Also just as a side note, i think its super shitty to dodge the issue and try to say you were correct all along when your math was clearly in error, and not even have the courtesy to acknowledge the fact that i spent like two hours getting you to understand why.
This isnt a "clarification" this is you were 100% wrong in your other post, now youre posting numbers you came up with using the formula i gave you in the comments. Frankly, its borderline plagarism.
EDIT unflagged, because his numbers are slightly different.
Why are you such a hater? Please don't spam my blog with incessant incoherent walls of text as you did in Part 1. Organize your comments well as @arhag did above. This is supposed to be a community process of uplifting each other, not a dick measuring contest. I tried to be cordial with you in the comments in Part 1, but you went off the rails with false accusations and incoherent arguments.
Please see my discussion with @arhag above, so you can realize that my math is not incorrect.
Nonsense. I am using the same math that I had in the Part 1 blog. You can see the equation for the more precise model is the same, except I correct the typo from 365 to 364 for the last term, which had nothing to do with the issues you were raising. All I did was clarify the math I already had in Part 1 (and added new sections about other topics).
You continue to make false accusations. Please stop doing that.
And please stop stalking my blogs making false accusations in my past 3 blogs (excepting the silly one I made with a Locomotion video for fun).
Edit: and so now that I proved in my comment response that you were making false accusations, you further go off the rails and downvote me out of spite even though I had told you I would not downvote your comments because I didn't want to incite a war with you.
so youre using the "same math" and getting completely different results. Results that were exactly the same as I told you you should be getting last time... and its somehow my fault that you couldn't get simple math right becuase you think my posts were "incoherent"
ANyone who looks at the comments in you last blog can clearly see that youre now using exactly the same formula that i gave you in the comments in your last blog.
YOure arrogance is just off the charts. So is your dishonesty.
and of course, anyone who corrects your glaring errors is a hater. because you couldnt ever be wrong.
Fact: you have different numbers here than you had in your chart in the first post.
fact: theyre exactly the numbers you would get using the debasement formula i gave you.
fact: you glossed over being 100% wrong about debasement rates.
The blockchain has all the history. I wrote my equation in Part 1 before you wrote your comments in Part 1. I didn't edit my blog in Part 1 to change the equation after reading your comments.
You are off the rails man. Calm down.
EDIT: the most ironic is that I did cite you in this blog. I devoted an entire paragraph to acknowledging our discussion from Part 1.
So your accusation of me plagiarizing without attribution is obviously a lie.
And I did cite @arhag in Part 1.
unflagged. I didnt see that comment. i still think this post, and referencing me in it and "correcting your typo" without ever admitting you were wrong is shitty, but you came up with slightly different numbers than me so maybe its not a total cut and paste.
we im done with this
Ty. Best to you. I don't hold grudges. You pushed me too far which is why I took the issue more publicized. I am done with this argument also.
Can you link to the specific post that you think acts as proof of "borderline plagiarism" by @anonymint? I just quickly skimmed his part 1 thread and saw that you to had a lot of back and forth discussion. But I'm not sure what the conclusion was with all that. I haven't read it carefully, but I don't see any formulas in that discussion thread that were copied from you by @anonymint and used in his post.
EDIT: i checked it and his numbers are still off from mine, though not nearly by as much anymore., so its not C+P . That said the post where i gave an equation is here https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power#@sigmajin/re-anonymint-who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power-20160808t171459965z i think he accounts for SBD in this one, and i wasn't in mine.
Still think its overall dishonest to pretend to have been right all along, though, especially after spending the whole thread calling me a fuckwit for telling him he was wrong in the first place. But its not outright c+p like i initially thought.
Alright well, I certainly haven't been impressed by @anonymint's social etiquette but plagiarism is a strong claim. And from what I'm seeing here, perhaps he might have benefited and been influenced by your discussion (don't know for sure since it is a really long discussion and I don't have time to go through it all), but he didn't just copy your work and present it as his own.
I think you are referring to ONE error I had in the compounding rate in the blog about how users could become millionaires in SP if they remained vested in SP and how I responded to @bacchist's allegation that my blog was incorrect?
I don't think there have been any other instances other than my exasperation in how to squelch the very long walls of text and false accusations that @sigmajin was putting in the comments.
Well you should know what precipitated that exchange is that @bacchist and I were having some friction over at Bitcointalk well before that, because he was a staunch supporter of Steem and I was very skeptical. He accused me of being wrong about every thing I wrote, and that was a false accusation. I had maybe 3 math errors total while trying to learn this very complex and incompletely/inadequately documented system. I don't think it is fair to extrapolate from that one instance.
I was at that time receiving the brunt of the resistance to any critical analysis of Steem on BCT. Since then, it appears we've all become more amicable (or at least tolerant) and especially as my understanding of Steem has become more solid. I came from 0 understanding of Steem to nearly expert on Steem (at least in some facets) in a matter of a few weeks. You all have been in this for many months or more.
Please allow some consideration. Also please consider that I am 51 years old and I am suffering from a chronic ailment which is a major struggle against bouts of Chronic Fatigure Syndrome, brain fog, and insomnia. I have to really grit my teeth and battle every day, so I don't have luxury of the good feelings you have naturally (I struggle for the level of energy to work that you have naturally and don't even pay attention to about yourself). My condition is improving though. I've been working something like 120 hours a week past few weeks, so I am zombifried.
Not only that I didn't benefit at all from his discussion with me (sorry just being honest because he just made me confused as evident by the back & forth in the comments in Part 1 between him and myself where he took me off on tangents because I thought he was stating the opposite of the way I know the design to be, but this may have just been a communication problem), but I absolutely didn't source any thing from him at all. Rather tt is the interaction with you from that prior incident with @bacchist that is the source I attributed in Part 1. But my idea of the equation which is different from yours, has been that way since that time. It was always my original idea (afaik).
I didn't even read his blog posts before I wrote my Part 1 blog, which is evident by my response to his comment in Part 1 where he linked me to his blogs. It is also evident because I presume he doesn't incorporate the aspect of my equation which is different from your equation. But I dunno, because I still haven't digested his blog posts (because I personally find them very contorted and hard to read and I am too overworked to waste my time trying to decipher his blog posts).
Edit: sigmajin posted 9 minutes after this comment of mine, and admits he didn't even know for sure if I had copied him before he downvoted and accused me of plagiarism (the guy doesn't even check before he flings mud):
Edit#2: he has edited his comment and erased the above quote, but it is still on the blockchain.
My numbers were never far off from yours even in Part 1, I just had a typo in the calculator. If you had used my equation from Part 1 instead of just glancing at my table of debasement rates, then you would have seen this and not have gone off on your incessant spamming of the comments.
To do peer review, you need to at least check the equations in your calculation. You are blaming your laziness on me and trying to turn your laziness into me doing plagiarism. It is incredibly insane what you are doing. Please stop. This is not the way to build a community.
Also you still haven't incorporated the concept in my equations that new SP reward holders are a debasement w.r.t. to preexisting SP holders in competition for the future SP splits for that year period. Because you haven't even taken the time to understand. You are just comparing the numbers that are computed as the final result and shooting from the hip without even knowing WTF you talking about w.r.t. to how my equation is different and insightful in a different way than @arhag and your prior blogs.
TROLL!