Exsqueeze me?

In light of the continuing Bitcoin price increase relative to difficulty adjustments, I've been thinking about the value of ASIC order placements.  Specifically, I've been thinking about the value of first-day ASIC orders vs. ASIC orders made today.

Here's an interesting question for the community:  How much more valuable is a first-day ASIC order compared with ASIC orders placed today?  Is it equally valuable?  200% as valuable?  500% as valuable?  1000% as valuable?

Keep in mind that, at purported specs, a single jalapeno would produce ~1.97 BTC per day (~$21.77 USD) at current difficulty and price.  Also, keep in mind that the first-day orders are assumed to be shipped before the reward drop and would be mining continuously at lower (adjusting) difficulties for an additional 1-2 months compared with orders placed today.

I'm willing to make a bold statement:  I think a first-day ASIC order is about 7-10 times as valuable as an ASIC order placed today.  

Disclaimer:  Yes, I have a first-day ASIC order, so I'm thinking about this from a biased perspective.  That being said, I will put out an offer for 7 days for someone to buy 1 of my first-day ordered Jalapenos for 100 BTC.  

Pirate, lol it's about damn time.

I hope you realize that this is probably the single most important thing you've done to build trust for your operation (in my opinion, at least).

Did they shut down deposits?  Some are claiming that they sent BTC to the exchange during the hack and that they have not confirmed, i.e. the deposits are in limbo or the hackers fucked with the deposit addresses.

Yeah well how do they fix people withdrawing BTC?  They're fucked.

Perhaps I can clarify the problem here.

Nobody here, except for a select few, really have any idea of what Pirate does.  Furthermore, he is responsible for a lot of peoples' money.

Also, nobody here, except for a select few, have any sum of Bitcoins anywhere near the amount that Pirate, you, Goat, and likely several of the other ones that flew to Vegas have.  Additionally, many that flew to Vegas are some of Pirate's 'first in line' if you will -- they run pass-throughs and/or have very early Pirate accounts.

Consider how this appears from those outside looking in.  Some of the biggest names in Bitcoin meet with the 'biggest dog' (known, that is) in Bitcoin.  Yet, after this meeting, not much at all is said.

For example, nothing is said about...
1)  If Pirate appears as he does in the photos that are believed to be of him
2)  If Pirate discussed his operations or continuing plans for operation with those who attended
3)  If Pirate seems (opinion, of course) as though he is acting in the best interest of his lenders
4)  If Pirate seems (opinion, of course) as though he is acting in the best interest of Bitcoin

And thus many of us are left to wonder...

1)  Is Pirate going to steal everyone's money? E.G. by selling all BTC and crashing the market, killing everyone's investments.
2)  Are there others on the Bitcoin forum who are working as a part of Pirate's operation (i.e. they do more than lend Pirate BTC)
3)  Is Pirate (or others) deliberately trying to to mask his identity?

Etc., etc., etc.

Here's the thing.  Pirate has said things like "I'm looking to pull one bigger than my Bitcoin."  It's a big mistake for him to say something like this.  As I've said before, I'm almost completely sure about what Pirate does, but when he makes statements like that, it's really quite stupid of him if he wants to be truly successful.  It was solely because of those types of comments that I withdrew my PPT investments.  I don't even think Pirate has even said something along the lines of, "To my lenders -- I have your best interest at heart."  

To people that have a lot of money to begin with (i.e. those that flew to Vegas), it's easy to say "have trust in actions!" and forget the words, but to those without a lot of money, those words cast a large shadow of doubt.

Pirate's operation is called Bitcoin Savings & Trust.  We're trying to access that trust part.  Some of us don't have the time or money to fly to Vegas to check the guy out.  Would I have gone if I had the opportunity?  Yes, yes I would have.  But that possibility was unrealistic.

Now, with regards to you, GigaVPS, we assume that you are a lender, just like us, and are no different than the rest of us in the sense that we assume that you are a simple Pirate investor.  However, vague responses like "I have seen a Pirate, and he looks like a Pirate," while ultimately playful in nature, appear much different to the rest of the community.  It seems as though you are intentionally hiding something, or that Pirate has asked that you not reveal too much about what was discussed, etc.

Given that this forum has been virtually obsessed with Pirate's operation for the last 2 months, you have an opportunity to help relieve some of the community's worries.  Care to help us out a bit?

On a side note, Pirate, if you're reading this, consider what I just said.  You could actually have more investors deposit (more than you do already, thus allowing yourself the opportunity to profit even more) if you yourself alleviated some of these worries rather than displaying your typical brazen attitude.  That attitude might work because you have leverage, and you have the leverage you do because of your wealthiest lenders.  But, there are little guys here too who prefer reassurance rather than brazenness.  

+1 RDegas

I purchased a silver quarter from him for .50 BTC.  RDegas was kind enough to ship first and he was responsive in his communication.  The quarter, year 1960, arrived very quickly and in much better condition than I anticipated!  I enjoyed my buying experience

I know, duly noted.

But actually, no.  I don't think LukeJr. should be banned too.  If you actually have the hash power, you are free to use it however you want.  That is not a scam, it's not deceitful;  yes, it's greedy, and I think LukeJr. is a dick for ruining someone else's project, but it's not a gross misuse of communication (which is what moderators are for anyway).

I'm well aware that this is a slippery slope and is even downright unfair.  For example, what if someone says "I'm going to commit a 51% attack, be ready!" and then they actually do it?  Wouldn't that be advantageous for people to know that it's coming ahead of time?  Yes, yes it would.

But it's ironic.  I'm almost more pissed (I don't really ever get pissed, but that's besides the point) that BCX said he was going to 51% attack it and didn't than if he successfully had attacked it.  If you're going to do something, then fucking do it.  But don't cry "fire!" if there's no fire.

