Bitcoin Ponzi scheme - <AUTHOR> http://ponzi.io/ <comment><USER4> _snip_

Ponzi Scheme Enforcement Actions

Curtailing Ponzi schemes and holding those responsible for these scams accountable is a vital component of the SEC's enforcement program.

Since fiscal year 2010, the SEC has brought more than 100 enforcement actions against nearly 200 individuals and 250 entities for carrying out Ponzi schemes.1 In these actions, more than 65 individuals have been barred from working in the securities industry. The SEC also has worked closely with the U.S. Department of Justice and other criminal authorities on parallel criminal and civil proceedings against Ponzi scheme operations.

 _snip_

Source: [http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/enf-actions- ponzi.shtml](http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/enf-actions-ponzi.shtml)

Keep in mind that BTC or virtual money is just another asset class.

<comment><USER5>
       A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the
       payment of purported returns to existing investors from
       funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme
       organizers often solicit new investors by promising to
       invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high
       returns with little or no risk. With little or no
       legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow
       of money from new investors to continue. Ponzi schemes
       inevitably collapse, most often when it becomes difficult
       to recruit new investors or when a large number of
       investors ask for their funds to be returned.

Surely this isn't an "investment fraud" if it is completely honest about how it works. I wouldn't count on the SEC being reasonable about that though.

<comment><USER4> Yeah IMHO it walks the line between ponzi and pyramid scheme, so you'll either have the SEC or FTC coming after you. e.g. FTC has been hassling MLM schemes for years and they argue the differentiator is the fact that there's a product involved, but this clearly does not have a product, so best case the FTC shuts it down, worst case the interested agencies will include FTC, SEC, U.S. postal service and local and state equivalents.

Bit more data on the FTC's opinion:

[http://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/1998/05/pyramid- schemes](http://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/1998/05/pyramid-schemes)

Incidentally a pyramid scheme almost took down the Albanian economy and sparked the 1997 rebellion.

I suspect BTC investors are a little more sophisticated, but given the pseudo- anonymity behind cryptos, I wouldn't be surprised if something like this doesn't wreak a respectable amount of havoc in the future once cryptos are more widely held.

PS: If the site author's reading this, I'd start hitting the 5x5 stronglifts hard with a good bulking nutrition regime. You really want to hit the ground in federal prison with a size advantage. So I'm told. Can't wait for the AMA.

<comment><USER6> If you've been following what's actually gone on in the Bitcoin world for any length of time, you'd know that "BTC investors" aren't "more sophisticated" \- they tend to be less so.

For one example, take a look at the people in the community who claim BTC exchanges are unregulated, and who "invest" in "stock markets" in BTC and the like: Just because you're not following the law or regulation doesn't mean you're not subject to it. It just means your hoping you don't get caught.

Another example? The pirateat40 Ponzi scheme and the creation of "Pirate pass- through" schemes. He claimed to offer 7% interest WEEKLY and Bitcoiners ate it up despite its obvious impossibility. And again they tried to securitize that by selling "shares" in and/or "insuring" their investments, and so on—all without acknowledging there's any form of legal or regulatory process to go through when doing such things.

Bitcoin is a total clown show, the history of economics repeated in fast- forward so anarcho-capitalists/libertarians can learn first hand why laws and regulations were invented.

<comment><USER7> > _If you 've been following what's actually gone on in the Bitcoin world for > any length of time, you'd know that "BTC investors" aren't "more > sophisticated" \- they tend to be less so._

Part of this is Bitcoin self-selects against those with a rigorous understanding of monetary economics, capital markets, and foreign exchange.

<comment><USER8> Can you prove this?

<comment><USER7> No. It is, however, a very profitable asset to make markets in,. That implies huge market inefficiencies and a large population of low-infomration market participants. The problem is the low size and liquidity make other markets more profitable to think about, since 10% of ten or twenty billion is less than a few basis points [1] of trillions.

[1] [http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/basispoint.asp](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/basispoint.asp)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a beautiful piece of art/social experimentation/I-don't-know-what.

<comment><USER10> It's brilliant, and it will work, and continue to work until people don't believe in it.

<comment><USER11> That's the fun part. Watching to see how big it will grow. It's almost like putting an exact dollar value on the amount of greed present.

<comment><USER12> I don't find it fun at all, I find it a bit tragic. Looking from the chat it looks like it's a bunch of kids who don't have the sense to not engage with this kind of site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm trying to work out if this is some grand statement on the similarities of Bitcoin to a Ponzi scheme in the way it's deflationary, or just a quick way for someone to make a few BTC. Maybe it's designed as a way to teach people about Ponzi schemes?

Got to say, I pity the person who eventually deposits too much money at once, causing the payments to pause while they build up enough to cover his large deposit, in turn causing everyone else to think that the money has stopped paying out and causing no further money to be deposited. That seems like the likely end of this eventually...

<comment><USER14> IMO, this was built to demonstrate one of the unique characteristics of Bitcoin. The ability to track transactions linked to addresses not owned by you, in this case, lets all participants see in realtime whether the owners are living up to their promises. Had Bernie Madoff used Bitcoin, his reign would have been over in a few minutes.

<comment><USER15> Minutes? Really? Because that's how most people measure their investments. The only way you could see if 'he was living up to his promises' was if he just speculated on more bitcoins, which would be dumb.

<comment><USER14> The point was that you could see where the money was going. If there were a Bitcoin based stock exchange and it published its addresses for stock purchases, when money from pooled funds started going to addresses outside of those known addresses, people would immediately know that the money has gone somewhere it shouldn't have.

<comment><USER16> >money from pooled funds started going to addresses outside of those known addresses

What? It's a stock exchange. By definition the money is immediately going to go to the counter-party in a trade. So it's going to be an unknown address. Stock exchanges aren't the ones selling stock...

<comment><USER14> Yeah, no kidding. But you're saying the counterparties couldn't register those addresses publicly with the exchange so that everyone knows where the money is going? Alternatively, the exchange itself (a trusted party) couldn't receive the coins first and then send them to the counterparties?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Should have known! Like ten minutes before I expected 1.2x to be gathered and my payout to be done, the site reports "The experiment is over." Come on guys, just let it run. I would have accepted it if it just 'died of natural causes' and I lost all I put in (which is not much, 0.03); that was my gamble. Not that you'd pull the plug.

Somehow their pulling the plug just really bothers me much more than losing it would have been. Especially because at the rate at which it was going, payout was more or less ensured (300btc * 1.2 = 360. They quit 16 coins short). Right now, two hours after they supposedly would pay everyone back, I still got nothing.

<comment><USER18> > At the rate at which it was going, payout was more or less ensured (300btc * > 1.2 = 360. They quit 16 coins short)

I think you misunderstand how ponzi schemes work.

<comment><USER19> I don't see the flaw in his reasoning, can you elaborate?

EDIT: I will, then. If when he put money in when there was a total deposit of 300, the total owed by the system was 300 * 1,2 = 360. So it would all be payed when the total deposit of 360; he considered that at the rate it was going at the moment it would have been reached quickly (here is the gamble) but instead they closed the site 16 BTC short of that target.

Are you sure you did understand? Or am I on the wrong path?

<comment><USER18> And the people putting in those last 16 bitcoins - what do they get back?

There are always losers in every ponzi scheme.

<comment><USER20> Nobody is denying that, but _you_ are misunderstanding his argument.

There is a difference between a ponzi scheme collapsing from lack of new "suckers" vs pulling the plug on the site. I think what he is trying to say is that there were plenty of suckers left, and the loss now feels artificial.

Somebody is going to pay though. I'm sure (I hope in this community) everyone knows that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19>
        The experiment is over.
        We will pay back everyone we can. We are not making money from this.

And it's down.

<comment><USER21> I'm curious - anyone know what happened to cause the (inevitable) end? From what I can tell, it doesn't seem to be the lack of new interest/money. Possibilities I can think of:

\- Author got scared (of legal repercussions)

\- Author got greedy (pocketing much of the last deposits)

\- For some reason (research?) it was intended from the beginning to only run to a certain point

\- Technical scaling issues

Anyone know?

<comment><USER22> What makes you think it ended? People are still paying in and it appears to still be paying out.

<comment><USER21> I'm looking at the huge text on the home page saying "The experiment is over." If that can't be trusted, then why in the world would anyone expect to receive a payout at this point (as if it weren't already incredibly risky)?

<comment><USER22> I was seeing a cached version. Wonder why they chose to do it that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> What I realized now: if you look at their BTC balance

[https://blockchain.info/address/1ponziUjuCVdB167ZmTWH48AURW1...](https://blockchain.info/address/1ponziUjuCVdB167ZmTWH48AURW1vE64q)

plus

[https://blockchain.info/address/14ji9KmegNHhTchf4ftkt3J1ywmi...](https://blockchain.info/address/14ji9KmegNHhTchf4ftkt3J1ywmijGjd6M)

their "debt" \- meaning, what other people have to bring into the system - <USER2> their balance + 20%. Right now, their debt is about 42 bitcoin.

