 = present population r = rate of population growth, 1% = .01 t = time A resu…

False. Put all your bullshit math aside because that's what it is, bullshit trying to move the goalpost. The statement I made is absolutely factually true. If everyone has one or less children, the population does not grow exponentially. We're not talking about how to model population growth, or functions, we're talking about whether every couple having one child results in exponential growth and it simply does not.…

> The statement I made is absolutely factually true. If everyone has one or less children, the population does not grow exponentially.

You need to learn mathematics (as well as grammar). Also learn "negative growth rate" while you're about it:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_possible_to_have_a_negative_...

And, everything else aside, all the described rates are exponential.

> We're not talking about how to model population growth ...

WHAT?? Here is what you said: "If everyone has one or less children, the population does not grow exponentially." How exactly is that NOT talking about how to model population growth?

Also, it's "one or fewer children," not "one or less children."

> An exponential result != exponential growth

False in a discussion about population and exponential growth rates, terms you chose.

Re: Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

#296

Post by gnaritas »

lutusp wrote: post #295
gnaritas wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. Put all your bullshit math aside because that's what it is, bullshit trying to move the goalpost. The statement I made is absolutely factually true. If everyone has one or less children, the population does not grow exponentially. We're not talking about how to model population growth, or functions, we're talking about whether every couple having one child results in exponential growth and it simply does not.…

> The statement I made is absolutely factually true. If everyone has one or less children, the population does not grow exponentially. You need to learn mathematics (as well as grammar). Also learn "negative growth rate" while you're about it: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_possible_to_have_a_negative_... And, everything else aside, all the described rates are exponential. > We're not talking about how to model popu…

It's sad that you can't admit that a population decrease is not exponential growth, but your ego clearly can't handle being wrong so troll somewhere else.

Re: Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

#297

Post by downandout »

hueving wrote: post #286
downandout wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was that you could see where the money was going. If there were a Bitcoin based stock exchange and it published its addresses for stock purchases, when money from pooled funds started going to addresses outside of those known addresses, people would immediately know that the money has gone somewhere it shouldn't have.

>money from pooled funds started going to addresses outside of those known addresses What? It's a stock exchange. By definition the money is immediately going to go to the counter-party in a trade. So it's going to be an unknown address. Stock exchanges aren't the ones selling stock...

Yeah, no kidding. But you're saying the counterparties couldn't register those addresses publicly with the exchange so that everyone knows where the money is going? Alternatively, the exchange itself (a trusted party) couldn't receive the coins first and then send them to the counterparties?

Re: Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

#298

Post by lutusp »

gnaritas wrote: post #296
lutusp wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The statement I made is absolutely factually true. If everyone has one or less children, the population does not grow exponentially. You need to learn mathematics (as well as grammar). Also learn "negative growth rate" while you're about it: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_possible_to_have_a_negative_... And, everything else aside, all the described rates are exponential. > We're not talking about how to model popu…

It's sad that you can't admit that a population decrease is not exponential growth, but your ego clearly can't handle being wrong so troll somewhere else.

> It's sad that you can't admit that a population decrease is not exponential growth

I posted the proof of my position, you posted your ignorant opinion.

Here is another reference that makes the same point in the same way:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

Quotation: "The formula for exponential growth of a variable x at the (positive or negative) growth rate r, as time t goes on in discrete intervals (that is, at integer times 0, 1, 2, 3, ...), is xt = x0 (1 + r)^t"

Let me emphasize that for you, in case your eyes are giving out:

"THE FORMULA FOR EXPONENTIAL GROWTH OF A VARIABLE X AT THE (POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE) GROWTH RATE R ..."

Now circle the word you're most unfamiliar with, raise your hand, and the teacher will administer a sedative.

Re: Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

#299

Post by Anderkent »

Tohhou wrote: post #246
gojomo wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's as repulsive as state-run lotteries. The expected return to entrants, over all entries through its collapse, is likely even better than lotteries. At least this isn't advertising on TV and YouTube to attract even more vulnerable and unsophisticated players!

I love people like you who think they are smarter and better than anyone who would do things they don't like. Kudos.

I love people like you who think it matters if you like a lottery or not. Free money!

Re: Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

#300

Post by jaekwon »

tobz wrote: post #281
jaekwon wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have sent you $50 though coinbase. I expect you to honor your word. Return address: 1JEGu8qiaKbLgheAWCjRkeZNyEqhhaFVY3

Just waiting on the next person to send me some skrilla then you can reap your reward.

Some what?
Post reply on HN