Well, perhaps I am saying that the burden of proof shifts, and perhaps that is a fair way of saying that if we conclude that the evidence establishes that OGNasty received BTC that should have been the property of others, and it appears that he did not distribute those to the others, then he has some kind of burden to describe or show what happened to those BTC.

Of course, you are saying that we do not know the who, what, or why, and that seems to be a bit of an overstatement regarding what the reasonable inferences seem to establish.  Yeah, you can argue that they are not established enough, but maybe you are being unreasonable?    Levels of reasonableness frequently vary, and that can be why jurors differ in their opinions, even after  instructions regarding how to consider the evidence and which parties have which burdens to show what.    We are not exactly a jury here, but similar principles apply, even if we might be having some disagreement about what are the standards or even the thresholds for the burdens.

 

Yes.  We seem to agree on that.


It is not called speculation, it is called reasonable inferences.  Sure, we can disagree what reasonable inferences establish in this case or any other case.


Sometimes you conclude based on what you got.  Sometimes you have direct evidence and other times you have indirect evidence.

With indirect evidence, you can still determine if you believe that it is enough to establish reasonable inferences of x or y, even if it might not be as solid of an evidentiary ground as direct evidence.

Don't try to act as if the only kind of relevant evidence is direct evidence.  That is ridiculous.  We have thousands of years of history in which indirect evidence and reasonable inferences is used (even justly so) when direct evidence cannot be obtained.  People do not admit, frequently, when they did something wrong, but they still end up getting convicted (either criminally or civilly) on a regular basis, and justly so based on various kinds of indirect evidence and reasonable inferences.   There are a variety of evidentiary standards including beyond a reasonable doubt (as Twitchy keeps mentioning), but this is not necessarily a criminal matter.  There is also preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing, and depending on the kind of case will determine the evidentiary standards (sometimes established by common law and other times by statute). 

I think frequently fiduciaries are going to be held to higher standards than regular people because they have a duty to those that they are entrusted with the funds.  So frequently we hear about a reasonable person standard, but in the case of a fiduciary, the standard might be tailored to what would a reasonable fiduciary do.  OGNasty likely knows enough about what he is doing in order to be held to the standards of reasonable fiduciary practices.



I am just providing an opinion on these various facts and arguments as they are presented.  I doubt that I am twisting anything because I don't have any beef against OGNasty or any alliance with Twitchy or any of the other supposed Nasty haters.  Like I mentioned several times already, this Nasty-hater theme, just seems to be quite a bit of a distraction rather than really attempting to figure out what the newly established facts are/mean and/or inferences that can reasonably drawn from them.

Looks more like sideways to me, currently, but what do I know. 

I am looking at the top of the 2013 BTC price as compared with the top of the 2017 BTC price, and I see a channel that had happened earlier, and then turned into a bit of sideways (or at least less of a slope than the 2013 channel, if you take the whole period into account rather than merely looking at $13,880 until now. 

$13,880 until now does not seem to be a representative period or sample or even to capture the whole dynamics of what is going on, but instead seems to represent a selective and out of context pessimism.

That combined order book on bitcoinity.org appears to be a new feature.

It works pretty good.

I wished there were a feature on the site to eliminate some of the exchanges, too.... but hey, beggars cannot be choosers, right?

I do see that if I hover the bar over any of the particular exchanges, it will show the order book for that exchange by itself.  That could be somewhat helpful when attempting to look at Bitstamp by itself, for example.

Yep.......   Had been about a month since we had been down to these price levels, so my buy orders started getting triggered again at $6,800-ish... and about every 200-ish dollar drop thereafter. 

I was hoping up before down, but hey... it is what it is.... Would rather NOT have the buy orders filling, but it seems to be the best to make lemonade out of this lemon situation.  Stacking sats, again.

That's true.

Once you have enough coins, then you don't really need to worry anymore about BTC price swings in terms of accumulating more BTC.

Question would be somewhat individualistic regarding how much is enough.

5?  50? 500?  5,000?  50,000?   or some other amount?  

The goal amount might depend, partly, on the person's current standard of living expectations, too.  More does not necessarily hurt, but it might not be helpful after a certain point, a guy (or gal) has accumulated enough for his/her particular perception of the aspirations situation.



Edit: Or maybe increments of 2.1 x 10 is more relatable for many peeps?

2.1?  21? 210?  2,100?  21,000? or some other variation of the amount?

and for others, increments of 1 x 10?

