Quote:AxelWolfAnd if I would have not tried haggling down $10 more back when I was offered 17 BTC for $710 and it was going for $720. Obviously, I would not have held them all, but no doubt, I would have kept at least 7. Or, I would have lost my 24 words and been really pissed off.

That is why you’re a fish sir 😂

Ha lol, without it we would all be going around saying, " I got these cheese burgers man!"Quote:EvenBobI would get that when I sold antiques and collectibles. I would set up at an antique show and then go around shopping the day before the show opened and I would find really good buys sometimes where the dealer had the item underpriced because he didn't know what he had. So I would pay 50 bucks and sell it for 200 the next day. It sometimes struck me as to where did that $150 profit come from. It made me realize right in my face that money is just a made-up concept, it does not exist outside of our heads. It's quite scary when you look at it that way.

If we say something went up 100% we mean it doubled in price, a sum you don't get by multiplying an original figure times 100% ... that just is multiplying times one. So it means multiplying by 140 is not really correct, nor is taking the current figure and dividing by 140 to get the starting figure. You use 141 as far as I can tell and it strikes me that this is seldom noted.

It comes down to whether you want the convenience of multiplying and dividing by a single figure I guess. To say that Dogecoin went up 14000% is to say it is an *increase* of that %. To say it is 14000% times its original value is a different matter, which may actually be what was meant. You can say it makes an unimportant difference in most cases, but it was enough to make me wonder 'if I was doing it right.'

x=starting price

[1+140]*x = 0.62 .... dogecoin being 62 cents this morn

x= 0.62/141 = 0.0043971631205674

so I'm getting a starting price of about 4.4 tenths of a cent, however, the 14000% claim may no longer be reflected correctly at 62 cents

If we use 140, it's 0.4428571428571429 so the one is not far off from the other

the problem with the algebra is it assumes that 1+i, where i is the increase, is correct, and I don't know that I have proved that.

I agree that it's more complicated than it first seems

if you want to find out what the figure is if 100 is increased by 50% you multiply 100 times 1.50 and you will get 150

so, it would seem if you wanted to find out what the figure is if 100 is increased by 14,000% that you would multiply 100 times 1.14000 - but when I did that the answer I got was 114 - and that couldn't be right

so then I multiplied 100 times 150% and got 150 which is correct

so then I multiplied 100 times 114,000% and got 114,000 - and I think that is correct

but that is the total after the 14,000% increase

to get how much it actually increased you would subtract 100 from 114,000 and 113,900

just as if you wanted to figure out the increase if 100 increased by 50% you would subtract 100 from 150 to get 50

I think this is correct, but to be honest I'm not 100% sure

I'm sure one of the mathletes here will correct me if I'm wrong

*

well I concluded it is not 1+ 0.140 = 1.14 but literally 140+1 = 141, in other words when you are talking an increase like 150% you want to be thinking 1+increase ... but with 14000% the 1+ is less important and people can and do skip itQuote:lilredrooster...............

I agree that it's more complicated than it first seems

if you want to find out what the figure is if 100 is increased by 50% you multiply 100 times 1.50 and you will get 150

so, it would seem if you wanted to find out what the figure is if 100 is increased by 14,000% that you would multiply 100 times 1.14000 - but when I did that the answer I got was 114 - and that couldn't be right

so then I multiplied 100 times 150% and got 150 which is correct

so then I multiplied 100 times 114,000% and got 114,000 - and I think that is correct

but that is the total after the 14,000% increase

to get how much it actually increased you would subtract 100 from 114,000 and 113,900

just as if you wanted to figure out the increase if 100 increased by 50% you would subtract 100 from 150 to get 50

I think this is correct, but to be honest I'm not 100% sure

I'm sure one of the mathletes here will correct me if I'm wrong

*

Elon Musk is hosting Saturday Night Live tonight - it's a very big deal

he has promoted Crypto and specifically Dogecoin which he has said he likes because he likes jokes

there is speculation that Dogecoin will again spurt up because he will mention it or Crypto in general (which he likes) on the show tonight

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dogecoin-spotlight-cryptocurrency-backer-musk-233701058.html

let's see - right now at 7:26 est the price is .643776

*