There are going to be people who try to 51% attack things.  That's just how it is.  But moderators can't and aren't supposed to moderate that.  They're supposed to moderate forum communication.  BCX grossly abused his communication privileges on this forum and he should be banned.  That's what I think.

Here's something else I think the moderators should consider.

Failing to take any kind of action against BitcoinEXpress suggests that his action (the threat to attack LTC) is justified and that anybody else in the community can be allowed to do the same thing.

Keep in mind, although no actual 51% attack occurred, the main problem here was communication.  The moderators do have the right to moderate the level/type of communication on these forums, and allowing this type of communication can be extremely harmful to the monetary investments of the forum's members.

Due to this, I've changed my stance -- BitcoinEXpress does not deserve a scammer tag; as he points out, he did not fail to provide a good or service promised to someone else in exchange for payment, and he also claims he did not trade any LTC during his little stunt.

BitcoinEXpress deserves to be banned, promptly.  I ask the moderators to set the example right here and now to send a message to all potential members who wish to suddenly claim that they are going to commit a 51% attack or any other action in an attempt to destroy a cryptocurrency for their own motives.

Copied from other thread...

I actually agree with this scammer idea.  Ordinarily, I would think that calling someone a scammer just because they made a threat and didn't follow through is a pretty ridiculous idea.  But, this was quite different.

I forget which moderator said it, but isn't it possible to be labeled a 'scammer' because you say things like "I traded with person x' when that didn't actually happen, especially when person y then trades with person x and loses money because they are under the impression that person x is legitimate?  The point is, a case like that has financial consequences.  BitcoinEXpress's little stunt also had financial consequences.

For example, I sold about 1300-1600 LTC at .005 BTC when I otherwise was planning on holding.  Why did I sell?  Well, just in case -- duh.  I was on vacation and I really didn't want to deal with the stress of watching over the markets the whole time.  In other words, BitcoinEXpress's little stunt had financial consequences on me personally.

There's a reason why it's illegal in some countries to do things like threaten to sue and then not follow through on it, make threats period, etc., and in this case I think that making a threat to attack an entire currency deserves punishment as it alters the nature of the way investors invest and the way that various pools and exchanges operate (e.g. BTC-e shut down LTC deposits/withdrawals for a little while). 

To make a similar analogy, let's say an announcement was made that terrorists were going to attack the NYSE and that this was made aware to the public -- except the head of the NYSE was in on it the whole time and didn't let anybody know, neither investors nor businesses.  Do you have any idea how pissed investors would be?  It would be talked about in the news for years.

I agree.  Mark BitcoinEXpress as a scammer and/or ban the fuck. 

I actually agree with this scammer idea.  Ordinarily, I would think that calling someone a scammer just because they made a threat and didn't follow through is a pretty ridiculous idea.  But, this was quite different.

I forget which moderator said it, but isn't it possible to be labeled a 'scammer' because you say things like "I traded with person x' when that didn't actually happen, especially when person y then trades with person x and loses money because they are under the impression that person x is legitimate?  The point is, a case like that has financial consequences.  BitcoinEXpress's little stunt also had financial consequences.

For example, I sold about 1300-1600 LTC at .005 BTC when I otherwise was planning on holding.  Why did I sell?  Well, just in case -- duh.  I was on vacation and I really didn't want to deal with the stress of watching over the markets the whole time.  In other words, BitcoinEXpress's little stunt had financial consequences on me personally.

There's a reason why it's illegal in some countries to do things like threaten to sue and then not follow through on it, make threats period, etc., and in this case I think that making a threat to attack an entire currency deserves punishment as it alters the nature of the way investors invest and the way that various pools and exchanges operate (e.g. BTC-e shut down LTC deposits/withdrawals for a little while).  

To make a similar analogy, let's say an announcement was made that terrorists were going to attack the NYSE and that this was made aware to the public -- except the head of the NYSE was in on it the whole time and didn't let anybody know, neither investors nor businesses.  Do you have any idea how pissed investors would be?  It would be talked about in the news for years.

I agree.  Mark BitcoinEXpress as a scammer and/or ban the fuck.  

So Giga, Goat, care to share what ya'll talked about?

So...let me get this straight...

"FIRE!   BOMB!   MURDER!   MURDERRRRRRRR!!!!"

...

"Just playin'!"

 

BitcoinEXpress, you fucking attention-seeking dunce.

-2

Lol.  Oh.

As someone with multiple degrees in psychology and mental health and with experience in a multitude of mental health settings, I would love to hear you explain this one, particularly the words 'phony,' 'fraudulent,' and 'scam.'

LOL um, wtf?!?!  Are you sure you're not high?  I think you mean a "temporary reliever of the side effects of chemotherapy," right?

But this can be applied to any decentralized cryptocurrency in its infancy.  Bitcoin got lucky to this extent, probably because nobody thought it was worth 51% attacking to begin with.  Now that Bitcoin is seen as valuable by attackers, they are attempting the next best thing -- 51% attack coins similar to Bitcoin while they are still in their infancy.

But that brings me back to one of my points in an earlier post -- the 51% attack has nothing to do with the 'crypto' aspect of things.  The algorithm isn't being attacked.  It's being utilized.  This attack isn't about trust in the currency, it's about trust in the community.

I think you're the one tripping over these different meanings.

Obviously what we're seeing is that it IS based on trust, i.e. the trust inherent in the community.  In the early stages of a cryptocurrency, it's becoming quite obvious that trust in the community is essential to its success.  All it takes is one deviant community member with resources to mess the whole thing up.  Trust isn't a 'magic element,' but it does support the whole system.