Wow, that IS expensive. It's almost not the least expensive component of a PC. (err - a modern PC, so no optical drives, obviously)

Has the OP scammed anyone?

If not, he obviously is not a scammer. Bitcoin is sometimes used in scams. Should people selling Bitcoins be labeled scammers?

Maybe someone just wants to have an account with a little rep attached so they can sell their stuff without the usual flaming BS typically thrown at new members. Maybe not.

Allowing this type of activity on the forum allows newbies a powerful warning right in their face, instead of keeping these activities (which cannot reasonably be prevented) in the depths of IRC. This forum contains some of the most powerful arguments in favor of really THINKING about all the risks involved in transactions which is required in a world without chargebacks and other fraud protection.

They're not representative of humanity at large. They're representative of humanity at large in 15-20 years.

Erisian ideology is stronger than ever, because more than ever, society at large is supreme commander of fuckin' idiot. The dumber we are, as a whole, the smarter we, as individuals, think we are. That's the true cycle of revolutions, and why we're destined to become continually more stupid. The rise of Discordianism is nothing less than an indicator of an imminent cultural revolution. - And more pony porn.

Trolo-fucking-lo.

Fun fact: Disco kiddies are some of the angriest people I've ever met.

There is a "mandatory" fee in certain instances, to have your transaction included in a block. The QT client forces you to include a fee/bid/commission/whatever-you-want-to-call-it in those instances because to not do so would possibly cause your transaction to either never be processed, or take an exceptionally long time.

There's a fairly complete explanation here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

The fee structure has changed a few times, and there are a ton of variables involved in whether or not you could reduce or eliminate the fee in a non-QT client (since peers and miners' choices in settings also affect which transactions get through). It's generally a good idea to pay whatever QT wants, though, since it assumes everyone's using default inclusion/relay settings with regards to fees (I suspect the vast majority of peers and miners are using default settings).

After finally getting some caffeine in me after a few days' break, I JUST noticed you wrote "sexist," not "sexiest." I kept making this screwed-up face every time someone'd quote you. I'm so happy to've finally figure this mystery out.

^Moustakis' forum account

Might be poor connection with other peers...

Blockchain's showing some slowness in solving lately... Last block solved 33m ago, penultimate 1h16m ago.

It should average to roughly 10m each conf. However, because hashrate is rapidly increasing, it should be 6-10m, depending on how far beyond the last difficulty change we are.

It's always been on a 10m target. So, 15m is very unlikely (but possible), and 2h is unlikely (but very possible). Just some variance.

ETA: I misread -- I thought you meant 6 confs came in 2h, which'd be more normal.

Hey, D&T - you see what the SEC is using to base its claim on Pirate's offer being a regulated security - specifically, rather than a loan?

ETA: Don't bother typing up a response just yet. Looking at the block of text, again, and definitions on "common enterprise." (3) with the expectation that profits will be derived from the efforts of the promoter or a third party." seems iffy to me, too...

ETA2: SEC apparently operates on the "horizontal approach."
"The horizontal approach to common enterprise focuses on the relationship among investors in an economic venture." Integral to this approach is the pooling of investors' money in a common venture. The Eleventh Circuit correctly noted that "[m]ost circuits that have considered the issue [of what is a common enterprise] find it satisfied where a movant shows 'horizontal commonality,' that is the 'pooling' of investors' funds as a result of which the individual investors share all the risks and benefits of the business enterprise." http://blj.ucdavis.edu/archives/vol-5-no-2/Why-the-Common-Enterprise-Test.html#_ftn30

-But, because BTS&T didn't really modify ongoing contracts (which were on a weekly basis), how was pooling related to returns seen by lenders/investors when there was a set rate of return? Pooling (rather, continued and increasing investment) was required to keep the ponzi going, but the SEC makes a pretty strong case that BTS&T was a sham, not a legitimate business venture, where pooling would be more sensible. The SEC's own evidence shows Pirate claiming 0 or "almost 0" risk, where lenders/investors' money wouldn't be playing an integral role to the success or continuance of the venture. Is a ponzi with set weekly rates actually a "common enterprise" under that definition? Would their case fall apart if Pirate were just Pirate instead of "BTS&T"?

"For the common enterprise prong to be satisfied, horizontal commonality requires that an investor's assets be joined with another investor's assets into a joint venture where each investor shares the risk of profit and loss according to their individual investment."