1?  10? 100?  1,000?  10,000? or some other variation of the amount?

What we need, besides a prayer, is a real and solid double bottom.   

Before it is too late, I am going to start praying for a double bottom. 

Hey?? You be like bear!!!!!!

There is still a chance for $21,284.  Two more weeks is not a NO thing. 

A lot can happen in bitcoin in two weeks.^tm  Keep the faith alive.   

What happened to the cheerie fun fellow from yesterday?

So excited about "buying on dips" blah blah blah?

Gotta be careful with mood swings.



I'm looking at $6,500 getting close?  We were within $15 last time, when infofront cancelled the poll prematurely....  

Currently, we are looking at $6,584.. as the local low....

I would prefer to be correct in the poll, but odds are not looking good for any of us who selected $7,500 before $6,500...


Time for a mood swing!!!!!!!  Or maybe a rescue white bull whale?  Help!!!!!!!!!


Gosh... let's hope not...


Never heard of it.  Don't get tricked by "on sale" signs.   

Anyone who compiles information (evidence) should be making some kind of conclusions or recommendation (which seems to be what Twitchy had been attempting to do), but if the evidence is compiled well, any reader of the information that has been compiled would not have to agree with the conclusions or recommendations of the information compiler.  

In this case, it should be easy enough for any forum member to be able to separate Twitchy's compilation efforts from his conclusions/recommendations, no?

For example, if all of the evidence shows that OGNasty was paid back 84 BTC more than he paid out to pass through investors, then a reasonable inference could be reached that he pocketed such 84BTC that he was paid.  If there is no other evidence regarding what happened to that 84BTC, then what are we supposed to conclude happened to that 84BTC?  We cannot conclude that he paid that 84BTC to pass through investors unless we get further evidence of such additional payment(s), which seems to be absent in this case, so wouldn't the most reasonable inference be that OGNasty somehow took those BTC?

Sometimes accountings are needed from members who put themselves into positions of trust and holding the BTC of other members, especially if they are continuing in that line of business, and if they choose not to give a reasonable and perhaps credible accounting, then the most fair conclusion might be to go with the negative inferences that seems to establish a negative conclusion.  

There are common practice legal principles that deal with non-cooperating parties in these kinds of circumstances, and if all reasonable efforts have been taken to attempt to get persons with evidence to cooperate and they choose not to, then sometimes the most reasonable next step would be to draw a negative inference from their ongoing non-cooperation in providing evidence.  Several posters here have already asserted that OGNasty has not sufficiently cooperated or provided a reasonable and credible explanation regarding the current evidence.  Others have argued that OGNasty does not need to cooperate, which does seem to be the weaker position, especially for someone who had been serving as a fiduciary holder of BTC (and still regularly engages in such fiduciary holding of BTC practices through the forum, from my understanding).

Maybe it is true that 99% of the time, OGNasty pays back all of the funds that he holds on behalf of other members, but is that an acceptable practice if it were shown to be true? Anyone who does not get paid back in a particular case does not care if OGNasty pays back 99% of the time, s/he only would care that s/he did not get paid back in this particular instance, if that ends up being the most reasonably inferred facts of this particular case.

I am not sure what you are attempting to suggest because my above discussion attempts to focus ONLY on bitcoin, not the various shitcoins that have hijacked the bitcoin name and turned some of the searching efforts and overall discussions of the concept of bitcoin into a bunch of gobbledy-gook.  There are a whole fucking lot of people who don't actually understand the difference between bitcoin and the various imitation coins or even other variations of shitcoins that have other names, such as ethereum and ripple, too.

Let me see if I can express this in another way.  Long term Dollar cost averaging investing is ONLY going to work in the event that the underlying asset is ultimately trending upwards by the time that an investor chooses to start cashing out.  If the underlying asset continues to trend downwardly, then even if the investor is getting more and more of the asset with the same amount of dollar input on a regular basis, that is not going to fare well when it comes time to attempting to cash out, in the event that the asset does not ultimately go up sufficiently enough in order that the value/price of the underlying asset surpasses the average cost per unit.

So dollar cost averaging should ONLY be used with assets in which the investor believes have an overall price trajectory that is upwards or some possible future opportunities that the price of the underlying asset would go up sufficiently enough that the investor would end up being in profits at the time of cashing out.  Speculation of course, and some crypto assets have stronger fundamentals than others, and in my own opinion, there are not really any that have fundamentals that justify investing into them on a long term basis, like bitcoin has such strong fundamentals that tie into various network effects that are continuing to build on it, as well as the mere foundational fact that bitcoin was actually built in a way that is impervious to attacks (does not mean that attacks from government institutions, financial institutions or even from within cannot happen, but there is a certain level of resilience that is still playing out in bitcoin and no other coin offers, so far).

