so the scam was..
give me money and i will mine bitcoin for you...
ran off with money...
bitcoin never got mined...
-> there will be no dump
This essentially has nothing to do with Bitcoin. The equivalent of someone creating random wealth management ponzi and switching "trading performance" for "mining revenues" as a wealth generation/redistribution mechanism. Of course suckers at the bottom paid the bills for the ones at the top. No actual Bitcoiner was hurt in this experiment  |
|
|
|
It is 8pm in China now. The mycoin.hk story playing on TV, perhaps?
that's probably it  |
|
|
|
3000 and only 30 want to go to court?
I understood that 30 victims contacted a local Councillor because they had no proof of investment and thought that the police would not take up their case. The Councillor directed them to the police, let's see what comes of it. (...) estimate is based on the company's own earlier claims that it served 3,000 clients who had invested HK$1m ($12,890) each. Are you suggesting to us that numbers brought forward by an apparent ponzi scheme promoting their scam to suckers should reasonably be assumed to be truthful? I know that the denial is strong among the bitcoiners, but according to some websites these numbers have been reporterd by the "inverstors" and not by mycoin.hk. http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1707565/investors-fear-hk3b-losses-closure-bitcoin-trading-company"Investors said they were lured by promises of a HK$1 million return in four months for buying a HK$400,000 bitcoin contract which would produce 90 bitcoins on maturity." "An 81-year-old woman surnamed Chan said she recovered only HK$1.2 million on her HK$3 million investment on seven bitcoin contracts. " "“No one seems to know who is behind this,” said a woman surnamed Lau, who saw her HK$1.3 million investment in four bitcoin contracts evaporate. " Can you read? The HK$3 billion figure is based on an earlier statement by the company that it had 3,000 clients in Hong Kong, each investing an average HK$1 million. |
|
|
|
3000 and only 30 want to go to court?
I understood that 30 victims contacted a local Councillor because they had no proof of investment and thought that the police would not take up their case. The Councillor directed them to the police, let's see what comes of it. (...) estimate is based on the company's own earlier claims that it served 3,000 clients who had invested HK$1m ($12,890) each. Are you suggesting to us that numbers brought forward by an apparent ponzi scheme promoting their scam to suckers should reasonably be assumed to be truthful? |
|
|
|
Correction: the "4.1 billion USD" for the GBL scam seems to be a newspaper error. Other sources say "4.1 million", with is of course much more plausible.
is this for the exchange in HK that apparently stole funds and goxxed users ? It was not an exchange. It was a good ol Ponzi scheme using a Bitcoin facade to lure suckers in. Sorry for the confusion... MyCoin.hk is the new Hong Kong mining ponzi scam, that collapsed last December and broke the news yesterday; estimates (based on mycoin.hk statements) are still 3 billion HKD = 385 million USD. GLB was a Hong Kong exchange that closed and stole all client funds in November 2013. One newspaper yesterday said that the loss was 4.1 billion USD, but it was actually 4.1 million, it seems. It´s hard to keep track and not to be confused with all those big bitcoin scams and frauds that appear almost weekly. Especially went we have frauds the likes HSBC enabling hundreds of billions of dollars of tax evasion on an international scale plastered all over the news. One has to dig deep to find relevance in the miniature scams involving a mere 3 billion dollar market! |
|
|
|
Correction: the "4.1 billion USD" for the GBL scam seems to be a newspaper error. Other sources say "4.1 million", with is of course much more plausible.
is this for the exchange in HK that apparently stole funds and goxxed users ? It was not an exchange. It was a good ol Ponzi scheme using a Bitcoin facade to lure suckers in. Sorry for the confusion... MyCoin.hk is the new Hong Kong mining ponzi scam, that collapsed last December and broke the news yesterday; estimates (based on mycoin.hk statements) are still 3 billion HKD = 385 million USD.GLB was a Hong Kong exchange that closed and stole all client funds in November 2013. One newspaper yesterday said that the loss was 4.1 billion USD, but it was actually 4.1 million, it seems. Estimates that are most likely erroneous |
|
|
|
Correction: the "4.1 billion USD" for the GBL scam seems to be a newspaper error. Other sources say "4.1 million", with is of course much more plausible.
is this for the exchange in HK that apparently stole funds and goxxed users ? It was not an exchange. It was a good ol Ponzi scheme using a Bitcoin facade to lure suckers in. |
