|
Just a bump - I will be withdrawing a bunch through MindArk this weekend so let me know beforehand if you are interested.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I've thought about it and if I don't get 200 upfront then I think I'll just take my chances and wait it out. Let me know if you are interested.
|
|
|
|
|
So far the best offer I've received (via PM) is 50 (+100 if pirate returns at least 150). Still taking offers...
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoinmax account with 1k BTC balance for sale. Let me know if you are interested.
|
|
|
|
|
So...is anybody still interested in buying a bitcoinmax account with a 1k btc balance? Let me know...
|
|
|
|
|
Because they like to gamble and hope that they beat the odds. Also they think they can stop once they are ahead.
|
|
|
|
I have to agree with your inclination. Would Zeek Rewards even be able to support the amount of funds that Pirate would have had access to? I'm honestly not very familiar with the structure of Zeek Rewards - I've read through a few articles but none seem to give the detail that I'd like. However, the figure being thrown around is $600 million: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanmaglich/2012/08/18/feds-halt-alleged-600-million-zeekrewards-ponzi-scheme-how-it-happened-and-whats-next/So it should easily be able to support the funds that pirate had. In addition - after looking through the comments on the hyip article it seems that a lot of members really thought that Zeek Rewards was completely legit. They claimed that the profits being handed out came from profit sharing of a penny auction site connected with Zeek Rewards called Zeekler. So maybe pirate truly believed this line and was honest when he told everyone here that it was not a ponzi or anything illegal. Again, I'm not claiming that this was pirate's scheme - but everything seems to line up so nicely that it is a theory that is hard to ignore. |
|
|
|
Maybe pirate was just running a pass-through for Zeek Rewards. The timing is certainly suspect: - Jan 2011 Zeek Rewards opens, paying out 1.5% daily (established long before pirate setup shop)
- Aug 17th 2012 SEC files complaint and Zeek Rewards subsequently shuts down it's website
1.5% daily is enough cream on the top to accommodate for small changes in bitcoin price. Perhaps pirate's request for PPT operators was more to get a count of how many were affected (for the SEC?). I really don't know but I just heard about Zeek Rewards and I'm rather surprised that nobody else on the forums seem to have tried to link pirate with it yet. |
|
|
|
Amir is too busy doing youtube interviews to be bothered with doing the right thing for all the Bitcoinica customers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dPAAM_5DkgPatrick is too busy threatening me over the lawsuit to be bothered to do the right thing and actually avoid the lawsuit in the process. [18:31:12] <phantomcircuit> ......, suggest to him strongly to drop the suit [18:31:23] <phantomcircuit> he's going to regret it more than anything he's ever done in his entire life [18:32:11] <phantomcircuit> that's a promise Lol @ Patrick's threat. Doesn't he know that that could land him in even more trouble? |
|
|
|
I have started a thread where lenders that wish can give their information to pirate.
What are you getting yourself into? What do you mean? I mean: why would pirateat40 accept any information regarding bitcoinmax users coming from someone who isn't payb.tc? I agree it isn't foolproof. But given that payb.tc has as much stated that he will not forward ANY information to pirate I feel as though I need to do something. At the very least it would let pirate get an idea of how much/many people are willing to deal with him directly. Pirate in no way shape or form expressed that he wanted said information to 'deal' with anyone directly. He very well may send a 'one-way' notice of default to each individual name he receives. Some very minuscle percentage of funds to the address provided. And then do absolutly zero dealings thereafter. From a semi-legal standpoint, him sending even .00000001 BTC to each individual address with a notice of default could be enough to prove he had made sufficient effort to renumerate and be off the hook after that. Of course I have no way of knowing what his true intentions are. No one does except for him. You may be on to something there. I'm not a lawyer by any means but I do know that if you are evicting someone for failing to pay rent then accepting a partial payment from the renter can delay the eviction process. So maybe he wants an address so that he can pay a miniscule amount and then he can say "Look! They accepted a partial payment!". Like I said, I'm no lawyer and such a thing may not apply in this case... |
|
|
|
Maybe pirate just wants the subaccounts to receive their payout at the exact same time as everyone else so that if there is a massive sell-off of BTC they don't miss out on the opportunity to sell.
