Well, theymos, you just managed to start at least three new operations in about 45 minutes.
Heh, maybe I should have tried harder to get a BS&T account so I could have run this myself.  I don't think pirate's a scammer by any means, but the growing impact any catastrophe that might befall him or BS&T would have on the network is starting to scare me.
I do tend to think it's a Ponzi scheme, so I view it as a form of gambling. Hopefully no one else is gambling more than they can afford to lose. |
|
|
|
I'm going to buy 80 shares. |
|
|
|
It has been compromised in the past, so it likely will again in the future. You should simply just not use StartCom, especially after you've been hacked yourself. StartCom should have been completely blacklisted in browsers.
Comodo, USER-TRUST, and even Verisign have also been compromised in the past, and there's no chance that they'll be removed from browsers because they're so popular. Lots of governments also have their own probably-insecure CAs which are accepted by all browsers. The CA system is a lost cause. |
|
|
|
Okay, I will adjust TYGRR-P or TYGRR.P to this.
100% uninsured bonds at 6.5% weekly. (as requested by theymos)
Let me change the contracts. IPO will be Tuesday.
Awesome! |
|
|
|
If you're going to do this, why even put it on GLBSE? Just make a forum posting offering to deposit in the btcst account. People send the btc straight to account holder and they forward to pirate. This avoids the GLBSE fees and reduces the number of steps needed. In fact, there's already a bunch of these. If the argument is that there can be bidding, then go ppt.x.  GLBSE makes it much easier to keep track of depositors and make payments. |
|
|
|
I can do it if the fee is reasonable.
What would a reasonable fee be?
Thanks.
I was thinking that it'd be reasonable for someone with a 7% BS&T account to pay 6.5% to the asset and keep the remaining amount. It doesn't cost much to run an asset like this, so even higher payout percentages are possible. |
|
|
|
|
I'd like to invest with Bitcoin Savings & Trust, but it's apparently pretty difficult to get an account and you can't get the best interest rate without risking tons of BTC. PPT is alright, but, as Meni Rosenfeld pointed out, the "insurance" is mostly meaningless and only makes figuring out the risk/reward more difficult.
I'd like to see a GLBSE asset like this:
- Each share represents 1 BTC invested in BS&T and gets weekly dividend payments equal to whatever BS&T pays minus a small fee for the owner of the asset.
- Every week at some predetermined time, the asset owner creates enough new shares to fill all bids of 1 BTC or more.
Anyone with a BS&T account want to do this?
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty strange. I have no idea why it would do that.
|
|
|
|
1) The SSL certificate is from a SSL provider that has been compromised.
It doesn't matter if a site uses a "weak" certificate authority, since any CA can override any other CA's certificates. (The CA system is terrible.) It's smartest to use the cheapest CA you can. |
|
|
|
|
While you have it decrypted to use it, it's vulnerable. This is true of any encryption.
|
|
|
|
|
My opinion is that giantdragon's no-refund policy is perfectly reasonable, and he doesn't deserve a scammer tag. This is different than bulanula's case because:
- mcorlett can't prove that he sent the BTC by accident.
- This trade wasn't done on the forum, so it feels "out of my jurisdiction".
- giantdragon had a stated no-refund policy.
- giantdragon is not saying ridiculous scammy things like bulanula is.
Still, I think it'd be most appropriate for giantdragon to refund the BTC just this once because mcorlett was confused about the no-refund policy. I'd feel better about trading with giantdragon if I knew he occasionally bent his rules to help out his customers in cases like this.
|
|
|
|
|
There isn't a complete set of rules.
Here are some of the most important rules/guidelines:
- No embedded NSFW images anywhere. NSFW links need to be marked as such.
- No discussion of how to find illegal trading sites. Discussion about the sites is OK.
- No off-topic posts. (This also covers spam.)
- No trolling.
- Topics should be in the correct section.
- Topics should not be pointless.
- Topic creation should not be annoying. There should not be too many topics about the same thing in a short time period, and individuals should not post too many topics. "Too many" depends on the quality of the topics.
|
|
|
|
how was the current threshold derived? has there always been a newbie "wait period" or was it added after-the-fact and the parameters tweaked? it's something i've suggested to a few other forums i've come across that have spam issues.
Originally there was no restriction. For a very short time the limit was just 50 posts. Then the current time+posts restriction was put in place. These numbers work alright. If I wanted to stick with newbie restrictions forever, I'd probably add some more restrictions so people couldn't lurk for 4 hours and then post 5 posts in a few minutes. It's planned to remove these newbie restrictions in the future, once the moderation system is improved. I don't like blocking drive-by contributors. It should require almost no effort for an unregistered user to post something. The low "barrier to contribution" is how 4chan and Wikipedia got so popular. |
|
|
|
|
Didn't Atlas say he was going to learn that?
|
|
|
|
|
They have a wide selection of IPs, though they're not using open proxies. IPs seen so far:
50.117.117.23
70.154.161.78
67.60.233.57
1.234.7.147
70.89.136.52
1.234.45.44
211.175.36.125
218.234.17.238
50.117.117.25
50.117.117.45
183.96.230.24
126.15.1.93
116.213.132.18
1.249.123.196
123.153.69.201
175.210.203.179
112.216.145.91
221.145.226.7
59.58.148.9
125.141.224.71
112.217.232.118
59.60.127.241
101.66.61.191
118.32.191.162
118.46.219.200
180.67.207.50
59.58.151.34
117.52.82.63
218.38.13.37
|
|
|
|
i am curious to know whether the newbie rules have stopped any spam. i do not mind waiting a few hours (and a few posts) in order to report a bug with one of the mining apps. having a large aversion to spammers, i'd really like to know if this rule has resulted in effective spam reduction.
It has been very effective in stopping spam. There is no spam outside of the newbie-accessible sections. It's also fairly effective at deterring trolls, since "drive-by" trolling is eliminated (as well as drive-by contributing, unfortunately...), and getting banned means you have to go through the newbie process again. |
|
|
|
It's come to a point now that BS&T has been running for so long now that if it is a ponzi (which I don't think it is) and he is planning on running away with the funds, I'd honestly have to give him credit for being able to put together such a long lasting and elaborate scheme. Don't get me wrong, I'd still want my money back, but I'd have to say that he had me fooled pretty well if it was a ponzi.
It hasn't really existed that long. Most Ponzi schemes last at least a few months. Genius Funds lasted more than three years. |
|
|
|
In dragon's case was the complainant a donator ?
Yes. |
|
|
|
So basically the minority would automatically form their own network if they used different client software from the rest, right?
Pretty much. I'd say that the people changing the rules would be the ones creating a new network, though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
