Good for you! Think of all that guaranteed interest you'll accrue over three years! Oh, wait. |
|
|
|
I am not able to give a timeframe on the repayment as there is alot of factors that can effect it. I know for sure it won't be weeks or months, but more then likely in the ballpark of 3 years.
[...]
This will be a slow process, so please be patient.
 |
|
|
|
Hmm... Recently I lent 40 BTC to a moderator here, who repayed ~12% interest after about a month. It was easy peasy.
What do you have to say about that? If I had more bitcoins, I could make more loans. It's pretty simple.
It sound like you are being conditioned. Maybe so. If he's being conditioned by the moderators here on the forums, then perhaps its time we spent some time pointing fingers at them for fostering such a terrible environment. That's an excellent point. |
|
|
|
Hmm... Recently I lent 40 BTC to a moderator here, who repayed ~12% interest after about a month. It was easy peasy.
What do you have to say about that? If I had more bitcoins, I could make more loans. It's pretty simple.
It sound like you are being conditioned. Maybe so. Then I's sure you realize that your attitude (cultivated within this incubator of grifters) makes you an attractive mark. |
|
|
|
Hmm... Recently I lent 40 BTC to a moderator here, who repayed ~12% interest after about a month. It was easy peasy.
What do you have to say about that? If I had more bitcoins, I could make more loans. It's pretty simple.
It sound like you are being conditioned. |
|
|
|
However, I truly hate to see Patrick's name being drug through the mud.
When you run a high-profile "credit-rating" and "investment" operation without explaining what is going on and failing to answer simple questions, you must expect your reputation to suffer. FWIW, I don't think for a second think he is scamming anybody. I know everybody said the same thing about Pirate, but I believe that 1% a week (R.I.P. Starfish  ), as outrageous an IRL rate as it may be, is very manageable given what I've gathered about the lending economy here. For now, at least. Of course it isn't (wasn't) risk-free, but Patrick seems intent on treating his depositors right, even when it costs him. Why anyone (besides a miner) would borrow bitcoins is beyond me, though. Scary bull market is scary. "Ourageous" yet "very manageable."  What is it about bitcoin that makes people suspend all disbelief and take on magical, pixie dust thinking? Look, the reality is simple but ugly: the "lending economy" here is a cesspool of scams. |
|
|
|
If you met me face to face you would not accuse me of ''feigned fragility''. Do you understand that the more you are toxic on this forum, the less the people you want to hear from will post? You have lost Starfish for starters: he has had enough.
The more you evade the simple questions with distractions, the more obvious your shilling becomes. The questions remain, and there is only one plausible explanation. You certainly aren't offering an alternative. |
|
|
|
I think the irony is that this bet, which was initially started in an attempt to teach those who were overly vocal and eager to accuse something of being a scam, will end up showing that when a large group of people with possible knowledge of a topic warn you about it, you REALLY should listen, lest you lose out twice, first on being involved with the thing they warned you about, and second with trying to show you know better that those with actual knowledge/experience.
Ahem... First, your scenario can't avoid a technical default, since he already *has* technically defaulted.
Agreed. Pirate actually defaulted on Monday. But in the terms of his bet with Vandroiy he has two weeks grace. And in the terms of Matthew's bet he has three weeks grace. Last I heard assets with pirate exposure were still selling for 80% of face value. Anyone have an update?
24h average on the GLBSE is at ~50%. I am shocked it is that high. It can't go lower than that while Matthew is offering even odds on a default. Assuming an investor has the cash available and trusts Matthew, he can get 50% of his "investment" back by simply making a bet with Matthew for 50% of his exposure. Either matthew is unwell (if he is crazy, then we shouldn't be taking advantage of him) or he has some special knowledge. Or he never intended to pay out (as suggested by his vague terms). In any case, this wager has failed the smell test since day 0. |
|
|
|
The reputation bitcoin is garnering with the endless parade of frauds and thefts is doing far more harm than any regulation ever could. In any case, by tolerating these scams and failing to handle the situation, this community is inviting the attention all by itself.
