(note: betsofbitco.in is not a prediction market)
I wish it were  please make us a prediction market! |
|
|
|
|
This got really ugly, really quickly.
|
|
|
|
I'm not normally a gambler but I might as well get in on this too  |
|
|
|
That's not a likely use case. Every Anti-Pirate bond negates an equivalent pirate investment. People who invest in both will make no returns and will just have to provide collateral and a fee for the privilege of getting nothing.
It's a stretch, but maybe it can be used to move up a Pirate tier, or enable other special Pirate offerings. For example someone who wants to risk only 1500 BTC with Pirate, can deposit 2000 BTC and buy 500 BTC face value worth of anti-pirate bonds. The increased interest rate just might be able to compensate for the costs.
The intended use case is for people who really want to be short on Pirate.
Fair enough Sounds like something Mr. Popescu would really like to have, then  |
|
|
|
What do people think about renaming from Anti-Pirate to Antimatter? Less descriptive, but way cooler. I was asking about pirate posing as someone else and buying these contracts, thus adding to his incentive to default.
I don't really think it'll happen, but given that the people buying these at least have some degree of uncertainty about him, it's conceivable that some people might be worried about it.
The people buying these bonds will want Pirate to have additional incentive to default. They will? I assumed they would primarily be used as part of a hedging strategy. I guess it then incentivizes pirate lenders to buy up all the bonds to prevent pirate's sockpuppet account from doing it first, lest he have perverse incentives |
|
|
|
|
I was asking about pirate posing as someone else and buying these contracts, thus adding to his incentive to default.
I don't really think it'll happen, but given that the people buying these at least have some degree of uncertainty about him, it's conceivable that some people might be worried about it.
|
|
|
|
@ Copumpkin and Brendio: Of course, if you have 4 BTC or more to venture, you can borrow some shares.
From whom? |
|
|
|
One issue I encountered when I was trying to work through the details of writing CDSes was trust. How do you plan on preventing a pirateat40 sockpuppet (not saying he would create one, but just hypothetically) from buying insurance against himself, thus increasing his own incentive to default.
This is extremely difficult, if not impossible. We'll find a BTCST-PR poking around on the forum, soon |
|
|
|
|
One issue I encountered when I was trying to work through the details of writing CDSes was trust. How do you plan on preventing a pirateat40 sockpuppet (not saying he would create one, but just hypothetically) from buying insurance against himself, thus increasing his own incentive to default.
|
|
|
|
As I asked in Meni Rosenfeld's thread, is Mr. Popescu "going long" on pirateat40 by issuing these?
No, because this functions oppositely to Meni's. MP is definitely short because he is liable for the 0.28 interest if there is no default (sorry, credit event). His credit events are pretty broad though, making his investment much riskier than the PPT. x series. Okay, I thought so, but then I'm confused about why MPOE-PR is acting so confrontationally about someone who isn't competing. MP wants ways to short pirateat40, and Meni (as well as MP's counterparties on his contracts) offers him one way to do that. Furthermore, "I too" can be short pirateat40 only if someone else goes to MPEX and goes long. |
|
|
|
|
As I asked in Meni Rosenfeld's thread, is Mr. Popescu "going long" on pirateat40 by issuing these?
|
|
|
|
The above is still a concept; I have not made a final decision whether I would like to offer these bonds. I am writing this to hear any thoughts about the idea and learn if anyone would be interested in buying such bonds.
A face value equal to half the maturity value was chosen mainly because this leads to an effective interest rate equal to the decay rate, which is intuitive. A greater maturity value can be used, which will allow making an investment with a lower collateral (essentially a higher margin ratio), but this will mean that the decay rate needs to be higher for a given effective interest rate, which is less robust.
The asset as described can be cleanly equated to a negative deposit against collateral. There is an alternative offering I am considering: Dropping the right to sell the bonds at face value (and replacing it with a compensation clause for a scenario that the BTCST program changes materially without defaulting). This allows more flexibility with the pricing, but makes it harder to compare directly with BTCST deposits, except for the fact that this is a bet on an imminent default. Opinions on the preferred variant are also welcome.
So this offering, if does happen, is an indirect statement that you believe pirateat40 will not default, right? As far as I understand it, you are betting that it will take less than 10 weeks for pirate to default. (0.93^10 = 0,483982307) If it takes longer, you would've been better off keeping your BTC - if it takes shorter, you make a profit. Sorry, the "you" in my question was Meni I just wanted to clarify that I understood the motivations for this offering, as they seem to be different from Mircea's (not that I fully understand his, either). |
|
|
|
The above is still a concept; I have not made a final decision whether I would like to offer these bonds. I am writing this to hear any thoughts about the idea and learn if anyone would be interested in buying such bonds.
