Raffle Rules
Win a Bitcoin! What? A free Bitcoin?! Here's how: Respond to this post once every 24hrs with either: - Your favorite gold or silver coin
- A one line slogan for Bitcoin
- A one line slogan for Coinabul
Each post MUST be unique to be counted. Winners will be selected each week on Sunday. Winners will be randomly selected using http://random.org. Good luck! Favorite coin: the 2009 UHR gold coin remake of the St Gaudens $20 gold piece. |
|
|
|
Finally, got my 2215 btc interest paid in full... about to sell now while it's still high in value.
Didn't happen. Pirate himself said he will pay everyone out at the same time. And we all know pirate is a man of his word.... |
|
|
|
you see the 100k BTC xfer he just made? that's likely heading to Gox, which he will then fuck the market a little by dumping it, getting yet another ~ $1M USD for his scam.
I wouldn't assume that these 100K are headed for liquidation at Gox, (unless Pirateat40 controls 100 or so Gox accounts, which is unlikely) since this is now stolen money, and since that would be a bit transparent. I thought Gox was capable of blacklisting coins. Why don't they track the coins now? That way they would't let him cash out the stolen coins. Yes. Also, why don't they track the coins of all "investors" in this scheme who were silent and happy and compliant as they were receiving their payments over weeks and months...? After all, these coins were "stolen" from other participants in this scheme. Everyone was perfectly fine cashing out other people's coins, no questions asked. Now that the supply of assholes gaping with greed has dried out, they crawl out crying for their "stolen" coins. I made about BTC2 via bitcoinmax...perhaps I'm holding stolen goods? I'm probably one of the few willing to give back any goods deemed stolen. |
|
|
|
|
Do we know what the actual total losses are? I mean, I presume there are plenty of people who have gotten their original investment back and maybe even some interest...and plenty of people wanting the huge amount of interest they were promised...the net effect may be small...
|
|
|
|
Its going to get uglier. How can it get any worse than the current situation, which is that no one has gotten paid? I agree. Even tho i am surprised by the lack of other posters complaing. Bitcoinica was rougher post wise. Strange. How much in deposits did pirate actually receive? I believe he claimed to have 500kBTC, but, I'd claim that too if that's what I needed others to believe to keep my gravy train rolling... Anyhow, maybe we haven't heard much because he is small potatoes with huge phony debt... |
|
|
|
#25
Do you intend to win the bet on a technicality?
#26 Did I miss that the Q&A session was over?  |
|
|
|
|
i ordered #2 today. Hoping to get #3 at B&N come September!
|
|
|
|
|
The first person to win a criminal conviction in a massive Bitcoin case is gonna be famous...
|
|
|
|
To set up a bet of that nature is tacky...
+1 A distinct lack of character and maturity. The kind of disgusting display you would expect from a bunch of drunken frat boys. Doesn't reflect too well on the Bitcoin community imo... I think there may be a generation gap kinda thing here. I respect Matthew's move. I think he is wrong and perhaps not too good with math, but I respect that he had a belief and is putting his money where his mouth is. |
|
|
|
|
I'd donate to a Bitcoin Mag PR campaign.
|
|
|
|
I thought multisig was being designed to have scripts that can set conditions on the transaction...for example, if I put aside BTC100 for a years worth of internet service in 12 chunks, can't I set the script for each chunk to be paid to such and such address at such and such a time? This way, my ISP can take their money when its due without me having to remember to push it on time...they can't take it early...but they could forget to take it Or, I could take it back if I needed it before the payment was due... If this is how multisig scripting could work...then it's really quite brilliant... |
|
|
|
|
#25
Do you intend to win the bet on a technicality?
|
|
|
|
Isn't currency better spent than saved and hoarded?
No, this is a misconception that comes from the broken window fallacy. Consumption is not good. If you purely consume something, it's no better than if you destroyed it. It's lost. If consumption was good, then someone who went around breaking windows would stimulate the economy because people would have to buy windows to replace the broken ones. It is *production* that builds an economy. Production should be rewarded. When you save money, you produce but do not consume. That's great. You deposit but do not withdraw, loaning everyone else use of the benefits of your labor. Deferred consumption should be rewarded as it's a form of investment. +1 -- insightful. I feel rather stupid for not having realized this before. The implications are very widespread...it's like a cancer intermingled throughout civilization, ultimately causing us significant harm (I mean, we've even messed with the climate with our monetary subsidization of consumption). There is nothing worse than subsidized consumption. Bitcoin is better because it subsidizes production. Thank you. |
|
|
|
...My gut feeling tells me he is pissed that people called pirate a ponzi without proof and he would rather see people out put their money where their mouth is...
For the record I vote pirate is a pirate/ponzi. If not, he was very generous...or didn't realize there are cheaper ways to borrow money |
|
|
|
|
I made money off of pirate. I put BTC10 in some passthru and took BTC12.4 out. It was a gamble, and I didn't get greedy. I was actually surprised when I got my money back.
|
|
|
|
|
P.s. my belief is that anyone offering such wild interest rates is a ponzi...I mean, I'd mortgage my house to get in on a scheme like pirates if I were him and I knew I could make a fortune...so why pay others so mucj interest? It doesn't make sense to borrow money at crazy high interest rates if running the scheme with his own money could make him so much money so quickly. The maths just don't look good to me.
|
|
|
|
Matthew's thread says he wins if pirate pays back as described in his [pirateat40's] thread. Pirate said he will would everyone back with interest down to the hour. If pirate pays only 20% back, and Matthew calls that a win, I feel like the community will not pay him. Then someone has to decide who gets the scammer tags.
From the bet thread:
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% without agreement to investors, -that- is fraud and a failure to pay back. I would obviously lose the bet.
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% but the investors agreed to it, -that- is the agreement and therefor he has paid it back. I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and pays back 100%, I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and does not pay anything anything back, I would lose the bet.
So technically, Matt wins even if pirate pays only 1%, as long as his investors agree to accept it. (Which they will, because even a token amount is better than zero.) That is the one sentence that prevented me from placing a bet....it gives Matt too much wiggle room to win. If Matthew wins the bets on a technicality like that, I'm taking the scammer tag and walking...but I don't think he intends to play games. My gut feeling tells me he is pissed that people called pirate a ponzi without proof and he would rather see people out their money where their mouth is. Also, I'm not sure he can dole out scammer tags as he sees fit. I imagine if there was not agreement in who won the bet, then a lot of people might get labeled scammer...that would hurt the community...imagine if bitcointalk is calling regular users scammers, what's an uninformed visitor gonna think when a large fraction of posters are "scammers." Not good. |
|
|
|
You should never bet if you don't understand.
Here's a hash for later:
c399c874cb47a43291859a37a8f02c1dfe8049dcd26c3c4e7316fb71cd034275
Witnessed. Thanks. What is this hash for? It's not in the block chain.... |
|
|
|
|
Do we know this wasn't independently discovered by some more malintentioned person? From what I gather from the OP, it was never a silent bug (at least on the client side), right?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
