|
I assume they store 100% of funds and do exactly nothing with them, otherwise I would be outraged.
If they do lend them out, they should be giving interest like banks do, but I doubt they do.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, being a hacker is the most profitable and stress-free job in Bitcoin world. And you almost never get caught.
|
|
|
|
1. Leave money in bucket shop created by 17yo in 4 days time which was hacked at least 2 times before the 3rd and now 4th time and manage to be that much of a gambler or a sucker for interest rates to leave your money there 2. Bucket shop closes down 3. Crying ensues, they all should have scammer tag  BTW, there’s a bit too much zhoutong dick sucking going on for my tastes. As far as I see, he is the only winner here, since he managed to sell off the company to a sucker before it went kaboom with profit, and now doing some PR stunt donating 5k of it to bribe the suckers here to view him as the hero. If anyone should get the scammer tag, it’s probably him for veiling the change of corporate ownership ever since Nov. 2011 and deceiving customers who explicitely trusted him. And of course for not securing this shit in the first place, despite having been warned. |
|
|
|
Hey, if people get back 66.6%, that's more than MyBitcoin gave its users. Stop complaining.  They get hacked on a daily basis. I doubt that there will be anything left, before they really start to pay back. It should simply be called MyBitcoinica. Actually, I forgot that supposedly a few users already got paid out 100% of their claim, so unless they add some new money, people will get a little less than 2/3. |
|
|
|
Hey, if people get back 66.6%, that's more than MyBitcoin gave its users. Stop complaining. |
|
|
|
I predict a price around $10-$20 by end of the year. This is not because the price "broke through" $7 just now, but because I know of certain developments in bitcoinworld that support such a price (and the above price target does not include speculative froth, but simply a reasonable market price given the fundamentals).
Let's also remember that any price increase anywhere below $32, if a bubble, is less of a bubble than we had last year, for the economy is far stronger now than it was a year ago. In other words, if we shoot up to $25, it might be a bubble, but it's a far smaller bubble than we had prior. The fundamentals are far more supportive of such a price now than prior.
Can you please eleborate on those fundamentals and certain developments in bitcoinworld. It would be good to know too Nope  Then why bring it up in the first place? Are we playing Bruce Wagner again, all hype, 0 substance, $100 by end of the month? I mean, a bear could do the same thing and tell you he knows some secret fundamental that will make Bitcoins go back to 6 cents. |
|
|
|
I hope you remember the day you let your emotions get the best of you.
Ready when you are.
Sure! How's this for the terms: Both I and you (Pirateat40) place 5000 BTC each into an escrow held by Nanotube. If after 2013-10-01, that's the first of October 2013, BS&T has not defaulted on payments, Pirateat40 gets the funds. In the case of a default, I (Vandroiy) get the funds. A default is identified by customers' funds being locked down for two consecutive weeks. Something among these lines? Perfect and I don't think you could have picked a better escrow. When your funds hit the escrow let me know. I'll add 3k BTC to this, same escrow, same terms (except Vandroiy = Blitz), so I can also "put my money where my mouth is". Agree? edit: I decided not to do it for a variety of reasons while overthinking it. Mainly, I don't wish to have a vested interest in "making" something a ponzi or making a person a criminal when I cannot have a certainty of 100%. Feels unethical. In return, since I am unwilling to put up, I will also shut up about this topic. |
|
|
|
So because I am not sure if you are male or female, you are both? It's simply "unknown". We do not need proof, it is impossible to prove a ponzi until it collapses. All we need is evidence, and we have plenty to tilt it in favor of ponzi. |
|
|
|
|
1. Spend couple of months trading #bitcoin-OTC and bitcointalk to build reputation with constructed ninjaat40 identity
2. Offer 10% per week saying you do "Market Arbitrage" and "Private Loans To Network Members"
3. Watch pirate investor money flow to ninja
How can we prove that the ninjaat40 is a ponzi op?
|
|
|
|
|
OK, sorry for assuming MtGox trading, it's just a popular theory around also which I thought you referred to.
Alright, so it is OTC and some people out there have been paying outrageous amounts of money for some reason on huge volumes for 9 months and for some reason noone else really (except the joint and BrightAnarchist et al.) can provide competition or even knows about this clientele. Although I believed this, it is now unlikely due to the volumes, timeframes, consistency and seemingly non-diminishing profit margins.
|
|
|
|
It's not a debt. Pirate is not paying back the capital from his lenders, only the interest. Lenders don't lend him money, they lend him an "inventory" of Bitcoins. He manipulate that inventory and with his manipulation, he's growing his business at 10%/week. If he have an inventory of 100 000 BTC, he needs to make minimum 7 000 BTC of profit each week to pay back his lenders. I say minimum, but he said he was paying around 5.8%, so it's even less than that. Right now, his business is making around 10 000 BTC each week.
Making 10 000 BTC with 100 000 BTC each week? In the current state of the Bitcoin market, it's doable.
