What's the representation of sqrt(2) then?
sqrt((3+3)/3) is not much of a representation...
sqrt((3+3)/3) is not much of a representation...
Actually, it is.
Topic: IOTA - page 715. (Read 1473233 times)
Does this discovery have any implication for Jinn?
No
A recent study has revealed that any (ir)rational number can be represented in a form that gives "9" as the final sum of all its digits...
What's the representation of sqrt(2) then?
sqrt((3+3)/3) is not much of a representation...
A recent study has revealed that any (ir)rational number can be represented in a form that gives "9" as the final sum of all its digits...
Does this discovery have any implication for Jinn?
That article talks about numbers which are multiples of 9. I'm talking about any number.
Is it something you may share - or will it be published later by mthcl... ;-)
While we are waiting for the end of the sale let's try to find an interesting use-case for such Iota feature as multisignature with unlimited number of participants. A virtual country with a budget controlled by 51% of its citizens is the only thing that came to my mind.
Crowd funded/owned companies or sports teams.
While we are waiting for the end of the sale let's try to find an interesting use-case for such Iota feature as multisignature with unlimited number of participants. A virtual country with a budget controlled by 51% of its citizens is the only thing that came to my mind.
Well done Sir, really a great article/interview
Thanks mate!
Wasn't intentionally an interview. I was just getting my queries cleared regarding IOTA. That conversation seems like good enough for article. composed it, published it.
Interesting, Lerner will be reviewing IOTA source, that's pretty awesome.
No.
A recent study has revealed that any (ir)rational number can be represented in a form that gives "9" as the final sum of all its digits...
Are You talking about this?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13193435 That article talks about numbers which are multiples of 9. I'm talking about any number.
A recent study has revealed that any (ir)rational number can be represented in a form that gives "9" as the final sum of all its digits...
do you mean something like this?
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/67061.html
Well done Sir, really a great article/interview
Thanks mate!
Wasn't intentionally an interview. I was just getting my queries cleared regarding IOTA. That conversation seems like good enough for article. composed it, published it.
Ok,
The "NO" was not clear in your answer. The structuring of the response makes it appear as if you are answering his question directly; this is because he poses his question with a guess that you WILL give VCs JINN tokens, he even calls them SHARES: (So I guess this will happen BY SELLING JINN SHARES IN YOUR POSSESSION?)
You don't correct him in his use of SHARE and you also don't say NO and follow it with your answer, you simply answer. (Of course this is all hypothetical at the moment, but most VCs demand equity, so that's the most LIKELY route.)
"Likely" here doesn't appear to connect with "VC's demanding equity" but actually to LIKELY we will offer them "JINN SHARES IN YOUR POSSESSION"
To be perfectly clear, your answer is IN FACT:
First, JINN tokens are not SHARES... secondly, no, VCs would indeed require equity (which JINN tokens are NOT) and so, we will likely offer them a % of the company in the form of equity when the time comes.
OK. Understood.
edit: small typo
Last comment on this, this thread is not about JINN, but IOTA BTC sale. Go to NXTForum for that discussion.
1. English is not my first language, I am Norwegian, but I have never heard any complaints about my usage of English.
2. I was asked what would happen to JINN holders in the event of VC funding, I answered clearly that it would not change anything, VC funding is just that; capital infusion. I was then asked if that would take place through JINN tokens, to which I replied NO, VCs want equity, so that's the route we'll most likely take when the time comes.
The "NO" was not clear in your answer. The structuring of the response makes it appear as if you are answering his question directly; this is because he poses his question with a guess that you WILL give VCs JINN tokens, he even calls them SHARES: (So I guess this will happen BY SELLING JINN SHARES IN YOUR POSSESSION?)
You don't correct him in his use of SHARE and you also don't say NO and follow it with your answer, you simply answer. (Of course this is all hypothetical at the moment, but most VCs demand equity, so that's the most LIKELY route.)
"Likely" here doesn't appear to connect with "VC's demanding equity" but actually to LIKELY we will offer them "JINN SHARES IN YOUR POSSESSION"
To be perfectly clear, your answer is IN FACT:
First, JINN tokens are not SHARES... secondly, no, VCs would indeed require equity (which JINN tokens are NOT) and so, we will likely offer them a % of the company in the form of equity when the time comes.
