|
As of this moment, JD is profitable again....thanks celeste!
|
|
|
|
It is your share of the bankroll on 1300 BTC essentially. So if you have 1% of the bankroll, you receive 13 BTC
Okay, thanks. Don't be too hard on yourself over this dooglus. When you look back on this a year from now it'll just be a minor speedbump you encountered enroute to success. Keep up the good work, but don't work too hard and stress yourself out. Sounds like you need something else to take your mind off of JD from time to time. |
|
|
|
|
If the illegitimate bets had been winning bets, would the bettor have been paid? (allowed to withdraw) I hope not. Likewise, because the illegitimate bets were losing bets, the investors should not profit from them. I say reverse the illegitimate bets, if at all possible.
Just let us know when a final decision has been made on what, if anything, is going to be done to resolve it so we can determine what to do. How does an investor calculate how much he profited from these illegitimate bets?
|
|
|
|
TradeFortress, I tried to make a withdrawal from my CoinLenders account a while ago, but it's still not appearing in my Inputs.io wallet. Can you please look into it?
Resolved. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
TradeFortress, I tried to make a withdrawal from my CoinLenders account a while ago, but it's still not appearing in my Inputs.io wallet. Can you please look into it?
|
|
|
|
Mt Gox Last. I'm not sure what the fees are for sending cash via Moneygram. If it's less than $50 I'm willing to pay their fees. That is, I would sell you $1500 in BTC for $1450 in cash. I would have to have the fiat in hand before sending the BTC, unless you want to use, and are willing to pay for, escrow.
MGL is currently $98.60, so $1500 / $98.60 = 15.213 BTC for $1450.
Danny Hamilton is free. I'll use him. He has a note in his signature that says "(Escrow unavailable July 13 through July 24)". I'm currently working out a smaller deal with another forum member and we are considering using Dabs as escrow. He is currently charging 0.5%. If that deal goes through smoothly, then I'll be willing to use him again if you want. |
|
|
|
What's MGL? I'll do this if you can sell $1500. Fees are on you.
Mt Gox Last. I'm not sure what the fees are for sending cash via Moneygram. If it's less than $50 I'm willing to pay their fees. That is, I would sell you $1500 in BTC for $1450 in cash. I would have to have the fiat in hand before sending the BTC, unless you want to use, and are willing to pay for, escrow. MGL is currently $98.60, so $1500 / $98.60 = 15.213 BTC for $1450. |
|
|
|
|
Doesn't have to be one buyer, willing to sell smaller amounts to multiple buyers. I'm also willing to transact in person at Pechanga Casino, for those in the Temecula, CA area. Escrow welcome.
|
|
|
|
Congratulations Jon! This news and the BF's recent response to California's C&D letter are very encouraging! ...I think he likes bitcoins but kinda hurts our image, remember he is a radical. We really don't need those people in our corners, let alone be the face of bitcoin.
Actually, what we don't need are weak, timid souls that want to appease incompetent government bureaucrats and monopolistic bankers who are primarily interested in preserving the status quo. Jon Matonis is a great choice and exactly the kind of person we need to have in our corner. |
|
|
|
I despise software patents. Being legally able to stop someone using a cool idea because "I thought of it first" (or, worse, "you thought of it first but I told the government man about it first") is abhorrent to me, and I want no part of it.
It's nuggets like this that attest to your integrity. You seem to detest the world's real scammers. Glad to be an investor! |
|
|
|
Holy shit!  Bank profit up 100%! Too bad dooglus can't give him free drinks like they do in Vegas! |
|
|
|
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you say, "I disagree on every level except the binary 'someone is trustworthy or they aren't' level." What is it specifically that you disagree with? You said There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy. Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.
This seems to imply that there's no such thing as partial trust. There are things that anyone can do to partially gain my trust. I see. That's not what I meant. I meant there is no way for someone to prove they are 100% completely trustworthy and eliminate every possibility that you will get scammed. Huh? There's nothing to interpret. You're reading way too much into my statement. There is no hidden message to decipher.
Why exactly don't you want to make a bet? With a bet, you tie up no capital and have a positive EV. Because I can invest whatever amount I'm willing to risk with JD on the side of the house, which also has a positive EV. I believe JD is a lot less likely to turn out to be a scam than you do. But, if I'm wrong, I only lose what I was willing to risk. |
|
|
|
There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy. Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.
