These posts will never end will they?
no, they won't |
|
|
|
|
He might have chosen not the best word "proven";
BUT
It is not unethical to do risk assessment and with that particular "investment" the risk is HUMONGOUS.
It is however extremely unethical and most likely unlawful and maybe even illegal to promote to newcomers an investment schemes which any reasonable person shall consider as a potential scam and probably a ponzi scheme.
|
|
|
|
A currently operating Ponzi scheme offered 7% per week, which is equal to 3,300% per year. Some stupid buggers actually "invested" money. Some still believe they will be paid back with interest.
What are you talking about? I have not heard of any proven Bitcoin-based Ponzi schemes. I suppose the operator of that nonproven Bitcoin-based Ponzi scheme needs to come out and sue for libel. Dare ya! |
|
|
|
|
I respect Nefario a lot, whatever it worth. GLBSE is indeed a very interesting experiment. You know how they say ohh Bitcoin is an experiment, then move on to "monopoly money", then move on to "BTC is not a property". I really think that GLBSE is a great experiment unlike describer "Bitcoin experiment" excuse to scam EVE-like.
Having said that, there is a simple and indisputable truth. No legitimate business with at least some minimal accounting or legal council and incorporated in any English speaking country will not touch GLBSE or anything similar with a barge pole. This is indeed mostly a scamfest. I suppose this is so far the result of GLBSE "experiment".
"Global Bitcoin Scammer Exchange" is unfortunately pretty close to reality, whether we like it or not.
@honest bob: "pirates angrier investors privately requested him to lock the thread" Please! "investors" paying someone 3k% annually?
yep shares of popcorn are going to rise rather soon.
P.S. Pleasure to stumble upon a thread with like two pages of reasonable posts.
|
|
|
|
One question that pops in my mind regularly is : how would he cash out those 100k BTC ? MtGox would trace him down. Use torwallet / bitcoin fog ? BTC-e russian scammer exchange that does not care about taint coins ? GPUMAX - pirate himself said that he does not care about stolen / tainted coins ?
I am very interested as to how he will cash out the BTC to USD if this does turn out to be a scam.
For all we know most of it potentially could have been cashed out already. There must be a reason for all that unnatural stability around 5$ since February. For all we know it hypothetically could be an endless supply of "invested" BTC sold just around 5$ mark. Tripple tap: 1. liquidation done slowly, 2. keep speculators desperate for volatility starve them of any action, push "growth" "investors" into "value" "investing". 3. Cash out before people run to track tainted coins. Makes sense. |
|
|
|
... surely a legitimate business should be able to survive a single client leaving, right?
Now, hypothetically speaking let's for just a second, lol, assume that here is indeed a ponzi scheme, and this ponzi scheme has announced that soon it will significantly lower "the interest" at some given date. This hypothetical ponzi scheme has also made some announcement that it's principal who remained anonymous for long time will magically appear at some meetup (with "private security") just a few days before the interest cut-off date and reveal to the world his identity. The question is: Why our hypothetical ponzi scheme would make such moves? The only plausible answer I can see is that this is an attempt to create an incentive for investors to postpone the decision on withdrawing "the investments" until the cut-off date and play on healthy curiosity of most of the hopium smoking victims. Thus this is creating a window of maximum opportunity for said hypothetical ponzi master to have all the money suddenly "evaporated" right before expected miracle of ceasing being anonymous and actually instead of it. Now, for another second let's equally hypothetically speaking assume that this is indeed not a ponzi but some miracle worker with some troubles rising low cost capital. Why would such a legitimate gentleman all of the sudden decide to go public on some second tier meet up? Right before dramatical change of "interest" date and after ignoring persistent calls to come clean for very long time, no less. Why not just have a website and post registration details of a relevant company? Curiosier and curiosier. Ive noted this before, him making himself visible in public in vegas would be his worst move if he does intend to run off with the funds. I said this before but I will say it again, he will NOT be able to vanish completely before some people will catch up to him out of principal due to organized crime that took place against these investors. "if he does intend to run off with the funds." after revealing his identity -> Yes. "if he does intend to run off with the funds." before and instead of revealing his identity -> No. "if he does NOT run off with the funds." and instead reveals his identity -> WOW, no comments. You assumption does not cover all range of eventualities. Fail. To summarise, No ponzi scheme have ever gone out in public before running off with peoples money however they either got caught as the house started to crumble and people not receiving steady flow of interest anymore or they got caught later on by people tracking them down since they never made their real identity public.
They did not had Bitcoin and Tor and supid 80% of Bitcoin public in their arsenal. So this actually could be the first time. I did not try to trace this however, and have no idea how good he is at being anonymous. But we know that it is doable with some effort. These 2 scenarios is why I cant believe this is a scam to run off with peoples money, it makes no sense and he will be brutally fked up if he even decides to do that.
You completely missed the point of my post and illogically jumped to false conclusion. Is anyone here capable of logical reasoning. Anyone? |
|
|
|
i haven't read much describing this as possibly being an attack against bitcoin itself. we worry endlessly about defending against a 51% attack, but we put our head on the chopping block with this ponzi-like scheme. if someone were trying to smear bitcoin, a story describing the several million dollar "bitcoin ponzi" collapse would be something that would spread wide and far. can you picture the post-mortem reported in gawker? it will be written in a way where there is no sympathy given. like ... "guys the fact that it was run by a person called pirate should have been your first clue. all the markings of a ponzi were ignored. you deserved to lose ever penny you idiots".
