>> jpm wrote >> [the spends stats should look like] >> microspends (under 0.10 grams) 1315 >> macrospends (over 0.10 grams) 2885 >> > >I don't think that there are many microspends happening with e-gold >currently. > >So we would end up with something that looks like the following > >microspends - 20 >macrospends - 10000 > Whatever - segment it at one gram, then -- my point was, choose something that is infoirmation rich. Of course the best thing is to segment it all the way up and down, just like the balances. But I was trying to ease it in on Jay! :) :) >I don't believe that we should bother with segmenting the spends. You had >a terrific argument for further segmenting the account balances, but it >doesn't really apply here. The spends segmentation would pretty much be >irrelevant data. > >It is pretty obvious to anybody with a marginal understanding of math that >a relatively small number of relatively large spends make up the velocity >stats. All segmentation of the spends stats would do is prove this to >people who failed high school math. > It's not like you to be illogical, Viking! If it's so obvious, just tell me, now, what the breakdown is on yesterday's spends. (I'm not being a smart arse, but it's not obvious to me --- if it's obvious to you, please tell me immediately!) > >Viking Coder ----------------------------------------------------------- "Great ventures create great mottos." --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