<comment><USER12> Isn't their acrued "debt" actually 20% of what has been paid in? That's about 48 bitcoins as of now.

(Or perhaps that's what you meant?)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hm, you might actually be right.

I am not sure what the balance actually represents.

<comment><USER23> There is some list of unpaid 'investors'.

If they are operating as they say, the balance should always be less than 1.2 times the amount put in by the first entry on that list (or so, they could be combining payments or what not).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> No one finds this repulsive? People will lose money to this. Yes, they are dumb, yes it is obvious. But those who participate are still morally complicit. Enabling others who suffer from serious issues (addiction, gambling) seems like a pretty shitty thing to do.

<comment><USER25> It's as repulsive as state-run lotteries.

The expected return to entrants, over all entries through its collapse, is likely even better than lotteries.

At least this isn't advertising on TV and YouTube to attract even more vulnerable and unsophisticated players!

<comment><USER26> I love people like you who think they are smarter and better than anyone who would do things they don't like. Kudos.

<comment><USER25> I don't think you understand my comment.

What activities do you think I don't like?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I deposited the minimum just to give it a go (80c... Can't hurt?) and the Ponzi sent me back an absurdly larger amount of bitcoins... Not quite sure what happened, but hey. When this hit the top of Hacker News the site wasn't loading any bitcoin stats or such so I feel the load must have had something to do with it possibly. (That or I just got double spent on, which would be a real sneaky trick to get a user to send back the 'perceived' amount, but coming out of their pocket.

This is personally why I wouldn't trust any programs to handle currency so openly on the web. The inability of the average user to stress test or put proper testing through applications can cause quite a fault. Having experienced the methods that banks undergo for software cycles there is a tiny chance someone would have the resources to properly engineer something so fragile (relative to money) properly.

Because of this I would assume the main reason the author actually shut the site down (or at least so suddenly) was because of scaling technical issues.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I will add, since this hit the frontpage: _nobody post any big money there_. It's a Ponzi scheme. It says so in the title.

<comment><USER28> Ponzi scheme is ok if you are in at the beginning of the scheme. That's what makes this interesting - it's basically a bet that other people will also believe this will go on.

<comment><USER29> Unless someone runs off with the money (and in any case, unless you are the first, you never know if you are at the "beginning")

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Something is not quite right.

Deposited 0.05859407 BTC ( [https://blockchain.info/tx/c5411ae7ad41d6dab5dd879c158cb81f0...](https://blockchain.info/tx/c5411ae7ad41d6dab5dd879c158cb81f0ae6d20b066bd4e0c5e6d1dfb69553ae) )

Recieved 0.0599 BTC back ( [https://blockchain.info/tx/ef7f32df518dabb104812ea4a12719026...](https://blockchain.info/tx/ef7f32df518dabb104812ea4a127190266c4d4700b2d147e669353fe484bd824) )

1.2 * 0.05859407 = 0.070312884 BTC

So, somebody owes me 0.010412884 BTC

<comment><USER31> 0.05 * 1.2 ~= 0.0599, maybe they round to 2nd decimal?

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> So how do the creators of this make money from it?

The best solution is one that doesn't infringe on the "correctness" of the game, and it's a simple one. Simply play the game yourself. Send money in, let the system send money back. Do it a lot. Many small transactions. You will never lose, because when the game ends you are the owner of the actual account and won't get screwed like everyone else.

Right? So, perhaps many of the transactions we're seeing go into this are suspect and the total amounts aren't to quite be trusted?

<comment><USER33> The creators buy the first N shares, for guaranteed no-loss.

<comment><USER32> Yes, but they can keep playing as it goes in addition. Making money and reinvesting it.

<comment><USER34> Or you know, take the currency since this is a ponzi scam and ponzi scammers don't want to let pay-outs go to anyone but themselves.

Why is HN giving traffic to scam sites now?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> If you think Ponzi schemes won't work if you tell people that they're a ponzi scheme, MMM-2011 was a Ponzi scheme in Russia that hooked people despite nakedly advertising that it was a scam: [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-06/is-global- finance-a...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-06/is-global-finance-a- ponzi-scheme-ask-a-russian-expert.html)

</comment><comment><USER36> [http://bitcoinpyramid.com/r/230](http://bitcoinpyramid.com/r/230) is 3 years old (and still paying :))

<comment><USER37> scammed: ponzi is a SCAM

I copy-pasted from the site.

BTW, any pyramid scheme is bad and should be prohibited, right?

But the site is cool though.

<comment><USER38> I wouldn't recommend a pyramid schema. You'll run into migration problems down the road. Better to keep it flat.

<comment><USER37> I guess we are talking about difference things.

Sorry, I meant Pyramid scheme: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme)

But regarding pyramid schema, you mean hierarchical structure, right? I have the same concern, but flat tagging does not help much as we can observe from many sites.

Let people browsing from multiple levels of the category is fun. The rule of thumb is: don't expect perfect structure and don't need to have everybody agree on that. Ad hoc hierarchy should be good enough like Amazon product list. Also keep it away from people who don't need to browse it.

<comment><USER39> I think it was a joke?

<comment><USER37> It's a nice practice and showing people how he can manage this type of thing. Couldn't be serious about it, even the real-time data might be fake.

There are a lot of people like to participate in the BTC game, it's not bad. But if people take it seriously, it may impact on BitCoin's credibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm sure the Dogecoin Ponzi scheme will be better.

<comment><USER41> Ah, you mean Dogecoingem.com? Been up for over a week :) [http://dogecoingem.com/](http://dogecoingem.com/)

<comment><USER42> Dogecoin's already innovating faster then bitcoin!

<comment><USER43> Bitcoin had these "gem" and "diamond" and "treasure" sites ad nauseum a year ago or more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Here's someone who recently sent 1 BTC to this ponzi scheme:

[https://blockchain.info/address/1Gh2tRaqaPWFbQVabVD9rPsN1nm9...](https://blockchain.info/address/1Gh2tRaqaPWFbQVabVD9rPsN1nm951iRD5)

[https://blockchain.info/address/1BYbqzLvAN9PCC4LqNPPG2dHSyTn...](https://blockchain.info/address/1BYbqzLvAN9PCC4LqNPPG2dHSyTnN4Jim8)

I'm going to watch and see what happens to them. If they don't lose their 1 BTC, then that's at least slightly interesting.

EDIT: It's been more than an hour; no repayment yet.

<comment><USER45> The payout system does not seem to be FIFO, that is, just because you put in money before person B does not mean you'll get paid out before person B. I also put in 1BTC (far before these people) and followed it up with a small transaction. The small transaction got paid back (also incorrectly) whereas my 1BTC was never returned. Oh well, it was fun to watch.

<comment><USER46> such a great attitude for losing USD $700

<comment><USER47> I've lost more in casinos and left with a "oh well" attitude too. Pretty sure plenty of people have. Of course, I've also left casinos with "fuck that sucked" attitudes, and also "look at all the money I just won" attitudes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Why bother with a faceless ponzi scheme? Send your bitcoin directly to me, and I will invest it by hand, making sure to maximize your return: 1HbNxRhrv5Jocr7Q9ZqbbqCwuNNy4UsR77

This is totally legit. Seriously.

<comment><USER48> I have sent you $50 though coinbase.

I expect you to honor your word.

Return address: 1JEGu8qiaKbLgheAWCjRkeZNyEqhhaFVY3

<comment><USER49> He really did:

[https://blockchain.info/address/1HbNxRhrv5Jocr7Q9ZqbbqCwuNNy...](https://blockchain.info/address/1HbNxRhrv5Jocr7Q9ZqbbqCwuNNy4UsR77)

So far, no such honor has been extended from the OP:

[https://blockchain.info/address/1JEGu8qiaKbLgheAWCjRkeZNyEqh...](https://blockchain.info/address/1JEGu8qiaKbLgheAWCjRkeZNyEqhhaFVY3)

This is one of the beauties of Bitcoin - complete transaction transparency.

<comment><USER50> how is that "beautiful". what business is it of yours what these two posters' financial histories are?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Looks like the operator had seconds thoughts--or plain got scared. I was interested in how trackable he is.

The domain is registered under a fake name and DNS is from Namecheap. It's a funny whois entry, lacking all the usual boilerplate, so I'm not entirely sure it's Namecheap; some sort of reseller? Doesn't match what I see from Namecheap itself, but Namecheap does take bitcoin now, so it seems plausible.

Hosting is libertyvps.net, a bitcoin-paid host. Hosted "offshore"; company appears to be in US.

If a US authority leans on libertyvps, they can get an email and blockchain address, and maybe an IP. Tracing the person would be hard if Tor was used for setting up (and using) the email and all host access, and a decently anonymous acquisition of the bitcoin.

A US authority could also get to Namecheap. Using the registrar safely requires about the same precautions, notably access via Tor and acquiring the payment BTC (or pre-paid card) in a non-traceable manner. Done right, they could shut the domain down, but not find the person.

