I'm not talking about people not participating because they're lazy, I'm talking about people not participating because there is nothing to do.
So long as there is at least one other person who doesn't have everything they want, there's something to do. I can live with the possibility that one person might not get everything they want. |
|
|
|
Change the protocol, call it whatever you want. Bottom line is the government would be taking a big risk by trying a 51% attack. They would bring a massive amount of free press to Bitcoin, and ultimately fail to stop it. It would destroy Bitcoin. It would, however, be a huge boost to alternate crypto-currencies that don't use computing power to solve the double spend problem. |
|
|
|
|
Can someone summarize the situation please. I just read through several pages and I still don't get it. I understand he was associated with several GLBSE offerings, but not precisely what his association with them was, what the various assets were supposed to do, and so on. Also, how exactly was money lost? And is the only evidence that they weren't legitimate investment or theft losses the lack of communication from JRO? (Which might be enough under the right circumstances. I'm not saying that's necessarily insufficient.)
|
|
|
|
Why don't simple business concepts make sense to you unschooled negative trolls, it's very simple all the finance company has to do is lend money at a higher rate then they are borrowing e.g. 10010% and they make a sound legit profit. That's not true and has been thoroughly debunked in other threads. The only people who will pay 10010% to borrow money are people who are almost certain to default. |
|
|
|
How does a man earn $1 from a wealthy person who wants nothing from him?
He doesn't, he earns it from someone who does want something from him. If nobody wants anything, then he's the only person on Earth who doesn't have everything they want. I can live with that problem. |
|
|
|
Just FYI, based on my private PMs, MNW is getting very punished for all of this.
I can also confirm this. And it's quite sad because he really did do a lot for the Bitcoin community. |
|
|
|
The entire Universe is a resource. Sure, resources are finite. But it will be billions of years before we run up against that limit. Until then, it's just a cost/benefit kind of thing.
No matter how big the buffet, there's still no such thing as a free lunch. Absolutely. As technology advances, the cost to extract resources decreases and the value we can get out of them increases. So the quantity of resources that are usable for practical purposes increases as technology advances. That's why we've had a "20 to 25 year supply of oil" for almost 100 years now. (No joke, the first "imminent" oil crisis was predicted in 1918!) If you're particularly worried about resource shortages, you should be pushing for greater development and exploitation of technologies that make resources cheaper to extract or allow us to get more value out of them. You should definitely oppose things like a basic income guarantee that discourage technological advances while reducing pressures that hold down population. |
|
|
|
The entire Universe is a resource. Sure, resources are finite. But it will be billions of years before we run up against that limit. Until then, it's just a cost/benefit kind of thing.
Speed of light is limited. So even in a infinite universe, you'll have to wait a bit to get the desired amount of the thing you want if you have to fetch it by yourself. So people might have to buy some to their neighbors if they don't want to wait. True, but time is also a nearly unlimited resource. I suppose the Universe may eventually suffer heat death. But again, these fundamental limits won't matter for billions of years. |
|
|
|
2) To overcome that, everyone is given a certain sum by the state every month that should provide for the basic amenities of life. Luxury goods will be available to those who can earn more money in the usual way, thus continuing to encourage private initiative.
Are MRIs a basic amenity of life? What about indoor plumbing? The problem with this scheme is that it will actually do the reverse of what it is intended to do -- by discouraging productivity, it will delay the rate at which the economy is capable of developing new things that become basic amenities of life. That is, it will in practice deny people the basic amenities of life. |
|
|
|
You're missing out on one very important point: Resources are not infinite.
Sure, robots could conceivably be built that could create anything. But the materials to build those robots have to come from somewhere. You might say that the materials to build those robots come from mines operated by robots, but those mines can't last forever.
Land is a finite resource. Land cannot be free. Gold cannot be free, as it is a finite resource. Etc, etc.
Basically, nothing can be free, as nothing is an infinite resource.
The entire Universe is a resource. Sure, resources are finite. But it will be billions of years before we run up against that limit. Until then, it's just a cost/benefit kind of thing. |
|
|
|
Tell me again why we're helping The Fed by giving them our best suggestions.
A lot of lives are on the line. The Fed is the ultimate "too big to fail". |
|
|
|
The real problem for pass-through operators is that they either thought that pirate was operating a ponzi and didn't inform their investors of that or they failed to do adequate due diligence about his operation. They knew that they were offering unregulated investments. They knew that they had not obtained factual evidence of pirate's business model. They knew that they had done nothing to confirm that those who placed funds in the pass-throughs were sophisticated investors. I don't think most of these things are reasonable things to expect. We're not trying to recreate the conventional economy. |
|
|
|
The domain mybitcointrade.com and the code has been sold to Viktor (Skype: viktor.nachajew ).
The transfer of the domain is still in progress, until this is finished, the page will stay in mainteance.
Account-data for the forum has been sold too (this is my personal last post).
