|
Going back to how it was, where I "fixed" the price, but with an even tighter spread this time. Walls @ .985 and .1015.
(I think I put them up before going to sleep last night, but I can't log into GLBSE, so who knows.)
ETA: Finally was able to log onto GLBSE. Made the bidwall.
|
|
|
|
Who said TradeHill gave up......?  They're currently not operating, but have an extremely strong case (should be resolved some time before the Rapture, thanks to an efficient US justice system), and Jered does not give up. |
|
|
|
Let me get this straight for myself, if I were to be an investigator, I could buy the claim and go after the scammer for the funds, even up to taking them to court or what ever possible means to receive the fund/goods?
And if this is correct, I understand how debt is sold now. I have been wondering how dept was being sold.
Debt is being sold without much legal precedent. I mean, if the court's willing to accept forum PMs as the basis of an enforceable loan - then yeah, it's possible, but more likely, it will need to be settled individual-to-individual with the lendee. That could involve a range of options, with better options existing if you're physically near the lendee, which is why I think it's important to include location and as much dox'ing as available. |
|
|
|
Patrick Harnett is a god among men. That is an understatement.  |
|
|
|
|
Price reduced on Request debt.
|
|
|
|
|
Just noticed coins were still in the BDK.BND account. Oops.
Dividends now actually paid.
|
|
|
|
|
July 16 UPDATE
Dividend/share paid: 0BTC/share
Total dividend paid: 0BTC (-2.48BTC, but I will eat this as I've done in the past)
Running total dividends paid in July: .96BTC
July 2012 Net Income Expectations
Optimistic estimate: 150BTC
Reasonable estimate: 25BTC
Pessimistic estimate: -150BTC
(Guesstimated weekly dividend payouts -- July 2nd: 0.0BTC/share Actual: 0.000106688BTC/share, July 9th - 0BTC/shareActual: 0BTC/share, July 16th - .00045BTC/share, July 23rd - .000135BTC/share, July 30th - .000225/share)
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid.
Issued: 10873 bonds (1087.3BTC FV)
Interest Payment: (1087.3*.01)=10.873BTC
Next Payment Date: July 16th
ETA: I think I'm moving way too fast in trying to lower the rates I pay. Pirate's survived the early-weekend panic without any significant problems, which has changed my expectations a bit. BDK.BND will remain open until further notice. I apologize for the premature buyback announcement. I will begin selling again a bit before BDK-BLoC launches so I have enough funds, but I'm not going to be able to achieve the Prime rate I wanted. I don't think it will interfere too dramatically in attracting lendees, though.
|
|
|
|
Spreadsheets updated (still needs work), profit guesstimates made, responded to PMs/emails (if I missed you - sorry - please re-send). May be going to San Francisco mid-September for a week or two on BDK-related business. Details in due time. If you have a deposit with me, you may wish to check the deposit sheet on the public spreadsheet to be sure I have you in there. I'm pretty sure everyone's in there, but better safe than sorry. Apologies for being slow and a bit scattered in the past week. We accepted an offer on our house in Erie, are making an offer on a house, and was thinking/working on the reason for going to SF. It's likely I will be fairly busy until some time in October, but BDK/IOU operations will continue normally -- profits should not be affected. One place I always keep up on is the Skype lending room to see what opportunities are out there. When we move, I'll give myself business hours so I can give my full focus toward lending operations for at least a couple hours per day while everything else's going on. IOU-BLoC development is continuing, though has been paused the past couple days, waiting on me to review some options. Cheers! |
|
|
|
This is the exact same thing as the reputation system back when I was doing the difficulty equilibrium discussion.
Actually, it's worse, because there are no positive votes and people who are calm tend to not use it as much, since there's really little point in not seeing certain posts. Plus, being more active automatically makes you "darker" due to noise.
Obviously I'm against this for personal reasons, but it is also quite clear that the behavior of this feature isn't good. I'd prefer a plain web of trust, where people can't just mark an unlimited amount of others as bad anonymously. People who understand ignore the new system, newbies are confused, and we're back where we started.
Really, if someone wants to mark me for the flamewar, just do it by hand. If you see hordes trolling, just temp-ban them until they stop. Those are methods that actually work, this one is a designed exploit.
Can you point to any member of the community with an opaque "ignore" highlight who is not frequently abrasive? |
|
|
|
I used this service on a small file a few months ago, on a file i uploaded.
seemed to work good.
Would like to see any updates in the start of the topic, 26 pages is a lot to go through...
Also I like to have the option to get some seeding in, maybe a check box for 100%, 200%, 400%...