Anyway, looks like the top-level bases were covered. But there's a lot of links in the chain. Perhaps the operator got nervous that he didn't cover all of them--and it only takes one. (Against a determined LE agency with jurisdiction or no scruples.)

</comment><comment><USER52> "The experiment is over. We will pay back everyone we can. We are not making money from this."

</comment><comment><USER53> This is almost perfect except for not including a warning:

"Warning, if people stop depositing money, you won't get 120% back, and you could lose all your money."

Also, it seems like the person running the site is not taking a cut. If that's right, he's not making a profit, and he's less likely to get in trouble when things collapse.

<comment><USER33> Or the feds will convince a judge that the runner owns the anonymous addresses that got paid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Oh jesus fucking christ. People have sent over 200 BTC to that. :/

</comment><comment><USER55> It is either a scam or very poorly coded. I've seen one transaction in the blockchain for 7BTC from yesterday that hasn't been paid. But, people sending 0.01BTC today are being paid. Any proper Ponzi scheme would pay back in time order, not by order of value.

<comment><USER55> I found this at [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=447831.80](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=447831.80): "Actually, I set it up to prioritize the small transactions. The 1 BTC depositor will have to wait a while, and everyone else will get paid out as soon as their transaction confirms (this makes sense since the 1 BTC guy is making more money anyway)." Clearly doesn't understand the concept.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Website shows they've shut it down.

"The experiment is over. We will pay back everyone we can. We are not making money from this."

<comment><AUTHOR> well, that was quick.

note: I did _not_ post the website to make money or anything (and I was not affiliated with the author in any way). I thought it was funny, and I thought nobody will seriously put money into it. I was probably wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> This would be cooler with one of those other cryptocurrencies that feature a Turing-complete scripting language: the code of the scheme could be public and run in the blockchain so that everyone would know the system is fair.

<comment><USER58> Which cryptocurrencies have such a feature?

<comment><USER57> There's [http://www.ethereum.org/ethereum.html](http://www.ethereum.org/ethereum.html) but I'm sure there are others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I threw some old satoshi-dice coins at it (0.25) and was saddened at the header mocking that "The experiment is over.".

1.5 hours later 0.30BTC showed up in my wallet! Wow, did not expect that!

<comment><USER17> Spent 0.03 saw 0.0 in return so far :S

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> There have been a few Bitcoin sites like this, I think the original one was Bitcoin Gem. Most of them turned out to be scams (and I don't just mean that they were Ponzis).

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, (1) they weren't so hilariously open about their scam nature, (2) they weren't so nicely done and so transparent.

On the other hand, this is going for just a few days, it might go south quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> To be technical, there are multiple inaccuracies in "Get 120% back when the next person sends".

First, as per the central problem of Ponzi schemes, it is missing an "... if ever" at the end.

But further, it is oversimplified, because people can submit different amounts of bitcoins. Covering up that uncertainty -- which while apparent is not as clearly disclosed as the "Ponzi" aspect -- makes it harder for people to assess the likelihood they will get the promised return.

<comment><USER19> I think the completely honest thing to do would be to show another number (total sent * multiplier), explaining that if you send now, you will get the amount back when the total counter reaches that amount.

<comment><USER61> Sounds like it might work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> If I had any Bitcoin, I would definitely play this once or twice

<comment><USER17> > once or twice

That's what they all say

<comment><USER63> That's why it works. Get 1.2x on your penny, in for a pound.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I've always been fascinated by ponzi schemes, or other pyramid and chain structures. Most of the legislation against it that I've looked at, attacks it from a deception angle. So, basically, if it's honest about what it is and your chances are to make or not make money from it, it may be within the law of many countries. I have never looked at it from a cross border legal perspective, that might make it even more interesting.

</comment><comment><USER65> Just tried sending .2, and got back .119 - so therse a bug or he's skimming. lol, anyway interesting to make this

[https://blockchain.info/address/1MeDEWdpJRdSiRXaVFJK6b6m7Bv2...](https://blockchain.info/address/1MeDEWdpJRdSiRXaVFJK6b6m7Bv2SiKcHT)

</comment><comment><USER66> I'm impressed by the vanity address, must have taken a lot of cpu power to hash that one out.

<comment><USER67> CPU power, maybe. Vanitygen works with GPU power now, however.

[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Vanitygen](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Vanitygen)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> A bit OT but how do you build automatic Bitcoin services like this?

<comment> guard-of-terra Using RPC API of the official client? Unless you do something smarter like bitcoin lottery (I forgot how it is called).

<comment><AUTHOR> If you have just a few transactions then yes, _but_ the official client has a few caveats that can show up as problematic.

I would write it myself, but there is far better explanation here on reddit

[http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1x93tf/some_irc_cha...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1x93tf/some_irc_chatter_about_what_is_going_on_at_mtgox/cf99yac)

basically:

\- the difficulty of finding available addresses is quadratic to the number of unspent transactions

\- someone can slightly change the transaction so it's still valid, but have a different transaction ID - that can mess up clients and break chains of unconfirmed transactions

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> How does that work exactly? I pay in X BTC and two other people pay in say 0.5 X and 0.7 X then I get these BTC back? How exactly will my X BTC be distributed among other gamblers?

<comment><USER69> You don't get the original money back at the end, you just get the 1.2x BTC that other people gave you.

<comment><USER23> It's interesting that this is exactly what a 'high risk' mixer looks like.

<comment><USER70> Or money laundering scheme. Genius idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> I'm wondering though how they can afford to pay some people 400% Kind of seems like a bug might be making this less sustainable than it normally would be.

[https://blockchain.info/address/144PHT3EDfKcDreSGHHS3uND52GT...](https://blockchain.info/address/144PHT3EDfKcDreSGHHS3uND52GTWDiEeG)

<comment><USER71> make that 500%... the original 79mBTC got refunded to it 2 hours later...

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> This was tried out about a year ago: [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=138749.0](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=138749.0). The rules were originally very similar to the website above; then the owner modified them so that the gem randomly "reset".

</comment><comment><USER73> First, I fully understood what I was getting in to.

I first deposited .1 bitcoin to see if it was real and got 0.11978 back.

Ok, this will be fun.

I then deposited .8591 and got back 1.1999. Ha this is hilariously fun. More gambling!

I then sent 1.2001 and got back 0.8589. Wait what..

The game ended and he skimmed from me to hopefully pay someone else back and not pocket it.

<comment><USER46> So you actually have 0.01938 more than you started with, 0.01938 of someone elses coins who didn't get them back and you feel that he skimmed you?

<comment><USER73> I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying I feel skimmed. I'm just stating what happened.

What I'm saying is that he skimmed from my last deposit. I'm hoping he did use it so others got their coin back.

<comment><USER46> kind of seems like he purposefully gave you just enough to cover your deposits

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> shameless plug: my ncurses thin SPV bitcoin client for linux/mac:

[https://github.com/bit-c/bitc](https://github.com/bit-c/bitc)

      * 100% C code,
      * support for linux and mac platforms,
      * console based: uses ncurses,
      * home grown async network i/o stack,
      * home grown poll loop,
      * home grown bitcoin engine,
      * supports encrypted wallet,
      * supports Tor/Socks5 proxy,
      * multi-threaded,
      * valgrind clean.

You'll need basic dev skills to install it: check-out the code, install dependencies then build. It's all in the README file. I'm interested in all kinds of feedback you may have: feature requests, bugs, etc. Thanks!

<comment><USER74> it looks like this: [http://i.imgur.com/IJJU14s.png](http://i.imgur.com/IJJU14s.png)

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I bet this ponzi scheme will be much short-lived compared to the one run by federalreserve.io.

</comment><comment><USER76> Huh. I got paid back. I'm actually somewhat surprised. Well, I made 0.0002.

<comment><USER77> same here, made .0999

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Careful. I just sent .3, complained in the chat and was subsequently blocked...

</comment><comment><USER79> What a great illustration of how investment bubbles can rationally occur.

<comment><USER80> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory)

The greater fool theory says there are fools who know their purchase is either worthless or overpriced but purchase it anyway in order to sell it to greater fools at a profit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> How much does creator make?

<comment><USER82> The creator makes what's leftover in the end of non-payouts whenever he decides to pull the plug.

<comment><USER33> Why would there be any leftover? If creator isn't flat out stealing (which is a possibility, but _obviously_ illegal and risks penalty), all payins would go to payouts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> [http://coincurious.com/](http://coincurious.com/) is a more interesting experimental art piece as it's not a blatant scam.

</comment><comment><USER84> Funny, I also built something like this in December.

[http://pyramidofcoins.com/](http://pyramidofcoins.com/)

</comment><comment><USER85> Can anybody tell me how you come I've sent close to the minimum and got almost 100 time more? (this is not a joke, algo. fail?)

