Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday July 06 2019, @12:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the stop-mousing-around dept.

It all started with a random tweet that compares Chuck E. Cheese tokens and Bitcoin. The mouse-in-chief (or whoever controls its account) decided to join the fray with a bitter tweet that eventually went semi-viral.

[...] Multiple arguments went into play — from the BTC price that recently breached $10,000 once again to coin's 24/7 availability (Chuck E. Cheese cannot relate).

[...] It's not exactly clear what Chuck E. Cheese was trying to achieve with this tweet, but it definitely got what it desperately needed — media attention.

Multiple outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, have already covered what can be considered one of the strangest Bitcoin debates you will ever see on Twitter.

https://u.today/chuck-e-cheese-mouse-gets-roasted-by-cryptocurrency-enthusiasts

The tweet that started it all:

Ryan Hoover
@rrhoover
Chuck E Cheese tokens are cool and all but I'd rather earn Bitcoin


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 06 2019, @10:28PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 06 2019, @10:28PM (#863955)

    I didn't work out the consequences but probably here:

    Now substitute [ Equation 2 ] into [ Equation 1 ] and set Q = 0,

    The reason why we set Q equal to zero is simple, when we finish paying the mortgage Q, the balance is reduced to 0.

    http://www.hughcalc.org/formula_deriv.php [hughcalc.org]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday July 07 2019, @12:26PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday July 07 2019, @12:26PM (#864090) Journal

    No, that's not the problem. Read through your link. The problem is the assumption that you're dealing with a geometric series, whose sum is given by the standard formula for geometric series.

    But that sum doesn't work when the common ratio of the series is 1, i.e., when interest doesn't compound and the amount of interest paid each month is the same (zero in the case of interest =0%).

    Essentially the formula for loan payments looks a bit like what happens when you run compound interest "in reverse," since the part of the loan principal you don't pay until the end effectively gets compounded interest all the way back to the beginning of the loan. If there's no interest charged, it doesn't compound, so the amount of your monthly payment is simply the principal divided by the number of payments.

    The assumption you quote (where Q=0 at the end because the loan is paid off) is still true, obviously. But the problem is the sum of the series doesn't equal equation 2 in the case where the interest rate is zero... The sum of the series will just be number of payments times M.