|
Businesses and merchants,
If you use Bit-Pay or Mt. Gox as a merchant solution for payment please respond either to this thread or via PM. I have several questions that I would like to ask you.
|
|
|
|
|
Bump!
Entertaining offers above 45 BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
Was wondering if there's any need for a product/service like this. I'm especially looking for feedback from newbies, but all feedback is welcome.
Product idea:
USB stick pre-equipped with a moderate range of Bitcoin software and necessary files to get started using bitcoins immediately
- Includes standard Bitcoin client software with wallet.dat pre-loaded with BTC
- Includes up-to-date blkindex.dat
- Includes two mining programs (GUIminer and CGminer)
- Includes custom, written step-by-step instructions for setup and use of each program
- Includes custom, written step-by-step instructions for encryption and keeping bitcoins safe and secure
- Includes custom list of trusted merchant websites for users to visit
Service idea:
- Addresses for each wallet would be saved by the service operator. Users can 'reload' their wallet.dat by purchasing BTC from the service operator whereupon the service operator sends BTC to the user's address.
Advantages:
- Users avoid time and hassle of program downloads (from a trusted source, no less) and of acquiring bitcoins through an exchange, thereby minimizing newbie risk of error.
- Users have immediate access to all they need to begin exchanging Bitcoins immediately
- Simplistic, customized instructions retain only the information that's essential for the safe, secure, and immediate use of bitcoins by beginners. Everything non-essential is tossed out.
Disadvantages:
- Necessary trust in the service operator
- Standard Bitcoin client software is not the easiest to use
- Instructions may become outdated
- Grandma still can't use it
Comments?
|
|
|
|
|
^^ So, what do you think about your results?
|
|
|
|
|
It's self-evident that reality is both subjective and objective simultaneously. There is no explanation necessary, it's completely obvious (as in "duh").
If you don't believe me, ask yourself a few questions. How about this one to start: Are you (subject) and the environment (object) real? Yes? You don't say...
Subjectivity and objectivity are not mutually exclusive (unless you evoke a limited scope).
|
|
|
|
|
Bump again! Come on business owners!
|
|
|
|
All the evidence available to me is consistent with reality being objective...
Says who? |
|
|
|
Quantum mechanics is not relevant to interpersonal relationships. I disagree. It affects everything, especially how we relate to others. You might not be able to make me into something else (to me), but you don't have to. If you believe that I am something else, then I am something else (to you). I used to be an "objectivist" (not because of rand explicitly, but because of my experience/ education), but a few years ago started down a research path which led me to question everything and has since shaped my life into something I couldn't have imagined at that time. +1 Consider classical physics... and then, an analogy: When a radioactive isotope decays, it essentially - to put it very simply - splits apart with great energy. These pieces fly off and can hit other atoms. When these pieces hit other atoms, they can knock pieces off those atoms (e.g. a proton from one atom knocks off the proton of another atom). Such phenomena can result in an atomic reconfiguration of an atom. In other words, when one atom 'explodes' (really it's more like nuclear emission) another atom can suffer damage...and both are radically changed after the incident. When people become angry, they can release their anger either upon themselves or upon the environment/others. When a person loses control of their anger and 'explodes,' they cause damage to themselves and their relationships. This damage, too, can cause radical changes. So people:atoms, the interaction between atoms:interaction between humans, anger:radioactivity, etc...seriously the analogies are endless. Why wouldn't they be? Laws of systems distribute to all content therein, so it should come as no surprise that the laws governing the system containing physics and interpersonal relationships (the existence of this system is obvious) would result in an endless series of similarities between the two. That's the fun thing about the Universe, you can study one thing and learn about everything. |
|
|
|
|
Major bump. Still need more responses!
|
|
|
|
It must be demonstrably proven that 1) a PPT operator knew Pirate's operation was a scam and 2) said PPT operator did not disclose his knowledge of Pirate's scam to any/all investors and/or 3) said PPT operator did not give explicit and sufficient warning to all investors that there was a reasonable and real risk of some or total loss of deposits.