A face value equal to half the maturity value was chosen mainly because this leads to an effective interest rate equal to the decay rate, which is intuitive. A greater maturity value can be used, which will allow making an investment with a lower collateral (essentially a higher margin ratio), but this will mean that the decay rate needs to be higher for a given effective interest rate, which is less robust.
The asset as described can be cleanly equated to a negative deposit against collateral. There is an alternative offering I am considering: Dropping the right to sell the bonds at face value (and replacing it with a compensation clause for a scenario that the BTCST program changes materially without defaulting). This allows more flexibility with the pricing, but makes it harder to compare directly with BTCST deposits, except for the fact that this is a bet on an imminent default. Opinions on the preferred variant are also welcome.
So this offering, if does happen, is an indirect statement that you believe pirateat40 will not default, right? |
|
|
|
Now we just need etsy to accept bitcoin |
|
|
|
I’m in the USA and my mommy government doesn’t want me to be in control of my life (they’re illegal). Can you ship the laser in multiple parts in different packages so customs will pass it through? If yes, how much extra does it cost? I’ve already had one Dragon Laser confiscated by customs during shipping and it kind of sucks losing that much money.
I don't think lasers are illegal, are they? They just can't be sold as laser pointers if they're above a certain wattage (that these ones certainly are), and need to have suitable labeling on them. At least, that was my understanding of the situation. This power is illegal where I'm from but they may not be illegal in your country. I'm talking about the US. Do specific states have more stringent laser laws? "Gotta legislate against those laser-toting muslims trying to impose Sharia law on the rest of us!"  |
|
|
|
I’m in the USA and my mommy government doesn’t want me to be in control of my life (they’re illegal). Can you ship the laser in multiple parts in different packages so customs will pass it through? If yes, how much extra does it cost? I’ve already had one Dragon Laser confiscated by customs during shipping and it kind of sucks losing that much money.
I don't think lasers are illegal, are they? They just can't be sold as laser pointers if they're above a certain wattage (that these ones certainly are), and need to have suitable labeling on them. At least, that was my understanding of the situation. |
|
|
|
I fixed the links on that page.
One down, 520 articles to go. Well, to be fair there probably are only a hundred or so articles with links to the old domain and path Someone doing a global search at the db level would be able to identify these articles. I suppose a search and replace could be done also, but that's an exception to the rule for human-edited wikis. Wouldn't a redirect be easier? |
|
|
|
you must have sold it to the village idiot then.. me caring or not is irrelevant its your post.. as I said call me conspiratorial.. but being a potenetial buyer I dont think you ever had one.. and I dont think you ever had any intention of selling one.. I think you just wanted attention.. Ill be your friend. I like friends..  Uh, he's well trusted and known on IRC, and has a high WOT rating. He doesn't appear particularly attention-starved. I, on the other hand, am starving for attention. Please respond to my comment now! |
|
|
|
|
1000 bitcoins and what is mine is yours. Or at least, my GPUMax account is.
|
|
|
|
In 2010, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) warned that "[t]he con artists behind HYIPs are experts at using social media — including YouTube, Twitter and Facebook — to lure investors and create the illusion of social consensus that these investments are legitimate."
[...]
Some HYIP operators opened their own digital currency companies that eventually folded; these companies include Standard Reserve, OSGold, INTGold, EvoCash, and V-Money.
[...]
The largest documented HYIP scam was OSGold, founded as an e-gold imitation in 2001 by David Reed. OSGold folded in 2002. According to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in early 2005, the operators of OSGold may have made off with USD $250 million. CNet reported that "at the height of its popularity, the OSGold currency boasted more than 60,000 accounts created by people drawn to promises of "high yield" investments that would provide guaranteed monthly returns of 30 percent to 45 percent."
[...]
The second largest documented HYIP was PIPS (People in Profit System or Pure Investors). The investment scheme was started by Bryan Marsden in early 2004 and spanned more than 20 countries. PIPS was investigated by Bank Negara Malaysia in 2005 which resulted in Marsden and his wife being charged in a Malaysian court with 97 counts of money laundering more than 77 million RM, equivalent to $20 million. Even after these charges were brought forth, many of Marsden's followers and investors continued to support him and believe they would see their money in the future.
There is no 7% a week. Deal with it. I have a feeling you're not a PR account. Or if you are, you're doing a pretty bad job |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
