I can only admire you for all the work you've done just to fight a troll  Cumprimentos e muito respeito  Voce e bem-vindo, psy. Ironicamente, eu apenas lembrei dos poucos incidentes que tive com Rarity e percebi que eles sao provas suficiente para justificar o motivo do banimento. |
|
|
|
Let me see if I get this right. When asked for a recent example the best you can do is July? You know it's mid-october, right? Yes, that is the best I can do right now. Yes, I know the actual month is October. We know for a fact nobody banned Rarity in July so we can rule that out as our cause here. No, "we" do not know for a fact, except if you are the Rarity user or the forum administrator. I would guess the first. It also appears that Rarity was quite right in discussing Zhou Tong's innocence, the moderators here seem to agree at this point and never gave him a scammer tag, did they? Wrong. The discussion in question was not to label Zhou Thong as a scammer. Moreover, Rarity was not discussing Zhou Thong's innocence since there was not enough evidence to prove Zhou Thong guilty of any crime. Therefore, the interest of Rarity was only to create a false image of the situation by producing misleading statements and making false claims. That is why I cited "psychological warfare" in one of my off topic posts. So the only aspect which the moderators agreed with was that Rarity and others users were producing unnecessary posts in the thread. Her views on Psychology may be crazy Scientologist bullshit, but I think if this forum wants to stand for free speech that view should be allowed in a discussion of Internet Psychoanalysis. What you think regarding this forum is not what the administrators and moderators think. Hence, what you think what this forum "wants to stand for" is irrelevant. I understand that the every user in the Bitcointalk forum is allowed to discuss whatever they wish, including Psychoanalysis or Scientology, if is done in the right section, of course. So if you agree that Rarity was willing to discuss such a matter, you are in agreement that Rarity was producing a discussion in the wrong section. I have already presented the evidence which demonstrates that Rarity was trying to discuss a subject completely different from the initial post. As for the moved to off-topic, that appears to be Rarity protesting against a death threat posted against a user here. Yeah, clearly she should be banned for that! No, Rarity was misinterpreting comments from other users to divert the main subject of the thread, as I have proved in my above post. If you were attempting to justify the banning here I can only call it an epic fail. Let's verify your arguments. You started claiming that Rarity was banned by Theymos because of his/her responses in the Nefario thread: We should discuss the chilling effects of long time user Rarity being banned for questioning Theymos in the scam accusations forum. Then a moderator and the administrator answered that the decision to ban was not based on anything you claimed: I will just say one more time that the theymos thread had nothing to do with it. He was trolling all over the place and definitely needed to be banned. Due to my conflict of interest, I didn't ban Rarity unilaterally; I waited for a global moderator to request the ban.
Frustrated with the answer, you demanded impartiality from the administrator and evidence that Rarity was posting "counterpoints" which "people weren't able to put up with it": You are not a credible source of information to defend accusations of conflict of interest against yourself. Rarity's posting style has not changed at all over the long time she has been here. All of a sudden when her criticism landed on you, however, it became "trolling" and banworthy. It doesn't pass the smell test.
Post some examples of "trolling" from Rarity, because it always seemed to me that people just got upset that she posted counterpoints to a lot of the dogma taken for granted around here and people weren't able to put up with it.
An answer was provided: Rarity had a strong tendency to derail threads, I've warned her privately myself in the past, so saying it's been acceptable up until now isn't true. The arguments raised were almost always ideological or philosophical in nature and rarely contributed toward the actual topic. Once people finally started ignoring her she switched tactics to "Regulation is good and would have stopped all this!". That's not raising good counterpoints, that's derailing threads and detracting from the real issues that are important and should be discussed. So, you, still unhappy with the answer, demanded specific evidence, which the answer of a moderator already granted to you: I have followed Rarity's posts closely since she has been here but since the banning was recent and the timing and cause is under question it seems necessary to examine recent posts. If she was banned eight months ago, I would focus there. I am calling you a liar because the words you put in quote marks have never been posted by Rarity. Google backs that up.
It's much easier to personally insult me than to show us the non-existent posts you cited, I know, but it's not making the banning of Rarity look any less corrupt and shady.