<comment><USER4> _cough-bullshit-cough_

<comment><USER85> Well, it seems the experiment is over and they tried to pay back everyone, but have a look at my wallet: [http://imgur.com/10nx0DG](http://imgur.com/10nx0DG)

I sent 0.0012408 + 0.0001 fee and got 0.1199 back... So I just tried again before seeing that it was over and probably will not get anything back from that payment.

So, in total, I "lost" 0.0013408*2 and got 0.1199. That's 76$ profit, at current rate anyway!

<comment><USER55> I don't know why you've gone to the effort of blacking out the other addresses, when the blockchain is public. Here's a definitive proof of the transactions: [https://blockchain.info/address/1B45zbsPXDDwoCsY11NGmX7useg1...](https://blockchain.info/address/1B45zbsPXDDwoCsY11NGmX7useg1TcJAja)

<comment><USER85> Good point, I guess I'm still new to this, I just bought some BTC from the new Montreal's ATM yesterday. I guess that by blacking out the time or part of the amount I would have made it "uncertain"...

So yeah, point is, it's true, ponzi.io screwed up big time in my favor (and I just got the 6th verification).

And ... it's Saturday, and I've just got some "money" for free booze.

cheers! ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I just tried and got paid within 30 minutes.

</comment><comment><USER86> I would not wonder if it was posted by the actual author and if his advertisement here is actually successful.

</comment><comment><USER87> So, ponzi.io is a Ponzi scheme squared?

</comment><comment><USER88> Cool cool cool

The human stupidity in one web, from the same Carlo Ponzi to Bernard Madoff. All Ponzi scheme portrayed in a web.

I love it.

</comment><comment><USER89> A few small teaks could make this into a money laundering / mixing money trail tool.

</comment><comment><USER45> Just received my 1BTC back. The "experiment is over" seems to be legitimate.

</comment><comment><USER90> Refresh the page to see some "live" action.

</comment><comment><USER91> Looks like the fun has moved to [http://dogepound.l8.lv/](http://dogepound.l8.lv/)

Who wants to make some money before the prices get too high ;)

</comment><comment><USER92> whatever happened to ethics and demonstrating problems without victimising people?

its not big or clever. :/

once again disappointed in the community...

</comment><comment><USER93> > Transparent Bitcoin Ponzi scheme

needs more parentheses

</comment><comment><USER94> A clone is already up at ponzi.tk

</comment><comment> vezzy-fnord Charles would be proud.

</comment><comment><USER95> A ponzi scheme on top of a ponzi scheme. Brilliant.

</comment><comment><USER96> very good idea

</comment><comment><USER97> This is amazing.

<comment><USER98> What is amazing is that (at the time of this writing), they've had 205 BTC deposited. At today's value, that's $140,000 USD. For a site that looks to be just over one week old.

In a way, this is almost sort of like gambling. You either get 1.2x your money, or lose it all. Odds depend on the hype of the site.

Cute whois information too: Owner : Charles Ponzi

<comment><USER99> You do realize that the site is a joke, don't you?

<comment><USER98> What do you mean a joke? Looking at the blockchain, it seems to be a full fledged, serious, Ponzi scheme. They're taking in BTC and paying it out again to the early investors.

EDIT: +1 to ryanjshaw for showing the blockchain: [https://blockchain.info/address/1ponziUjuCVdB167ZmTWH48AURW1...](https://blockchain.info/address/1ponziUjuCVdB167ZmTWH48AURW1vE64q)

<comment><USER99> wow did not expect that, my bad...

I just glanced over and saw all the automated responses and figured it's a joke. I'm actually still not convinced it's not an elaborate joke

<comment><USER100> The lesson - don't leave sarcastic, condescending responses to people before doing your own research.

<comment><USER101> No one deserves the horrors they face by being on the receiving end of the dreaded #828282.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> Well, this is how folks get rich in the smartist era, by creating schemes like this. Or buying facebook & google stock. Or creating/investing in the next web 2.0 billion dollar company. A 9-5 chump would have to work for years to make this kind of money, assuming he paid off all his college loans.

</comment><comment><USER78> 17gHYULi7cvfUdyJspiV7acRACJrvmVK3k

</comment><comment><USER103> I'd love people to donate a few BTC that I can use for more noble causes.

1P6yGa6nerZZ7jFDVPtFuXUPvLSfku4kWj

</comment><comment><USER104> This is quite possibly the worst post to ever hit #1 on Hacker News. Why are you people voting it up? Just because it admits that it's a scam (and "get your money plus 20% back for nothing ALWAYS ENDS UP A SCAM") doesn't mean that it should get posted here.

<comment><USER105> Because it's interesting?

<comment><USER104> "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." \- I maintain that a "good" hacker wouldn't find a blatant scam interesting. Especially not "just because it uses bitcoin".

<comment><USER106> It's beyond blatant; it's unabashed and self-aware. That's interesting - <USER3> would make such a thing? Who would pay into it? Will it still work even when people know what it is?

<comment><USER104> "Every time you send money to the Ponzi address, you'll get back 1.2x what you put in." \- honestly, it sounds like a normal Ponzi scheme to me. It's probably targeting people who don't realize that Ponzi schemes by their nature always end up as scams.

"All of our activity is is open and public on the blockchain. It's impossible for us to cheat anyone out of their payout without everyone knowing." \- completely ignores the point. 15% of the people who put money in WILL lose all of it. Period.

<comment><USER107> > "Every time you send money to the Ponzi address, you'll get back 1.2x what > you put in."

You're cherry picking a quote from the FAQ section answering what the payout ratio is. All prior mentions of the 120% payout are clear that the payout occurs only if people invest after you. Such as the "How does this work?" section:

>Send bitcoin to 1ponziUjuCVdB167ZmTWH48AURW1vE64q, and you'll get back 120% of the deposit. The returns on your investment come from other investors, _so as long as people invest after you_ , your payout is guaranteed!

Or the main page:

>Get 120% back _when the next person sends_.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The WhatsApp suicide - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37735370 <comment><USER2> This is terrible, but blaming WhatsApp seems like a weird leap of logic. If someone harassed you over the phone, you wouldn't blame the telecom company. If someone sent you a death threat in the mail, you wouldn't sue the postal service. If someone hit you with their car, you wouldn't retaliate against the automaker.

It seems like the BBC is just bringing up the name of the popular chat app as a way of generating more clicks. If their goal is raise awareness for the woman who died and people like her, that's noble but a bit misguided. If their goal is simply to generate more viewership and revenue for their website (which it seems like it is), it's deplorable.

<comment><USER3> The article doesn't blame WhatsApp, any more than a story abut a murder in Tulsa called "The Tulsa Murder" would be blaming Tulsa. WhatsApp is not the victim here.

<comment><USER4> The proper analogy is more to The Cragslist Killer

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Has an Indian male, reading about this stuff is both extremely horrifying and sadly familiar. What are the organizations and charities who are doing the best work to change this situation? I'd like to actively help.

</comment><comment><USER6> So this is what happens, if exponential progress collides head-on with a medieval culture thad had no time to prepare. Absolutely scary - and to me it rather looks like it's helping fighting equality and human decency rather than fostering it.

<comment><USER7> > So this is what happens, if exponential progress collides head-on with a > medieval culture thad had no time to prepare

It's inaccurate to characterize this as a problem with "medieval culture" meeting new technology.

This is a problem of a misogynist ultra-patriarchal culture (subculture?) in which new technology enables abusers to spread evidence of their misdeeds as a kind of perverse propaganda. This is NOT to say India as a whole, or even in the main, is misogynist and ultra-patriarchal.

Another reason I'm calling this out as inaccurate is that it distances many first-worlders (for example, myself in the USA) from such behavior, but we know all too well that such behaviors are replicated at all levels of society from the lowest and most impoverished ghettos to the most advantaged, wealthy, and presumably cultured dynastic families.

Technology in the form of social media enables others to see it and, in this particular instance, the distribution of the video documenting the crime has the effect (intended or not) of further repressing women who would dare to better themselves and their society (e.g. as health workers).

What really saddens me (as well as reinforces the idea that the dissemination of the video reinforces misogyny) is the husband's reaction:

      > But in her home village, anger over Geeta's death is still
      > muted by questions about her honour. Even Geeta's own
      > husband, who eventually found out about the video from his
      > neighbours, shares the prevailing suspicion that she might
      > have done something to encourage the attack. "If she had
      > told me," he says, "we'd have asked her if it was done with
      > her consent. Then we'd have gathered the village elders to
      > decide what action should be taken." He shows no sign of
      > outrage about the rape, and has made no demands for police
      > action.

EDIT: Formatting, punctuation, grammar, readability.

<comment><USER8> Totally. We shouldn't be totally isolating ourselves and our own culture from this abominable behavior.