Right...because he's ALL ABOUT timing and caring about his Investors, once he has what he wants.... I am not agreeing with Mel, but for what nefarious purpose could pirate want lenders names for? Unless it is to make sure you are the very last to be paid back? LOL - right? If anyone would go through a lot of trouble just to ensure that bitlane is paid last it would be pirate! LMAO! |
|
|
|
|
Maybe pirate just wants the subaccounts to receive their payout at the exact same time as everyone else so that if there is a massive sell-off of BTC they don't miss out on the opportunity to sell.
|
|
|
|
GPUMAX is a service. It allows you to route your miners through the service so that you still mine at your normal pool, but only when there is no public work. When public work is available, then your miners are working on the public work at a pps that you set in your account.
the public work comes from people who purchase shares at a rate higher than the standard pps rate at other pools.
Which is where the confusion comes from. Most people have problems trying to figure out why someone would pay more for a bitcoin than you would get back. (ex. pay 1.2btc for 1btc).
The thinking about it, im guessing its intended to be a form of gambling, or pool hopping. Where you purchase 100,000 shares, then the public 100-200ghash, or whatever the speed is that day, get pointed at your pool until those shares get found.
I imagine that there is a possibility to make a lot of money that way, but from what I've seen in the GPUMAX forum, the odds of return are small. It just doesn't seem like enough to sustain the site, but I haven't purchased any shares either, so i'm not speaking from experience.
The reason you do it, is somewhat gambling. You purchase the shares for the extra horsepower if you will, to try and get "lucky". If you have it pointed towards a proportional pool, which pays out due to hash rate/shares used to solve the block, and you get lucky and get a block that is 1)Solved quickly, and 2) Multiple blocks solved within the time it takes you to get your shares, you can walk away with much more coin than what you put it. So if you buy 250k shares, and you get up to 600GH for it, you point it towards a proportional pool, and say it takes 500k to solve that block, and of that 500k, you grab 25k of those shares, you get a decent pay out because its proportional, not PPS. Now say you get really lucky and that takes only 10 minutes, well you have more shares coming your way so its on to the next block the pool finds. And again you are lucky and get somewhat the same result. When its all said and done, you can come away with much more than you put it. But again, its all about luck. Where you get screwed like in this example, is when you dont get multiple blocks solved quickly. You get stuck in one of those 10 hour long rounds. Now, you are spending more coin than what you are getting. Its all about timing and luck. Play Satoshi dice instead? |
|
|
|
And if you want a failover pool then do another "-o http://pool1:port -u pool1username -p pool1password" segment after your primary one. It treats them in order of priority. |
|
|
|
|
Just remove the "-I 10" part
|
|
|
|
Zhou addressed some of those concerns to me so I will quote them here. on #1: Bitcoinica announced the exchange rate to be $5.1 per BTC. At this rate, all funds have been recovered. I personally feel unfair too, that's why I suggest you to take actions against Bitcoinica. #1 is this a fact that the numbers add up at 5.1USD/BTC? who can confirm? To be clear - there is no magical number that the numbers add up to. It is arbitrary. Move that rate up and some people lose more while others gain more. Now, technically if you moved it too high then it would be past the point of liquidation for those that shorted and you would be short on funds to payout those that went long. But Bitcoinica had a good month of stability in btc price to payout and they failed to do so - so they should have to pay the difference. And if they don't have the funds then the loss is spread between those in long positions. But the bottom line is that the exchange rate should be the rate at the time that the money is paid out. Either that or they take the highest rate between then and when paid out for long positions and the lowest rate between then and when paid out for short positions and close at those rates and then spread the loss between all those that held positions (as a percentage of the gains made from their positions). Zhou had mentioned possibly picking a number in that range before (if he were running the show) because he figured that the payouts would happen as quickly as possible so any price change would be insignificant. Bitcoinica seems to have chosen that number because presumably it was more favorable for those that were buddy-buddy with Tihan. I can't think of any other reason to do so. |
|
|
|
|
Just bumping this - I almost always have PED to trade for BTC. Just send me a PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