Personally, I do not assess any other asset in the crypto space, besides bitcoin, as being one that I, personally, would consider investing into, even if the asset has the word bitcoin in its name.  Sure there can be pumpening opportunities with the various scam coin bitcoin imitations but I personally would not feel comfortable sleeping at night with any significant value invested into any of them.  I understand that other people can come to assessments that differ from mine, and that is fine. 

I still will argue that DCA practices are best applied to assets in which the investor has confidence in the longer term upwards price trajectory of such asset.  I would also suggest that the investor is engaging in a different kind of practice (gambling or whatever) rather than DCAing, if the investor does not first attempt to honestly engage in an assessment his/her own perceptions of the long term fundamentals of the underlying assets (and presumably strong long term fundamentals should ultimately positively correlate to long term positive price performance of such asset(s), even if the shorter-term experiences a lot of negative or flat price performance).

Of course, making an assessment of the fundamentals of any asset is subjected to error, and sometimes any persons actual assessment of any asset could change over time.  So, for example, if an investor allocates value into 5 different investments at time A, and considers the investment allocations to be prudently targeted at 40%, 20%, 20%, 15%, 5%, s/he might become more or less bullish on parts of the investment with the passage of time and changes in circumstances, and end up reallocating the assets based on such changes  in assessments. 

The change in the assessment might take an immediate turn that involves an immediate reallocation; however such change in assessment could still take 6 months to 18 months to establish such reallocation that would end up following a kind of DCA kind of approach to transitioning the values in a more incrementalist kind of approach - maybe ending in something like this at time B
  33%, 25%, 18%, 16%, 8%.  Even though the change from time A to time B might not seem like it is a very great change in the allocations, sometimes shifting around investments can be a pretty involved process, but still accomplish getting the investor in-line with his/her own feelings about the market in light of various other factors, including sometimes adding an investment or two  from his/her holdings or removing one or two from the mix. 

A lot of the tailoring would of course be attempted to be matched with the investors: cashflow, other investments, view on bitcoin as compared with other possible investments, timeline, risk tolerance, time and skills for managing portfolio and researching.  There is, ultimately, not going to be any "perfect" way of investing, but any investor who attempts to approximate the calculations of allocations in a way that is most tailored to his/her own situation is going to be a lot closer in line with comfortability and better prepared to make future adjustments and tweakenings as warranted by his/her own discretion.

There can still be multiple entities and purging of value from the various shit and the various 14 year olds that are involved. 

I am not arguing that there is not going to continue to be a lot of other altcoins or that the space only survives with one coin.  The gravitation of value into bitcoin is likely to take 50 years or more to really take place, and there can even be another altcoin season that comes in a way that is different from the past alt coin seasons.  You are getting me wrong if you conjecture that I believe that value needs to gravitate into bitcoin right now, because bitcoin is likely way too immature for that, and there is all kinds of dumb money that still can be pumped into various shitcoins and other snake oil sales for decades to come. 

I otherwise stand by the assertions that I already made, and they do not seem to be contrary to what you are expecting in terms of the ongoing existence of shitcoins;  you just seem to think that they don't deserved to be punished, and you seem to think that their being punished is going to bring down king daddy.. king daddy does not give any shits about those various shitcoins.

Of course, none of us has any kind of clear theory of the dump regarding how far or how long.  Of course, lambie has some theories, but what the fuck does he know besides drama queen?  Anyhow, it seems that shitcoins can get purged of a decent amount of excessive value, and could be that altcoin season comes in a different kind of way (and to different shitcoins) than it had come in the past.  

I doubt that a shuffling and purging of value in shitcoins really undermines bitcoin.  There are likely always going to be some shitcoins, but do they really need to not be punished from time to time for their level of dumb?

  You think all that bullshit de-fi and other nonsensical network effects cannot get taught a lesson with their dumbass investing into projects that are built on the foundations of a shitcoin (ethereum 1.0, 2.0, or whatever other phone baloney layers of confusion they are propagating)?

I doubt that bitcoin is going to die from such ongoing and potentially heavy shitcoin purging that also might even purge a decent number of bitcoin investors, too.

d_eddie is going to be overdosing with batman slaps.