Like every few months there's a similar story involving some top 10 football team getting away with the same shit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some societies are worse than others, but if even in the self-proclaimed modern civilization of the western world professionals in the adult entertainment or sex/erotic services industry are treated like 2nd class citizens, there's a need for a more substantial shift in perception and treatment of something that's as natural as eating and sleeping. It's unnatural that many societies have created ways to suppress human nature in many ways they deem morally incorrect, and it's very wrong that laws reflect the moral world views of some.

I won't go into how there used to be societies which in some regards were more open and safer than today's, or how the treatment by a part of some religious communities goes against those religions' core beliefs.

Empowering people to defend themselves and deal with abuse in a dignified way is very important, and we first need to stop blaming victims as "promiscuous" or "having asked for it". This isn't very different from how we treat people who went to prison.

EDIT: We also need to find a good way to investigate accusations without automatically assuming that, for instance, alleged male perpetrators are by default considered (not found, to be clear) guilty, or that wives do not abuse their husbands. The described societal defects are partly to blame, as are underequipped/unskilled law enforcement or judicial departments. If someone can lose their job and family because anybody merely publicly accuses them of a sex crime or adultery, then it's clear we have a problem on the other end of the spectrum. To me, both are caused by related societal flaws and will take a long time to correct. Another way this surfaces is that people tend to worry more about a government official's personal life than their positive/negative acts in office.

<comment><USER9> KirinDave points out in a sibling comment that what I wrote here can be read to blame rape victims. Under no circumstance is that the message I was trying communicate, but I take full responsibility for failing to write an unambiguous comment. I did not mean to blame the victim, and don't think I did, but I'm willing to learn from my failed wording to not repeat in the future. What I tried to express is that due to the way sexuality is handled in most societies, we mistreat rape victims as a result. I'm sorry I failed to convey that message clearly.

I'd be grateful if you can quote what parts can be read in a way that I didn't intend them to be, and I'll either choose less ambiguous expressions or omit the thought entirely, seeing how hard it is to communicate precisely.

<comment><USER3> I don't see you as blaming rape victims. What I see instead is:

* A repetition of the trope that sexual culture is to blame for the impact of rape. Rape isn't sex, and prudishness what forced this woman to kill herself. Misogyny was. The issue in the culture we're describing --- and in its echoes in our own culture --- is the power dynamic between men and women, in which women are seen as having an obligation to somehow temper the sexual impulses of men they come into contact with, or else avoid men altogether.

* A diversion from what is a Handmaid's Tale-grade story about the victimization of women to the entirely unrelated topic of whether men suffer unduly from accusations of rape. That's particularly galling given the specifics of this story.

Whether you intended to or not, your comment --- which as Michele notes is at the top of the thread --- had the clear effect of minimizing the tragedy and injustice depicted in this story. I think we should be ashamed of this whole HN thread, which is dominated more by whether the BBC's reporting was unfair to a 400 billion dollar social networking company than by any kind of reflection about what happened to the subject of the story.

I don't know you at all, and I make no claims about what your intent actually was. I'm happy to assume that this was all unintentional. I'm writing about your comment, not about you.

<comment><USER9> Thanks, now that you point it out, I can see how that part can overshadow the whole comment and be read in a way I didn't intend to. I'll aim to do better in future comments.

I admit that I'm less prepared to comment in a minefield topic like this than I had thought, as my comment has been easily, and rightfully so, misinterpreted. I'm sorry about that and grateful you do not assume too much. Knowing the etymology of 'victim', it would never cross my mind to do so.

I agree with your explanation how rape and subsequent shaming and general mistreatment is being facilitated, and I think the root cause is our conflicted and unhealthy approach to sexuality. I don't think it would reach the same effect if sexuality was a mundane topic, so that abuse can be treated as a crime rather than, as you say, presented as disobedience by those in positions of power and widespread misogyny in general. If it wasn't a taboo topic, victims would probably be more inclined to come forward and falsely accused but acquitted wouldn't be shunned as easily. That's the gist of my theory, if I look at it like a programmer, a logician. How true that is in the real world I don't know, and I'm sorry for not phrasing it as an open question to begin with.

Basically I tried and failed to paint a complete picture how society prefers to mark abuse victims as well as falsely accused perpetrators as personae non grata rather than find solutions to the problem. Tragically, society fails so much that it causes and is responsible for suicides. I blame society only, and theorize that our inexcusably wrong approach to sexuality facilitates it.

Neither was I trying to say that her death is an inevitable outcome or that men are somehow led to commit those heinous crimes. Thinking men have no choice and have to be protected is why some wives have to wear veils. It's wrong, at least 2300 years late in human society, and nothing I stand behind. Seeing how my comment has been interpreted that way convinced me that I'm unprepared to debate this topic in an international plaintext forum among people who don't know each other personally. Sorry.

Any insensitivity I may have expressed in the comment is because I'm a technically minded person first, thinking in terms of logic, and looking for the root cause of a segfault (societal flaw). I guess I'll stay with technical topics where there's a closed world with rules I can look up.

This thread, and your comment in particular, provided me with a more complete picture than I had this morning. Thanks for pointing out the flaws and incomplete parts of my thoughts. I believe in constructive criticism and open debate, so asking someone "did you really mean .... or what is it you're trying to say?" is my preferred approach rather than making assumptions, so thanks. Also, yes, if we knew each other personally, you'd have been more likely to correct me, knowing what kind of person I am. Thank you for not reducing me to a utf-8 blob on HN.

<comment><USER10> I haven't read the thread that lead to this comment (though I'm about to), but I would encourage you to continue, at your own pace, to engage in thinking about topics like this. It sounds like you're a thoughtful person, and the world needs more thoughtful people thinking about tough problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Spent the month of March in India this year. It's so sad how the poor, women, and the overall environment are treated there. I think India has a lot to offer the world, but they've got a long way to go cleaning up many aspects of life there.

</comment><comment><USER12> This makes my blood boil. This is the kind of thing that makes me surprised there aren't more vigilantes. Not from that dumpster fire village of course, but from some nearby place whose reputation is tarnished by association. I wouldn't condone that but given how furious I am right now I can't imagine being physically and emotionally close to the situation in the first place and there not being someone (perhaps more unstable) that wouldn't just go and take vengeance.

> if by any chance they do lay their hands on a phone or use ear phones to > listen to music, then they are branded 'characterless'"

@#$%!

</comment><comment><USER13> I apologize for the incident, disgusted as I am with this, I just can't seemingly imagine what the women in the article went through. These things shove my proud Indian head into my own @#$%@!

Yet would like to lay a different perspective:

I am an Indian, an average tech professional, doing well in a good job, in a good city. Yes, the majority of my country is conservative. Yes, we have views that are biased against women. Do we have laws to protect them? Yes, we do. Do we have agencies to enforce them? Yes, we do. Do we have resources to support such agencies? Yes, we do.

Yet we see these incidents happening in tens of villages, towns, cities happening every day. Sadly "MOST of them unreported", let alone, being investigated, and the perpetrators getting tried and punished. Trust me on this one, most walk away free, and that encourages them to do it yet again.

The BIG question is then why is a basic safety not in place? You would say, isn't it the job of the law agencies to deal with this. Ugh, yeah... But blooper, a very good chunk of them are "corrupt".

We are not backward in tech arena anymore, though we have WhatsApp in villages where we still have 2 hours of electricity per day.

The technology is already in place, govt. orgs are all on Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. Do respond to requests and complaints (yeah you can tweet to our railway minister Mr.. Suresh Prabhu and he responds with immediate action, ex: [https://twitter.com/baloomahapatra/status/792361492796637184](https://twitter.com/baloomahapatra/status/792361492796637184))

It's just that the majority of masses are not "technically" educated enough to put it in use. They have access to weapons already (WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook), but just choose to use them against the good use they should be put to. You don't need guns when you have a pen (now internet).

To me there are two possible ways to bring in some change to my sick country:

1) We tell the people of my country to take matters in their hand: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/16/india.gender](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/16/india.gender)

Yes, bring in the knives/guns, castrate the f@#$%ing bastards.

2) Educate, everyone when giving them access to the technology, the apps, the whole internet what they should be doing with it.

The later is a more important step too. Google started an initiative to provide free high-speed internet access at major railway stations, and here is what Patna (capital of Bihar state) did with their free wifi card: [http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/10/17/patna-is-the- no-1-us...](http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/10/17/patna-is-the-no-1-user-of- googles-free-wi-fi-at-railway-stati/)

Yes, Porn.

<comment>

The whole point that I want to lay on the table, is we DESPERATELY need to bridge the gap between the cultural conservative "backwardness" and the rapid pace at which we are being given these tech gizmos to play with.

I beg with my folded hands to the govt. To please use my tax money (increase it if need be), to educate the agencies, the village elders, the women who go out to those "doomed" towns of mine, and most IMPORTANTLY the god damned f%$#$# bastard perpetrators that the tech is there to make this country a much better place than it is.

I am doing what I am able to, but if you are reading this please wish my country gets well soon.

I am a proud Indian, in just 70 years we are beating the world to Mars, yet we have burning infernos in the towns, villages, and there are no fire trucks nearby.

