What everyone here seems to forget: You're dealing with an open pseudonymous accounting system! EVERY transaction is public, you only have to find out which are the ones by pirate!
Has anyone actually tried tracking a few input transactions to pirateat40 and finding out his combined BTC holdings and money flow?
Yes. I have done some of that. What I found is that the total (realistic) maximum of all coins sent to Pirate (based on some non-public information) is actually pretty small. If you look through the blockchain, you regularly come across 10,000 coin wallets, and of the two largest active wallets I noticed one had over 300,000 coins sitting in it, and the other I suspect was an exchange wallet that had turned over more than 4M coins. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, I received my funds back today. No problems.
|
|
|
|
|
waiting for confirmation of payment address (300 available to send)
|
|
|
|
Which is what?
The "red flag" that they (Madoff was the example given) were paying higher than they could borrow at assumed you could borrow in the first place. Even the most basic business models knows that the cost of debt and equity are different, and that the ability to borrow is linked less to income than assets. There are other simple ways to pay high interest rates, but obviously the mindset is that rates must be low. That still doesn't answer why pirate would need more and more bitcoins. Assuming he can legitimately make more than 1%/day on his bitcoin, wouldn't he want to fund it himself and reap all the rewards and not have to pay out the 1%/day to depositors? So either he's running a ponzi scheme or he is going to pass on all the risks of his business to his depositors. Either way, it means bad news for his depositors. The above point was about the bad logic that goes into "why XYZ is a ponzi". Like some religious witch-hunt, reason left this thread a long time ago (probably around the first post). Your "he's going to do this or that" argument doesn't stand scrutiny because you're just repeating the same misconceptions again and again (like good religious people do), rather than testing different theories (the more science end of the spectrum). Have you actually looked to see if Pirate is actually taking more and more coins? or is that just made up like most of the other "facts" btw - I have factored in 100% loss of my deposit into my risk profile, the same way I have several other loans/deposits/investments also fail. Having money in a real bricks and mortar business is also not guarantee that you won't lose your money either. |
|
|
|
Which is what?
The "red flag" that they (Madoff was the example given) were paying higher than they could borrow at assumed you could borrow in the first place. Even the most basic business models knows that the cost of debt and equity are different, and that the ability to borrow is linked less to income than assets. There are other simple ways to pay high interest rates, but obviously the mindset is that rates must be low. |
|
|
|
Do you people actually know how to borrow money? Do you know how banks decide to extend a loan (either in business or personally). The basic formula is you give them 120% of what you want to borrow, and they might consider it. Show then the assets!!
Interest rates on debt might be lower, but if availability is zero, that's irrelevant.
It's really this simple: You can't pay off extraordinarily high interest rates reliably unless you have an astounding source of income. If you have an astounding source of income, you don't need to borrow at extraordinarily high interest rates. This could explain a small number of loans over a short period of time to jump start some kind of amazing opportunity, but it can't explain a sustained endeavor. A reasonable explanation would have been that he needed the money to finance a drug deal or two. But you don't keep borrowing money at high interest rates to finance drug deals unless you're planning to run off with the money. You went straight past the point without even looking. |
|
|
|
This is a pet peeve of mine regarding the use of the word "auction": If i understand correctly, you will fill the bids from top to bottom, so if you were to "auction" 500 shares and there were the following bids: 100@1.20100@1.18100@1.15100@1.14100@1.10then each of those will pay their bid price. My understanding (and the way this works in the real world) would be that all 500 shares should be allotted at the lowest price where all auctioned shares will be traded, which in this case should be 1.10 BTC! Of course, when there are multiple orders at the lowest price limit, one would need to apply time-price-priority (orders are ranked by price, order of same price are ranked by time, oldest first). Whilst I agree that this cuts into your margin, I will strongly advocate for GLBSE to implement such a modus for IPOs. As has been pointed out, there are several auction types. What you are referring to is the type where a clearing price is set (intersection of supply and demand). Terminology will get in the way, but progressive pricing auctions are also common, and the operation on the GLBSE is progressively filling the orders until the supply is used. If you look at the spread around the bottom price, you might find there is not too much variation and the average premium over the bottom price was 0.0033. |
|
|
|
Hey JackRabiit,
11 BTC coming your way. For all you've done for the community, 0% interest, just send me back 11 BTC when you are done.
111mamKazi1ofZ854rKTcAxhTVuGDPhhL
Hope this serves you well!
-Nick
Ouch... I had a dream that i was double sent the funds that i asked for x.x ouch because i was impatient ouch from the mini transac fee ouch from the missed 0%, Because i feel Obligated to keep my Deal with Patrick Harnett And I'm charging an outrageous 0.5 coins in interest! |
|
|
|
But doesnt it strike you as... odd, to put it mildly, that Pirate somehow finds those large bitcoin buyers (and possibly sellers) willing to pay extreme prices for bitcoins
That's how I made a decent chunk of money out of bitcoins (and still do). |
|
|
|
Red Flag No. 4: Cheaper to borrow
Doing business the Madoff way was expensive. He returned about 12 percent a year to investors, and this percentage was his cost of doing business. Madoff could have borrowed money at a much cheaper rate, and then done any trading and investing that he chose and could have kept all the profits for himself. This red flag is so obvious that it’s hard to believe Markopolos is the only person who figured it out.[/i]
Pirate is paying FAR more than 12% annually. But I guess you would have been happy with Madoff's explanation too.
Tell me who will lend to you (at sub-usurious rates) for doing a big bitcoin operation of any sort. Now tell me who will lend to you at any rate if your business model involves dealing with shady characters who don't want to leave paper trails. Oh, this is priceless (I'm catching up on the trash that has been written). Do you people actually know how to borrow money? Do you know how banks decide to extend a loan (either in business or personally). The basic formula is you give them 120% of what you want to borrow, and they might consider it. Show then the assets!! Interest rates on debt might be lower, but if availability is zero, that's irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Sent a deposit if 27 BTC. Thank you for your business.
confirmed (and to potentially fuel the ponzi speculation that is rampant around the BTC money business, on-call deposit availability is now less than 500) |
|
|
|
While a legitimate investment scheme may look somewhat like a Ponzi scheme from the outside, the insides are totally different.
Yes, I (and several others) pay 1%+ per week to people. Some have scarcity, and the return is far above a normal return. QED I am running a ponzi because it is too good to be true? No. If Pirate wasn't at the top of the heap, then someone would throw stones at the next one in line. Just because people are not smart enough to work it out, it's like the good old days - may as well burn him at the stake for being a witch. |
|
|
|
patiently waiting to be invited to 'The Island'.....
Yup, Pirate's going to take his largest depositors and start a cult on his island. We will be paid out in physical Bitcoins!  Looks like you have your first five santoshis. |
|
|
|
2. Or since he is really only paying you a small amount of his profits, it doesn't bother him to pay 1%. In other words, again, it's a gift. That's certainly possible, but as for a reason why -- I've yet to hear one. Because people operate irrationally. Perhaps that's why charities survive. |
|
|
|
Assuming asleep - pm'd.
Hahaha yea sorry about that m8, I need my beauty sleep  //DeaDTerra No problem - sorted for this week and next. |
|
|
|
Sent a deposit of 130 BTC.
Please confirm.
Confirmed, received and working on generating interest. You Friday payments are now 4.95 coin/week. |
|
|
|
|
Similar to Sen, provide some ID and also what the "business" is.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