It sounds like, given the presence of number 2 above, you're responding to the argument that PPT operators scammed their investors. I don't think anyone's making that argument. I read the thread title, and the OP, and gave my opinion with the knowledge that I have of the situation. I wasn't really responding to anyone else specifically. I'm just thinking within the context of the 'scammer tag' and what I think would also be consistent with the moderation on this forum. The argument is that PPT operators scammed other Pirate investors by paying Pirate to make their customers the recipients of transfers they should have known were fraudulent -- transfers where Pirate obtained the money by representing that the funds would in fact be invested and where they knew that transfers to PPT operators were certainly not a legitimate investment of any kind. PPT operators paid Pirate to operate a Ponzi scheme for the benefit of their customers, and they either knew or should have known that this was what they were doing. Thanks for the clarification, but I think that something similar to what I said earlier still applies here. I think that if the PPT operators' knowledge of Pirate's operation is generally equal to their customers' knowledge, then I don't see how you can blame them. The customers too "should have known" that this was what they were doing, so long as the PPT operators weren't withholding any information that would significantly affect peoples' opinions about investing. Everyone knew Pirate's operation was almost certainly a scam. (And perfect certainty is never the standard.) No other possible business model was known and every previous such get rich quick scheme has proven to be a scam. Every single sign of a Ponzi scheme was present and there was never the slightest shred of any actual legitimate business activity. At least a dozen people were explaining on the forums why it had to be a scam. You can't stick your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALALALA!" while a dozen people are trying to tell you something and later claim you didn't know that. Not everyone. I spent a good time creating a few models that would stand a reasonable chance at creating the same returns and also mimic Pirate's payment schedule. However, all of them required a nice chunk of initial capital and a 3rd party. Also, if everyone thought Pirate's operation was a scam, then how did Pirate manage to vacuum 5% of the market? Let's see if we really believe your argument though. Say another Pirate comes along with precisely the same pitch, the same vague business model, the same absence of any evidence of any actual investment activity. And say someone starts up a pass through to this new scheme, claiming they don't know it's a scam and they think it's legitimate for some reason. Because ... Bitcoin! Would you say they're doing anything wrong? To answer your question, I don't think it's a black or white situation. Time is important in this context. The longer a 'mystery business' operates and generates consistent payments, the more one is inclined to believe the next payment will come. Pirate operated without a hitch for a rather impressive length of time given his rate of interest and given the size of the market. What if Pirate had continued business successfully for another two years (albeit with declining interest rates), would you say he's doing anything wrong? How about after three years? After five years? Ten? The way your scenario is poised, there is little information to be had outside of "here's a new guy that reminds me of Pirate." If instead it's "here's a new guy that has made me and many others a lot of money over the past few months and he's always punctual and he's never missed a payment," then that changes things a bit I'd say. |
|
|
|
|
For PPT operators to be deserving of a scammer tag, my opinion is that:
It must be demonstrably proven that 1) a PPT operator knew Pirate's operation was a scam and 2) said PPT operator did not disclose his knowledge of Pirate's scam to any/all investors and/or 3) said PPT operator did not give explicit and sufficient warning to all investors that there was a reasonable and real risk of some or total loss of deposits.
As far as I know, it's hard to scam someone when you don't know you're scamming someone. I think scamming is largely about intent.
Imagine that you've never seen a change machine before, and that I explain to you that you will receive four quarters by inserting a dollar into the machine. So, you insert a dollar into the machine and - KaBLAMO! - you hear a knocking inside the machine and it shuts down. Not only won't you get your four quarters, but depending on your personality you might be pissed at me for suggesting that the machine would work in the first place. But ya know what? I had a reason to believe that there was a damn good chance that the machine would work for you as it has worked for me.