Publicly uploading opens him up to dramatically more lawsuits were a user to violate the ToS and download unlawful content in his/her country. Downloading content when unlawful to do so is almost never prosecuted. Uploading content when/where unlawful to do so is frequently prosecuted, and every time the file is uploaded, that's another count of illegal activity, which is how the court systems screw teens' parents out of boatloads of money. Download a $500 piece of software - it's unlikely anyone will care unless your ISP actually keeps tabs on you. Upload that a few times, and you're a much higher-valued target. Same with enforcement of almost all laws -- if you have an ounce of weed, or one carton of untaxed cigarettes, you'll likely just get a small fine and possibly a very short stay in jail (in the US, anyway). If you have a pound or few of weed, or 100+ cartons of unpaid cigarettes, you're facing serious prison time, because those are "distributor" amounts. |
|
|
|
Another offer was made on our house in Erie <.< >.> He made a revised, much more fair offer, this morning, even though we didn't formally reply to his last one, yet. Mike - if you're on here, I can't tell you where we hid all the pre-82 pennies without knowing who you are.  (taking down offer for now -- coincidentally found a fantastic place about 10 minutes away yesterday which I'd have to bother family for a loan to grab["Not taking our granddaughter 3 hours away subsidy"], which I may not even need, now.) |
|
|
|
Assume that the people and person are all randomly selected from the world population at large, ie. if you do nothing, X randomly selected people will die, and if you act one randomly selected person will die. There are no legal or social consequences to you personally.
The proposed choices are only if you, as a human being, accept the rules. I would instead try to understand the rules, to be able to fight them back, or bend them to my will. As an example, I could organise a study to understand how the random choice is made. If we know who's going to die, we can act better and maybe keep that person alive for a little longer. Your problem is humanity struggle as we know it. Everyday, people are being killed for millions of reason. Sometimes, some people kill people to "save" lifes, but in the end, it doesn't solve any problem at all. Some people don't kill and stay "virtuous", but they become an easy target for those who kill to "save" lifes. It's not about who's more utilitarian or more righteous, it's about who's able to adapt depending on the current situation. As long your goal is to understand that random killing machine, you can use whatever tools you find most useful. Trying to impose your thinking is stupid, because the other person could be in a position where your way of thinking is fatal. Seriously: Consider a career in politics. That's a lot of words to have said absolutely nothing. Ok, I'll explain otherwise: Big thing is killing people and offers you 2 choices. -Option A -Option B You guys are debating which option is better. I propose that we kill the big killing machine instead, whatever the cost is. In the meantime, use the choice that profits the most for you, keeping in mind that we want to kill the big killing machine. So we should kill Vitalik Buterin? Seems extreme. |
|
|
|
Kluge, have you taken my pm into consideration? Or any results on it?
Yeah, sorry for never replying. We've been looking at foreclosures since the beginning - even short sales. I broke down and sent a contact request to my CU. Credit score's pretty decent (even with maxing out 0% APY credit cards), I have a fair sum with them, and have been a customer for years, so maybe I can lure them into giving me a now-elusive no-doc loan. CU, unsurprisingly, denied request for a no-doc. Still a bit disappointed. Next method of attack is to try routing around realtors and their bureaucratic methods to contact sellers directly for informal owner financing. Use gov't records to find owner, search for owner contact info on Internet, see if they'd be willing to do such a thing, then go from there. Another offer was made on our house in Erie, but it doesn't appear serious (has a bunch of contingencies, very low deposit, and very low offer) and the guy seems insane (insisted he's talked with us, which he hasn't, and scribbled out some stuff he marked on the offer). ETA: Looks like I may've found a winner in Upland. Cheap, foreclosed duplex in a college town. Couldn't really ask for anything better. Scheduled to see it mid-Thursday. |
|
|
|
Why does insurance unnerve you? Also other than CPA and my very limited offer on GLBSE what else is going on?
Also 1/2 of the reason for my GLBSE insurance is to show the weakness of GLBSE not using something like open transactions.
Many PPTs offer insurance if Pirate defaults -- PPT.x, payb.tc, INAU, probably others. I do not want to insure against a Pirate default, but I may be interested in offering backup insurance on some of the primary insurers against a Pirate default (PPT.x in particular). The sudden pop-ups of insurance offerings is unnerving me because I believe there are people out there offering insurance who do not have reserves to back it up, or have insurance reserves in the same investment program they're insuring against -- the insurers never get a liquidity check until the one time they need to make a major payout. Given many have only one focus (Pirate), if he defaults, every policy the insurer holds needs to be paid out in full. So, say someone insured 100% against Pirate defaults, and did a pass-through where they offer, say, 15%/month, while effectively taking in 30%/month (with the new "variable" trust accounts, hard to know what the rate is, anymore, but I have doubts that it is significantly lower, if lower at all). There is strong incentive for that pass-through offerer to reinvest income in Pirate, since the offerer is obviously willing to take the entirety of Pirate risk at half the rate he'd get if he invested his own money, and it's assumed the pass-through offerer does have the money, since he's saying he can cover Pirate defaulting. If Pirate defaults then, if that person was tempted by Pirate's rates enough to have run a ponzi, everybody loses. The primary insurer gets nothing back, the insured get nothing back. I'm not convinced that will not be the case in more than one instance were Pirate to default. I do not believe it very likely that anyone offering 100% Pirate insurance