ETA3: From SEC:
... The factors used to determine whether a note
sufficiently resembles these “non-securities” and, thus, is not a security under the federal
securities laws are: (1) the motivations that would prompt a reasonable buyer and seller to enter
into the transaction; (2) the plan of distribution of the instrument; (3) the reasonable expectations
of the investing public; and (4) whether some factor, such as the existence of another regulatory
scheme, significantly reduces the risk of the instrument, thereby rendering application of the
securities laws unnecessary. Id. at 65-67. Here, the transaction between Defendants and the
BTCST investors had all the earmarks of an investment, suggesting a security, and no
commercial or consumer aspect, as with the judicially-enumerated instruments that are not
securities. The BTCST investments were offered and sold to a broad segment of the public as
Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Order to Show Cause, Asset Freeze and Other Ancillary Relief
investments. Moreover, no risk-reducing factors existed to militate against a finding that the
BTCST investments were securities. No other regulatory agency oversees the BTCST
investments, and BTC itself is a virtual currency, with no single administrator, or central
authority or repository ....

So 1) the buyer/lender expects interest (and that was the term used)... 2) evidence needs to be given that Pirate claimed BTS&T was a program/investment (exists - see ETA4, but he does also call it a loan, and the weekly payments interest) 3) I definitely thought of it as a loan contract, not a security.... 4) no-brainer in favor of SEC's claims

ETA4: From complaint...
1*SEC calls gains from BS&T interest. "4. Shavers falsely promised investors up to 7% interest weekly based on BTCST’s
purported BTC market arbitrage activity, including selling BTC to individuals who wished to
buy BTC “off the radar,” quickly, or in large quantities."
2*SEC notes Pirate's thread was titled “Looking for Lenders,” (SEC notes it was on a subforum where investments were, but so what?)
1$ Quoted from Pirate: "I just wanted to thank all of my investors as I’m able to fulfill them without the risk of them going elsewhere." (in the next sentence, though, he uses the word "lenders" again)
3* Quoted from Pirate: "I take the risk personally." That indicates a loan, not a security. Even though we know that wasn't true, I'm not sure Pirate was representing a security rather than a loan. (if it were a loan, though, would any bureaucracies even have jurisdiction?)

The SEC, throughout the complaint, calls it an investment, but I wonder if Pirate's attorney will contest that. "et al" is pretty interesting, too. I wonder if they'll be bringing on more people...

ETA5: Final edit. $1m might be some type of magic line where a loan necessarily turns into a regulated security, but I can't find good verification, and my brain's shutting off. Time for some wine and relaxation.

I guess that mostly depends on if Pirate's actually still in the same damned apartment.

I don't think the SEC can have anything seized for a civil case, which may otherwise lead to damning evidence. ETA2: Not to say the available evidence isn't already damning...

ETA: D&T is going through the evidence much faster than I am, heh. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=261290.msg2799597#msg2799597

From D&T's post (my bold):
Here, the Commission easily makes a prima facie showing that Defendants: (1) operated
a Ponzi scheme in violation of Securities Act Section 17(a), and Exchange Act Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5; and (2) sold unregistered securities in violation of Securities Act Sections 5(a) and
5(c). Moreover, Shavers diverted BTCST investors’ BTC to a BTC currency exchange
headquartered in Japan, misappropriating it for his personal use. Given the nature the conduct
and these violations, a preliminary order freezing Defendants’ assets, authorizing expedited
discovery as to the location and extent of their assets, directing them to repatriate ill-gotten gains,
directing them to provide verified accountings, and requiring them to preserve evidence is appropriate
and necessary to preserve assets for possible recovery for victims of this fraud. For
the same reason, an order temporarily freezing Defendants’ assets and requiring the preservation
of evidence is warranted to preserve the status quo pending a preliminary injunction hearing.
^could be denied, though...

You know, though - I only just started really delving into the SEC evidence on the docket. It appears Moustakis did actually get a hold of Pirate/Shavers on the phone

25 on page 6

http://ia800904.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.txed.146063/gov.uscourts.txed.146063.4.1.pdf


Full address (this is the same address as was long-ago [mid-late 2012] alleged by forum sleuths) on http://ia600904.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.txed.146063/gov.uscourts.txed.146063.9.0.pdf

ETA: Very possible that apartment is vacant -- he didn't own it. http://www.apartmentguide.com/apartments/Texas/McKinney/Regency-At-Stonebridge/27487/ ETA2: Summons doesn't list it, but it's APT 1507 they want... Sent them an email asking about availability for giggles.

