Because the only way a HYIP can be successful is if it experiences perpetual exponential growth at a rate higher than the world economy is growing. Otherwise, people are just receiving fraudulent transfers of other people's money as the HYIP as a whole gets deeper and deeper in debt.The longer a HYIP runs, the more it loses.

True, and at sub-$1 prices, every $.10 change in the price would be 10% or more.

I don't think that's true because of gold's ornamental and industrial uses. But certainly the price would be much less.

Hoarding only hurts Bitcoin by increasing volatility. When new people start hoarding, they push the price up. When hoarders panic and sell, they push the price down. A large number of consistent hoarders, buying a consistent amount of Bitcoins on a regular basis, however, help by stabilizing the demand for Bitcoins. A more stable value for Bitcoins will help to make Bitcoins more useful as a medium of exchange which is vital for long-term success.

It almost always costs more to corner the market than you can possibly make after having cornered it. If you try to corner the market on something people don't need, nobody will care that you've cornered it, you still won't make any money. And if you try to corner the market on something people need, you'll wind up having to pay more and more over fair market value to corner the market, and people still won't pay more for something than it's worth to them.

Obvious HYIP.
http://hyip-watch.blogspot.com/2012/07/global-oil-fund-aftermath_18.html
CAUTION: Article is unintentionally hilarious with gems like, "Both admins and investors are responsible for the sustainability of any successful HYIP."

Do you really not understand the simple fact that there has never, in the history of humanity, been anything remotely resembling a low risk investment that can promise to return 3000%? However, the list of things that have claimed to be such and have actually been Ponzi schemes is quite long. Even his supporters admit that the scheme cannot last (this is simple mathematical fact). The only question is whether it ends with Pirate paying people back or with Pirate not paying people back. And Pirate basically has no incentive to pay anyone back.

This isn't rocket science.

I agree, but it's very hard for a business to say to its customers, "you were stupid to trust us, so you deserve to lose". I'm sure they can find lots of places btc-e talks about how secure and reliable they are and how customers can and should trust them. It's hard to turn around and blame people for doing what you've asked them to do.

Also, watching it happen, it wasn't obvious to me that it was an exchange hack until much later. In fact, until very late I considered it still a possibility that someone was using a large amount of real LR.

Unfortunately, it's not problem solved for at least two reasons. First, you can't rollback coin withdrawals. (They may have a similar problem with LR withdrawals, but I doubt it.) Second, you will have customers who will, in many cases justifiably, feel that rolling back legitimate trades rips them off. (You'll also have a bunch of jerks demanding to keep their ill-gotten gains, such as people who deposited BTC, sold them for $50 each, and then tried to withdraw USD. But screw them.)

For example, consider someone who saw the price rise at BTC-e and then bought a Mt. Gox code and then bought bitcoins at Mt. Gox, withdrew them from Gox and deposited them at BTC-e. A rollback would give them their bitcoins back. That still leaves them out the commission they paid for the Gox code plus  two Mt. Gox commissions (buying the bitcoins and then having to sell them). They also may take exchange losses depending on the timing and are left having to withdraw USD from Mt. Gox.

That's only because your assessment seems to be that he makes the money by magic. If you dispute this, please state as clearly as possible how he makes the money. If your assessment is based on public information, then tell us what it is. If you claim your assessment is based on secret information you refuse to share, then there is absolutely no reason anyone should believe you.

I'm kind of having a hard time seeing what the difference is. If you can get fake USD into an exchange, you've hacked it.

No.
http://marketscry.info/?s=ltcusd&t=5000

So you don't plan to do hot/cold wallets? Or you are going to have two wallets for each user?

That will depend on the scope of their losses, whether they're able and willing to make them up, and if not, how they apportion them.

I posted the BTC address for my jet ski wear ring fund in the chat, 1KYZrqHjJAXntGhpBVqv9gdoGbFNircvKn, and someone sent it .01 BTC.

He is. That doesn't mean he's not the hacker.

I agree. The hacker cannot do that, they can only buy BTC and withdraw them, most likely.

It's possible it's false, but it seems convincing to me. Maybe I'm too quick to trust people when they say I can't trust them.

FWIW, I do believe the hacker is using the name 'MrWubbles'.

How? By buying BTC at $45?

I agree that people should do this, but it's not going to work. The exchange has no rational justification for fully reimbursing bitcoin holders while screwing over usd holders.

Definitely. Better safe than sorry.

Close. He's using the high price to induce others to refill it with real BTC deposits.

That is not true. You risk a lot more than that if you continue to intentionally receive fraudulent transfers of other people's money. Willful ignorance is not a defense.

http://utahsecuritiesfraud.com/2010/08/02/clawback-lawsuits-how-investing-in-a-ponzi-scheme-can-bite-you-twice/
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/05/30/victims-of-li-ponzi-scheme-not-out-of-the-woods-yet/