I did one for him too.  On another thread.    See this one linked here.

 

Feels good to get it out, doesn't it?

I am feeling better again.  I am going to take your advice and leave my post history alone. 

Accordingly, cancel the terms and conditions previously asserted within my above post (the one with the disheartened wolf-doggie in it).  I reinstate all of my previous forum posts to their previous "as is" status. 

My confidences are back; thanks for the pep speech, TOAA.  You are the greatest!!!!!!   

Regarding all your other above-cited nonsensical points, snap out of it!!!!  For your level of demonstrated disjointed delirium, you are deserving of one of these: (been waiting all day for an appropriate candidate, which you have achieved.  Congratulations.):



 

Good thing that you are here to clarify the situation - especially with the obvious high levels of your smartiness (to the extent comprehensible).


I am glad that someone died and put you in charge of my locations to be.. You sure grew into your forum magnanimousness quickly around these parts.


You seem to be better skilled at windbagging than me.  I might have to take some lessons from you.  

Could be worse, right?  You have so much figured out, so I am feeling a lot less confident than I had felt.



Since TOAA is such a smartipants, above and beyond what anyone would have expected from such a dweeb-like character, I take back almost all of everything that I said in my earlier posts (in my whole forum history), but I am going to leave my posts, just in case I change my mind.    

WHIMPY!!!!!!!!

I know that d_eddie is eager to see some WO regular get a batman slap, but I am going to assert that you don't quite deserve it....


So instead, for your clearly demonstrated whimpiness by admission, going to give you one of these:

I did a quickie overview of my records, and I was largely consistently in the negative on my BTC holdings between about August 2014 to about May 2016.  The deepest periods of negative were around 65%, but of course, all of that was on paper, especially based on the subsequent BTC price moves.

Furthermore, even the Bitfinex -related crash from about mid-$600s to slightly below $500s and then bouncing back tot he mid-$500s and slowly higher, did not cause my BTC holdings to go back into the negative.  Sure, my BTC holdings did not look that great on paper in late 2016, and they were still on paper because of my ongoing determination to stay in the accumulation and maintenance mode... which did not involve selling.  Profits, are still on paper, but they are way the hell higher than they were in those years.... and largely seems to be a product of determination and persistence, so even if some guys (and gal) have average BTC costs that are much higher than mine (or LFC's) it remains decently likely that persistency with DCA and accumulate and maintain and HODL.. is likely to pay off, which will provide abilities to sell at higher prices, if you so chose... likely, but not guaranteed, that's for sure.   

Has to be a really serious amount of dumb before either batman comes out or the "that's so dumb" guy makes an appearance.

Seeming kind of routine, and even tongue-in-cheek for members to be suggesting that bitcoin might be dead - not even the beartrolls really believe that, anymore.. like they had seemed to have believed when we were coming out of the last 4-year fractal comparative period in early 2016 (same was true in late 2016 - when some fairly reasonable prior bitcoiner peeps thought bitcoin was dead after the news of the alleged Bitfinex "hack.").

Well, the discovered testimony of Pirate did trigger some of the additional investigation into the matter, I don't believe it is fair to assert that Pirate would not have anything to gain from lying, in the event that he was lying.  Seems to me that Twitchy is asserting that there is strong evidence that stands largely on its own to corroborate aspects of Pirate's testimony, and if there is some kind of mistake or different explanation regarding that evidence then likely only OGNasty would be able to clarify that matter.

Surely beyond a reasonable doubt standards apply to criminal proceedings and clear and convincing evidence would apply to civil proceedings.  Neither of those standards need to apply in the event that members were to decide to either remove  OGNasty from their trust, or even to list him as untrustworthy, like nutildah has already mentioned in regards to his thinking on the matter.  Each member would need to decide for themselves if they have gotten enough evidence to feel comfortable with their decision.  Maybe just having a reasonable basis in light of the totality of the various alleged conduct and circumstances would be enough for some members to make such a decision?

"upset" at various personas of the interwebs.  Not an easy accomplishment.   In other words, getting upset at interwebs personas should be a very rare event. 

I understand that in the real world, peeps on the interwebs do become quite upset, and that can be seen in their posts.  I consider "upset-ness" to be a pretty rare thing for me in terms of my interwebs relationships.   Surely, peeps could read the matter differently from me, and of course, they do  (but that does not upset me    ).