I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient. I agree that there are levels of trustworthiness and we all have different criteria for deciding who we want to trust, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust. This statement is a little wonky. "Proving that they will never violate trust" is an absolute: it's white, 1, one bit. Levels of trustworthiness are probabilities that the person will not violate the trust. I can consider someone to be very trustworthy, but there is nothing they can do to prove that they are absolutely trustworthy and will not scam you in the future. Nothing wonky there, just a simple fact. You said: there are levels of trustworthiness but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust. i.e. trust is a gradient attaining 100% trust is impossible This was in defense of: There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy. Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before. i.e. attaining 100% trust is impossible attaining 0% trust is possible To which I had responded, I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient. i.e. attaining partial trust is possible Do you see how your statement doesn't contradict mine? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you say, "I disagree on every level except the binary 'someone is trustworthy or they aren't' level." What is it specifically that you disagree with? Yes, there is more than one way to make money, but if what I'm doing now works, why bother? Thanks, but if I want to make/risk more money, all I need to do is invest more.
There are only two ways I can interpret this statement: 0. You (nimda) do not provide a higher reward/risk than my current options AND 1. My current options are perfectly scalable OR 2. My investable money is less than the amount needed to break #1, i.e. bringing its reward/risk lower than your option I'm skeptical of #0 (i.e. both ways) and #1. Huh? There's nothing to interpret. You're reading way too much into my statement. There is no hidden message to decipher. |
|
|
|
There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy. Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.
I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient. I agree that there are levels of trustworthiness and we all have different criteria for deciding who we want to trust, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust. This statement is a little wonky. "Proving that they will never violate trust" is an absolute: it's white, 1, one bit. Levels of trustworthiness are probabilities that the person will not violate the trust. I can consider someone to be very trustworthy, but there is nothing they can do to prove that they are absolutely trustworthy and will not scam you in the future. Nothing wonky there, just a simple fact. Bitcoin eliminates the need to trust bankers and their currencies. With bankers out of the loop, we each individually have to decide who we are going to trust when we transact or invest. That's inescapable. Yes, some have scammed, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to scam, just because they have the opportunity to.
It means that the chance of scam is higher. The fact that many other people have scammed and gotten away with it increases the risk here. I never said that everyone is going to scam, nor did I claim with 100% certainty that dooglus is going to scam. Bitcoin definitely provides an opportunity to scam, there is no denying that. When investing, we just have to agree on a way to minimize that temptation and determine who is most likely to resist that temptation. If I have doubts about their ability to resist that temptation, I stay away from them. I believe having a diversified portfolio is the best way for me to "hedge" my investments and protects me from having something go horribly wrong with one of them.
If we disagree on the probabilities of outcomes, there is always money to be made. There is also money to be made by investing in projects run by individuals that I consider to be competent and trustworthy. That's been working well for me so far. That's a rather silly statement. You say it like you're contradicting me or giving a reason to avoid my offer, but you haven't actually put forth a logical objection. I'm offering you a chance to make more money, by way of a hedge that has, from your estimated probabilities, a positive expected value. I stand by my above statement, that there is money to be made, until you can offer an actual opposing argument rather than a pattern-matched statement pretending to be an argument. There is money to be made in selling salt. There is also money to be made in selling pepper. This latter fact does not contradict the first statement, and it does not mean that pepper vendors should not sell salt. Yes, there is more than one way to make money, but if what I'm doing now works, why bother? Thanks, but if I want to make/risk more money, all I need to do is invest more. |
|
|
|
There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy. Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.
I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient. I agree that there are levels of trustworthiness and we all have different criteria for deciding who we want to trust, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust. What is it about dooglus that causes this concern? I understand there are others in this forum that have scammed in the past, but what does this have to do with him? Was he even associated with any of them? He's using an anonymous, chargeback free, legal gray-area currency, and we know little more about him than his exceptionally common (purported) real name. He has very strong economic incentives to take the money and run. The fact that others have scammed gives us a lot of information: - Anonymous people here often favor the economic incentive to scam over the moral / reputational incentive not to - Post count / duration on board is not a reliable indicator of trust - A significant portion of the trusted people here have simply been pulling long-cons (These actually do affect the likelihood that dooglus will scam, because probability.) - People are usually unable to recover stolen bitcoins. Bitcoin eliminates the need to trust bankers and their currencies. With bankers out of the loop, we each individually have to decide who we are going to trust when we transact or invest. That's inescapable. Yes, some have scammed, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to scam, just because they have the opportunity to. I still think theft is the most probable scenario.
Another possibility: What if dooglus accidentally lights every copy of his offline wallet on fire simultaneously? Are investors protected?
