Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

ponzi.io

301–306 of 306 posts

Re: Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

#301
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a very disappointing comment line. I know not everyone here is a CS major, but if you're even CS-knowledgable you should understand what an exponential process is. It is not, as many laypeople assume, something that is "very big".

That said, I was not intentionally trolling. I do think it's possible for a SS-style benefit to sustain itself provided that an exponentially growing population, whose exponent is greater than 1, is obligated to pay in.

A country with a stagnant or declining population will probably have trouble.

You may disagree, that's fine.

Nevertheless, any population whose growth (or lack of growth) is defined by the average number of children per member will behave exponentially.

Re: Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

#302
post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

You seem unable to read English. Let me make it clear for you, you're trying to make a lay conversation about population into a math problem which it is not, in doing so you are changing the meaning of lay words into their math definitions and misunderstanding the points being made to you in the same way a scientist means something different by the word theory than a lay person does. Stop talking, stop doing math, and listen, pay attention to context, this is not a math class and as I'm the commenter you replied to, I'm the one who sets the context and I've said not a math conversation; this is a lay conversation, use the lay definition of words.

You've been told numerous times to stop thinking about math and read the words but you clearly don't grok or can't remove your math head and have normal conversation. You're still talking about modelling growth, no one else is or was. Turn off your math head and read the English words using their lay definitions, a decline in population is not exponential growth as a decline in population is not any kind of growth because it isn't growth. If you can't bring yourself to admit that, you are beyond hope.

Secondly, I'm a computer programmer, I understand the math, so stop trying to lecture me on math when you're the one not listening. I can't help it you don't understand the point being made to you because you lack the ability to be aware of the context of the conversation you're in. I know what I'm trying to communicate and I've made it as clear as I can numerous ways; if your brain is unable to work in multiple contexts, that's your failing in understanding how to communicate with others.

If you try and prove your point with equations one more time, or reference them one more time, then you've utterly failed to understand what is being communicated to you and we're done because I don't talk to brick walls who can't think.

Re: Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

#303
post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trolling.

This is a very disappointing comment line. I know not everyone here is a CS major, but if you're even CS-knowledgable you should understand what an exponential process is. It is not, as many laypeople assume, something that is "very big". That said, I was not intentionally trolling. I do think it's possible for a SS-style benefit to sustain itself provided that an exponentially growing population, whose exponent is g…

> behave exponentially.

Behave exponentially != grow exponentially, still utterly missing the point; still trolling.

Re: Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

#305
post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very disappointing comment line. I know not everyone here is a CS major, but if you're even CS-knowledgable you should understand what an exponential process is. It is not, as many laypeople assume, something that is "very big". That said, I was not intentionally trolling. I do think it's possible for a SS-style benefit to sustain itself provided that an exponentially growing population, whose exponent is g…

> behave exponentially. Behave exponentially != grow exponentially, still utterly missing the point; still trolling.

I believe trolling entails intent. I don't think that I can both miss the point and troll at the same time.
Post reply on HN