It's not obvious to me that the attention is negative on balance. The fact that thieves are stealing bitcoin amounts worth such large sums when priced in USD reinforces the idea that bitcoins are worth stealing. What's the net psychological effect of these competing influences? Time will tell. But time is also a factor. These are some rough hits to be taking at such an early stage. If the bad press dissuades potential vendors, developers, and investors from using bitcoin before it can attain "critical mass," bitcoin may well end up as just another forgotten nerds-only project. It will also poison any future iterations by association. |
|
|
|
From principles of self-preservation, the possibility of being caught figures into the calculation of wether or not attempting some misdeed is worth the price. If a criminal underestimates risk and is caught (as in the liquor store example), then that just makes him a dumb criminal. If you assume that all criminals are incapable of estimating risks and potential rewards, then you may have a point. However, not all criminals are so stupid. If you remove the possiblity of being caught, then a rational criminal (and without moral qualms) will see that the risk to reward ratio is zero; it would be irrational not to commit the crime.
This all seems embarrassingly obvious to me.
Probably because you are not a criminal. Also (and I don't mean this how it sounds) you have obviously not spent much time around criminals. While not all criminals are stupid, a large number are. Their actions are not based around rational thinking. So while what you say logically makes sense, it is not how the criminal mind works. If some people are afraid of being caught and for that reason elect not to commit a crime, then deterrence works. Period. Anything else is an argument for making normal people hapless victims without recourse for justice. I don't mean technical regulation; however if the US were to 'outlaw' bitcoin use that would have a very dramatic effect on price. While the US is not the world (despite their actions) a large number of US users would no longer use bitcoins because they are not criminals, and as you stated the risk/reward scenario would be too high. (Unless you assume that most bitcoin users are also SR members).
The reputation bitcoin is garnering with the endless parade of frauds and thefts is doing far more harm than any regulation ever could. In any case, by tolerating these scams and failing to handle the situation, this community is inviting the attention all by itself. |
|
|
|
Justice entails both punishment and restitution. Deterrence is a way to control sociopaths and is certainly effective. Like the above poster, you seem quite pleased with the current state of affairs in which criminals operate without fear of consequences. This strikes me as a nauseatingly servile and passive position (so to speak) to take. And take it you shall, unless people start growing spines and cerebral cortexes.
My point was that deterrence really doesn't work that well (not that I have a solution for what does). There are examples of that all over. The criminals always think they are smart enough to get away with it. No one robs a liquor store thinking the cops will show up... they always think that they will finally be the ones to get away with it. If you say so. From principles of self-preservation, the possibility of being caught figures into the calculation of wether or not attempting some misdeed is worth the price. If a criminal underestimates risk and is caught (as in the liquor store example), then that just makes him a dumb criminal. If you assume that all criminals are incapable of estimating risks and potential rewards or that they care nothing of their own well-being, then you may have a point. However, not all criminals are so stupid and/or suicidal. If you remove the possiblity of being caught, then a rational criminal (and without moral qualms) will see that the risk to reward ratio is zero; it would be irrational not to commit the crime. This all seems embarrassingly obvious to me. In a similar vein: bringing legal punishment to bitcoin thefts is very much a double edged sword. The more 'official' attention it gets then the possibility for more regulation.
The protocol possesses technical qualities that prevent the types of regulation that matter most. Besides, isn't self-policing an important part of libertarian philosophy? Maybe that was last year's version... |
|
|
|
you may want to stick to using fiat currencies that are well regulated by corrupt governments. If you invest in a bad-judgement and it turns out to be ponsi, said government will protect you by imprisoning said ponsi operator. No, you won't get your investment back, but the ponsi operators conviction will make you feel a lot better. bitcoin leaves you free to make your own choices, and then live with those choices.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that criminals be permitted to operate without limits and with no fear of consequences? I suspect that you are an American-style "libertarian." The need for justice exists regardless of your juvenile political leanings. it seems you're not quite ready for that level of freedom.
I don't see how this follows. It would delight me to see all responsible parties be made to pay for their activities and a measure of punative and restorative justice materialize. Maybe then future would-be scammers would think twice.