So, you started the thread making a false claim with no evidence. An answer was provided and the false claim was corrected. Then you required impartial evidence to prove Rarity's actions. Again, an answer was provided by a moderator. Unable to handle the overwhelming evidence starting to accumulate against your false claim, you decided to ask for more evidence. Then I provided enough evidence which supports every statement made by the administrator and the moderators. The only epic fail here is you... |
|
|
|
However, I believe others in this forum should remain vigilant. Democracy falls when the citizens give up their power, and analogously I believe that unless we, as forum users, speak out against censorship, the admins in charge will eventually control the opinions on this forum.
In accordance with that ideology, I maintain my public stance that Bitcoin Foundation should be moved out of Bitcoin Discussion. However, I will refrain from arguing more about this issue.
What you and many others here fail to understand is this not a democracy and this does not belong to the people. This is a private forum hosted in the Internet. This is not a public domain neither a free speech zone. Because of this fact, complaints regarding the censorship or sponsorship practiced by the administrators and moderators are useless. The Bitcointalk forum is entitled to support or to suppress whatever the administrators and owners decide, not what the "vigilant" users decide. The "power" here belongs to the administrators and the owners, not to the users. |
|
|
|
is the fact that you used the stupid "off topic" excuse to censor/delete my critical comments within seconds of posting to avoid embarassment also not reality?
No, because if your posts were really critical for the forum discussion, they would not stand out to the attention of the moderators. Moreover, you seem to ignore what censorship really means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CensorshipCensorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship. I am very skeptical about Wikipedia, but the above quote shows that you are complaining over accepted moderation, not over censorship. By accepted moderation I mean the mutual agreement you accepted once you created an account in this forum. Do not forgot this forum is a private institution and as such it can moderate whatever it regards as necessary for its private matters. continuing to use the "off topic" excuse as a reason to banish my comments over here to the Meta forum is not helping your case but in fact illuminating your hypocrisy. It appears you are making a special pleading. This indicates that your true concern is where the posts are and by who they are being read. If is that so, I suggest you become a donator or VIP member. The colourful coins below the user name offers what you are demanding: special attention for your posts. |
|
|
|
In what thread are you asserting all this has occurred? Post examples. Where did Rarity derail a thread to talk about philosophy or ideology?
In the second and third posts of the thread The psychology of a con man - Zhou, which was initiated to discuss the psychology of a con man based on the famous user Zhou Thong, the user Rarity decided it was better to discuss the detrimental aspects of psychology and how regulated markets are the solution for economical issues: Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Bitcoin Discussion > The psychology of a con man - ZhouPsychology is a barbaric and corrupt practice, that entire article is just a load of BS. Zhou is innocent, and is acting exactly like an innocent man should by doing everything he can to resolve this unfortunate issue.
I'm sorry folks around here were ripped off, but that is the inevitable result of the free market beliefs so many people around here believe in, not the fault of an honest man like Zhou tong. A well regulated market with the government looking over our shoulder to keep everybody in line is the only way to solve this scamming issue. Believing in an article about a phony, fraudulent science is just falling for one more scam.
It seems like you are just spinning and speaking in generalities because you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar banning Rarity for questioning a moderator here. How do you know that? Are you Rarity? How do you know that Rarity questioned a moderator when no evidence or no user even indicated that this happened? The face is Rarity was never banned until this moment, so show us the posts that caused it. Redundant statement. I don't see any recent post where your quote about regulation comes from. She never posted the words you attribute to her. Do you think lying about what has happened is helping your case? Here: Your paranoia is disturbing, your accusations against me are even more baseless than your witch hunt against Zhou Tong. This is why we need government involved in this, every witch hunt will always find new victims and I guess I'm up!
Also here: As a socialist/communist and a member of a spiritual group that has had to battle tons of spurious attacks from government I am very familiar with the concept of government witch hunts. No government is perfect and we should always work to improve them, however the safeguards they provide are a huge step up from the unrestrained mob justice you get in a situation like this.
I think you would be surprised how many other leftists are flocking to bitcoin. The concept of being able to track every transaction, as opposed to the total anonymity of cash, is a huge benefit if you are trying to exercise control over the market. Now, you don't actually manipulate the Bitcoin itself, you just regulate it's use within your market by setting up whitelists for approved wallets. Any blacklisted or unlisted coins are sent to the government for redistribution before they can enter the market. That all seems a bit off topic for this thread though, but as I've said before it's very like Satoshi is actually a leftist and not any sort of libertarian at all.
