As for your bold statement, I invite you to provide a list of warning signs. No really. Let's discuss this. Surely you aren't just trolling. You probably honestly believe what you are saying. So let's discuss it. I'm open. I'll change the topic of this thread since it has become a discussion of whether or not I am a scammer. Are you game?
I already replied usagi on PM. But it's probably better to say it here: I'm not game.Time will tell what usagi is. A vampire princess, or a commoner werewolf. A japanese or a chinese from Taiwan. An immortal or a simple mortal. A girl or a guy. Naw you don't get off so easy. -1 for not having the guts to stand behind what you said. I am kind of disappointed really, I was planning on having a lot of fun picking you apart. I guess you know where this would go and you don't want to have to face up to the fact you're just trolling. This is precisely the type of response I'm talking about above. Please, I beg you -- find a way to short CPA. I beg you. Oh that's simple. Just take out a loan denominated in CPA shares, sell them, and when the deadline comes, buy back the CPA shares to repay the loan. It's already been done with PureMining; the lendee actually paid 50% more dividends. Or, you could write up a CFD with you taking the long and guruvan taking the short. |
|
|
|
Let me guess... this bridge is 100% insured.
I can provide insurance for a premium of 50% on the face value of the bridge. You won't get the premium back if you destroy the bridge, but you will get the bridge's face value back. I will also charge a small 14% weekly commission on any income you gain from the bridge. So yes, if you pay me 150% of the sale price, then the bridge's face value will be 100% insured, provided I get commission. Insurance is completely optional. Do you accept Tazcoin?
Only if there is a service such as Taz-Pay which will convert Tazcoins to USD for me automatically. |
|
|
|
|
FYI, at the protocol level, there are only Satoshis, no bitcoins. So moving the decimal place is a simple client-side update. You'll confuse other people, but it's your choice if you want your client to tell you that you have 10 times more than you really do.
|
|
|
|
|
Did you see what happened to TYGRR-BOT? Fees ate most of the profits.
|
|
|
|
|
Basically the title says it all. I'm looking for someone gullible enough to buy my bridge. Two bridges. One is made by Amish people and the other is the Brooklyn bridge.
Just contact me when you find someone, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll buy some BTC if you send first.
|
|
|
|
You did not factor in the possibility to compound after dividend payments/buybacks though...
Especially for the PPT calculations: These don't pay 7% a week, they pay 28% in 4 weeks. YARR is even more extreme and pays out daily (except sundays). I decided to exclude compounding from the calculations. This is because of scalability. Compounding one share of YARR will take you 25 weeks. Compounding 1000 shares of YARR can be done daily, but not perfectly. It makes for a nicer assessment if we assume taking the payouts. If you have an algorithm which can be used on compounding when compounding can only be done with multiples of 1.55, that would be very cool. I suspect, however, that it would make for some wonky graphs, due to the higher the initial capital, the easier the compounding. If someone wants to compound, BitcoinMax is probably a better idea than YARR, even at the current price of 1.55 BTC.I guess the sweet spot for PPT.X is still at ~1.07, but probably a bit below.
That's the sweet spot for 7% weekly. The sweet spot for 6.9% weekly is slightly higher; take away the ability to compound and it's slightly lower. |
|
|
|
You have set a record of sorts - least evidence, and fewest posts - I feel like depositing some coins - can I have a deposit address?
But think of your credit rating!  |
|
|
|
At the same time this would mean that pirate would have almost 10% of all bitcoins in existence (the bitcoins at this address and the equivalent amount needed to pay out interest over 4 months).
Sounds probable to you?
He might not HAVE that amount, but he might have liabilities in the region of that amount  Let's not forget that a lot of his interest payments come right back, often bearing extra capital too. I mean, just the pirate accounts that I can see straight off the forum: Patrick Harnett - about BTC10000 apparently Hashking - Still offering 6.75% in the future so presumably > BTC25000 BitcoinMax - Still offering 6.9%, top tier so > BTC25000 INAU - Still offering close to 7%, so assuming top tier then > BTC25000 OgNasty - BTC1691.44 notme - I think I went to the wrong spreadsheet or his operation's really small - BTC141 Brendio - On the 6% interest tier so somewhere in the BTC15000-25000 range ShadowAlexey - BTC2155 Some of those top tier accounts might not actually be top tier, but for the ones that are we don't actually know how far over 25k BTC they are, so if my top-tier assumptions were right that's a minimum of BTC109000 (or about 1/80th of the entire monetary base) not counting any of the GLBSE Pirate pass-through bonds, or any BTCST accounts belonging to individuals (and logic dictates that there are a lot). So pirate's liabilities are almost certainly well into the hundreds of thousands of BTC. I don't know if this is his address but it could well be... If he does run with everyone's cash it's not going to be pretty. If you add up all of the things on GLBSE, it's another 100K+ coins. |
|
|
|
Have at me! I might as well be the first one to get stones thrown at.
