Yes, due to the nature of a ponzi, some people will profit,
Far from certain (unless you meant the operator). This ponzi locks the funds for 120 days. Will there be enough inflow after that time for the ponzi operator to make it profitable to pay out those accounts? Absolutely not certain. |
|
|
|
Yes, but I don't know. I am just gambling that I make some profit in the next couple of months. Call me greedy then....
So you are saying you think there is a >50% chance this is a scam and they will stop paying accounts after a few months, otherwise you wouldnt decline my offer. Therefore, you are a hypocrit and a scumbag for trying to lure others in and pretending you dont think its a ponzi scam. Not too mention an idiot for taking very high risks for a relatively minor potential profit over a few months. |
|
|
|
Read my previous post, pal: I said: "I don't say they might be around in 12 month, that is far too much for any bitcoin company to be sure."
Thats fine, they dont have to be around in 12 months for you to win the bet. If they pay all their accounts, and they close shop earlier, you still win. |
|
|
|
No, I put my money where I can be sure to make a profit.
How about this; Ill double your "profit". Whatever your favorite ponzi of the day claims as "profit", Ill double it for 12 months if they dont vanish. We use multi sig transaction with the third signature given to a trusted escrow, no risk of anyone being hacked or disappearing. Far more sure than your ponzi. |
|
|
|
|
I see you keep avoiding the question. Dont dare to put your money where your mouth is?
|
|
|
|
|
So its not breadcrumbs then? Just answer the question, what size bet would you be willing to take?
|
|
|
|
lol, I don't want your breadcrumbs. Though I lost my latest shares in BT, I made almost 100K net profit with them.
Im offering 200BTC net profit. Is that breadcrumbs to you? Last I checked thats pretty close to your proclaimed heist. Im sure a few other people will be willing to up the ante on the same conditions, and pool a few 100 BTC extra. Tell me, how much do you want to put in to it? |
|
|
|
|
@Digicoinz and Sunny1,
If you really think its even remotely possible this is not a ponzi/scam, lets have a bet. Put whatever amount of BTC you want (up to 100) in a mutually agreed escrow, I will put twice the amount there. If 12 months from here, esoshit is still around and paying out profits, you get the lot. If it vanhishes with customer funds earlier, its all mine.
Care to put your money where your mouth is ?
|
|
|
|
|
Its just the rouding error. Im curious how much they will sell. Id be very surprised if they sold out.
|
|
|
|
|
damn shame they cant seem to find a way to make use of the heat. How hard would it be put it next to some building that needs heating, or even a greenhouse or something that could grow stuff even in winter..
|
|
|
|
Typical for the "freest country in the world" to have such stupid laws. So if I call any US citizen a paedophile he must prove that HE IS NOT.
Reading comprehension isnt your forte clearly. No, he must NOT, because calling someone a paedophile constitutes a "defamation per se" while saying a ponzi is a ponzi is not a personal injury litigation case. Anyway, if you need further legal advice, I will have to charge you for it. Back to the point, if the people behind this scam think they have a case and want to file a suit against me for libel for saying esotericinvestments is a ponzianywhere in the world, Id be more than happy to provide my identity. Just file suit against unknown, and I will provide my ID gladly. |
|
|
|
|
exactly 100 million satoshi's. IM taking bets on that.
|
|
|
|
In which jurisdiction are you living? If I call you a paedophile and you sue me, I have to submit evidence that you are one. You personally don't have to prove nothing.
The ponzi claims to operate in the US, so lets stick to US regulation. IF you call me a paedophile, that constitutes a "Defamation Per Se" and I dont have to prove that Im not: Defamation Per Se
Most jurisdictions recognize "per se" defamation, in which the allegations made by the defendant are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Normally in personal injury litigation, including actions for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Within the context of defamation, that means that the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's statements were false, and that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known them to be false at the time the statements were made. Defamation per se provides a significant exception to that rule: Typically, where the statements made by the defendant constitute defamation per se, the defendant has the burden of proving that the allegations are true.
Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
Additionally, some states consider allegations that a married person was unfaithful to constitute defamation per se. http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intentional/defamation.htmlSaying this is a ponzi doesnt fall under any of the above, and the burden of proof would be with the plaintiff. |
|
|
|
|
If it was a bug/security flaw in SSL or similar, it would affect all blockchain.info wallets and there would be a bazillion reports by now.
Far more likely is that you got duped by phishing (or possibly your computer is infected. Running an antivirus doesnt tell you all that much, a good rootkit would remain hidden).
|
|
|
|
blah blah blah
The threat of libel is kinda funny. I hope you realize that to win a libel case, you must prove the statement to be false. Im looking forward to your evidence this is not a ponzi. Of course, you'd also need to identify yourself before a court, which is something Im looking forward to even more. IOW, bring it on! As for proving you're a ponzi; again the burden of proof lies with you, since you are the one soliciting funds. Yet you're anonymous, your website is full of lies, you are promising impossible returns with no explanation as to why you would give those profits to "investors" rather than keeping them for yourself, etc etc. Frankly Im rather shocked you think you can pull this off just weeks after BT collapsed. You're not even trying to look any different as BT. Are people really this gullible? |
|
|
|
ya its obv these hyips are becoming more sophisticated and elaborate, with pretty convincing arguments to sway the ppl.
but i think what a lot of ppl didn't really think about, was about actually trying to get the proof of how exactly BT was making their profits. Thats actually the wrong question to ask. The more important question is why they would borrow money from the public at exuberant YoY rates if they have such a profitable business. If there really was a business model behind it, they would have no problems self funding, or getting VC funds, a bank loan or heck, even credit card loans would be so much cheaper to get them started. Here is a simple rule: if you need elaborate marketing, social media, referrals scheme's etc to raise money from the public for something that is supposedly incredibly lucrative, you can be 100% sure its a scam. |
|
|
|
If there is one thing i've learn regarding ASIC manufacturers.. Is that they never spot on their target.
There is always a difference between the announcement and actually delivering said specs, whether with spondo, bitmain, BF, and AM..
When taking (pre)orders, you can generally bet against vendor claims for rather obvious reasons. Bitfury however is one of the few exceptions so far, delivering their asics pretty much on target (what was it, one day late?) and on spec (also in a different league than the competition, outclassing 28nm competitors with a 55nm design). More importantly, note that BF is not pre selling anything atm that Im aware off. They got their money from VCs and only released this information long after securing the funding. They have very little incentive to lie or even exaggerate. If it where a bluff intended to scare competition, it would be too late to have a meaningful impact. |
|
|
|
Surely you can imagine how it might be beneficial to not disclose how many designs you've scrapped to the public/potential investors right?
Dude, I said I wouldnt bet a satoshi against BF making good on their promises. Even *if* they blew 3 designs that they never disclosed and for which not shred of evidence exists (and common sense would tell you its impossible), it wouldnt matter, because they didnt disclose it. They did disclose they will have a 28nm design out by the end of this year and that it will do 0.2J/GH. What evidence or trackrecord is there to suggest they wont achieve that or damn close to it ? |
|
|
|
|
ambulance chasing in the crypto world.
|
|
|
|
How do you know there wasn't a failed 40,28 and 20nm design? Do you have better insider knowledge than the CEO of SPtech who is in bed with Bitfury? You're asking me to prove a negative now? Show me where Bitfury announced a 40 or 20nm design, specs and timetable and then blew it. Out of passing curiosity, feel free to point out where the CEO of a competitor made that claim, but I dont even see how thats relevant. Their first chip is a perfect example of how they will overclock it until they need to underclock.
I'm willing to bet they still haven't underclocked their gen1 hardware because it doesn't make sense financially with their ultra cheap electricity rates. FFS, a few months ago you never even heard of Ohms Law or a shmoo plot. You're gonna argue this with me now ? What a clown you are. BTW, how's your petamine investment doing? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