...and here, as well: Who said I'm not? I just believe that market needs to be very strictly regulated and people should not take unfair levels of compensation, as many top executives and business owners do today. They should be more like the mining cooperatives were most of the profit is going back to the labor force. So, if you follow Rarity's posts, I am sure you agree that whatever Badbear suggested with his answer, is based on verifiable and factual evidence. If that is not enough, I must add that once I got caught by Rarity's rants and a forum moderator thought I was being off-topic. So the moderator moved a few posts to the off-topic section, which proves that Rarity was indeed disturbing the forum discussions by producing misplaced statements and deceitful claims: Bitcoin Forum > Other > Off-topic > Private war between Rarity, augustocroppo and mlawrence
This has moved to "Off-Topic" by the mods to let it die. We have stated our opinions - let's let everyone make up their mind.
You have the power to lock the thread, but regardless I won't be paying anymore attention.
I'm 'the mod' who moved this to 'Off-Topic', supposedly to let it die. And no, I didn't get a single bitcent from Intersango, Zhou Tong or any party in this debate.
See this? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97141.0) I don't give a fuck about Chaang Noi being a VIP or Matthew being another staff - what is off-topic goes to the off-topic section in my books. And no, us mods do not get a single bitcent from being a mod - we're just volunteers that help to unclog everything in this forum.
There, I said it. |
|
|
|
 Uploaded with ImageShack.usGLBSE is now closed, to claim any assets you have bought please fill in the form below. This information, and the balance of your asset accounts will be given to the issuers of your assets.
For example, if you had Gigamining assets, the balance of your gigamining account and the details you enter below will be sent to the issuer of gigamining.
Your contact information for issuers
Contact email address
An active email address which can be used to contact you.
Payout address
The bitcoin address which we will use to payout the bitcoin balance of your account.
Share with issuers?
Check this box if you wish to share the above information with issuers for assets you have bought. Claim finished
Your claim has been submitted and will be reviewed. You will be contacted (via the email address you provided) to keep you up to date on the status of your account, we will try to get your bitcoin to you as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
https://www.glbse.com/GLBSE has been closed
I'm sorry to inform all our users that GLBSE is no longer able to continue operating, and has now closed.
Q: What does this mean if I'm an issuer?
We will do everything in our power to make the process of moving off GLBSE as smooth as possible, we are currently working on a simple, safe, and easy to use method that will allow you to continue your relationship with your asset holders
Q:I'm a GLBSE user, what about my assets and my bitcoin?
You will be able to get back your bitcoin, and if you want to reveal your username, email, and a bitcoin address to accept payments with, you can continue your relationship with the issuer of any assets you hold.
We will begin retuning bitcoin once we have recieved all coins from the GLBSE treasurer that manages the GLBSE cash reserves. BitcoinGlobal (GLBSE's partent company) shareholders and board voted for them to be returned immediately, we are awaiting compliance with this order. Related threads: Economy > Marketplace > Securities > Verifing account of GLBSE discussionEconomy > Marketplace > Securities >GLBSE is offline We will update our users on Saturday Economy > Marketplace > Securities > GLBSE owners lied to us. How to move forward and fix this? Move to Exchange X?Economy > Marketplace > Securities > Done with GLBSEEconomy > Marketplace > Securities > How to get BTC back from GLBSCAM ?Economy > Marketplace > Service Discussion > Have Questions about GBLSE Shutdown? Ask Matthewh3 (Unofficial Spokesperson)Economy > Marketplace > Service Discussion > GLBSE closed for good Economy > Marketplace > Service Discussion > GLBSE users: how to continue your relationship with asset issuersEconomy > Trading Discussion > GLBSE ClosedEconomy > Trading Discussion > Scam Accusations > Nefario Economy > Trading Discussion > Scam Accusations > Scammer tag: NefarioEconomy > Trading Discussion > Scam Accusations > Nefario GLBSE
|
|
|
|
http://human-brain.org/evidence.htmlWhat is "evidence"
When should an observation be regarded as evidence for a proposition?