~Bruno~
You only have half a brain, you half brain  |
|
|
|
|
Micon, I don't often say this, but shut the fuck up; you're somehow polluting my watchlist despite you being on my ignore list.
|
|
|
|
|
And there he goes again! Now he's attacking FOO.PPPPT. Where's this guy's motive? He portrays himself like a crusader, but he winds up looking like a pants-on-head doom-sayer swinging his cock around. One would think that he would be able to inject a shred of intelligence or at least some refreshing variety into his impressive load of carbon-copied merde.
|
|
|
|
Everyone is forgetting that this is Matthew making an announcement.
I fully expect a follow up post explaining how he is refusing to release a substandard product, forcing him to delay the broadcast of his death indefinitely.
Rofl! "Tomorrow" will turn into "next week" while everyone screams "vaporware." "Next week" will become "within 4 months" but he will eventually finish it. Eventually. Meanwhile the pre-orders are missing out on 7% weekly in Pirate deposits and MNW winds up costing the world millions of dollars in revenue  I have marked January 2013 on my calendar as the date of this soap opera. |
|
|
|
|
Micon is a blithering idiot who thinks that any business which practices margin lending is a Ponzi scheme.
I mean honestly, if you can lend at 10%, why not borrow at 4%? Just because there are people who are willing to borrow at 10% doesn't make the lenders ponzi operators. For fuck's sake, he's never even read the "Why I trust Patrick Harnett" post. And when a newbie comes on offering deposits, he doesn't ask questions; instead, he spews his same shit over and over again. If I could bother to dox him beyond his probably fake name Bryan Micon, I'd look him up to see if he's accessing these forums from a mental institute.
This post is as serious as myrkul's, however much that is.
|
|
|
|
|
This is my last attempt at a very formal representation of my model. I will post a series of consecutive numbered statements (some premises, some conclusions, and some if-then statements. Maybe I'll even use 'iff'). Where a conclusion depends on a premise, the premise will have a lower number than the conclusion, and the premise's number will be in parenthesis before the conclusion.
If anyone has a problem with the following document, I request that he or she address individual points.
Emotional denouncement and disclaimer: I have used the following model to make investment choices, which included buying shares of YARR. The following model is not an attack on usagi, CPA, YARR, pirateat40, Bitcoin Savings and Trust, or the GLBSE.com platform.
(0)This document will ignore the "face value" of bonds, because bonds cannot be purchased by an investor at face value. It will similarly ignore no longer relevant market data.
Definitions
1. "pirate" is the colloquial name for bitcointalk.org user pirateat40. In this document, 'pirate' refers to the service he operates, "Bitcoin Savings and Trust." This service offers a maximum of 7% per week.
2. "GLBSE" is a securities exchange located at glbse.com
3. (1)(2)"YARR" is a fixed-return instrument distributed via GLBSE. It provides dividends of 0.06 BTC/unit/week by investing coins with pirate.
4. (1)"pirate-exposed capital" is capital (denominated in Bitcoin) which will be completely lost by an investor if pirate defaults.
5. (1)"Insured Capital" is capital (denominated in Bitcoin) which will not be lost if pirate defaults.
Premises
6. (3)The current market price of YARR is 1.5499.
7. (3)An investor who wishes to buy a unit of YARR must pay close to the market price.
8. (3)(5)Regardless of YARR's market price, the Insured Capital per unit of YARR is 1 Bitcoin.
9. (3)(4)The pirate-exposed capital can be determined by subtracting the Insured Capital from the market price of YARR. To reiterate, this operation will result in the amount of capital which will be lost if pirate defaults.
10. (4) The pirate-exposed capital when investing directly in pirate without insurance is equal to the amount invested.
If-then and conclusions
(Logic refresher: An if-then statement can be considered an entity and evaluated to be true or false. An if-then statement is only false if there is a situation in which the premise is true and the conclusion is false. Thus, the statement "if Kevin Bacon is Bill Gates, then the world has already ended" is true.)
11. (9)The pirate-exposed capital of one share of YARR is currently .5499 BTC.
12. (10)(11)The pirate-exposed capital of .5499 BTC invested directly in pirate is equal to the pirate exposed capital of one share of YARR. To reiterate, this means that if (pirate defaults, and the investor had .5499 BTC in pirate) or (pirate defaults, and the investor had one share of YARR), then the investor will lose .5499 BTC.
13. (12) Another way of phrasing 12 is that the risk of one share of YARR is currently .5499 BTC, which is equal to the risk of .5499 BTC directly invested in pirate.
14. (3)(11)An investor in YARR is gaining 0.06 BTC per week by putting .5499 BTC at risk of a pirate default.
15. (14)The return divided by the risk is 0.109111 per week.
16. 0.109111 can be represented as 10.9111%
17. The Insured Capital of 1 BTC cannot be invested in other opportunities.
18. It is feasible to expect 1% per week return on near zero-risk bitcoin deposits.
19. (17)(18)Therefore, the 1 BTC Insured Capital represents a loss of 0.01 BTC in time value per week.