OK. Understood.
edit: small typo
David, the question was posed to you specifically as to the fate of the JINN TOKENS that have been bought back (traded in for IOTA)...
This exchange implied the following:
-What happens if you go VC route?
A: Traditional VC route simply means getting cash infusion, nothing changes.
-So I guess this will happen BY SELLING JINN SHARES IN YOUR POSSESSION?
A: Of course this is all hypothetical at the moment, but most VCs demand equity, so that's the most LIKELY route.
--------
Is english not your first language? Because I'm always confused by the things you write which then seem, to you, to always have meant something else.
I take it you are saying that your answer was in fact DISCONNECTED from the previous question that was put to you? It doesn't read that way in the exchange you just had that I quoted.
This exchange implied the following:
-What happens if you go VC route?
A: Traditional VC route simply means getting cash infusion, nothing changes.
-So I guess this will happen BY SELLING JINN SHARES IN YOUR POSSESSION?
A: Of course this is all hypothetical at the moment, but most VCs demand equity, so that's the most LIKELY route.
--------
Is english not your first language? Because I'm always confused by the things you write which then seem, to you, to always have meant something else.
I take it you are saying that your answer was in fact DISCONNECTED from the previous question that was put to you? It doesn't read that way in the exchange you just had that I quoted.
Last comment on this, this thread is not about JINN, but IOTA BTC sale. Go to NXTForum for that discussion.
1. English is not my first language, I am Norwegian, but I have never heard any complaints about my usage of English.
2. I was asked what would happen to JINN holders in the event of VC funding, I answered clearly that it would not change anything, VC funding is just that; capital infusion. I was then asked if that would take place through JINN tokens, to which I replied NO, VCs want equity, so that's the route we'll most likely take when the time comes.
David, the question was posed to you specifically as to the fate of the JINN TOKENS that have been bought back (traded in for IOTA)...
This exchange implied the following:
-What happens if you go VC route?
A: Traditional VC route simply means getting cash infusion, nothing changes.
-So I guess this will happen BY SELLING JINN SHARES IN YOUR POSSESSION?
A: Of course this is all hypothetical at the moment, but most VCs demand equity, so that's the most LIKELY route.
--------
Is english not your first language? Because I'm always confused by the things you write which then seem, to you, to always have meant something else.
I take it you are saying that your answer was in fact DISCONNECTED from the previous question that was put to you? It doesn't read that way in the exchange you just had that I quoted.
This exchange implied the following:
-What happens if you go VC route?
A: Traditional VC route simply means getting cash infusion, nothing changes.
-So I guess this will happen BY SELLING JINN SHARES IN YOUR POSSESSION?
A: Of course this is all hypothetical at the moment, but most VCs demand equity, so that's the most LIKELY route.
--------
Is english not your first language? Because I'm always confused by the things you write which then seem, to you, to always have meant something else.
I take it you are saying that your answer was in fact DISCONNECTED from the previous question that was put to you? It doesn't read that way in the exchange you just had that I quoted.
Last comment on this, this thread is not about JINN, but IOTA BTC sale. Go to NXTForum for that discussion.
1. English is not my first language, I am Norwegian, but I have never heard any complaints about my usage of English.
2. I was asked what would happen to JINN holders in the event of VC funding, I answered clearly that it would not change anything, VC funding is just that; capital infusion. I was then asked if that would take place through JINN tokens, to which I replied NO, VCs want equity, so that's the route we'll most likely take when the time comes.
David, the question was posed to you specifically as to the fate of the JINN TOKENS that have been bought back (traded in for IOTA)...
This exchange implied the following:
-What happens if you go VC route?
A: Traditional VC route simply means getting cash infusion, nothing changes.
-So I guess this will happen BY SELLING JINN SHARES IN YOUR POSSESSION?
A: Of course this is all hypothetical at the moment, but most VCs demand equity, so that's the most LIKELY route.
--------
Is english not your first language? Because I'm always confused by the things you write which then seem, to you, to always have meant something else.
I take it you are saying that your answer was in fact DISCONNECTED from the previous question that was put to you? It doesn't read that way in the exchange you just had that I quoted.
No, it looks like you need to read before commenting. A future VENTURE CAPITALIST will most likely want equity. How you translate that into JINN Tokens, which have never been decribed as equity by me or CfB EVER, is beyond me.
This exchange implied the following:
-What happens if you go VC route?
