Deal (for 1000 BTC) was completed with teek, with O=5.432. Contract price was updated to 7.24699. Update Aug 3 2012: Price refreshed to 10.5300. Damn, teek is doing well |
|
|
|
I'm just a concerned investor who was going to invest 100s of BTC in this. 2.5%/week insured by some of the most trusted members sounded like a very good idea until I realized the issuers and insurers have no good reason to offer it.
ffs. I already outlined a scenario, which you have yet to put a hole in. I don't understand your scenario. I just reread the thread, and the example of having USD assets and being short BTC makes no sense to me. This would lose out doubly if BTC price were to increase. A nice long list 4a: If the price rises too much, the issuer cannot pay the insurance by selling their car. (see my original example) The bond is not 100% insured if the issuer is making bets on BTC price and potentially will not be able to pay the insurance. This is the essence of a short. If the price falls drastically, the issuer will make a killing. Hopefully, the issuer's car or summer home, lakefront property, island, oil rig, whatever is several times the total issued value. If the issuer is prudent, he will liquidate his assets and buy back the bond when he reaches the point that a further rise in price would result in the inability to pay the insurance.4b: I'm not sure where this magical CFD comes from. Surely you can use the search feature of this forum? [WTB] 1000-1500 BTC Contract for Difference (I'm taking long) [WTB] [FILLED] 1000 BTC Contract for difference (I'm taking the short position) (so if meni's short was filled, someone obviously took the long) The "magical" CFD could be negotiated in private, agreed on these forums like has been done before, or done on an external platform. If the issuer is long BTC, they should just use those BTC to invest with pirate directly.
The long is a hedge. The issuer, not taking a CFD, is inherently short BTC in this scenario. The long is a way to neutralize or reverse that position. Luckily for the issuer, you can't get short-squeezed with a CFD. It's evident that there has been some failure in communication if I didn't make clear that the long is a hedge. Furthermore, your statement assumes that the issuer actually has any BTC at all; using the USD-asset scenario, the issuer doesn't need to have any BTC on-hand. This shows that you're missing the "have your cake and eat it too" or "bet your summer home and live in it too" part, which is crucial. I apologize if my wording is confusing. |
|
|
|
I just hope people realize what a greedy fuck you actually are and stay clear form your next snake-oil deal. I guess this greed shit runs in your blood. LOL...
Careful with the unfair latter statement! But I also advise investors to read contracts carefully. Fair play is not to be expected with Meni Rosenfeld - you might get fucked already by design!A true business venture worth to invest in creates a win-win situation for receiver and donor of the funds. In other words those issuing should be convinced to invest themselves in their asset if they had enough cash available. Not the case here. There is practically no risk for Rosenfeld with very high return (which is per se a contradiction). Rosenfeld sticking to his contract contrary to others shows that his venture didn't just unintentionally turn this way. Be warned there is nothing virtuous about sticking to deceitful contracts - true the price might stabilize when ASIC hit the market for a short time but already so low that it would make no sense not to buy them back. Subsequent technology shifts are also up to come with similar devastating effects (doesn't matter whether there are buy back programs or not). Attacking Meni is not ok. It does not give you credibility or make your case any less false. Meni Rosenfeld is well respected as a contributor to Bitcoin itself, and frankly, you look like an idiot when you say otherwise.
Free market, supply and demand, invisible hand, fools and their money, caveat emptor, capitalism and competition, due diligence and all that. Fixed MH/s bonds are bonds denominated in MH/s. They have use cases from hedges to diversification to betting on a DDoS of mining pools. All I hear in this thread are people whining about their poor investment choices and blaming it on other people. If you're so smart, why don't you start shorting mining bonds? Alternatively, liquidate your turds (  ) and place some nice low bids for them. Surely they are worth more than one week's dividend? Place your bids there. Again, supply and demand etc. |
|
|
|
|
Ooh, very interesting. I might be in need of some options soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Fat Tay Choon went to the Mining Academy in Brazil, east of Satoshi's yurt, where Gavin was kidnapped by the CIA's goons and forced to pretend faking an anonymous decentralized biscuit—better than all the fish in the Pacific Ocean—but also to defray leeches intelligently with ECDSA fighting qubits for 16.8 dree12, or Phinnaeus must fling toilets towards psy‐ops, without potato smoothies mixed with fried chicken wings from
|
|
|
|
I'm just a concerned investor who was going to invest 100s of BTC in this. 2.5%/week insured by some of the most trusted members sounded like a very good idea until I realized the issuers and insurers have no good reason to offer it.
