In the real world this interest is no problem: simply print more money. But in the Bitcoin world, you know, it can resist only for some time. So this contract is invalid.

At some time I red, pirate could change his interest, so in my opinion he did not default:
...
+7%
+7%
+7%
-100%

All fine, or not?

payb.tc you can go ahead and pass on my info to pirateat40.  i dont have any problems with that.

Or Pirate may have been informed that some PPT OPs collected BTC more than what they really have in BTCST?

You are still thinking that this is about the relationship between the PPT operators and the people who paid them money. It is not. It is about what they paid Pirate to do.

If I ask for donations to hire a hitman to kill my boss, I'm not ripping off my investors if I actually use the money to hire a hitman to kill my boss. The issue is what I paid the hitman to do. What did the PPT operators pay Pirate to do?

I hope you don't take this as rude,

but you really demonstrating how Ponzi schemes and the desire for a quick, unearned buck make people throw reason to the wind.

I don't want this to happen again. I want the community to learn the maximum amount possible from this mess. And I see significant efforts to prevent the community from learning a lesson.

For those who argue the PPT operators did nothing wrong, should they do it again next time?

Again, the issue is what he paid Pirate to do. It has nothing to do with the service he provided or whether he was honest or lied about what he was doing. He knowingly paid Pirate to fraudulently transfer to him money that he knew was obtained from others on the false promise that it would be legitimately invested -- a transfer he knew was not in fact a legitimate investment.

I wise man once said:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

You are a bunch of fucking suckers - that's all you are.
The guy is screwing you all over, however he likes, laughing right into your face - and you are so happy with it.. 

Second account wouldn't help you anyhow to hide your scam of dumping empty PPT bonds onto the market.

Unless your bitch would have change the API - so the system would lie about your scam.

In other words, everyone associated knew, or should have known, that it was a scam. That means the operators of Bitcoinmax knew, or should have known, that they were participating in a scam.

You're missing the point. The point is not what happened to the money he paid Pirate, the point is what he paid Pirate to do. The fact is, he knowingly paid Pirate to transfer funds to him that he knew, or should have known, were obtained from others on fraudulent the promise (credible or not) that they would be legitimately invested, knowing that such a transfer is in no way a legitimate investment.

(Again, I am only using Bitcoinmax as an example. I am not pointing blame at any specific people. I'm just refuting the argument that people who funnel money into Ponzi schemes are blameless for doing so because the blame instead rests with others.)

I'll bite.

I 'invested' in this scheme.

Was I aware of what I was getting myself into? Yes.

Am I going to blame someone for the current outcome? No.

It's not like I didn't read payb.tc's warnings. It's not like he didn't say you stand to lose your entire gam...er...invstment.

Everyone's saying "a 3400% annual return rate - it's got to be a scam" - well I agree with you. Did I still take a chance, sure.

I don't think anyone who can think rationally could believe that there wasn't something fishy here, especially with no information as to how these returns were being generated.

I'm also as suspicious of people who are calling people like payb.tc scammers, for exactly the same reasons.

If you're a rational person who can think for themselves, how can people who operated passthroughs be considered scammers?

Some have said that they're scammers because they helped legitimise Pirate... how? Am I a scammer because I gambled? Did I legitimise him?

Let's be realistic here for a second. In ten years, SatoshiDICE will not exist in its current form, this industry is moving far too fast for such a thing to happen.

One of three futures await SD:

1) Interest wanes, profits fall, and the site stagnates at some lower level. Maybe sold to someone later at a discount.

2) Interest remains roughly constant, site brings in 20-50k BTC per year in profits. Likely sold to Bitcoin or casino company within 1-5 years.

3) Interest rises, site profits increase. Likely sold to Bitcoin or casino company within 1-5 years.

If #1 happens, then yes this stock IPO is probably a bad investment and investors will receive back a fraction of what they put in.  If #2 happens, investors will earn money faster than they would elsewhere in the world, though not as fast as some other Bitcoin investments (especially those paying 7% per week...). When the future buyout happens, the investors will likely see appreciation in their shares as well.  If #3 happens, investors in the IPO will make a lot of money, both in dividends as they increase and when the buyout happens down the road.

Nobody should think they need to buy and hold shares in this for 10 years for it to "pay off". That is misleading. Investors will profit or fall, and they'll likely know which way it's going to go over the next 6-24 months.

^ Custom checksums aren't obsolete. TCP uses 16 bit checksums. This means that, on average, one packet out of 2^16 (65536) will have a correct checksum but contain corrupted data (if my probability math is correct).

This is the reason that many downloads list the MD5 or SHA-1 checksum next to them, even though they are transferred over TCP.

Using the 4-byte checksum in the protocol means that only one out of 2^32 packets (~4 billion) will be corrupt, but have the right checksum.

bitcoind does what you need.  From "bitcoind --help":

  -blocknotify=<cmd> Execute command when the best block changes (%s in cmd is replaced by block hash)

Then whenever you're notified of a new block use getreceivedbyaddress or listreceivedbyaddress to see if your address has received anything.



Yes, getblock does exactly that.

Although a buyback according to the contract will give only ~ 0.12 .....   

I am tired of this bullshit both as a investor and as a middle man stuck in between this shit.
I will be talking to both parties and see if we can solve this so that everyone including the investors will get happy.
I will be pushing for a buy back as this is obviously not working out...
//DeaDTerra

Bruno, ignore trolls, plz. This guy obviously trying to lick someone's ass. I'm sure that most of us support ur investigation.

Excuse me, as one of the organisers (who is not involved with bitcoinica in any way) I take considerable offence to this, I and others (who are also not involved in the bitcoinica saga) have put a huge amount of time, effort, energy and our own funds into the organising of this event, and you want to ruin what is to be not just a great conference for everyone involved in bitcoin, but what is surely to be a historic event(700 people).

You'd cut off your own nose to spite your face? Attempt to ruin something for hundreds of other people (who have paid for tickets, accomadation and transport, and the number of small bitcoin startups who've already sponsored the event). Do you realise you would be doing nothing to further your own agenda by taking such a route, but only fucking the whole thing up for everyone else?

And what about the media, you think it wouldn't refect badly on bitcoin because that's what this conference is about, bitcoin and bringing it to the world, how do you think it would look to the rest of the world when they read (in the back of a paper for certain) about bitcoin conference ruined by a small group of protesters who lost their funds on a bitcoin service.

It will be about bitcoin being a wild west, a place for thieves, unreliable. You want that kind of media attention?

I'd thank you to stop your juvenile talk of protests and keep anything bitcoinica related off my thread.