There are ways to protect from this, yes. That does not answer the question at hand: "are investors protected?" It also completely dodges the intent of the analogy, destroying any hopes I had for a reasonable conversation. "I'm worried about alien abduction" "What happens if our log cabin spontaneously combusts while the whole town is inside, will we be ok?" "Fire extinguishers exist in some countries." I'm not qualified to answer these questions, because I don't know all of the specific security measures he has in place. I'm less concerned about the integrity of dooglus than I am about the malicious intent of a thief or a government bureacrat. These questions aren't related to that. I'm leaving the quote tree here so that you can see what you're responding to. This whole subthread of our conversation is useless.I agree. I believe having a diversified portfolio is the best way for me to "hedge" my investments and protects me from having something go horribly wrong with one of them.
If we disagree on the probabilities of outcomes, there is always money to be made. There is also money to be made by investing in projects run by individuals that I consider to be competent and trustworthy. That's been working well for me so far. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't be investing any BTC with him if getting scammed was my main concern. This is one of those statements that sounds intuitive (e.g. "follow your dreams"), but doesn't actually prove anything. I wasn't trying to prove anything. In fact, I like what friedcat has to say about trustworthiness, in the first question found in this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg1088045#msg1088045"...trustworthiness can only be disproved." There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy. Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before. Getting scammed is my main concern, yet I do have BTC invested. Serious injury or death is my main concern when I skydive. I still do it.
What is it about dooglus that causes this concern? I understand there are others in this forum that have scammed in the past, but what does this have to do with him? Was he even associated with any of them? I still think theft is the most probable scenario.
Another possibility: What if dooglus accidentally lights every copy of his offline wallet on fire simultaneously? Are investors protected?
There are ways to protect from this, yes. That does not answer the question at hand: "are investors protected?" It also completely dodges the intent of the analogy, destroying any hopes I had for a reasonable conversation. "I'm worried about alien abduction" "What happens if our log cabin spontaneously combusts while the whole town is inside, will we be ok?" "Fire extinguishers exist in some countries." I'm not qualified to answer these questions, because I don't know all of the specific security measures he has in place. I'm less concerned about the integrity of dooglus than I am about the malicious intent of a thief or a government bureacrat. These questions aren't related to that. I can only speak for myself. But, the reason I haven't invested more is because of physical security concerns, not because I'm worried about getting scammed by dooglus.
Are you a betting man? I have some odds you might want to look at. No. I am an investor though. Every bitcoin investment requires an element of trust. I invest in individuals that I consider to be competent and trustworthy and spread the risk accordingly. If I was worried about everyone being a scammer, I'd just put my BTC in a paper wallet and let them sit. Are you a hedging man? I have some potentially profitable odds you might want to look at. I believe having a diversified portfolio is the best way for me to "hedge" my investments and protects me from having something go horribly wrong with one of them. |
|
|
|
He's an outlier. Would you like hundreds of links to people who made the mistake of not being concerned about scammers? How about Pirate, who was so trusted as to have an OTC rating in the several-hundreds?
I didn't say I wasn't concerned about scammers. If dooglus ends up being a scammer, then I assume responsibility for my loss because I chose to trust the wrong person. There are ways to reduce the risk, I just don't think raising the commission accomplishes this, and dooglus being a scammer is not the only risk that investors are assuming. My initial quote was: I'm more worried about someone figuring out where he lives and stealing the computer that contains the offline wallet.
That is not what you should be concerned about... ... thus implying that you should be more concerned of a scam than a theft, especially since doog uses a cold wallet. I wouldn't be investing any BTC with him if getting scammed was my main concern. Another possibility: What if the authorities decide his site is illegal and decide to confiscate the computer with the offline wallet? Are investors protected from such a scenario?
I still think theft is the most probable scenario. Another possibility: What if dooglus accidentally lights every copy of his offline wallet on fire simultaneously? Are investors protected? There are ways to protect from this, yes. I can only speak for myself. But, the reason I haven't invested more is because of physical security concerns, not because I'm worried about getting scammed by dooglus.
Are you a betting man? I have some odds you might want to look at. No. I am an investor though. Every bitcoin investment requires an element of trust. I invest in individuals that I consider to be competent and trustworthy and spread the risk accordingly. If I was worried about everyone being a scammer, I'd just put my BTC in a paper wallet and let them sit. |
|
|
|
He's an outlier. Would you like hundreds of links to people who made the mistake of not being concerned about scammers? How about Pirate, who was so trusted as to have an OTC rating in the several-hundreds? I didn't say I wasn't concerned about scammers. If dooglus ends up being a scammer, then I assume responsibility for my loss because I chose to trust the wrong person. There are ways to reduce the risk, I just don't think raising the commission accomplishes this, and dooglus being a scammer is not the only risk that investors are assuming. Another possibility: What if the authorities decide his site is illegal and decide to confiscate the computer with the offline wallet? Are investors protected from such a scenario? I can only speak for myself. But, the reason I haven't invested more is because of physical security concerns, not because I'm worried about getting scammed by dooglus. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