The bank they found connected to him has almost nothing in it (as of the time of the most recent statement the bank released)
http://ia600904.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.txed.146063/gov.uscourts.txed.146063.5.1.pdf

So.... the most interesting thing out of all that is that Moustakis apparently had a phone conversation with Pirate, but after going through everything the SEC & court submitted so far (h/t D&T for docket -- available @ http://ia800904.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.txed.146063/gov.uscourts.txed.146063.docket.html ), either Pirate really did stick around at the same apartment (which'd be dumb as shit), or they don't appear to know where he is.


ETA3: I wonder if the transaction log @ http://ia600904.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.txed.146063/gov.uscourts.txed.146063.4.8.pdf indicates they DID already seize stuff -- I can't find where it's indicated to've come from.

(ETA4: spreadsheet apparently WAS Pirate's, not payb.tc's)

When I'm thinking of the SEC's response, I'm comparing it to the Michael Brown prosecution.

Here's an article I wrote and publicly posted about Brown...

"Two Secret Service Raids Later, Previous Holder of Over $4m in BTC in Good Spirits

One man's world has been inarguably changed, for the better, and the worse, by Bitcoin. Through a shrewd and, what some have claimed dubious, business deal, Nashville, TN resident Michael Brown (known online as “Knightmb”) acquired 371,000 Bitcoins (then worth roughly $20,000 in a market which couldn't bear downward pressure) for $5,000. As of this writing, the 371,000 Bitcoins he purchased in 2011 are currently worth approximately $4m. Now, however, he may not only be Satoshi-less, but may also (again) be at risk of a stay in federal prison.

Who Is Michael Brown?
Brown lives in TN with his wife and child, working in just about everything technical. He provides wireless Internet service, designs hardware for other his company and other Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) to use, as well as software. Brown also works as network, email, and website administer for multiple SMBs. Brown is quite familiar with Bitcoin and within the earlier online community. Around 2010, Brown even wrote and published an abstract on “Timekoin,” a proposed Bitcoin alternative he still uses.

Brown's Bitcoins
Around the time of Bitcoin's birth, Brown collected money (the project had roughly $12,000 in total funding) and bought hashing power to accumulate Bitcoins. By the time the money had run out, the project owned approximately 371,000 Bitcoins. However, even while the price of Bitcoins were roughly $.06 each, there was only very weak market demand. According to Brown, “It is easy in hindsight to think of how foolish anyone would be to sell that large amount of bitcoins for such a small amount, but back then there were articles written all over the Internet about bitcoin being a pyramid scam or a fools investment. The people (investors) that originally got into it, thought they had made a huge investment mistake and just wanted to get out.” And get out they did, allowing Brown to buy the project and its 371,000 Bitcoins for “only” $5,000.

However, while this collection of Bitcoin would be worth roughly $4,000,000 USD as of this writing, Brown states he did give away most of his holdings, including a large chunk to Wikileaks when they began accepting BTC donations, with Brown adding the quip “At the time though, I might as well have been sending power points from pokemon cards as far as what actual value they would get from it.“ Brown also gave much of his holdings away to those finding his contact information, with the remainder being sold once the Bitcoin market skyrocketed, allowing him to “make back my initial investment plus a lot of interest.“

There have been claims of foul play by Brown's previous partners, who were primarily members of electric bicycle forum Endless-Sphere. Bitcoin Magazine reached out to Justin, the current owner of the forum (Brown previously owned the forum while the Bitcoin accumulation project was ongoing). However, as of this writing, no evidence was brought up indicating Brown had done anything morally questionable. While there was “a three day mutiny” against Brown while he owned the forum, it appears this was solely related to the sale of the forum to another person (not Justin) who wanted the forum to be monetized.


Tax Document Theft
In mid-2012, Mitt and Ann Romney's tax documents were stolen from their accounting firm, PWC. Later, PWC received a flash drive and ransom letter demanding $1m worth of Bitcoins to keep the documents private. These documents, as of today, were never released, though it would appear the Romneys never paid the ransom. BitInstant, for their part in grabbing the media's attention in this ordeal, offered the Romney campaign a free USD-to-BTC conversion should they be interested.

