Well, no regulations is maybe stretching it - given the premium on Chinese exchanges, I assume you're arguing that the pumping took place mostly on Chinese exchanges (i.e. CNY->BTC)?
Sure wasn't Gemini leading, but what regulations do you feel would stand in the way of forming some sort of a consortium? BTW, do you think the LTC P&D (different timing) is also Chinese hedging? Not sure I follow you - Gemini is a US exchange (and pretty small). I was cheekily alluding to the lifting of the "ban" on BTC in China, an arrangement that strikes me as potentially temporary (and liable to be replaced with a more regulated regime at any time). I don't think any regs would prevent forming consortia, except maybe compulsory solitary confinement for everyone! |
|
|
|
How so? You believe there's a simpler explanation for the recent rise?
Sure, a few, the begging one being pump & dump. Because P&D happen in crypto. Maybe. It'd have required a lot of P over several weeks, however. I'm not convinced P&D's the simplest explanation. Maybe I'm just conservative when it comes to the power of whales and manipulators in the current market. It's really not a big deal, once you consider the market cap & no regulations to get in the way. Well, no regulations is maybe stretching it - given the premium on Chinese exchanges, I assume you're arguing that the pumping took place mostly on Chinese exchanges (i.e. CNY->BTC)? |
|
|
|
How so? You believe there's a simpler explanation for the recent rise?
Sure, a few, the begging one being pump & dump. Because P&D happen in crypto. Maybe. It'd have required a lot of P over several weeks, however. I'm not convinced P&D's the simplest explanation. Maybe I'm just conservative when it comes to the power of whales and manipulators in the current market. |
|
|
|
^^ So much for Occam's Razor  How so? You believe there's a simpler explanation for the recent rise? |
|
|
|
I think it was Bobby Lee who first raised the spectre of MMM over the Chinese exchanges, right after he promised the PRC government that BTC was a speculative instrument and would not in any way - no sirree - be used to move money out of China, in the wake of China unbanning Bitcoin (again). (I tried to dig out a link to Bobby Lee's comments, but everything I've found is from November, and mostly the last two or three days. This recent New York Times article, for example. I'm pretty certain Lee first mentioned this back in October, however). My working theory (applying Occam's Razor) throughout the recent rise has been that people on China have been hedging against continuing CNY devaluation.and then they stopped hedging one week later at $500 and dumped it all the way to $295? possible, but does not seem likely No it doesn't. A couple of assumptions there, however: 1. "One week later". There was a premium for BTC on Chinese exchanges for a lot longer than a week. I mentioned I first saw Bobby Lee's article in October, and of course BTC price has been rising for a lot longer than a week. 2. "They [Chinese traders, presumably] stopped hedging ... and dumped it". Or the dump was caused by non-Chinese traders taking profits, which, given the premium on Chinese exchanges at the time, seems more likely! I'm assuming Chinese traders are still concerned about CNY devaluation, but now they're also faced with BTC heading sharply South. I suspect they're continuing to use BTC as a vehicle to get out of CNY, the only change being that they're more likely going to prefer USD (or similar) to BTC. |
|
|
|
Thanks! After fiddling with it this morning, I discovered that I am getting an error in the database.php file. Cannot instantiate non-existent class: mysqli I'm not anywhere near a development box to test this, so it's possible this is a red herring, but... There's a compile-time flag for mysqli - PHP needs to be compiled with the flag set. It's also version-dependent. My first assumption would be that the version of PHP you're running against doesn't have mysqli enabled (if you're running this on a hosted server your host's sys admin may be able to solve this for you. If you're running it on your own server it'll be very much OS-specific, but I might be able to help). |
|
|
|
MMM ponzi company fuckers.
Not even plausible. The bullshit thing has been open since 2012 accepting Bitcoin. There is no reason whatsoever it would just suddenly start having a huge effect to raise the price in the last 2 weeks. I think it was Bobby Lee who first raised the spectre of MMM over the Chinese exchanges, right after he promised the PRC government that BTC was a speculative instrument and would not in any way - no sirree - be used to move money out of China, in the wake of China unbanning Bitcoin (again). (I tried to dig out a link to Bobby Lee's comments, but everything I've found is from November, and mostly the last two or three days. This recent New York Times article, for example. I'm pretty certain Lee first mentioned this back in October, however). My working theory (applying Occam's Razor) throughout the recent rise has been that people on China have been hedging against continuing CNY devaluation. |
|
|
|
They are many difficulty words in your saying...it will take me a long time to translate them and then it is not sure that i will undertand the right meaning.
Why don't you take the time to understand what I'm saying, because the rest of your reply might change if you made the effort to understood what my concerns are. In the meantime, if I see you claim either of your systems are "risk free" I'll stick a negative trust rating on your account and get on with my life rather than try and explain what mistake you're making. |
|
|
|
How exactly is your system risk free? Is there a trusted third-party hedge against the risk that you default? Are you able to name this insurance provider so that a potential investor can independently assess your claim and so investors can reclaim their investment from the insurance provider in the event they lose contact with you? Or is it the case that if you disappear, the funds that investors have invested also disappear? Or do you still not regard "you" as part of "your system"?