|
|
|
1. Bitcoins are only created on main chain (bitcoin blockchain)
2. Side chains are child chains.
3. The smaller bitcoin blockchain is (smaller block) the more miners will mine it and MC will be more decentralized
1) that's not the concern, you can earn a Bitcoin equivalent on the protocol level by mining a SideChain, that's the issue. absolutely false |
|
|
|
The Observer has learned that this would not be the first time that Wells Fargo has expressed deep concern about crypto, specifically singling out Mr. McCaleb for special scrutiny. Until the beginning of 2014, Wells Fargo had a whole task force at its highest level comprising 20 of its top executives and advisors, including Susan Athey, a Stanford economics professor who sits on Ripple Labs’ board. They were marching forward to be the first U.S. bank to dive into crypto. All of a sudden, in March, just after the February collapse of Mt. Gox, they did a complete 180, shutting down the entire program that had been exploring crypto. http://observer.com/2015/02/the-race-to-replace-bitcoin |
|
|
|
The Observer has learned that this would not be the first time that Wells Fargo has expressed deep concern about crypto, specifically singling out Mr. McCaleb for special scrutiny. Until the beginning of 2014, Wells Fargo had a whole task force at its highest level comprising 20 of its top executives and advisors, including Susan Athey, a Stanford economics professor who sits on Ripple Labs’ board. They were marching forward to be the first U.S. bank to dive into crypto. All of a sudden, in March, just after the February collapse of Mt. Gox, they did a complete 180, shutting down the entire program that had been exploring crypto. http://observer.com/2015/02/the-race-to-replace-bitcoin |
|
|
|
The "buy-and-replace" is not really something everyone can afford.
Sorry brg, but I don't get this. If someone wants to buy something for $50 on website A, they can: 1) Pay $50 directly, or 2) Pay $50 worth of held BTC, then purchase $50 of BTC at the same moment. The results are exactly the same in both cases, the person pays $50 and ends up with the exact same amount of BTC. "buy-and-replace" is a wash and perfectly affordable by anyone. Option 2) implies that an additional portion of that someone's money is available and can be allocated to what can be considered a risky/volatile investment If I spend 50$ of my BTC today I may not have an additional 50$ in liquidity to allocate to BTC. It's only a wash if we pretend that the $50 remains stable in value |
|
|
|
It is a segment with small government and anti-FED sentiment, that is also non-technical. That is a good segment to target. If bitpay can use this to get a few hundred more small independent businesses to accept bitcoin that's a win in my book. Don't really care about the ROI to bitpay's investors... And I care even less about a few hundred small independent businesses dumping BTC for fiat. Guess I don't see that as a pathway to BTC dumping, I see this type of adoption as increasing the velocity of Bitcoin. Increased velocity in turn increases the economic value of held bitcoins. A hundred thousand bitcoiners acting as Smaug lording over their BTC in cold storage will never increase it's value. I spend my BTC under a buy-and-replace mode, I'm sure some of that translates into increased holdings by others (both overstock and newegg keep some for example). Bitpay's customers are merchant businesses, their advertising is designed to get more merchants to offer bitcoin as a payment option. This is great advertising for Bitcoin because each converted merchant becomes a Bitcoin promoter themselves by offering bitcoin as a payment option. "See how awesome Bitcoin is, we'll help you get rid of them right here!" The "buy-and-replace" is not really something everyone can afford. "Anytime BTC is transfered to recipient not interested in holding our objectives are being diminished" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAnBm0WweDw |
|
|
|
It is a segment with small government and anti-FED sentiment, that is also non-technical. That is a good segment to target. If bitpay can use this to get a few hundred more small independent businesses to accept bitcoin that's a win in my book. Don't really care about the ROI to bitpay's investors... And I care even less about a few hundred small independent businesses dumping BTC for fiat. |
|
|
|
Has anyone else thought that the winklis are opening their "gemini" exchange out of despair because they know that their ETF won´t be approved?
That's what I'm thinking. More likely that an established US-based exchange is a pre-requisite for the approval of the ETF |
|
|
|
|
Apparently Blockstream is 1-2 months away from releasing code for federated sidechains... Interested to see what comes out of this
|
|
|
|
1. Come up with a piece of technology you can invest in.
2. try to convince everyone to put money in it.
3. Claim that the heretics who have doubts about it simply don't understand it. Tell them that some folks had doubts about the internet back in its early days too.
4. ? ? ? ? ?
5. Profit!
Yes! |
|
|
|
...
I imagine people were saying the same about the internet back in 1993.
The Pets.com/Web TV analogy again. Don't you ever get bored? @hdbuck: >for once Always. Each and every time Absolutely not, it is always fascinating to see the stupidity you can come up with when trying to disprove the analogy. |
|
|
|
...
Bitcoin "payment network" not being able to scale natively to record, validate & retain every coffee purchase does not make it flawed as a proposition for a sound form of money.
The idea of Bitcoin as "a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed" was, afaik, envisioned by most everyone with a hint of foresight.
I was told that Bitcoin was meant to do just that--"validate & retain every coffee purchase." That's what made it so interesting. Many here still don't get that Bitcoin is no more a proof of concept--an experiment. A precursor, perhaps useful as a standard. No more likely to replace money than an atomic [time standard] clock is to replace wristwatches. I thought you knew better than to believe what any Bitcoiner would tell you  As far as Bitcoin being no more than a proof of concept... Yeah that's absolutely not true. I imagine people were saying the same about the internet back in 1993. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
Shows once again double standard toward Bitcoins from regulators not even able to police traditional institutions 