20. (14)(19)The true return on risk is 0.05 BTC.
21. (6)The return on total capital is 0.06 / 1.5499 =0.0387122
22. 0.0387122 can be represented as 3.87122%
23. (20)The true return on risk is 0.05 / .5499 = 0.0909256
24. 0.0909256 can be represented as 9.09256%
25. (23)(24)Given a time value of 1% per week, YARR represents a return on risked capital of over 9.09% per week. This is greater than the maximum 7% per week that pirate offers.
This can all be done with PPT.X, but first I'd like to hear some feedback, particularly from PatrickHarnett and usagi. Remember to address individual points that you perceive as incorrect.
|
|
|
|
Actually, PPT was the first.
PPT is not 100% insured against a pirate default. It all depends on how you think about it. If, in the free market, I can buy a share of PPT for .32 bitcoins, then it is 100% insured. Similarly, if, in the free market, I can buy a share of YARR for 1 bitcoin, then it is 100% insured. Oh dear lord nimda.. You and your "exposed capital" theory.. seriously.  Do you want me to explain again how 1 bitcoin at 7% plus .89 at 1.5% equals 1.89 bitcoins at ~4.3%? Sheesh. This has absolutely nothing to do with my "'exposed capital' theory," which I have shown to be mathematically sound in the other thread in which you refuse to post. If you must know, however, 1 bitcoin at 0% and 0 risk plus .89 bitcoins at 6.7% and all the risk of a pirate default equals 1.89 bitcoins at ~3.1%. In the other thread you refuse to post in, I have provided examples showing that my model is correct for every outcome. You did not respond to this part, the most relevant part:
"Neither of these are the case. A pirate default results in a [partial] loss of investors money in both PPT and YARR."
I hope you don't mean to tell me that a pirate default would not result in a loss of YARR investors' money, because that's simply not true.If you don't have a question, seriously, stop being an asshole. Nobody cares whether or not you think I am a vampire or not and whether or not you want to bid -299 for YARR or whatever. Seriosuly you're making yourself look like an idiot. I'll give you the same advice as I did the other guy: insults do not add credibility to your argument. Please ignore the trolls; use the ignore button if you have to. Hell, I won't be offended if you ignore me. I would also recommend that you use the Google Chrome web-browser, because it does automatic spell-checking for you. The worst part of this is that Obsi does not have all the information. The magicalpockyusagi thing was a joke, and many many people know about it. It's been discussed several times in #bitcoin-assets. You could ask copumpkin, kakobrekla, or some others that were around then. It's actually a low-blow that he would say the things he said here and it makes me think he wants to discredit YARR because he has a competing issue. And what's more he has been informed of this on IRC. Let's see if he has the guts to post the conversation we just had. I doubt it. It is fine for you to think that. It is not fine for you to throw insults around. Insulting people is not good, and has no place in debates or mathematics. |
|
|
|
I am going to put this here, since I have nowhere else Quote from: nimda on Today at 02:48:43 AM
Let's look at that bold part. It is correct. However, at the time of my calculations, the market price of YARR was 1.9 Bitcoins. Therefore, an assessment based on 1.4 Bitcoins was absolutely useless. You couldn't get YARR for 1.4 Bitcoins.
Now for the blue part (color mine). I was "spreading FUD" about 1.9 because that was the price. You couldn't get a share of YARR for less than 1.9 Bitcoins.
Simply not true. Hmph. I say it's simply true! You cannot contest historical market price data; that's preposterous. |
|
|
|
2 BTC in your wallet if you can complete the gallon challenge. Milk chugging, or gallon challenge, is the process of consuming a large amount of milk within a set period of time. Although there are variations in procedure, many adherents follow to the mostly general parameters; a person is given 60 minutes to drink a full gallon (3.79L) of whole milk without vomiting. *Includes cost of milk* If OP isn't interested, I am. I'll do it within 20 minutes. I get to buy a $4.50 gallon of fresh milk at the creamery, though. Live Skype video when I get back from getting the milk, even. Can't do it at the creamery, though - it's nearly an hour away, and milk has a tendency to "get things moving." Definitely reason to stay up for a few more hours! |
|
|
|
According to my math, Usagi and CPA invest the entire proceeds of YARR sales into Pirate. Using this as the basis, 1.5*(2k shares) = 3000 coins. 3000*.07= 210 per week. Subtracting dividends(2000*06=12 coins per week) leaves 90 coins per week profit. Now, its likely that Usagi did not sell most YARR shares at 1.5, but if I were in CPA, I would be very worried about potential losses on this venture as this is 2000 coins of exposure + whatever is being done off public record with other miners.
Usagi has stated that YARR is about 3700 BTC. As a company insuring against a pirate default, I wouldn't put all of that into pirate... |
|
|
|
|
BWAHAHA!1
(literally... like not just 'lol'... like... umm... I actually laughed, like, physically, broski)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