<comment><USER14> > I beg with my folded hands to the govt. To please use my tax money (increase > it if need be), to educate the agencies, the village elders, the women who > go out to those "doomed" towns of mine, and most IMPORTANTLY the god damned > f%$#$# bastard perpetrators that the tech is there to make this country a > much better place than it is.

May I respectfully suggest that this is the wrong way to try to solve the problem.

Governments do not fix societies--they break them by the ruling class's manipulating society to remain in power. We see this even in the "first-world" nations like the U.S.

In contrast, societies fix governments when the governments are comprised of the societies they govern. Of course, this is only effective up to the level of virtue of the society in question.

Expecting government to fix society is putting the cart before the horse. Thinking that the government is (or should be) the horse that drags along the society cart is part of the problem. It's like expecting the tail to wag the dog. On the contrary, society is like the horse which drags the burden of a cart behind it.

Fixing a society requires the good members of it to get their hands dirty, not to outsource the job to their government. Easier said than done, but no less true.

<comment><USER13> Yes, totally true, and agreed.

But when the society is way too huge, it's a different game altogether. Compare 1.25 billion people to 310 million in the U.S

In a complex society as India, the challenge to actually execute a "good" change is closer towards the impossible side.

We have 18 official languages spoken in 27 different states, where the dialects change every 12 km (7.5 miles). We have at least 5 major religions, not to mention countless castes and ethnicities. There are just literally thousands and thousands of groups.

While the common vested interest of staying in power remains the same, the number of good members who can make a significant (practical) impact with honest intent is simply insignificant. And on top of that, these few members are split amongst these many many groups, creating an utter chaos.

This may not be the case for other societies for instance in U.S where most players in the society are literate and educated sufficiently to the leverage tech to get a clear picture of what actually the govt. is up to.

Sadly in India, most well-educated masses including myself lead lives that feed their families, which leaves very few brave members to clean up the mess that we have created.

And of course, the bad members use this opportunity to bend the govt. and the society to their best interests.

So while a perfect solution would be to practically difficult.

But, as an honest citizen, I think that education can do wonders. If people are empowered to challenge the govt. when it fails its job, then I think new good members will be born.

Don't you agree? Sorry about the long post, I agree that asking govt. to educate society is not the solution, but "educating society to use technology correctly" on an emergency basis is. Given the state of the affairs, govt. (at least the current one) is perhaps the best vector to deliver it.

<comment><USER14> Yes, and thanks for your comment. It is indeed a very complex problem without any simple solutions.

Education seems like a good start, but of course it raises the questions of who will teach and what they will teach. As history shows, teaching the wrong things can have very bad results. If the people making the decisions and doing the teaching are good, maybe it will turn out well. But if those people are not good, the end result could be tragic on a colossal scale.

> If people are empowered to challenge the govt. when it fails its job, then I > think new good members will be born.

This is very important and insightful. I think it's also important that government be close to the people, i.e. power being distributed among many smaller bodies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> kyle-w This makes me so angry and upset.

Facebook shouldn't just be holding developer conferences every year. This is way outside the scope of what Tech Companies skill sets can handle. There has to be open public acknowledgement of that at the highest levels and not just the usual PR.

Unintended consequences of tech have to be treated in the same way we treat high priority bugs.

</comment><comment><USER15>
      The court also asked the IT Ministry to examine what measures
      could be taken to block the online circulation of such videos.

Wonder what can be done to block such incidents when ministers in Indian Parliament watch porn.

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-09/indian-mps-busted- for-...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-09/indian-mps-busted-for-watching- porn/3819490)

[http://www.deccanherald.com/content/225344/karnataka- ministe...](http://www.deccanherald.com/content/225344/karnataka-minister- caught-watching-porn.html)

<comment><USER16> > Wonder what can be done to block such incidents when ministers in Indian > Parliament watch porn.

This has nothing to do with _watching_ porn. Plenty of men watch porn and don't rape anyone.

It has everything to do with a culture that blames the victim of a rape for the actual rape.

<comment><USER17> While I don't disagree with you at all, the fact that "ministers in Indian Parliament watch porn" is meant _literally_ makes me wonder what kind of overlap there is. These are elected officials watching porn on their phones during parliamentary sessions. I'm not saying that one causes the other, just that they both might be symptomatic of a related root cause.

<comment><USER18> Yes: that root cause is that men want sex. Now that you know that common cause - what's your next logical step?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Ways to support people losing their job by Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> As more cities across the US ban large gatherings, more and more businesses are being put either on reduced hours or being closed altogether, for we don't know how long. This will result in a lot of staff being at least temporarily being laid off. Is there any organization that focus on these workers that I can contribute to? If not, what's the best way to help? <comment> munk-a In theory the best organization to handle this is the US Government, no charitable organization could hope to cover the costs of lost wages - <USER2> Bezos might be able to float everyone for a while if he decided to act personally.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think the best route is to write your representatives and ask them to provide support from the government.

If you know someone you can help but the US government has entire systems dedicated to helping folks out who are out of work.

</comment><comment><USER4> Tell them to vote for someone else next time and cross your fingers.</comment>


How Bing is out-innovating Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/08/02/bing.google.search/index.html?hpt=Sbin

<comment><USER2> Hehe, funny thing is that Microsoft is loosing a lot of money and not gaining significant market share. Looks like it doesn't pay off to be evil :). I mean evil as in want to conquer every type of business in the world.</comment>


Heroku PM (Amazon, PayPal Alum) Matt Soldo on "Selling More with Math" - <AUTHOR> http://www.heavybit.com/library/video/2013-10-08-matt-soldo

<comment><USER2> This is really interesting, the part where he uses a spreadsheet on google docs made me think that I never used a spreadsheet in my life, I never even understood what they're good for. I have a feeling that they can be useful to most people in several calculations though, so I was wondering if there are videos like this that show practical examples of how they can be useful for.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough. I think sometimes it's the obvious things that people forget. Like people think pricing and product marketing is freaking magic, when really it's often just simple math. Got anything better you think would be relevant to this thread?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Great talk from Heavybit!</comment>


Stamper: An Artboard-Oriented Creative Coding Environment - <AUTHOR> https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3334480.3382994 <comment><USER2> Prototype link: [https://p5stamper.com/](https://p5stamper.com/)

Glad to see they used Processing. In high school I introduced my CS classmates to Processing after hearing about it on The Creative Coding Podcast. We made tons of games and interesting simulations like the popular boids algorithm for birds and a classmate made the game Worms. I remember using it in a CS class in high school to implement minimax with alpha/beta pruning for Othello. It's a great environment to teach and learn coding in. Dan Shiffman wrote some great books to teach Processing from if you're interested.

<comment><USER3> Shiffman's "The Coding Train" is one of the best video tutorial series on YouTube. It's an absolutely incredible resource.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Use Chrome on a desktop please!

No, test in other browsers please!

<comment><USER5> This is unnecessarily negative for something that is presented as being in the prototype stage. Testing on multiple platforms out of the gate impedes experimentation.

(As a Firefox user, I agree that the launched version should support other browsers, of course!)

<comment><USER4> It's not negative. It's actually a positive that people running other browsers would like support. I just widened his potential user base for future experiments. Just because it's a criticism doesn't immediately indicate tone.

Arguably only developing for Chrome is what is impeding experimentation by not allowing it to be run on other browsers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's interesting how the poster (at least, the submission seems like a conference poster) doesn't even mention one of the most important and commonly-used pieces of prior art in this medium: Xcode's Interface Builder storyboards. In fact, they work very similar to what the authors created: there's links between boards (representing segues between screens), links between UI and code (IBOutlets and IBActions).

<comment><USER7> From a research perspective, is it novel? Would it really be the appropriate resisted work to reference to other researchers in the field?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting! Reminds me of the Unity shader graph editor -- the visualization of in-between nodes of the computation graph. For example: [https://blogs.unity3d.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/02/image2....](https://blogs.unity3d.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/02/image2.jpg)

<comment><USER9> That's pretty similar to every node-based shader editor I've seen - and in turn shader editors are similar to other of node-based environments where there's a graphical output (compositing software springs to mind)

(Not being difficult for the sake of it. I think it's important to focus on the things that make Stamper different to similar tools)</comment></comment>


Unconventional Ways Companies are Finding Tech Talent - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/ss/7-unconventional-ways-hire-best-tech-talent

<comment><USER2> What a blatantly ignorant article. Most of these tips are yawn-inducingly _normal_. The last two are almost offensive.

I think it's cool if a company is willing to support someone who has come forward as having been diagnosed with Aspergers. Someone with this condition might have challenges in the work place that other people do not. Any support and understanding is a good thing.

But I think it's ignorant to hire someone with Aspergers "because they have that genius disease." It's just plain wrong and totally not what Asperger's is.