You are 100% right. If I disappear...all investment disappears... This does not mean that my system is "not risk free" My system is "risk free" but not my managing. I have already seen: Risk free babby seats. This does not mean that the babby is 100% sagfe in this seat. it is same about our discussion. I propose 2 systems. A is a risk free system B is a risky system. I agree that it is risky to invest in both because all the reasons you talk about. To resume: it is risky to invest in winspiral's risk free system...(lol) ... Of course it means your system isn't risk free. If it didn't, we could say that holding funds on MtGox was "risk free". If it didn't, we could say that "investing" money in a ponzi is "risk free". You - winspiral - do not operate a risk free system. You are a part of your system, and you are a risk - whether you like it or not, whether you accept that or not. Even assuming that you're a paragon of virtue and would never run away with other peoples' money there are other ways investors could lose their money. You burying your head in the sand and pretending otherwise doesn;t alter that. Dude, people look at your system and - rightly or wrongly - think it's dodgy. You know that - you're sensitive to comparisons with ponzis. You should be doing all you can to reassure potential investors that it's not. Instead you're running around making claims that - at best - you don't understand, and - at worst - are downright untrue. That doesn't reassure potential investors. There's nothing wrong with risk - risk is the flip-side of reward, we expect to take risks with our investments - but there is everything wrong with dishonesty. Pretending you can separate risk posed by the exchange operator from the overall risk of holding funds on the exchange, the ponzi operator from the ponzi, or you from whatever-it-is-you're-operating - these are all incorrect, dishonest, false. |
|
|
|
Ok I will rename it differently:
My system is "risk free" but it is "not risk free" for investors because the sky can fall on our head...(refering to Asterix and Obelix)
...
Excellent - but your system is not risk free. You are a part of your system. You are a risk. You may default. You may have your wallet hacked, for example (I assume you don't have insurance to cover such an eventuality? I assume you're in no way regulated?) If we discount "you" as a risk, we'd then have to discount MtGox (the exchange) as a risk, and discount ponzi operators as a risk. In real life this is not how risk is assessed. In real life this is why government bonds are not risk free (even though they're the closest we can get to a risk free investment - and even then, governments can and do default). Ok I will rename it differently: My system is risk free but not your investment.(lol) How exactly is your system risk free? Is there a trusted third-party hedge against the risk that you default? Are you able to name this insurance provider so that a potential investor can independently assess your claim and so investors can reclaim their investment from the insurance provider in the event they lose contact with you? Or is it the case that if you disappear, the funds that investors have invested also disappear? Or do you still not regard "you" as part of "your system"? |
|
|
|
life is full of risks like you mentioned one example If we discount "you" as a risk, we'd then have to discount MtGox (the exchange) as a risk good example but life is full of this And investment in particular - we tolerate risk in the hope of receiving a reward. But that doesn't mean we should ignore "investments" that make false claims. |
|
|
|
Ok I will rename it differently:
My system is "risk free" but it is "not risk free" for investors because the sky can fall on our head...(refering to Asterix and Obelix)
...
Excellent - but your system is not risk free. You are a part of your system. You are a risk. You may default. You may have your wallet hacked, for example (I assume you don't have insurance to cover such an eventuality? I assume you're in no way regulated?) If we discount "you" as a risk, we'd then have to discount MtGox (the exchange) as a risk, and discount ponzi operators as a risk. In real life this is not how risk is assessed. In real life this is why government bonds are not risk free (even though they're the closest we can get to a risk free investment - and even then, governments can and do default). |
|
|
|
We're not talking about life, we're talking about the system you promote - a system which is not 100% risk free, due to the risk that you default. By not acknowledging the risk you represent, you are pretending you are 100% trustworthy. Clearly you are not (you'll recall that the first time I raised this with you I used the example of US government bonds - and how even they can not be considered risk free due to the risk that the US government defaults). If that were the case people would be able to claim that ponzis were 100% safe - they continued paying out right up to the point when the promoter decided not to pay out any more.
Why do you argument with a ponzi if my site is not a ponzi? If you are not able to argument about my system then you are out of topic. A ponzi is a risky system and i do not contest it. I don't claim your site is a ponzi. I've highlighted the relevant part of my argument above. I'm using ponzis as an example showing where your bizarre belief leads - if your belief (that the risk of a party defaulting shouldn't be included as "risk") was accepted, then there would be repercussions - ponzis, for example, would echo your arguments and claim that they were 100% safe - because we can now ignore the risk that the ponzi operator runs away with all the money. Since this is all ponzis do, ponzis would be - by your definition - safe. Because we shouldn't count operator or exchange risk as a risk. |
|
|
|
it's an endless talk.
We do not talk about the same thing.
I talk about the system and you talk about the system owner...
Of course nothing is risk free...
signature campaign are then in same way not risk free
you publish and it is not sure that you will be paid.