Now imagine that you've never seen a wishing well before, and I tell you that if you throw a dollar bill in the well you'll get four quarters in return (you need toll money badly). So, you toss a dollar in and - .......... - nothing happens. You're pissed because you lost a buck. You ask a stranger nearby if he's ever received four quarters for a buck at the wishing well, but when he tells you what a wishing well actually is, you begin chasing me angrily with clenched fists. But ya know what? You can't catch me because I'm driving a Porsche while screaming "I own part of the well!" out the window.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello!
I am interested in speaking with four categories of people:
1) Business owners currently accepting Bitcoins
2) Business owners currently accepting Bitcoins and who already use a Bitcoin shopping-cart interface (Bit-Pay, Mt. Gox, etc.)
3) Business owners interested in accepting Bitcoins but who have not yet completed the necessary steps and/or who have reservations about accepting Bitcoins
4) Business owners not-interested in accepting Bitcoins
If you fall into any of these categories, please send me a pm. I would like to ask you a few questions related to businesses accepting bitcoins.
This request is not due to sheer curiosity, but rather it will help fulfill a greater purpose, and it is for this reason that I encourage you to reply. I will make it known to you the reasons for this thread after you contact me via pm.
Thank you so much in advance!
-The Joint
|
|
|
|
People have hedged with Bitcoin Savings and Trust securities along with Matthew's bet. In essence, he has offered a faulty security which he marketed to many as a hedging instrument.
There has been financial loss.
1) If, as you claim, he offered a faulty security, then why was it in the gambling subsection? Moreover, if everyone really thought this was a hedging instrument, then why did no moderator place the thread in the appropriate forum section? 2) Financial loss? To whom? How would you calculate this loss? His service meets the legal definition of a security. The forum's policies have no relevance. Who here has suffered financial, emotional and other losses from Matthew's financial service? If his service was in the gambling section, then it's clear that the intent was to be a gamble and not a security. I'm interested to see who suffered any calculable, financial loss. You said "there was financial loss," and I want to see it. Emotional loss? Are you serious? Are you sure it's not just the inevitable result of being a bad gambler and being irresponsible with money? |
|
|
|
People have hedged with Bitcoin Savings and Trust securities along with Matthew's bet. In essence, he has offered a faulty security which he marketed to many as a hedging instrument.
There has been financial loss.
1) If, as you claim, he offered a faulty security, then why was it in the gambling subsection? Moreover, if everyone really thought this was a hedging instrument, then why did no moderator place the thread in the appropriate forum section? 2) Financial loss? To whom? How would you calculate this loss? |
|
|
|
Many of us in #btcst on Freenode have come together and filed against your unregistered, fraudulent hedging program. You as a US Citizen have victimized many abroad and domestically. You have broken many Security and Gambling laws in Korea and in the United States. You will be brought to justice. If you have been a victim of Matthew's fraudulent conduct, please report it here under insurance: https://denebleo.sec.gov/TCRExternal/questionaire.xhtmlHow was anyone a victim? Was there any loss involved? If there is no loss, how can there be a victim? Matthew would of taken the funds of his bettors if he had won his bet. People only gave him this opportunity of huge winnings by fraudulently misrepresenting his enterprise. It's a case of endangerment and severe fraud. Financial fraud is a crime in most first-world countries. Would have? You're going to persecute someone over something that didn't happen? Is this a joke? |
|
|
|
Many of us in #btcst on Freenode have come together and filed against your unregistered, fraudulent hedging program. You as a US Citizen have victimized many abroad and domestically. You have broken many Security and Gambling laws in Korea and in the United States. You will be brought to justice. If you have been a victim of Matthew's fraudulent conduct, please report it here under insurance: https://denebleo.sec.gov/TCRExternal/questionaire.xhtmlHow was anyone a victim? Was there any loss involved? If there is no loss, how can there be a victim? |
|
|
|
This is an awesome idea. I hope it comes with a taser. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