I didn't know you could sell a debt. That's awesome. Maybe I can find some homeless guy who will buy my $15,000 in credit card debt for a beer. Then when the bank asks me where my payment is, I'll say, "Sorry, I sold all my debt to some homeless guy. Maybe he will pay you back." |
|
|
|
If you do accounting outside of the blockchain, you can "counterfeit" bitcoins sort of like fractional reserve banking. But, if you perform a transaction through a bitcoin client and have it record on the blockchain, then is it really possible for pirate to do what you suggested? Yes, absolutely. Pirate accounts were always outside the blockchain. PPTs were always outside the blockchain. If I deposited 100 BTC with Pirate or used it to buy a PPT, that 100 BTC is still in circulation in the blockchain. In addition, there a 100 BTC Pirate debt and, if it was a PPT, a 100 BTC PPT obgliation. So if you use 100 BTC to buy a PPT, it becomes 300 BTC. (Assuming the PPT operator is honest, 100 BTC of that doesn't really count.) |
|
|
|
It makes *no* sense for him to buy Pirate debt. It costs him money. How would he get that money back? From himself?
Well that isn't exactly true. Person sells x BTC worth of ddebt. Person creates uncertainty in the market and buys that debt back for y BTC. Persons profits (x-y) BTC. Not saying Pirate is doing that but there it isn't correct to say there is no sense in rebuying your own debt. How is that better than this: Pirate sells x BTC worth of direct debt. Pirate profits x BTC. Or this: Before he defaults, Pirate buys x BTC of PPTs. Pirate gets those x BTC back because they pass through. Pirate defaults. Pirate sells those x BTC of PPTs for y BTC. Pirate profits y BTC. Both of these scenarios are more profitable than yours and neither of these require Pirate to buy his own debt. Notice that they both require him to sell it. |
|
|
|
Here's how I see it: Pools with fees are more reliable in the long run because they have some extra funding to keep their services up and running. Ones which do not incur such fees don't seem to have this safety net. Why should a miner care whether his pool is reliable in the long run? Each time a miner has to go to back up increases stales, if the website's down you can't access your coin, and if the pool fails losing coin is a certainty. All of these are short run concerns. |
|
|
|
|
They launched the nukes, and that helped a little. Then they tried carpet bombing the economy, and that didn't work at all. The tank battalions went in and made a tiny bit of progress. The troops with machine guns didn't make a dent. QE3 is the riflemen. If that doesn't work, the Fed will pull out the bows and arrows. If that doesn't work, there's always sharpened sticks and rocks.
|
|
|
|
I think basic income guarantee is a must for all societies in the future. Imagine if all of our production/research is handled by robots, and even the maintenance of the robots are handled by other robots. Basically imagine there will be zero need for human labor in the society, how would humans enjoy the fruit of these advance of technology? You would need some kind of basic income guarantee, otherwise everyone would be unemployed and starve. People would starve because the robots were keeping all the food for themselves? What would they do with it? Or because the starving people wouldn't command the robots to make food? Or because the robots would rebel? In this unrealistic scenario, what would you need a basic income for? Why would the robots even want money in exchange for the food they make? What would they do with it? |
|
|
|
Here's how I see it: Pools with fees are more reliable in the long run because they have some extra funding to keep their services up and running. Ones which do not incur such fees don't seem to have this safety net. Why should a miner care whether his pool is reliable in the long run? |
|
|
|
When I first heard about BS&T (it was called Pirate Saving and Trust back then) my first thought was that it was probably a ponzi. But instead of stopping there I did take the time to research it, talk to others, and eventually talk to Pirate himself in person about the business and was convinced it was not a ponzi. Based on that I felt OK being involved in the PPT zero coupon bonds. I think this is the crux of the issue right here. You suspected Pirate was operating a Ponzi and then you somehow became convinced that it was not. If this was reasonable based on the information you collected, then it's hard to argue you were scamming. If this was unreasonable, then you're a scammer, no matter how much you subjectively believed it. Personally, I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone could have reasonably become convinced that Pirate was probably not operating a Ponzi scheme. Those who have claimed such have either refused to explain their reasoning or have presented comically implausible reasoning. Would you care to share what you thought Pirate's business model was? But "scammer" would imply that I did not settle my debts, did not deliver goods promised, did not pay a bet, etc. I have done none of those things.
You paid Pirate to make your customers the recipients of fraudulent transfers. If you did so knowingly (or under circumstances where you should have known), you're a scammer. Burt didnt lied.
He claimed he knew Pirate wasn't running a Ponzi scheme at a time when that claim had a positive affect on his personal finances. If that claim was based on insufficient evidence, that's a form of lying -- claiming you know something you don't to get other people to give you money in reliance on the truth of that claim is lying and scamming. It's not unusual with Ponzi schemes for people who lost money to also be legally and morally responsible for some of the losses other people suffered in the Ponzi scheme. The Vaughan clawbacks are a dramatic example of this. For example: The seventh clawback targets an Albuquerque residential contractor, his real estate agent wife and their construction company.
Although they lost money in the scam, the legal argument will likely be that, as veteran real estate professionals, they should have known something was wrong with Vaughan’s scheme when they continued to make the promised 20 percent return on their investment after the real estate crash.
The rationale is that, if they had blown the whistle, then later investors would have been spared their deep financial losses running into millions of dollars. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