ffs. I already outlined a scenario, which you have yet to put a hole in. I don't understand your scenario. I just reread the thread, and the example of having USD assets and being short BTC makes no sense to me. This would lose out doubly if BTC price were to increase. Yes. That is what a short is. It loses if BTC price rises, and it wins if BTC price falls. So one scenario is: 1. Issuer drives a nice car 2. Issuer is willing to bet that car on pirate not defaulting 3. Issuer wants to drive the car during the bet 4. Either: 4.a Issuer is willing to bet that if pirate defaults, BTC price will be lower than time of issue 4.b Issuer takes a "long" CFD so that if pirate defaults, issuer will have made money on the price rise In this scenario: 1. If pirate does not default, issuer "has their cake and eats it too" by driving their car while making interest off of the net worth of the car. By 20 weeks, issuer is in the green and has made more than liabilities. 2. If pirate does default in less than 20 weeks: 2.a Under 4.a: 2.a.i if price has risen, issuer loses out. They sell their car, pay back the principle, and buy a cheaper car. Bad bet, tough break 2.a.ii if price has fallen, issuer sells their car, pays back the principle, and buys a cheaper car 2.b Under 4.b: 2.b.i if price has risen, issuer has gained money via the CFD and interest. Issuer sells car, pays back principal, and buys a cheaper car. Alternatively, the CFD + interest covers losses and the issuer comes away with a win. 2.b.ii if price has fallen, the issuer has made lost money on the CFD and gained money on interest. Issuer sells their car, pays back the principle, and buys a cheaper car. Bad bet, tough break. There. Smart accounting isn't that hard to come by. I think imsaguy (or INAU) knows pirate in person (or is pirate  ), so he's willing to make the bet on pirate. As for the bet on BTC's price, plenty of people do that. In fact, if you own any BTC, you're taking a non-leveraged long position. This asset is just a convenient bundle. |
|
|
|
I'm never downloading any bitcoin-related program that isn't open source.
+1. Given that it has the blockchain, bitcoinj etc, it's trivial to implement code which empties all users' wallets at once to your own. |
|
|
|
Ive been watching bitcoinj project for awhile, glad to see its proggressing. I hope utlize this library in future projects to come.
+1 It's under NDA, but we (the company I work for) have something coming too. Don't get your hopes up about a release any time soon, but we're using bitcoinj. |
|
|
|
Is the vanilla.wallet file encoded?
No |
|
|
|
I don't know if this is possible but if I could point to a bitcoin folder and it could just piggy back off the blockchain there that would be cool but i guess that would have to be a BitcoinJ feature really.
Have you heard of NTFS hardlinks? |
|
|
|
If it weren't for the fact that "ciuciu" is a common way to say "jack shit" in Romanian, as in "investors get jack shit" and the correct derivation in Ciuciulete that indicates familiarity of issuer with that language, I'd almost consider this legit. Then I'd remember it's offered on GLBSE and chuckle at the notion.
I uh... looked at your site. I'd recommend you pick up one of the freelance HTML programmers around here for the $225 premium it takes to open an account. For example, nobody with credentials has ever used "border=1" in the past decade. CSS3? Ring a bell, Ms. 1990? Then, I looked at your stats. "24`680.15392596 BTC 30 day volume." Sorry to bust your bubble as " the bitcoin stock exchange", but that's about 5 times the market cap of COGNITIVE mining, an asset offered on GLBSE by a teenager. Said teenager has a better website than you too. |
|
|
|
Hi, my name is Dank. And I need a 20,000 BTC loan so I can purchase a UGR Gallardo. I will pay back 40,000 within the year even though I only mine at 300 mh/s and make $20/hr. But I just gave Diddy my mix-tape so it's all good.