<comment><USER3> _When Web development company ArsDigita wanted to expand its programmer force in the spring of 1999, founder Philip Greenspun went extreme: He parked a yellow Ferrari F355 in the parking lot, and promised it as a reward to any employee who referred 10 qualified programmers._

Since this "tactic" is over 12 years old and we know what happened to ArsDigita (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArsDigita>), this might be about the worst idea you could have...Shame on you Inc for even publishing this crap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> One of the thing that we (Wolfram) have noticed is that our NKS summer schools provide a great way to track someone's problem solving ability (and domain expertise) over a long period. A lot of previous hires for Wolfram|Alpha have come from summer schools. The Cambridge grad who wrote Alpha's first- generation parser, for example, studied at the very first summer school in 2003.

Two related things: we get a lot of international applicants, and this turns out to be a great filter for selecting very motivated and talented people who have perhaps saturated the opportunities their local countries can provide them (certainly this was true of me for South Africa).

Another thing is that the math and physics people who apply seem to adapt better to programming in our house functional language, Mathematica, than people with a more traditional CS background (MIT's SICP aside, do they still do that?).

</comment><comment><USER5> I've recently noticed that > 90% of my gmail ads are job-offer-related (mainly Jane Street, Google, and Intel). That seems to be a new trend, at least for me.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> #8: By commenting on relevant Hacker News stories.

</comment><comment><USER6> i've noticed that my linkedin mail from recruiters has doubled (or more) in the last year. i'd say it's a valid trend

</comment><comment><USER7> We're currently in hiring mode and finding talent is super tough. You need people who are not only a good fit (hard enough) but are willing to leave their cush jobs, join a startup no one has heard of and believe in your vision.

Some things we've tried:

\- Scouring Dribble for Designers: I built a system that allows me to search Dribble by location, then pull up all the relevant shots of people from the locations I type in. A bit of scraping work, but so much more efficient now.

\- Pinging people on Forrst. I've met with a bunch of people off of Forrst. You can hack some URLs to find all people from a particular location.

\- LinkedIn. I've never once used or enjoyed LinkedIn until I've had to hire people. Their search is actually pretty awesome for recruiting. Actually getting people to respond is harder.

\- Emailing local universities. Finding fresh talent out of school. Sending emails to CS listservs.

Finding people is so tough. Its the hardest part of a startup I've had to do so far.

Obligatory shameless plug: Let me know if you're interested in an early employee gig in Palo Alto doing Ruby development + a bunch of awesome statistical graphing / information mining.</comment>


Ask HN: Interest in a "hardcore" dev tutorial site? - <AUTHOR>

I've been thinking about this alot lately and working on a prototype in my free time, and maybe I'm just missing things that are already out there. But anyway, I was wondering:
what are the sites you use to really learn programming, not c syntax or basic/mid level stuff but things like linux kernel internals, How webkit works, or programming your own js libs?
Where do these sites fall short? Or if not and they're great, why?
Basically, what are your media/video learning resources (ie not reading source code) once you've gotten to a higher level?
For me personally, I find I learn very little from most conference videos (ontwik for example), also I rarely have the time to actually complete most online "courses" like standford or whatever, so what I'd like to have is a site where I could go to for 30 minutes, look over the devs shoulder as he builds his own Node Chat server or whatever, and then go on having learned something.
Anyone have any thoughts here? Thanks! <comment><USER2> I think at that level you don't really learn stuff through tutorials anymore. Tutorials/conferences stuff are mostly to get you started and looking in the right direction.

You learn the advanced stuff by doing it. Want to learn linux kernel internals? Write a kernel module. It doesn't have to be useful. Want to learn webkit internals? Invent a new tag (super-blink!) and implement it. It's extremely unlikely that W3 will appreciate your contribution to html but you'll learn a lot in the process.

Another way to learn this stuff (and a pretty standard way to introduce new people to a codebase in the industry) is to jump into the bug tracker. Just start fixing low-priority bugs. It might take you three days to find something that a core dev could fix in fifteen minutes, but you'll learn an immense amount in the process.

</comment><comment><USER3> Tutorials are best for beginners. They start from zero, so the author can build one bit of knowledge on top of another. It's easy for the user to feel progress, because every few minutes a new idea/concept can be introduced and explained (at a high level).

It's harder to make a tutorial for an expert. Different experts will know different things, so it's unclear how much time to spend explaining any particular concept. It's harder for users to feel like they are progressing because: 1) it takes much longer to get a "unit of knowledge" across because the concepts are more complex. 2) you are really "filling in the gaps" of stuff they already (partly) know, and they may not even know how many gaps they have. So progress is harder to see and measure.

Random brainstorms: \- Different people learn different ways. Some people want to learn via audio, some via video, some via text, some via diagrams, some only learn by hands-on doing. \- Talking is pretty low-bandwidth compared to reading. That usually includes most video, since it's just video of someone talking, sometimes with a few low-bandwidth slides. \- Staring at talking heads is boring. Partner with an artist to create animations and diagrams for your talk. \- You could try an "expando" tutorial: One that can give high- level details to novices, and expand into nitty-gritty details for experts. I'm not sure that would work in video, but it could work for text or diagrams. \- Or maybe you could try something like "VH1 pop up videos", where a novice could listen to the talk, while an expert could be reading all the sidebars while listening to the talk. \- Each of the areas you mention (learning programming, learning kernel internals, etc.) is a world of it's own that would take a long time to make materials for. You could start by re-purpose existing content (technical blog posts, "Open Source Architectures", etc) to turn into a "video explanation". This would be a quick way to get started and see if you have a useful concept.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for the extensive post and brainstorming ideas! I agree with you that most people learn different ways, and as others have stated, really learning by doing is high up on the list. I like your thoughts of interactivity, because ideally that's what the tutorials would be like - interactive media, but the thing is, like you say this is time consuming, and sadly, I don't have the time to commit that it would take.

One thing I do like about video, at least for programmers, is that - if you're dual wielding with your monitors :), you can watch the code directly, have your own editor open and just code along, while you listen to the expert in his field explain some concepts that might be fuzzy for you.

What I don't like though is reading blog post, because honestly all I ever end up doing is just reading the source code excerpts, and then (if its js, or some smaller lib), I just download the source and read it which renders the point of having a blog post basically null and void.

Finally, your last idea "repurposing content" is great, it'll let me test the idea out :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Currently I am learning Ruby on Rails. And Michael Hartl's tutorial is the best source out there. Next comes Codeschool's rails for zombies.

The key point lies here is how you make the tutorial interesting so that the user does not loose focus or concentration. In other words to make it fun to learn. I believe Codeschool is exactly doing it by making small videos and then asking a set of questions and rewarding points to the user. Codecademy too but without videos. So I would suggest if you are developing some tutorials then integrate as much as activity for users you can. I also agree to some level with joel42. After certain level you do not need tutorials anymore. It is just for beginners.

In addition, I think those days of University style teachings are over. Or it will be obsolete soon where the receiver end has to sit down idly for hours to learn and then start doing once the lecture finishes. From evolutionary point of view our brain is not wired(designed) to sit down for hours to learn efficiently as it can not absorb all the information thrown to it in a single try. It works best when learning by doing approach is practiced. By adding small piece after piece or tweaking pieces to the building block.

However it is my personal opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.

</comment><comment><USER5> I would be very much interested in this. Infact, I wouldn't even mind paying a fee as long as your tutorials are more interesting then what I would read in a high level book

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow really? I actually have an idea about payments, basically,you can "sign up" for a membership, but you can enter however much you want, 0 even. The thing is if you decide to pay/give then the amount gets sent to the guys doing the videos. I've thought about even letting the users specify if they want to send 10% to some open source projects (of their choice), etc, I think this would let the community really promote good tutorial givers and also allow some smaller devs to explain their work/tools, and get some money for all their efforts to the open source community.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Use the source</comment>


Ask HN: How do I compile a list of censored websites in my country - <AUTHOR> Hello
I live in Pakistan and my government censors websites that contain "immoral" content. Sometimes random websites get caught in the censors, e.g pastebin.com
I wanted to build a portal that kept check of which websites are blocked, but I'm unsure about how to go about this:
1. I could download the zonefiles for all the popular tlds and test them, but this will exclude unpopular tlds
2. I could crawl the web but this will turn into a more expensive side project than I have the funds for.
3... any suggestions? <comment><USER2> Most dns servers don't allow zone transfers, so I don't believe you'll be able to enumerate domains like this.

In general enumerating domains is not really possible (you can't just dump all North Korean domains for example, and people have tried).

I'd start by figuring out how they are blocking sites. Probing to see which IPs are blocked would be much easier. There are various tools to lookup which sites are hosted on a given IP address (using crawled data).

One way to do this would be to try connecting from outside Pakistan (e.g. EC2 server) and from inside and seeing if a IP is blocked.

Scanning all 4 billion IPs surprisingly doesn't take too long on a modern internet connection.

</comment><comment><USER3> My two cents: Don't do it on your own. Contact NGOs that work on the censorship issues, EFF, AccessNow, FLD, etc.. They have been working on these issue for a while and probably can help you with their resources.

