nkocevar, don't worry about Killerloop, he's just a little too paranoid, he loves to make false accusations  Careful child, you have no experience with him. I do.  Multiple attempts at identity theft. |
|
|
|
Ok, but after I pay back the DRK, he has no more reason to pay me back my BTC, no?
I am new to borrowing like this, so please correct me if I am wrong.
If using escrow there are three parties: 1) you send your BTC to escrow 2) escrow notifies lender, who sends you DRK 3) when you pay back your DRK the lender notifies escrow 4) escrow pays back your BTC to you without escrow you need to find a lender you trust as you are 100% required to send coins first. |
|
|
|
If wanted, I can provide escrow in BTC (but then I also want to lender to put in some BTC of his/her own as an incentive to pay back the collateral)
This makes no sense. The lender already gave you the DRK so no need for further exposure by him, your BTC are safely in escrow --> 0% risk for both parties. |
|
|
|
If you cannot offer the loan or cannot post useful info, please try not to post.
It is VERY useful!  Sadly, it is not useful to you but to people naive enough to believe this kind of "super secret uncollateralized projects from Internet Joe". |
|
|
|
This in no way involves gambling. I am not breaking rules and am fine with keeping my post here.
Very well, however I strongly advise anyone about investing in this. There is no need to know the purpose, conditions are already crazy |
|
|
|
Not against the rules, people are offering no collateral loan. I need 0.28BTC because of something that i will only discuss in PM.
It is not against the forum rules but against the moral rule of lending. By offering less collateral than the required amount you put the investor at some kind of unacceptable risk. You should try the gambling section. |
|
|
|
no. I have collaterall worth 0.11, possibly more. Thats what the colaterall is worth.
So it could get you a loan of 0.09-0.10 in extreme circumstances. Why are you asking for 0.28 ?? It is against the rule and it won't get funded  |
|
|
|
If you need that much money: Simply go to a bank and file a loan  You can't scam a bank |
|
|
|
Yeah, but what will you do if there is almost no depth on the market??? Actually the last three months were very much levelled with around 20% +/- 3% on average.
If there is no depth there will be no way to arbitrage and no positive interest. Negative ones may happen when they cannot close their long positions well. |
|
|
|
Or learning from experience. I find it's much cheaper to learn from other peoples experiences than insisting on doing the same mistakes myself first.
Yup, my point exactly. There is nothing wrong with that! Everyone has its own personality. BT is a gamble and only gamble-money should be put towards it. |
|
|
|
I am making assumptions based on the fact that there are no examples of any legitimate business ever offering similar terms without turning out to be a scam.
So basically you are judging the new based on the past. This is called prejudice. I beg to differ and check the facts to properly assess risk. And now I'm sure you'll say that yes there are, but you won't come up with a specific example.
Chill out dude, I'm not at war with you. No, banks don't make anywhere this much money in a predictable way, which you would know if you had read some yearly or quarterly reports.
No offence but as I said you prove to be new to the trading industry. You cannot compare a full bank to an arbitrage group, Oil and Water do not mix. Instead check the balance section about customer trading services (aka Win-Win) of ANY trading bank and you will see the kind of revenue they get with fees... now fraction in the cost of the trading floor and you will get the numbers I mentioned. Post a full quarterly report and I will be happy to point the relevant entries to you. |
|
|
|
They can of course do that, but that would just show that they don't understand the risk involved. Those who realize it's a ponzi can gamble that they will be able to withdraw before it collapses and make a profit that way. In the long term the expected result of giving your money to a ponzi is to lose everything, which makes the long term risk/reward factor terrible.
That is correct however you cannot be sure that BT is a Ponzi. If you are, then you are making assumptions based on sentiments alone, a very bad way to invest money. Assuming "they're a Ponzi until disproven" will make your risk estimation a race with the Ponzi mechanics so, as you quoted correctly, the risk/reward would be unacceptable. I'm not exactly sure what will be "enough" to prove that they aren't a Ponzi short of an independent visit to their trading floors, however they are have shown their face and are about to publish legal documents of their Registration and Proof of Solvency, whatever that is. I'll tell you something though... if I were them I would NEVER show my face in public. One could easily mug me for an enormous amount of money and the police couldn't do anything about it. In my book it is WAY better to be consider a Ponzi by the scared or the inexperienced than be mugged. Look at "trustable" sites like btc-e... no faces shown, EVER. |
|
|
|
The consensus among those who think it's legit is that it is legit. A lot more people have heard about it than are actually customers, but because they think it's a scam they're not giving them their money and they can't be bothered to waste as much time warning gullible people as I am.
Your other link is obviously a ponzi as well.
It is not as easy as you put it. For example you call those who gambled (yes gambled) with BT gullible people, they can easily counter calling you a newbie investor who passed up on a 180% return in less than a year. The question here is the Gambler's Dilemma: EXPECTED risk (varies between people) vs. RETURNS (fixed and identical for all people) Some are willing to take it, others aren't. |
|
|
|
Ok thanks, I've sent a ticket. Simply don't understand why they want users deposit exactly a declared amount. I mean, why not accepting a generic deposit like any other site? Someone had similar issues in the past?
Easier to write the webapp I suppose |
|
|
|
Why is that?
Very palatable = very good, pleasant to taste, yummy, satisfactory etc. |
|
|
|
Yes, Miner production. We pay for the warehouse and power, you supply miners and set-up and we split miner production.
Expect to be flooded with old generation miners like S1, your offer is VERY palatable for outdated mining equipment which cannot ROI under normal circumstances. |
|
|
|
You supply the hardware and set-up and we supply the warehouse and power and split 50/50.
What do you want to split 50/50? Miner production? |
|
|
|
Ive got roughly 1 month to go before mine expire. Fingers crossed it all stays as it is until then.
There is no reason to expect such a crash, nor they have any reason to steal your funds. It would be plain stupid when you have a profitable venture and faces were shown. |
|
|
|
You won't find any public company where you can expect anywhere near this kind of profit compared to invested amount.
When you are burdened by government taxes it is impossibile. Only banks and financial institutions have this kind of profit. Anyway... let's hope I'll pull it out early enough then. |
|
|
|
It's no more legit than it ever was, they are just paying you less to make the ponzi last longer.
This kind of arguement is pretty stupid as it can be applied to any entity issuing bonds or similar financial instruments. If you are an investor it is common to float with the boat and eventually run when the ship begins to sink. Their activity, both financial and social, is on par with the one from major organizations. I am not urging anyone to invest as I am not a professional financial advisor. However... fact checking: @240 calendar days of compounding interest I withdrawn ~180% 3 days ago. To everyone its own. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