(...)
"Evidence" for a proposition is any thing that increases the estimate of the probability of the truthfulness of the proposition. Note that this definition means that what is evidence is dependent on the agent that estimates the probability. That is why the question in the first sentence is not the simpler question "When is an observation an evidence for a proposition?" The answer to this question is actually agent-dependent, unless it is interpreted as if it is the question in the first sentence.
(...)
An important point to note is that the second part is important as well: an observation that is compatible with other plausible states of affairs should not be taken as an evidence for a proposition.
(...)
Even though the logic is obvious, there is a strong tendency to ignore the second condition above. It is quite common for people to regard as evidence for some proposition an observation which is compatible with many other plausible states of affairs. In some cases, they justify it by considering only restricted set of the other plausible states of affairs (I call this the "Misanalyzing the 'Null Hypothesis'" error in Reasoning errors). In other cases, they don't bother to justify it at all, and seem to do it simply because they like the proposition, and hence accept automatically the observation as evidence (implicitly doing the "conclusion-validation" error, Reasoning errors).
|
|
|
|
You know, you guys are beating a dead horse. You've made your point.
no, we've collected evidence in one place in public. To properly make the point we will have to contact the FSA in Japan, and the SEC in the US, and the FSA in the UK. Usagi securities are not registered and not regulated by any of this bodies. |
|
|
|
LOL at augustocroppo's deep thoughts.  Enough Said  I am still waiting to you answer the questions. If you refuse to answer the questions, I will assume you are only trying to defame Usagi. |
|
|
|
I know, this is just a minor fuck up but why not include it here: If it is minor and you are posting, you have a reason. BMF sohow the following hardware at the top of the holdings-nav page Bitforce Single 832 MH/s 2
BitForce Jalapeno 4.5 GH/s 2
BitForce 'SC' Single 60 GH/s 1
HARDWARE TRACKING Item Order No. Order Date Arrival Date
Bitforce Single 832 MH/s #7650 Sep. 10, 2012 -
BitForce Jalapeno 3.5 GH/s #7839 Sep. 11, 2012 -
BitForce 'SC' Single 40 GH/s #7971 Sep. 13, 2012 -
Bitforce Single 832 MH/s #8665 Sep. 19, 2012 -
Bitforce Jalapeno 3.5 GH/s #8670 Sep. 19, 2012 -
What lead you to believe that the both bold items should be the exactly same items? http://tsukino.ca/bmf/ You have to love that on the front page BMF: Over 41% ROI since inceptionReality is (from assbot) BMF [1@1BTC] paid: 0.10822932 BTC. Last price: 0.501 BTC. Capital gain: -0.499 BTC. Total: -0.39077068 BTC. ( -39.1%) "assbot"? Do you think the result from a IRC script calculator is evidence for what exactly? http://tsukino.ca/bmf/2012/09/19/bmf-41-since-inception/19
Sep 2012
Announcements
BMF: Over 41% ROI since inception
On another note, I was just examining the historical prices of BMF. On June 1st, 2012, Mt. Gox USD was $5.16 per bitcoin. We had 1035 shares outstanding at the time. From these humble beginnings we now have over 5,000 outstanding shares, and at current prices BMF is now worth $5.73 per share! This is an annualized, real return on investment of 41% not including dividends paid! — WOW! — Essentially, the reason why mining bonds have deprecated in BTC is because the exchange rate has gone up. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp#ixzz27yAldS00Investopedia explains 'Return On Investment - ROI'
Keep in mind that the calculation for return on investment and, therefore the definition, can be modified to suit the situation -it all depends on what you include as returns and costs. The definition of the term in the broadest sense just attempts to measure the profitability of an investment and, as such, there is no one "right" calculation.
For example, a marketer may compare two different products by dividing the gross profit that each product has generated by its respective marketing expenses. A financial analyst, however, may compare the same two products using an entirely different ROI calculation, perhaps by dividing the net income of an investment by the total value of all resources that have been employed to make and sell the product.
This flexibility has a downside, as ROI calculations can be easily manipulated to suit the user's purposes, and the result can be expressed in many different ways. When using this metric, make sure you understand what inputs are being used. |
|
|
|
Have I understood you correctly?