First: I didn't mean to attack you specifically, but more the trend, it was not meant personally. Second: Your logic is that we should have a punishment so that criminals won't break the law then? Justice entails both punishment and restitution. Deterrence is a way to control sociopaths and is certainly effective. Like the above poster, you seem quite pleased with the current state of affairs in which criminals operate without fear of consequences. This strikes me as a nauseatingly servile and passive position (so to speak) to take. And take it you shall, unless people start growing spines and cerebral cortexes. |
|
|
|
It amuses me (but does not surprise me) to see that pass-through operators continue posting as if they weren't profiting wildly from the scheme -- as if they are also just victims with no responsibility. Paybtc, burt, goat, starfish, and many others aren't fooling anyone with half a brain.
i'd love to see actual evidence of my 'profits', then perhaps i could attempt to spend some of it in real life instead of just viewing it as a meaningless number on the BS&T website. See that's just the thing. Even if you took a loss, you still bear substantial responsiblity for the fraud that occurred. You are an accomplice even if pirate ripped you off in the end. There is enough evidence to demonstrate that you played a crucial role in helping pirate pull off the scam to greater effect than he could have alone. Your pleas of ignorance are also not convincing, even if they were a defense (which they are not). Of course, I don't believe for a second that you didn't profit. You took a cut from the difference in "interest rates." This makes it even worse. |
|
|
|
My problem are the many people that were not vocal that maybe once before said "hrm.. ya it could be a ponzi" and are now coming out of the woodwork saying "oh ya see I told you!!! listen to me I always said that".
Not that I am god's gift to tracking 'team ponzi' but a lot of these people I have never heard of. It was always very clear where some people stood (like yourself) and the very vocal ones, the ones who stuck their necks out WAY before anything fell apart and did their own research/proof I have no issues with. It is the ones who seem to be jumping on the credibility train (micon) that really annoy me.
Perhaps I am being unfair.
No. Like many others who apparently either lack moderate reading comprehension skills or are self-deluded, etc., you're simply missing the point. The only reason I even mentioned that I had tagged the obvious ponzi scheme was to refute myrkul's insinuation that I had failed to recognize the scam and "invested." My pseudonymous persona's ego doesn't benefit from credit (which I don't seek) for seeing what is plainly a fraud. The point of my posts in this thread is to show how deep the corruption runs around here (theymos knowingly took part in the scheme and continues to facilitate an impressive array of chicaneries) and how illusory the notion of "reputation" has become. It amuses me (but does not surprise me) to see that pass-through operators continue posting as if they weren't profiting wildly from the scheme -- as if they are also just victims with no responsibility. Paybtc, burt, goat, starfish, and many others aren't fooling anyone with half a brain. It would delight me to see all responsible parties be made to pay for their activities and a measure of punative and restorative justice materialize. Maybe then future would-be scammers would think twice. |
|
|
|
On the subject of complicity, I think this bears cross-posting: Is this why you took part in pirate's ponzi scheme? Because you thought it would be fun? Did you "earn" any "interest" from it?
It was fun, and still is! I have several bets and other deals related to the final outcome, which I'm excited to see resolved (hopefully in my favor). Ponzi schemes are a much more fun way of gambling than Satoshi's Dice, that's for sure. I did win some BTC, which is rightfully mine. Pirateat40 is guilty of lying about the rules of the game, but the players are innocent. If a casino rigs a game, you wouldn't blame those players who made a profit (even if they may have guessed that the game was rigged) -- you blame the casino. I never promoted BS&T, and I posted several times that I thought it was a Ponzi. You see, your honor, I am just the landlord of the crackhouse. Yes, I fully knew what went on there, but my property served only as a "platform."
If I was only worried about morality instead of legality, that's exactly what I'd say. Nothing wrong with a crackhouse as long as there's no violence. I don't advocate doing drugs (I personally don't consume alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, or illegal drugs), but if people want to buy potentially dangerous drugs, that's their business. This argument is equivalent to whether I should: - Ban crackhouses entirely on my property. As a proponent of freedom, I would prefer not to do this. - Determine which crackhouses may add poisons to drugs and ban them or put signs in front of them. This takes extra work and expertise that I'm not willing to deal with. - Categorize the crackhouses based on how close to market levels their prices are, which may indicate the safety of the drugs sold there.  There's a lot to answer for around here. It is especially true for some "respected" members. I see no problem with anything Theymos said there. Again, Ponzis have been run before on this forum, openly. People then knew what the hell they were getting into and they all ended the same way. You guys are just pissed off because this time Pirate didn't tell you, and even though many others did, you ignored them and stuck your dick in a meatgrinder anyway. Don't get mad at Theymos or any of the PPT ops, because they told you where to find the meatgrinder. Christ... Read what he wrote. He admits to profiting from what he knew was a deceptively presented ponzi scheme. And he's rather proud of himself. If you bother reading some of my posts, you'll see that I was one of several others who recognized pirate's scam and the pass-throughs for what they obviously were. By way of his knowledge and high-profile here, theymos is more responsible than most, aside from pirate himself and the more obvious shills and enablers. |
|
|
|
On the subject of complicity, I think this bears cross-posting: Is this why you took part in pirate's ponzi scheme? Because you thought it would be fun? Did you "earn" any "interest" from it?