The flash drive in the envelope sent to PWC did not just contain copies of the documents the ransomer was threatening to release, but also included two pictures of cats around furniture. The cat pictures were heavily scrutinized by the US Secret Service and considered to be the smoking gun of the case, which Brown says “has kind of turned into a running joke now among friends and family.” The Secret Service then decided, likely with evidence not yet presented to the public, to conduct a raid against Michael Brown and his family's home (again).

Likely taken into consideration by the United States SS was Brown's previous acquaintance with SS agents during their last raid of his house, which occurred in 2009. At the time, Brown worked for an insurance company to help them neatly organize customers' personal information into a spreadsheet. Brown alleges that part of the information he was to organize were social security numbers, which he wasn't sure if was legal. Brown contacted the insurance company but wasn't given proper attention until he threatened to tell national media. Brown says, “They explained that no one should have access to any customer's social security number, but I was trying to show them it was wrong assumption. Soon afterward, instead of fixing the issue, they called the federal government and told them I had stolen their customer data which contained tens or hundreds of thousands of social security numbers.“ It was at this point Brown first experiences the joy of a federal raid, where only his workstation was seized (he would not be so lucky in the future).  According to Brown, “After many months and many visits to the Secret Service office in Nashville, the case was finally closed for being a waste of time and resources for the Secret Service and my workstation was returned (damaged). No charges were ever filed and the case dropped.“

The 2012 Raid
It was September 14th, 2012 when Brown and his wife would again awake to bright flashlights being shone in their faces by Secret Service agents. This time, agents demanded answers about the pictures of cats written to the USB drive included with the ransom letter sent to the Romneys' tax firm.

Unfortunately for the Secret Service, they soon found neither the cats nor the furniture pictured. This didn't prevent them from further interrogating Brown and his family, however. His daughter would later be able to identify the cats as being owned by one of Brown's former clients, Janine Bolin, whose computer he backed up for her while helping repair her system. The Secret Service left Brown's house after crawling around his attic and confiscating any electronics they could find. They then paid a visit to Bolin's house, where they'd again confiscate all electronic equipment in case it might have evidence.

Brown states legal fees may be as high as $6,000, with other damages including what was done to his house (including the stereotypical broken doors), and says the situation the US Secret Service has created is similar to if “your local plumber has his entire truck taken, along with all the tools he uses for the trade.” Brown appears in good spirits, however, saying “if I ever do get any/all of my equipment back, I'm going to have a lot of extra of the same thing at least.” Brown ends responding to my questions with “Overall, the Federal government is made up of regular people like myself. The Federal government makes mistakes and bad things happen because of it. The most our family can do is pick up our life and move on. That is why we were reaching out for help. There have been many times when I've donated money or resources to help those in need, I guess it is time I ask the same in return of my fellow man.”

Brown has created a site for donations at www.mbdonationfund.com."


Now - one day after I posted that article (June 26th), I was alerted to MB being formally indicted on the same day of me posting that article (pure coincidence -- I'm just pointing out how relatively fast the response was). There appears to have never been a search warrant on Pirate -- I seriously doubt the SEC knows where he is. There no reasonable motive on the MB case, and while "he" went after someone high on the totem pole, the rapid response in that case (he's already appeared in a court) versus the molasses-slow response here is very disappointing.

(Oh -- sorry for breaking my "I'll shut up, now" promise)

It started on the forum, though it probably originally started on an IRC channel, where Pirate established a reputation as a currency exchanger. Others in IRC who worked with Pirate gave him a lot of benefit-of-the-doubt because of his large volume of activities there without any sign of being a scammer.

He was basically just looking for loans on the forum when he posted. He'd claim to have a limited amount of availability, like someone responsible, but I don't think he ever actually ran into those "limits" with anyone.

@ "Why don't you think this will turn into an actual case?" - Because the SEC hasn't really given me any confidence with their post and complaint. They haven't verified his location, and it'd be totally unreasonable for Pirate to stay in the same place given he knew he'd been formally reported for tens of millions in fraud a year ago. When a USG LEO bureaucracy focuses on snagging someone, they generally don't give the guy advance warning. They come in unannounced, serve you an indictment, and detain. There's no indication of that happening. Ofc, this is a civil case, not a criminal case (for whatever reason...). Different play-set.

Right now, there's no information suggesting Pirate's in custody, over a year after he defrauded people out of tens of millions worth of USD. That doesn't inspire any confidence at all in the SEC's prosecution.

Try to hold it in for 30-60m.