I have paid my hosting for 2 years and it is a risk that the host fall down.
I talk about my system.
My system is "risk free".
Why do you argument with a ponzi if my site is not a ponzi?
If you are not able to argument about my system then you are out of topic.
A ponzi is a risky system and i do not contest it.
if you find the single risk in my system I will send back all investment and profit and close my site.
Unfortubnately for you you will not find because it is impossible to find a risk with a "risk free" system.
Ok...I agree you take the risk that I'm a scammer.
But this has nothing to see with my system.
If I want scam I have no need to run a scam site.
I sell ad-space and close my sites and disappear...
Why should I start to scam after 20 years webmastering?
You make me laugh like many other ones before you.
See mellowads...
it is down and all the advisers risk to loose all the invested sach and all publishers risk never see their publisher cash.
And we can all admit that the system is "risk free"...
the risk is aside...it's a perfect exemple.
With my system it is exactly the same...
The risk is aside...
And if something bad would happen...
the "pain" would be bigger for me that for the investors...
If you are not able to understand what I mean about "risk free" then I can not help you more...
I hope my investors have understood...what means "risk free"
We are talking about the same thing - the system. You are a part of your system. You will recall that when we first discussed this the example I used was of the US government - even US government bonds can not be described as "risk free" because of the risk that the US government defaults. You say that signature campaigns are not risk free - that is correct. It is also a red herring. Campaign managers running signature campaigns are not governments - why should they be less likely to default? "Risk free" has a specific meaning. I understand what that meaning is. You do not appear to. At least, I assume that that is the explanation - it is possible you understand perfectly well what it means, but choose to pretend otherwise. I linked to a Wikipedia article that explains "risk free bond" when we first discussed this. You should read it. It describes a theoretical investment used in modelling because actual risk free investments don't exist. Not even signature campaigns. With your system there is a risk that you default. Pretending otherwise is dishonest and scammy. You have a choice whether to misapply existing terms to deceive your "investors". I hope you choose instead to be honest. |
|
|
|
of course "risk free" is to see in limited way. External risks are always possible. But these risks are as well possible with risky systems. I have programmed 2 systems... one I call it risk free with profit after 100 days. the other one is risky because we have the risk to see the ROI only after 100 years or never. of course the aside risks are bigger with the second one because the plan lasts over 100 days. But aside risks are as well possible with sign campaigns... But neither system is "risk free" When you claim the first system is risk free you are being dishonest. The first time it was possible you simply didn't know any better, but by this point it's clear that you do know what risk free means, but you still choose to describe your system as risk free. That's dishonest. The system is 100% risk free... Of course the life is not risk free... I talk about my system N°1 for the system N°2 i say it is risky because the ROI can last... what is dishonnest in my saying? We're not talking about life, we're talking about the system you promote - a system which is not 100% risk free, due to the risk that you default. By not acknowledging the risk you represent, you are pretending you are 100% trustworthy. Clearly you are not (you'll recall that the first time I raised this with you I used the example of US government bonds - and how even they can not be considered risk free due to the risk that the US government defaults). If that were the case people would be able to claim that ponzis were 100% safe - they continued paying out right up to the point when the promoter decided not to pay out any more. |
|
|
|
of course "risk free" is to see in limited way. External risks are always possible. But these risks are as well possible with risky systems. I have programmed 2 systems... one I call it risk free with profit after 100 days. the other one is risky because we have the risk to see the ROI only after 100 years or never. of course the aside risks are bigger with the second one because the plan lasts over 100 days. But aside risks are as well possible with sign campaigns... But neither system is "risk free" When you claim the first system is risk free you are being dishonest. The first time it was possible you simply didn't know any better, but by this point it's clear that you do know what risk free means, but you still choose to describe your system as risk free. That's dishonest. |
|
|
|
trading and signature campaign i can earn daily income from it
and i think these two the best way how to earn bitcoin stable and continuous
only trading can you get every day and the signature campaign is only weekly, unless you join the sig camp yobit yeah they daily pay  By trading it is easier to say that to do... How can you say "only trading" knowing that after each trade we have globally a winner and a looser. Best way in investing in risk free systems where you are sure earning. Would you by any chance happen to operate such a "risk free system where you are sure earning"? |
|
|
|
Thanks, LMGTFY!
(Did you google that for me?)
Saw that one last night and it seems OK, but there aren't many available contracts there. More now than last night, though! Might have to play around with it. I'd suspect that eventually these markets will be more robust. For now, there must just not be enough playaz.
Ha, no! (I'd forgotten what my ancient username came from!) I've been trading on Coinut for a while - 6 months maybe? - and enjoying it! Their options are BTC/USD, bought and sold using BTC, which took me a while to get the hang of. I joined their signature campaign, first one I've joined, and I wouldn't do that unless I was fairly happy with them! I've been waiting for Quedex to open, as they do BTC/USD but also USD options (bought and sold in BTC, and I think that may make more sense to me). I've been waiting a while though! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