A: Traditional VC route simply means getting cash infusion, nothing changes.
-So I guess this will happen BY SELLING JINN SHARES IN YOUR POSSESSION?
A: Of course this is all hypothetical at the moment, but most VCs demand equity, so that's the most LIKELY route.
--------
Is english not your first language? Because I'm always confused by the things you write which then seem, to you, to always have meant something else.
I take it you are saying that your answer was in fact DISCONNECTED from the previous question that was put to you? It doesn't read that way in the exchange you just had that I quoted.
Now JINN tokens are EQUITY again???
You need to be more consistent with the things you say, David.
Also, do you have any detailed plan in hardware side? It will require more capital investment, right? Any partnership yet?
Thank you
Yes, we're 13 months into the hardware development. As for requiring more capital investment, do you mean to get prototype or production run? If latter, yes certainly. We'll eventually have to take the 'traditional VC route', but so far we're doing quite good. Re: partnerships on the hardware side, can't disclose anything due to NDA and the fact that it's still preliminary stages.
What are the consequences if you take the 'traditional VC route' for existing Jinn asset holders?
Traditional VC route simply means getting cash infusion, nothing changes.
So i guess this will happen by selling existing jinn shares in your possession or will there be dilution of the jinn shares?
Of course this is all hypothetical at the moment, but most VCs demand equity, so that's the most LIKELY route.
You need to be more consistent with the things you say, David.
Also, do you have any detailed plan in hardware side? It will require more capital investment, right? Any partnership yet?
Thank you
Yes, we're 13 months into the hardware development. As for requiring more capital investment, do you mean to get prototype or production run? If latter, yes certainly. We'll eventually have to take the 'traditional VC route', but so far we're doing quite good. Re: partnerships on the hardware side, can't disclose anything due to NDA and the fact that it's still preliminary stages.
What are the consequences if you take the 'traditional VC route' for existing Jinn asset holders?
Traditional VC route simply means getting cash infusion, nothing changes.
So i guess this will happen by selling existing jinn shares in your possession or will there be dilution of the jinn shares?
Of course this is all hypothetical at the moment, but most VCs demand equity, so that's the most LIKELY route.
No, it looks like you need to read before commenting. A future VENTURE CAPITALIST will most likely want equity. How you translate that into JINN Tokens, which have never been decribed as equity by me or CfB EVER, is beyond me.
Now JINN tokens are EQUITY again???
You need to be more consistent with the things you say, David.
Also, do you have any detailed plan in hardware side? It will require more capital investment, right? Any partnership yet?
Thank you
Yes, we're 13 months into the hardware development. As for requiring more capital investment, do you mean to get prototype or production run? If latter, yes certainly. We'll eventually have to take the 'traditional VC route', but so far we're doing quite good. Re: partnerships on the hardware side, can't disclose anything due to NDA and the fact that it's still preliminary stages.
What are the consequences if you take the 'traditional VC route' for existing Jinn asset holders?
Traditional VC route simply means getting cash infusion, nothing changes.
So i guess this will happen by selling existing jinn shares in your possession or will there be dilution of the jinn shares?
Of course this is all hypothetical at the moment, but most VCs demand equity, so that's the most LIKELY route.
You need to be more consistent with the things you say, David.
Also, do you have any detailed plan in hardware side? It will require more capital investment, right? Any partnership yet?
Thank you
Yes, we're 13 months into the hardware development. As for requiring more capital investment, do you mean to get prototype or production run? If latter, yes certainly. We'll eventually have to take the 'traditional VC route', but so far we're doing quite good. Re: partnerships on the hardware side, can't disclose anything due to NDA and the fact that it's still preliminary stages.
What are the consequences if you take the 'traditional VC route' for existing Jinn asset holders?
Traditional VC route simply means getting cash infusion, nothing changes.
So i guess this will happen by selling existing jinn shares in your possession or will there be dilution of the jinn shares?
Of course this is all hypothetical at the moment, but most VCs demand equity, so that's the most LIKELY route.
No, it looks like you need to read before commenting. A future VENTURE CAPITALIST will most likely want equity. How you translate that into JINN Tokens, which have never been decribed as equity by me or CfB EVER, is beyond me.
Now JINN tokens are EQUITY again???
You need to be more consistent with the things you say, David.
You need to be more consistent with the things you say, David.
Looks like one of you don't know English lol.
Jump to: