I sold my entire Bitcoin holdings on reception of his news and burnt the money Why did you sell? It is a good news! I bought on this news and have 10% profit now. I was joking I live in Thailand you wally! Ah okay, what else you're joking with? |
|
|
|
I sold my entire Bitcoin holdings on reception of his news and burnt the money Why did you sell? It is a good news! I bought on this news and have 10% profit now. |
|
|
|
In this context
What a bunch of retards gather sometimes on these forums? We all should be grateful to OP for the timely info he gave us about Thai central bank order to suspend his Bitcoin business. Instead bunch of idiots decided to blame him for bank's decision. |
|
|
|
You have also agreed that there is "...nothing on paper." - Unverified Why do you keep insisting there should be something on paper? Is Bitcoin on paper? |
|
|
|
if Ben Bernanke said Bitcoin was illegal tomorrow I might not get rid of my BTC but I'd certainly shit myself and turn pale, when a central bank actually takes an official position To not shit yourself and turn pale you just have to be prepared as it is the most likely scenario. |
|
|
|
I am glad you have quit the Thai BTC community and that is enough for me personally. LOL... How has he quit the Thai BTC community? |
|
|
|
There is no evidance they said that. Neither there is evidence they didn't. What would be the interest of OP without any reason to shut down their bitcoin echange in which they've invested heavily? |
|
|
|
|
I don't understand why some people are so upset that Thailand central bankers said bitcoin is illegal? Did you really expect something different? I don't. This is just the beginning. More central bankers from other countries will follow.
Apparently, many of you forget that when it comes to money the central bankers are the law. The law is what they say is the law! If it was any different then Ben Bernanke would have already been in jail for printing out 85 billion counterfeit dollars every month.
|
|
|
|
Yes. But he appeared to have attempted to do some due diligence. Yes. But it was done after he paid the money. He is not an exception. It is a common mistake for the average BFL sponsor (customer). |
|
|
|
I'm sorry. It's a lot of money. But I don't understand why you parted with it in the first place, quite honestly. Maybe he thought he's ordering an ASIC from BFL? |
|
|
|
i like how they declare it outright illegal versus saying the money laundering via bitcoin is illegal
This is how gentlemen do it. Not like pussies that tell you 100 insignificant reasons wasting your time before you figure out the true one. |
|
|
|
And here guys and gals is the whole difference between the First World and Third World, between a free society and controlled society:
"At the conclusion of the meeting senior members of the Foreign Exchange Administration and Policy Department advised that due to lack of existing applicable laws, capital controls and the fact that Bitcoin straddles multiple financial facets the following Bitcoin activities are illegal in Thailand..."
In a free country you do what you like as long as it is not illegal. In a controlled un-free country you can only do what is legally allowed.
As a side note, too bad for Thailand, missing the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency train. They will regret it.
Are you kidding? The only difference between controlled un-free country and controlled free country is that in the controlled free country you're not allowed without the government officially telling you're not allowed. |
|
|
|
It seems like now even Josh is starting to play himself as a victim. Nothing new under the sun.  Charles Ponzi in 1920 Ponzi's rapid rise naturally drew suspicion. When a Boston financial writer suggested there was no way Ponzi could legally deliver such high returns in a short period of time, Ponzi sued for libel and won $500,000 in damages. As libel law in those days placed the burden of proof on the writer and the paper, this effectively neutralized any serious probes into his dealings for some time. On July 24, 1920, the Boston Post printed a favorable article on Ponzi and his scheme that brought in investors faster than ever. At that time, Ponzi was making $250,000 a day. Ponzi's good fortune was increased by the fact that just below this favorable article, which seemed to imply that Ponzi was indeed returning 50% return on investment after only 45 days, was a bank advertisement that stated that the bank was paying 5% returns annually. The next business day after this article was published, Ponzi arrived at his office to find thousands of Bostonians waiting to give him their money. The stories caused a panic run on the Securities Exchange Company. Ponzi paid out $2 million in three days to a wild crowd outside his office. He canvassed the crowd, passed out coffee and donuts, and cheerfully told them they had nothing to worry about. Many changed their minds and left their money with him. However, this attracted the attention of Daniel Gallagher, the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. Gallagher commissioned Edwin Pride to audit the Securities Exchange Company's books—an effort made difficult by the fact his bookkeeping system consisted merely of index cards with investors' names. On August 11, it all came crashing down for Ponzi. First, the Post came out with a front-page story about his activities in Montreal 13 years earlier—including his forgery conviction and his role at Zarossi's scandal-ridden bank. Read more! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi#Collapse_of_the_scheme |
|
|
|
BFL Not a scam in the true sense of the definition Not true. Are you saying that every BTC related scam is not a scam in the true sense of the definition because BTC is not money in the true sense of the definition? Is stealing BTC not a theft in the true sense of the definition because BTC is not money in the true sense of the definition? May be you forget that the "business" of Carlo Pietro Giovanni Guglielmo Tebaldo Ponzi, (March 3, 1882 – January 18, 1949) was not a scam in the true sense of the definition (by that time)? However, since then the word "ponzi" became a synonym for finance related scam. In the same way the word "butterfly" will become a synonym for BTC related scam! ... The definition: Scam - A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle BFL is a scam from day one of its existence. It is more than obvious now that it was planned to be a scam from the very beginning. |
|
|
|
The arms race is on and it's killing every devices ROI.
On top of it, the BFL scam is in full swing killing whats left of their customers ROI. |
|
|
|
Channel your anger somewhere positive!
I'm positive. A lot of uninformed BTC world newcomers must be protected from BFL scam. Just let go, you're feeding the monster!
Please, explain? Do you imply that crooks must rule bitcoin community? |
|
|
|
Can you elaborate a bit on the "long con" game reference?
It seems that BFL must have made a substantial investment
in producing a functiong ASiC and usable product. From the very first days this startup started with a lie. They lied they have attracted VC! I have never witnessed another "business" taking pre-orders ONE YEAR ahead, lying they have attracted venture capital, using customers money for R&D and treating their customers like investor to share the risk but without investor rights, refusing full bitcoin refunds, now they stopped all refunds, and lying all the time month after month that what they need is just two more weeks and everything will be okay! Have you?! |
|
|
|
|
It is amazing how much energy and money BFL crooks spend to create new sock puppets every day.
|
|
|
|
Next up: Hashking aka Sam Theofanopoulos, 7262 W Benton Dr Frankfort, IL 60423
I really hope they go after all the PPTs and the Starfish too. I really hope they go after BFL too. SEC? Why would they? I don't like BFL as much as the next guy, but SEC has nothing it wants from BFL. It will. BFL is the biggest operating bitcoin scam treating their customers as investors but without the corresponding investor rights. On several occasions BFL confirmed that they have converted their customer BTC into USD. However, they don't have currency exchange license and are not allowed to do currency conversions on behalf of their customers. As you see, a lot of SEC related issues. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