And you also want a million dollar loan being fully anonymous! That is false. I get what you're saying but I'd rather not provide identity. I'm seeking a multimillion dollar loan, I'm not going to let some small amount of interest alter my chances of getting that.
Hmm. Lies, habitually over-valuates himself, jumps to a new obsession every week and wants everyone else to pay for it... Atlas, is that you? I have not lied, I have stated in another post that I would be more than willing to meet in person for such a thing. Meeting in person without providing them any proof of identity? What's the point of that. Conmen try to sell me things everyday -in person-. It's hard to catch someone without knowing their name and address though. Also, apologies for the laziness, but did anyone else already mention the ignorance and liability issues of having the title in the lender's name while Dank races it? Guess who's responsibility that car is when he leaves it in the middle of a busy intersection and runs away? He's paying the insurance, and a lot of it. If he makes a deal where he isn't, please notify me, for I still have two bridges to sell. |
|
|
|
I'm just a concerned investor who was going to invest 100s of BTC in this. 2.5%/week insured by some of the most trusted members sounded like a very good idea until I realized the issuers and insurers have no good reason to offer it.
ffs. I already outlined a scenario, which you have yet to put a hole in. |
|
|
|
I think bitcoin would be better off with a very low price but a very high value. Moving the decimal place would help that.
Settings > Options > Display > Unit to show amounts in > µ BTCProblem solved. Exactly Bitcoin does have a very low price: ~$0.1 per mBTC and there will be a high number of units ~21 billion mBTC. I think you're missing a 0, good sir. |
|
|
|
|
Can I go short Mars One? I'll liquidate the position when it reaches its funding goal.
|
|
|
|
Here's an interesting thought experiment.
What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?
Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet) Uh-oh. That's opening up many cans of worms. On the topic of sentience, I'd put forth Theory of mind as the key qualification of sentience. It can be tested for, and most animals do not have it, only some great apes (including homo sapiens of course) and interestingly, dolphins exhibit it. Dolphins also have sex for pleasure and have been known to rape humans. ... eeyup, they're sentient alright |
|
|
|
OK, let's assume that that is a TRU FAX picture of the LEM. What are those dents and such supposed to prove, hmm?
Dents? Dude, do those look like real thrusters to you? Don't you think the siding for such a spacecraft would at least have some straight seams? Would it have sloppy, overlapping corner pieces that look like plastic drywall corners? How about the exposed wood grain around the base of the one plastic thruster. Did they make it with plywood? You seriously think we went to the moon? Don't you think if we went there in the 60s with the technology of the time, we'd be going there now? There'd be Hiltons on the moon by now. If they fooled America into thinking we landed on the MOON in the 60s, I think faking a shooting should be pretty easy by now. 1. Why would we go there? We've been there; we brought back shitloads of moondust. The government has better things to fund, like the war on terror  2. Don't you think if we faked going there in the 60s with the technology of the time, we'd have faked a better achievement by now? Now that we have computers with gigabytes of graphics processing power in people's homes? According to the US GOV, we've barely passed low-earth-orbit in a manned spacecraft in the past 5 decades. Speaking of the shooting, how exactly is it an argument for gun control? You mean to tell me that the unemployed, insane medical student legally bought $20,000 of military-grade weaponry? Can I see the receipt? |
|
|
|
How about, GIPPT will profit in 20 weeks if pirate doesn't default, AND GIPPT doesn't even need to have liquid backing capital? If I sell my car and invest it in pirate, that's one way to profit by pirate not defaulting. However, if I use my car to back other people's money in pirate, then I get a cut of their profits and can still drive my car. That's the scenario: I make the bet while retaining my capital.
The insurer is still at risk of default because their car's value is not tied to BTC. Say the insurer backs the 5000btc deposit with his $55k porsche at IPO when btc are worth $11. If btc rises to $31 again and pirate defaults, then the insurer is also in default (out ~$100k) because his car is no longer worth 5000btc. Sigh. How about I have something tied to BTC? A freshly-minted VIP donator account? In any case, your point is irrelevant. In reality, the insurance funds are deposited with hashking and imsaguy, who may or may not default if pirate does.