It was fun, and still is! I have several bets and other deals related to the final outcome, which I'm excited to see resolved (hopefully in my favor). Ponzi schemes are a much more fun way of gambling than Satoshi's Dice, that's for sure. I did win some BTC, which is rightfully mine. Pirateat40 is guilty of lying about the rules of the game, but the players are innocent. If a casino rigs a game, you wouldn't blame those players who made a profit (even if they may have guessed that the game was rigged) -- you blame the casino. I never promoted BS&T, and I posted several times that I thought it was a Ponzi. You see, your honor, I am just the landlord of the crackhouse. Yes, I fully knew what went on there, but my property served only as a "platform."
If I was only worried about morality instead of legality, that's exactly what I'd say. Nothing wrong with a crackhouse as long as there's no violence. I don't advocate doing drugs (I personally don't consume alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, or illegal drugs), but if people want to buy potentially dangerous drugs, that's their business. This argument is equivalent to whether I should: - Ban crackhouses entirely on my property. As a proponent of freedom, I would prefer not to do this. - Determine which crackhouses may add poisons to drugs and ban them or put signs in front of them. This takes extra work and expertise that I'm not willing to deal with. - Categorize the crackhouses based on how close to market levels their prices are, which may indicate the safety of the drugs sold there. There's a lot to answer for around here. It is especially true for some "respected" members. |
|
|
|
Utterly disgraceful.
Thanks for the detailed rebuttal. I somehow missed this. My response was not meant as a rebuttal -- it was just a reaction. Nausea. |
|
|
|
He's 21.
I didn't know his age (though I'm not surprised); it was more of a comment about his apparent age as judged by his actions. |
|
|
|
I think it's good to have credit ratings stickied. As far as I know, Patrick is currently the only person publishing credit ratings. If more people publish them, I'll unsticky Patrick's topic and create a new sticky which links to all of the credit rating topics.
That so-called credit rating system is and always has been a bad joke. Reminds me of the credit-rating that led to the financial meltdown in 2008. Ratings based on nothing... and theymos stands ready and eager to give the scammer some legitimacy by going out of his way to make it a sticky. I hate to ask, but why are you so intent on fulfilling every sterotype of the techno-savvy but real-life naive 20 year old boy? |
|
|
|
Utterly disgraceful.
I know, what a dick, letting people make their own choices. 3) oddly enough, almost admitting to save face in the future, this thread "how to identify a Ponzi" is also stickied - the only 2 threads stickied there, and the views and pages of "WPW" far exceeds the Ponzi-identifier... I don't see how it's odd at all, it's pretty consistent with giving people the information they need and letting them decide what they want to do with their money. As for one having more views than the other, well one has been up for ~4 months, the other for 3 weeks. Apparently nobody bothered to actually read and understand the thrust of what Theymos wrote. In his response, Theymos admits to taking part in what he stronly suspected was a ponzi scheme where others were being actively misled about the nature of the scheme. Theymos also proudly asserts that he did profit from this "fun" scam at the expense of those who were misled. He seems to think that the profits are "rightfully" his, despite him knowing that they necessarily were to come from other dupes. By his own admission, he has demonstrated intent to defraud misinformed investors as a participant in a ponzi scheme. The players can only be innocent if they were truly unaware that it was a ponzi scheme. Theymos stronly suspected it was a ponzi scheme and participated, despite this knowledge. He then goes on give some flimsy excuse for why he not only tolerates but also encourages all manner of questionable and outright fraudulent activity on this board. This is contemptible, even if I'm the only one who acknowledges it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
