The price will never be stable. The reason why most people buy bitcoins is that they think the price will continue to go up. When it stops doing that for a while they think it will go down, so they sell. After a while most people who wanted to sell will have sold, and then there will be a new bubble. Unfortunately that can take months or even years, and in the mean time the price can fall a lot more.

How are the results of the audit that was supposed to be done by the end of August coming along?

They've talked about it since early spring, and in July they said it would be done by the end of August.

Sure they can, but as more and more people do this, the required inflow of new funds to stay afloat will increase exponentially.

Neither, it's a ponzi.

It's not. Your way will probably work every now and then, but because it's expensive and slow and the price difference between exchanges is small, it won't be very profitable. Vachs way is better, you just don't understand what he means.

They are only representatives paid to give the impression that this is not a shady anonymous business. They have never met the person or people who actually control BT.

It's a ponzi today and it will still be a ponzi tomorrow, so never. Unless they drastically reduce the payouts they will fold this year or the next, though. Madoff only paid about 10%/year, which is part of the reason why his ponzi lasted for so long.

I haven't looked into it specifically, but my impression is that mining offers are either not based on actual mining, or unlikely to be profitable. I'm guessing that some of them are gambling that the difficulty will increase enough that they will have to pay less than they got paid for the contract. Question is what happens if it doesn't.

I'm significantly less paranoid than the average bitcoin user, but I'm probably also less naive. Of course, when the topic is a ponzi there will be much more lying and ridiculous stories than there are in most other topics.

To sum it up, you're trying to convince us that BT is for real by telling us a story that is extremely unlikely to be true.

A little honesty in your posts would be very nice. You had to cut away the next line just to be able to pretend I was inconsistent. I don't need to invent a reason why BT will fail, it's the nature of ponzies that they will fail sooner or later.

What kind of real business would limit the amount of money they can get from their clients, and why? Why would they prefer to have to deal with lots of people when it's so much easier to just deal with a few? When real businesses ask for money they only encourage small investors when laws require them to have a minimum number.

Most people who have more money would understand that it's a ponzi. If they could find a clueless rich guy who would send more than $50 000 to someone he doesn't know who is, they would probably find an excuse for increasing the limits. When they fold they're much safer if they've only scammed people who can't afford to hunt them down, though.

They haven't actually set any limits, they just say they have. Of course, even if they give you a number they would make sure it's not possible to check if it has been reached. It's like this audit, the only thing that has verifiably happened so far is that they've avoided paying you for one day and managed to convince you it's a good thing.

There's a third option: You don't know how a ponzi works. In your case reading the first sentence in the Wikipedia article should be enough to clear up your confusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

I don't want risk free, I just want a positive expected return. For ponzies the expected return is negative, particularly this late in the game.

The promises to announce who would do the audit and having it done by the end of August were quite specific too.

And I assume they will release the result of the audit that were going to be done by the end of August, tomorrow.

Nobody loses anything in a ponzi until it's closed, and then everybody usually loses everything.