Again, this is irrelevant and does not disprove my earlier scenario in which this is profitable for the issuer. What assets valued in btc are illiquid, besides fixed term loans? (which could easily carry some pirate exposure) It really doesn't matter, but there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in GLBSE securities which are valued in BTC. The alternative is that I keep my car and I'm short BTC. In that way, it's 2 gambles: the primary being that pirate doesn't default and thus I get a cut of investors' money, and the secondary being that if the primary loses, I can sell my car for more BTC than it was worth before I issued the asset. So, this scenario works with either assets valued in BTC *or* assets valued in USD with a short-BTC issuer. LOL @ VIP donator accounts, how do you plan to sell 100 of those with the user names already chosen?
VIP donator accounts can change their names. Ok. Using a USD based asset and being short BTC would work. Now if only INAU posted a picture of his $55k+ car and proof of a huge short position on BTC... The short position is the bond. INAU has never struck me as a poor guy, based on his BTC availability and the fact that a smart trader wouldn't put everything they have into BTC. TIL that VIPs can change their name. Even so, why would someone invest in 100 VIP accounts (which are hard to sell and unlikely to go up in value) and not pirate if they didn't think he would default in the near future.
Can we please drop the silly example? It has no bearing on the argument. The point of this bond is that the backing doesn't need to be stashed in an address or in escrow. The issuer gets to have their cake and eat it too. |
|
|
|
In what universe is a bond selling at 1.55 "100% insured"  Yeah, well, some people prefer semantics over math. An investor in this bond will lose 35% of their initial investment in the event of a pirate default. I say that makes it 65% insured, but the "face value" is initially insured. Yuck. The term "face value" makes me sick. No offense, but this is how things are done in the real world. The difference is, that in the real world the insurance company leaves "face value" out of the contract. That's right, for every $100 you pay for car insurance, only $70-80 of it will ever actually see a repair shop. The rest is eaten by the insurance company. I know you might not like it, but that's the reality of it. Yes, plenty of people think this way. But in the real world, of those extra $20-30, some go to profit and some go to the unlikely, high-damage cases. I pay my insurance $100, and some of that goes to help out the poor guy who got his car totaled. However, if it's not my fault in an accident, I can get the whole car back. If you want to make the analogy, this bond has a 35% deductible. That's ridiculous. Not to reveal personal information, but I don't have a deductible. Just weekly payments. GIPPT works that way; no deductible, just a reduced rate. Now, find me a few real-world companies who claim "100% insured" and see what their terms say. |
|
|
|
How about, GIPPT will profit in 20 weeks if pirate doesn't default, AND GIPPT doesn't even need to have liquid backing capital? If I sell my car and invest it in pirate, that's one way to profit by pirate not defaulting. However, if I use my car to back other people's money in pirate, then I get a cut of their profits and can still drive my car. That's the scenario: I make the bet while retaining my capital.
The insurer is still at risk of default because their car's value is not tied to BTC. Say the insurer backs the 5000btc deposit with his $55k porsche at IPO when btc are worth $11. If btc rises to $31 again and pirate defaults, then the insurer is also in default (out ~$100k) because his car is no longer worth 5000btc. Sigh. How about I have something tied to BTC? A freshly-minted VIP donator account? In any case, your point is irrelevant. In reality, the insurance funds are deposited with hashking and imsaguy, who may or may not default if pirate does.
Again, this is irrelevant and does not disprove my earlier scenario in which this is profitable for the issuer. What assets valued in btc are illiquid, besides fixed term loans? (which could easily carry some pirate exposure) It really doesn't matter, but there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in GLBSE securities which are valued in BTC. The alternative is that I keep my car and I'm short BTC. In that way, it's 2 gambles: the primary being that pirate doesn't default and thus I get a cut of investors' money, and the secondary being that if the primary loses, I can sell my car for more BTC than it was worth before I issued the asset. So, this scenario works with either assets valued in BTC *or* assets valued in USD with a short-BTC issuer. LOL @ VIP donator accounts, how do you plan to sell 100 of those with the user names already chosen?
VIP donator accounts can change their names. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