No, you did not. |
|
|
|
I see a snapshot with no time stamp... 5 day trading volume is 231, so essentially Usagi is the only one buying. and most likely the only one bidding.
And at what price does usagi value them for his NAV calculations?
0.7 BTC per share or almost twice GLBSE 5 day average, the average only he pushed this high.
So, does usagi know something about FPGAMINING that you dont, or is he just buying up distressed shares that he already owned to temporarily push up GLSBE prices to inflate his book value (and even then doubling that value in his books like he does with most things anyway)?
The snapshot you offered is not accurate and you did not presented any additional data which indicates that in the last five days the FPGAMINING shares were solely obtained by Usagi. |
|
|
|
In that shot, I read it as 20th September 2012.  Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
|
|
Usagi and your new shill, I have a question:
As of today, BMF only has 4983 shares outstanding and staring from 2012.09.19, BMF never had more than 5347 shares outstanding. So, how did you manage to get 8148 "Yea's"?
I did not! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShillA shill, plant, or stooge is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization. Shill typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he is an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom he is secretly working. I do not have any relationship with Usagi or his business. We only share the same membership status in this forum. It appears that the outstanding shares are not a safe indicator to determine how many votes a motion can receive. This situation only shows that you and other users have been making clueless accusations against Usagi management, since you cannot even agree with the stock market vote system. Let's verify some available data: Ticker ID Created Expired Result Yea Nay Total % pass
BMF 61 2012-06-13 2012-06-16 passed 2676 63 2739 0
BMF 80 2012-06-24 2012-06-25 passed 3234 5 3239 0
BMF 124 2012-09-09 2012-09-12 passed 3011 456 3467 0
BMF 148 2012-09-26 2012-09-28 passed 8148 0 8148 0
From the motions already carried by Usagi it is an indication that the system is able to receive nay votes. But, why so many votes? I am not sure, but I will try to guess. Every security issued must give a right of vote. If this is the case, then it is completely reasonable as to why there are so many votes, including Usagi votes: https://glbse.com/asset/view/BMF Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
|
|
Motion passed by 100%. All of my shareholders are happy. Voted Yea:8148 Voted Nay:0 WOW! Congratulations, Usagi. Not one single nay vote after all accusations against your management... Priceless!  |
|
|
|
The unfortunate fact of the matter is, most of the recent 'problems', are all tied to a single entity and the exposure that people had to it.
Which comes down to risk management. If you have significant enough exposure to an investment that its failure would cause you significant liquidity problems then you shouldn't lend money to others to place in that same investment because if it collapses there's a high risk that they'll default and you'll get squeezed from both sides. This isn't a novel concept. Are we talking about pirate or AIG? Neither I think. Sounds like he is talking about usagi's CPA. I'm talking about bitlane's comment regarding the problems being tied to a single entity (pirate). The cascade effect is because people who already had exposure to pirate also lent funds to others to invest with pirate. Those people are down two lots of money - the money which they didn't receive from pirate and the money from borrowers who invested funds with pirate and are now in default. That kind of double exposure to pirate was an insane risk to take.
|
|
|
|
You've made it clear so far that you believe there should be no debate. You think this discussion is unwarranted - we get it.
Could you please present evidence for your statement? Do you have investments in Usagi's business or not? |
|
|
|
It is up to the investors to investigate the ability of the people they employ to manage their funds.
Thank you, that is exactly right. Hence what we are doing. "We"? Who is "we"? Puppet, Eskimobob, Deprived and you? How many of you have any investment in Usagi's business? Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Trading Discussion > Scam Accusations ? Which part of the "due diligence" you are confusing with "scam accusations"? I'm sorry! I must have missed the "Due Diligence" subforum. Super Apology! Your sarcasm is unnecessary for this debate. I am not asking for apologies. I am asking if you have any investment in Usagi's business! Do you have any investment in Usagi's business? |
|
|
|
It is up to the investors to investigate the ability of the people they employ to manage their funds.
Thank you, that is exactly right. Hence what we are doing. "We"? Who is "we"? Puppet, Eskimobob, Deprived and you? How many of you have any investment in Usagi's business? Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Trading Discussion > Scam Accusations ? Which part of the "due diligence" you are confusing with "scam accusations"? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