I think that this would not be a viable attack on Bitcoin. As it was suggested by people previously evolutionary cleansing of bitcoin population, might be actually a healthy thing long term for Bitcoin. Fools and money and all that. But being on receiving side of such humiliation is not that much enjoyable at all. Being associated indirectly with all the losers via Bitcoin is not that much fun either. At least I'll get on my usual "I told you so" bandwagon. |
|
|
|
|
Too bad I never do any bets (yea I know, it could be a great hedging avenue for some, but I have nothing to hedge).
The problem with those bets is, there is at least one person who knows exactly the outcome or (maybe) can change the outcome depending on the odds at any point in time. I would not want to play against such kind of house edge.
|
|
|
|
|
hgmichna, exactly.
The name of the game is:
One, who pulls his money first, wins.
|
|
|
|
|
Ponzi "investors" shall be more worried about return of capital, as opposed to return on capital. Specifically between now and miracle of anonymous operator ceasing being anonymous event that is reportedly scheduled to happen a few weeks down the road.
|
|
|
|
Ok, let's play through a scenario..
...
1) How does any of the above not match with Pirate?
2) How is any of the above not reasonable?
Awesome, some reasonable post finaly. Thanks. This could explain the many intermediaries thing, though it is still much cheaper to hire help than to sacrifice significant part of revenue. Absence of "leaches" will also mean less fanatical forum coverage. |
|
|
|
Right lets short bitcoin to get more of it. It might be simpler than ponzi, but it also needs to be plausible.
Have you seen how many times we were on an uptick in price and a wall showed up out of nowhere to kill it and bring us back down? Its plausible. Now who is being stubborn and refusing to accept the easiest solution? Do entertain us and provide a simple explanation for your "money laundering" hypothesis, simple enough that we can understand. It is not I am stubborn, it is you failing to argue your point concisely. Is anyone with "pirate is definitely not a ponzi" stance capable of forming a logical argument without a bunch of fallacies embedded in it? |
|
|
|
|
Right lets short bitcoin to get more of it. It might be simpler than ponzi, but it also needs to be plausible.
|
|
|
|
I've yet to figure out why Occam's razor says it must be a ponzi.
I'm guessing no one here has ever had a natural gas reserve or oil reserve found on their property. It has a stupid high amount of start up capital demands, pays stupidly well for a certain amount of time, then gradually fades out. That doesn't make it a ponzi.
Right and it is absolutely impossible to rise equity capital or bank loan with interest rates at about 3 orders of magnitude lower annual interest. Are you kidding? Ask a bank for a loan, they'll ask what its for. You tell them and they'll say no. Natural resource mining is actually a risky en devour and many banks won't touch it. So then you're asking 3rd parties for VC and you better believe they'll want more than 3% a year. ouch, you got me here. OK 2 orders of magnitude then. |
|
|
|
I've yet to figure out why Occam's razor says it must be a ponzi.
I'm guessing no one here has ever had a natural gas reserve or oil reserve found on their property. It has a stupid high amount of start up capital demands, pays stupidly well for a certain amount of time, then gradually fades out. That doesn't make it a ponzi.
Right and it is absolutely impossible to rise equity capital or bank loan with interest rates at about 3 orders of magnitude lower annual interest. |
|
|
|
... surely a legitimate business should be able to survive a single client leaving, right?
Now, hypothetically speaking let's for just a second, lol, assume that here is indeed a ponzi scheme, and this ponzi scheme has announced that soon it will significantly lower "the interest" at some given date. This hypothetical ponzi scheme has also made some announcement that it's principal who remained anonymous for long time will magically appear at some meetup (with "private security") just a few days before the interest cut-off date and reveal to the world his identity. The question is: Why our hypothetical ponzi scheme would make such moves? The only plausible answer I can see is that this is an attempt to create an incentive for investors to postpone the decision on withdrawing "the investments" until the cut-off date and play on healthy curiosity of most of the hopium smoking victims. Thus this is creating a window of maximum opportunity for said hypothetical ponzi master to have all the money suddenly "evaporated" right before expected miracle of ceasing being anonymous and actually instead of it. Now, for another second let's equally hypothetically speaking assume that this is indeed not a ponzi but some miracle worker with some troubles rising low cost capital. Why would such a legitimate gentleman all of the sudden decide to go public on some second tier meet up? Right before dramatical change of "interest" date and after ignoring persistent calls to come clean for very long time, no less. Why not just have a website and post registration details of a relevant company? Curiosier and curiosier. |
|
|
|
My hope is not necessarily to point out any negatives of Bitcoin Magazine, albeit that's exactly what I just did above
Pile it on! And thanks. We are watching and will do what it takes to get things on the next level. |
|
|
|
My having no respect for you is not an argument. It is a fact. :/
Stating irrelevant facts is not an argument either, actually it is another logical fallacy. Having delusions about your own "reputation" is not helping you at all too. |
|
|
|
|
BTW the poll results on the top of this thread are rather curious.
About 80% of respondents say "yay, we give him lots of money, gonna be rich soon"
About 20% of respondents say "are you damn brainless idiot?"
Now google "pareto principle", read, think.
|
|
|
|
Oh boy!!! Someone is stepping close to treasure. ATTACK!!!!!
And the fact that he pretends you're close is when in fact your explanation makes zero sense is a huge red flag. Indeed it is! walks like a duck... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