has reserves to back it up, and instead think they're offering false peace of mind. Given they're willing to take on the risk in full, it only makes sense that the insurer would make the bet himself with Pirate directly for the full rate. Instead of something like car insurance, where the insurer will have many smaller claims over time and calculates all those risks individually, where there should be no issue paying out when someone files - this is like there being an insurer which specifically covers something like hurricane damage in Florida, or an insurer who contracts with the government to say they'll give the gov't $5t in the event of nuclear strikes hitting thirty US cities within two weeks' time. It's dangerously undiversified, and not subject to any liquidity checks until the catastrophe hits. The argument could be made that someone doesn't want to commit their own money because they want to use it for other stuff (this is the argument Pirate makes, I believe)... and this is similar to what "real" insurance companies do. They insure your cars, homes, employees - whatever - and they generally keep a small portion in reserves to pay out valid claims, while the rest is tied up in investments. But, for this to be both responsible and feasible, the insurer needs to have the money in liquid investments, and in the case of 100%-insured PPTs offering 15%/mo or whatever, this means they need to be making at least >15%/mo on something safe and liquid to remain economically sound (remembering the insurer could just place his own money in a Pirate account). Once the trust accounts go into effect and true rates for pass-throughs are kept secret, it may change... who knows what kind of margins PPTs could make off the uninformed. Pirate could pay his contractors (sub-leasers) 1.5%/day, and so long as it isn't public knowledge, the sub-leasers can sell 100% insured pass-through to investors @ 3.5% or whatever, and it could be both feasible for the insurance to work if necessary, and profitable for the insured pass-through offerer even in case of default. The way insurance is offered around here is INSANE. Insurance companies know their variables. That's why I'm willing to insure PPT.x but not Pirate. I know the people behind PPT, I have a fair understanding of their financial positions and ability to pay out, and know the reserves they keep for PPT. A reasonable insurance company makes their policy-holders jump through all sorts of hoops for compliance, and adjusters will regularly visit the business to ensure they're compliant. If you're a business, you need to run things by your insurance company prior to doing something questionably unsafe. For example, if you have a plane insured, you damn well better ask your insurance company if they'll pay you out if you decide to start doing stunt shows with it. Or, if you have your employees insured against workplace injuries, the insurance company needs to know if you start having them use new machines, or if you're having the electrical replaced, or if you're buying new emergency stop buttons - and they'll want to know the manufacturers, and model of the new tools so they can make a solid estimate of how safe or unsafe they are, so they aren't making bad investments. In the Bitcoiniverse, people are offering insurance on investments they know nearly nothing on, making loans to people they know nothing about, and investing in "magic" companies. You can't assess risk on something there's no information on. If someone went into an established insurance building and requested insurance for their workers, then refused to say what the workers do, or give even an EIN for the business, the insurance agents would be rightfully annoyed that the guy who entered their building just wasted so much time -- it wouldn't be a calculated risk to offer insurance on whatever Mr. X does and refuses to talk about, and as such, is not grounds for a contract. (agree GLBSE should at least let Issuers see who owns their securities) |
|
|
|
July 2 UPDATEDividend/share paid: 0.000106688BTC/share Total dividend paid: .96BTC Running total dividends paid in July: .96BTC July 2012 Net Income ExpectationsOptimistic estimate: 150BTC Reasonable estimate: 25BTC Pessimistic estimate: -150BTC (Guesstimated weekly dividend payouts -- July 2nd: 0.0BTC/share Actual: 0.000106688BTC/share, July 9th - 0BTC/share, July 16th - .00045BTC/share, July 23rd - .000135BTC/share, July 30th - .000225/share)ETA: On "official" break from 7/5 to 7/6. Will be back on 7/7. ETA2: Back. ETA3: Posted Guesstimates. Keep in mind I need to count a 100BTC or so loss from a default last month.
|
|
|
|
I am now offering insurance on your insurance. In most usage scenarios, insurance-insurance will be 30-80% cheaper than first-layer insurance.
In the event that a first-layer insurance provider does not pay out when he should, I will pay you out instead. For insurance-insurance payout, you need to first get a professional arbitrator's ruling stating that the first-layer insurance should have paid you out. If the first-layer insurer still does not pay out, I will then pay you out.
I also offer third-layer+ insurance. So, if you already have insurance-insurance, I will be willing to provide insurance-insurance-insurance. Please contact me with the insurance you'd like to insure against defaulting.
Cheers!
At first I read that as you're offering reinsurance, but really you're providing backup coverage. You should also consider offering reinsurance. There's a lot of money in that! For disclosure, OP wasn't serious. I'm a little unnerved by the sudden pop-ups of insurance. I would be pleased to offer backup insurance on PPT.x, though, if anyone has interest. Reinsurance, I don't quite understand how I'd make anything off that beyond what I could earn being the original insurer. Always interested in education! |
|
|
|
I don't know of other insured assets on GLBSE currently... hmmm, maybe PPT.X?
What would it cost me to insure 100 PPT.X bonds against PPT defaulting and not paying out their 32 Bitcents?
.16BTC/month for the 32BTC worth of risk on PPT.X reneging on insurance. Some others do similar PPTs privately and insure them. Goat seems serious about insuring against GLBSE failing, though that's not listed on GLBSE, fwiw. |
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid.
Issued: 10873 bonds (1087.3BTC FV)
Interest Payment: (1087.3*.01)=10.873BTC
Next Payment Date: July 9th
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