Cry for 2h-4h. Usually end up having someone "comfort" me with "herp-a-derp, I'm sure he's lookin' down on you as a sky-fairy," and I'll spit back "Fucking classy, turning my X's death into your fucking man-in-the-sky joke."

Sigh, "whatever" for 60-180D. Usually deflect and can become suddenly grouchy about unrelated events during this time.

At some point after 2 months, I'll suddenly take the second wave of grief.

Then it's off my chest. If there are compounding major difficulties, that 60-180D can be multiplied by the number of compounding issues, and I can be in a grouchy funk for years.

Just takes time.

We don't know if there's any "demise." IIRC, "Trendon's" name and address were used around the Internet for domain registration, which had a few connections to other people and physical addresses. IIRC (again -- remember this "happened" a year ago, and people were trying to fully dox him while he was operating), he gave a name for his designer who was previously tied to domain registrations, giving credibility to the possibility that the Trendon Shavers people discovered was Pirate. He did physically meet up with major lenders at one point, and while he did give quite a few specifics about his alleged operation then to those people, he was still very evasive. We'd have a totally different situation here if someone at the physical meetup was ballsy enough to demand Pirate present ID, which Pirate may not have faked. (OTOH, if he did have a fake one, this'd be even more of a clusterfuck)

There are definitely people other than Pirate involved with GPUMax and his lending program. At one point, he told me "I have a group of coders that had it built, I have spent a lot of time on gpumax and didnt have the time to build it so I hired it out." It's concerning none of them have publicly come out, and the SEC's made no indication of even knowing them -- it's possible they never existed. If they didn't exist, I think it highly probable that "Trendon Shavers" is not Pirate.

ASIC, or Application-Specific Integrated Circuit, does pretty much what the name suggests. It does one calculation very efficiently.
FPGAs, or Field-Programmable Gate Arrays, are kind of a cross between GPUs, which are able to do relatively general computing, and ASICs, which are application-specific. FPGAs can usually do a small set of related tasks.
GPUs, compared to the two above, are most like a CPU. GPUs can do all sorts of different things, but in BTC mining, a lot of their hardware and instructions are going to waste, often even getting in the way of doing the actual mining. Nvidia and AMD/ATI do have their own "specialties," and this is why Nvidia cards are significantly worse at BTC mining than a similarly-priced ATI card, even though the Nvidia card could outperform the ATI card in other areas.

ASICs and FPGAs aren't really technological progressions beyond GPUs, just specialized hardware which has taken over the mining ecosystem due to their high efficiency, and the very specialized task required to hash in BTC.

You would be better off not trying to mine with GPUs, as difficulty is soaring (35-50%/month) due to ASICs finally being delivered. Unless you have free electricity, you'll be paying much more for BTC than just snagging them off an exchange or from a peer.

With all that said - for Nvidia, you need drivers with CUDA (Idunno how Nvidia packages work -- maybe they all their drivers have them), and a CUDA GPU miner, such as Poclbm.

@ latest Qs: You would probably NEVER find a block in your lifetime mining alone, so definitely go with a pool. Idunno if BitMinter supports CUDA, but you might want to try their one-click miner and see if it works for you @ http://bitminter.com/ (it uses Java, but at least for OpenCL and the Avalon FPGAs I ran with it, is usually on-par with performance with other less-user-friendly applications -- it's been around a long time... I wouldn't hesitate to trust the program's integrity, fwiw)

ETA: You might be able to mine an altcoin profitably -- something like Litecoin. Its difficulty is seeing the effects of BTC mining becoming too costly now that ASICs have been developed for it, and with an Nvidia card, it's very unlikely to be profitable - but I sure don't know dick about altcoins -- I barely know anything about BTC mining. Fwiw.

Seems to be over, now. Was fairly slow, but was never down-down.

Fwiw, though, there were over 4.5k regged users on when the problems were happening, probably peaked not too far from the record-number on in April. Closer to 3k, now. I thought it was just an extremely heavy "normal" load on the Pirate news.

ETA: Maybe it's not over? I'm used to 200-1000ms latency wherever I go, so I don't notice it much.

So pay the driver with the money you steal. The BTC probably wasn't the first or last time. You could at least pay for productive services like pizza manufacture instead of dumping the money into gambling sites.

(If someone posts the companies delivering, I'd be happy to donate for their troubles if we can include a note with the address used so they know what's up. Maybe they'll even include the address in a training program for new drivers if we pay enough.)