This is nonsense if you refer to Bitcoin trading at any of the exchanges; pick any of the optimal entry and exit points at MtGox within a week and see if you can do a 100k trade on which you make 10%. Do you know that even with 7k weekly, this would be a multiple of what MtGox alone earns on commission during a typical trading week? Must be magic. Let me just illustrate how stupid this idea is: Typical MtGox trading volume has been ~400k in the past weeks months, and pirate would have had to be 200k for entry+exit. It is absolutely impossible to make 10% profits on this alone continuously. How the hell would this work, trading with himself? Look for yourself: http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg150zigWeeklyztgSzm1g10zm2g25zvWe are also working with only 100k which is a conservative estimate. But I'm guessing you haven't done much Bitcoin trading. |
|
|
|
Distraction method #34 from your handbook? I have some too: "I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people." - Isaac Newton "When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck." - James Whitcomb Riley But let's get back to the topic's issue at hand, shall we. I know what Pirate's doing
Ah, then surely you are already making the kind of returns he does (10%/wk.)? And BrightAnarchist prefers his business to making 10% a week? Interesting, too. If there is any truth at all to what you are saying, then I challenge you to search for a trusted third party (theymos or Maged perhaps, or someone who has no outspoken stance on this like nanotube), share your story how it is you think one can pay out 7% a week on now 6 digit BTC debt for now 8 months (while the debt continuosly grows), and they can confirm if your theory makes any sense or not. Otherwise, I will have to assume this: Pirate still has the option to run with all our money. Those who benefit from HYIP scams are the ones who only invest once and never again, or only put the interest earned back into the system. They have a vested interest in keeping all HYIPs going as long as they possibly can. They would make a post saying, "I know what he's doing, it's legit" without providing evidence, because it benefits them to do so. |
|
|
|
There is absolutely nothing in it for me or anyone else to tell yet another person what is going on. Correct! You will get your deposits regardless and you don't seem to care enough about people continuously slandering you to do such a thing. Which is why I was speaking to people like "the joint" and "BrightAnarchist". I am specifically also very interested in why these 2 people who seem to know but choose turn this once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity. Too lazy to make buckets of money with seemingly no risk and limit to volume and timeframe? |
|
|
|
|
I guess these people must just be rich already, multimillionaires or even billionaires, and not care about money at all to turn down an opportunity to make money on this kind of volume.
Or they are feeding us BS.
|
|
|
|
I know what Pirate's doing
Ah, then surely you are already making the kind of returns he does (10%/wk.)? And BrightAnarchist prefers his business to making 10% a week? Interesting, too. If there is any truth at all to what you are saying, then I challenge you to search for a trusted third party (theymos or Maged perhaps, or someone who has no outspoken stance on this like nanotube), share your story how it is you think one can pay out 7% a week on now 6 digit BTC debt for now 8 months (while the debt continuosly grows), and they can confirm if your theory makes any sense or not. Otherwise, I will have to assume this: Pirate still has the option to run with all our money. Those who benefit from HYIP scams are the ones who only invest once and never again, or only put the interest earned back into the system. They have a vested interest in keeping all HYIPs going as long as they possibly can. They would make a post saying, "I know what he's doing, it's legit" without providing evidence, because it benefits them to do so. |
|
|
|
Okay, let's just assume that the business Pirate is running is not a ponzi.
I hope we can all agree that nobody can prove it isn't a ponzi.
I also hope that we can all agree on the fact that it could possibly be a ponzi, because it has a lot of its properties.
So under the assumption that it _isn't_ a ponzi, isn't it still a very bad thing people are defending it? What's to stop people from defending a real ponzi once it comes along, if people are defending Pirate's operation with ponzi-like properties without any real evidence to debunk the ponzi claims? In my opinion this is far worse than Pirate's operation possibly being a ponzi. People are defending a possible Ponzi Scheme, without any evidence to prove that it isn't one!
Disclaimer: I have a trivial amount of BTC invested with Pirate, because I honestly don't know what to believe.
Yep, I have formulated the same thoughts: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91552.0 |
|
|
|
|
Let us assume that pirate is running a legit business. In that case, what would depositors have to lose from FUD/trolling? It makes people withdraw, so that interest rates do not have to decrease and forced withdrawals are less likely to occur. Pretty good for any depositor, no? At least, as a depositor and when I believed it was no ponzi, this was pretty much how I thought about "FUD".
However, many vocal people in these forums are different. They intend to silence critics as trolls or FUD spreaders, while it would benefit them if it was an honest operation. So, I have to assume that some proponents are indeed, at the very least on a subconscious level, secretely assuming it is a ponzi scheme, particularly the people who are eligible for "Trust" accounts, only to keep their own scheme and profits running. A hostile forum would be an absolute hazard for a ponzi because it depends so very much on new investors coming in.
The main method being employed by this circlejerk is spamming topics with ironic jokes to hide critical postings or alternatively directly attempting to pressure and silence people.
BTCS&T is indistinguishable from a real ponzi scheme, so we have to assume that proponents would and will also defend a real ponzi scheme (even in the off chance this isn't)!
On the other hand, though, we have the suckers, who ignore or do not understand any of the evidence. They would also fall for the next ponzi scheme, even if this is not a ponzi, because they invested for the same (lack) of reasons.
The group think/herd mentality in this forum is dangerous, and I'm glad that there are people to break it, like I'm glad there were people to break it in May/June 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
It is absolutely impossible for moderators to prove that this is a scam, only law enforcement could possibly do that. There is reason to have strong suspicions, but to apply the scammer tag on someone who could even remotely possibly be honest is wrong. Innocent until proven guilty.
There is no proof, only evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