<comment><AUTHOR> I might after I build the site :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think you should crowd source it. Build a simple two-page site where people can submit censored websites and another where you display them. But your very own website could end up on the list.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is a wonderful idea!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I own [https://www.DomainDetect.io](https://www.DomainDetect.io), we pull new domains from Zone files/3rd party sources daily. ~200,000-400,000 domains per day to alert on new phishing sites for businesses. So we do something similar. I would start with something like [https://czds.icann.org/en](https://czds.icann.org/en) attempting to resolve them asyncronously in your country, then work your way through the new daily additions. Use an ElasticSearch/Cassandra backend for speed to query that volume of information.

Your problem will come from the countries/TLD's that dont play ball with their zone files. These are trickier to obtain.

</comment><comment><USER6> Yours will soon be on that list.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd like to see that happen. I don't take kindly to being censored arbitrarily and will fight tooth and nail to the full extent of the law :)</comment></comment>


An elusive billionaire gives away his good fortune - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-feeney8mar08,0,4946397,full.story

<comment><USER2> I'm repeatedly miffed that these articles admire rich people for giving money away, but they never recognize the good that they do for society in making the money in the first place. There's almost an implicit assumption that business is a necessary evil that we have to endure to enjoy the goodness of philanthropy.

<comment><USER3> Making money is not the same as creating wealth. I generally admire people more for the wealth they create than the money they accumulate.

<comment><USER4> the way to accumulate money is:

you create wealth. you give it to other people in exchange for money -- for promises to pay you back in wealth later. then _accumulating_ money means you don't call in those promises, you just hold on to them. as long as you do that, other people got wealth you created, and you haven't gotten anything back yet. (well of course you spent some money, but the more you accumulate, the less you've asked in return for what you did)

<comment><USER3> That's what I would call first-order wealth (i.e. basic goods or services). It's the equivalent of the fish you give (or perhaps sell) that allows someone to eat for a day. Getting rich that way is a matter of knowing how much to charge and how much to spend so that you accumulate a surplus.

The problem with this kind of "wealth" is that it doesn't have much of a network effect.

I admire second-order wealth creators more. This kind of wealth is the knowledge you give (or sell) when you teach someone to fish. This creates the possibility of more first-order wealth without significantly diminishing the seller's wealth (unless the value of the knowledge itself is directly related to its scarcity).

The guy in the original article is clearly a first-order rich guy. While I applaud him for helping worthy causes, I'd admire him more if he were a creator of second-order wealth, perhaps by starting a YC-like company which would help start new companies in that industry.

<comment><USER4> Look at amazon, ebay, and walmart -- very useful things to have. Selling lots of 'first-order' goods, cheaply, helps a lot of people tremendously.

It's not clear to me how to judge which is better, but it is clear to me that both are awesome.

<comment><USER3> While Walmart is basically a ruthlessly efficient first-order company, I'd say eBay is more of a second-order company since it sells a sales-enhancing service and Amazon is somewhere in between since it does both.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Dang, that makes me want to be a billionaire too! Inspired, rms?

<comment><USER4> I want a billionaire friend >_>

Let's team up. How about you become a billionaire and I'll keep working on befriending you.

<comment><USER5> Hmm...sure, as soon as you give me the money!

It would be interesting to be a venture capitalist though. I could fairly easily save up enough to pay for someone's ramen, and I know at least one directionless hacker. Now all I need is a killer idea!

<comment><USER4> How about a web 2.0 site for parents (large potential audience) with social features that tells them that their ideas about parenting are deeply mistaken. That's bound to be a big hit.

<comment><USER5> And one for gamers telling them they shouldn't play so much, and should interact with real people; one for business people telling them they should work less and spend more time with family and friends; and one for all the web addicted geeks out there telling them the same thing.

Then, once they sign up, they can feel good about themselves because they _did_ something! I'll call it webGym, since it serves the same purpose - relieving guilt by paying money:)

<comment><USER4> Do you count chess as a game?

<comment><USER5> No, I like chess too, so it doesn't count. You can play chess obsessively without any guilt.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


"Secrets and Lies" Nine Years Later - <AUTHOR> http://joezack.com/2013/07/14/secrets-and-lies-nine-years-later/

<comment><USER2> Even more impressive: originally published in 2000...

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh man, that's embarrassing!

I should have checked the copywrite, Amazon shows the "publication date" as 2004. If I'm reading it right the intro and 1st chapter were added in 2004.

<comment><USER3> nit: copyright. Very big difference.

<comment><AUTHOR> Dah! Thanks.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Exploratory Data Analysis – an important part of any analytical strategy - <AUTHOR> https://www.quarkanalytics.com/Blog/exploratory-data-analysis-an-important-part-of-any-analytical-strategy/ <comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your feedback. I will change that

</comment><comment><USER2> 170 characters per line, light grey on white background ... you _really_ don't want people to read that, huh?</comment>


Preview.fm - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/666491230

<comment><USER2> I caution people against buying MP3s from iTunes because they stamp your email address and name into the metadata. Amazon does not do this.</comment>


How Corn Syrup Might Be Making Us Hungry and Fat - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/corn-syrup-might-making-us-hungry-fat-210000069.html <comment><USER2> FYI table sugar is 50% fructose. HFCS is usually 55% fructose. Honey and maple syrup are also ~50% fructose. You cannot escape it unless your only sugar comes from starch & dairy.

It should be obvious to everyone that a diet higher in sugar which is energy dense but not very satiating will tend to lead to one eating more and gaining weight.

If you want to decrease your appetite, eat more protein. No other macronutrient is as satiating as protein.

Reducing your sugar intake is a good tactic for weight loss, but only because it tends to mean you're reducing your overall caloric intake, which is the most important factor _by far_ for losing weight.</comment>


24 years of Windows package design - <AUTHOR> http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/24-years-of-windows-package-design-643034

<comment><USER2> Wow these boxes make me nostalgic... I don't remember anything before 3.1 but when I was about four that was the first time I used a computer. Guess what for? Tetris. That's right.

It was the best.

Windows 95 was the first time I used the internet.

Windows 98 was when I spilled milk over my dad's expensive block that he called a "lap top" and when I downloaded my first virus.

Windows ME...the first time a computer made me cry? jk I was pretty happy upgrading to XP though

The rest aren't so nostalgic. It was pretty much XP until I discovered Linux.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know why (except maybe for the first ones) but this is what I thought when I saw them together:

IBM (v1 to v3)

Clipart collection (v3.1)

Active desktop has stopped working (95 to ME)

Apple (windows 7)

</comment><comment><USER4> First they're too boring, then too busy, then too boring again? This guy is never happy! Personally I think of all the pre-XP boxes Win2k's is by far the nicest. They finally got rid of all the extra crap he complained about and then he derides it for being boring. Yeesh.

</comment><comment><USER5> Wow, 24 years of ugly. The only one that's even half decent is the 3.1 box -- despite the ugly "New!" badge and the ridiculously condensed font...

It's hard to tell from those small images, but what are those strange boils on the Windows 7 logo supposed to be?

<comment><USER6> Leaves, flowers, lens flares, a pine tree (I think). Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory again, in any case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> for me, windows nt workstation 4.0 was where the product peaked. we finally got a consumer version of a real 32-bit os, rather than a flimsy shell sitting on top of dos. its gui was attractive, by microsoft standards. it wasn't yet loaded down with crap.

windows 2000 was the one that made me jump ship. to me it looked like "baby's first computer" or something.

after that i spent several years in the wilderness, trying various alternatives. linux didn't appeal to me for very long. i eventually settled on beos, including a short stint working for be. when they went out of business, i switched to macs, and here i still am.</comment>


Instant WebKiosk 9.0 June 2, 2013 - <AUTHOR> http://mindblowingidea.com/distrolist/2013/06/11/instant-webkiosk-9-0-june-2-2013/ Instant WebKiosk is a suite of free and refined "live" (no installation required: boot is performed from USB keys) browser-only (only the browser interface will show up) operating systems based on Linux Debian and designed for use in web kiosks, multi-user "web workstations" (cafès, offices, schools, hotels), secure and private personal Internet browsing and digital signage deployments...<p>Brought To You First By DistroList.org, see more here: http://mindblowingidea.com/distrolist/2013/06/11/instant-webkiosk-9-0-june-2-2013/ <comment><AUTHOR> Instant WebKiosk is a suite of free and refined "live" (no installation required: boot is performed from USB keys) browser-only (only the browser interface will show up) operating systems based on Linux Debian and designed for use in web kiosks, multi-user "web workstations" (cafès, offices, schools, hotels), secure and private personal Internet browsing and digital signage deployments... Brought To You First By Distrolist.org To see the rest click this link: [http://mindblowingidea.com/distrolist/2013/06/11/instant- web...](http://mindblowingidea.com/distrolist/2013/06/11/instant- webkiosk-9-0-june-2-2013/)</comment>