 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
|
You have to be fucking kidding me. These scammers are getting more retarded by the minute.
|
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have a loan listed on BTCjam and am making the announcement here. https://btcjam.com/listings/523Any questions you have can be discussed here. It's a 22.2% annual yield investment. I'll be able to settle my PayPal account with 70% funding and can answer any questions here. The loan is currently 23% funded and has 6 days left. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 10.0.3 (Build 1) Charset: utf-8 wj8DBQFQqKwwq4If6+hHSx0RAkDiAKD4TwKOKkA6Sxa0sU3LrhkLIhONfgCgsoNS w/uVS+1qssC5Ky1UJzkh/D0= =Lf7c -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Thanks. I missed the bit about it being signed by bitcoin-otc public key, so it wasn't even necessary, sorry  |
|
|
|
Just read their press announcement. The bitcoin option isn't meant for users like you. This is for people who have trouble using CC and paypal. Yep. I do not have a credit card, so I also can't have a paypal account. If I want to buy something online, I can either wire the money, or beg one of my friends to order it for me (or go to the bank and get a credit card, but I am way too lazy for that). Using bitcoin for me is a total no-brainer, and I'm sure I'm not the only having this problem. |
|
|
|
According to the transaction fee rules, the size of the transaction is used to calculate fees ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees). From what I've read elsewhere, the size of the tx will be: 180 bytes per input + 34 bytes per output + 10 bytes. However, while I've found that calculation to hold up most of the time, it doesn't seem to be accurate all of the time. Is there a more reliable way to know how large a transaction will be so that appropriate fees can be assigned when creating a raw transaction? There is no way of knowing in advance how big the signatures are going to be. You can try making several transactions and based on the size of those figure out how large the fee must be. You could also use a conservative estimate for the size and have users in some cases pay a little bit more. |
|
|
|
Someone in his home town reported that he bought his "wife" and a few of his family members brand new vehicles recently and evidently paid cash for them
What a waste of money... |
|
|
|
Since it seems to have been a ponzi scheme, pirate likely has no money, paid it all out in interest to keep the scam going.
I doubt he paid out much since pretty much everyone has been "reinvesting" as far as I know. And your opinion is based on the fact you were a PPT operator, right? My opinion is based on what I have read on the forum. I have been a part of this forum for quite some time. From actual experience I would say that less than half the customers reinvested and more than half of them took their interest every three days in the early days, then weekly when the system was changed. I describe a method by which this "reinvestment rate" can be estimated from the information we have on Bitcoinmax here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=120119.msg1331862#msg1331862From here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83904.msg1302303#msg1302303We can see that the amount on deposit at Bitcoinmax at the time of closure was: 167728.74239044 + 110.74501165, this includes all interest to that date. Now someone can dig up their deposit and withdrawal addresses and we can calculate exactly how much was actually on depost. I see, I got the wrong impression then, thanks. |
|
|
|
Since it seems to have been a ponzi scheme, pirate likely has no money, paid it all out in interest to keep the scam going.
I doubt he paid out much since pretty much everyone has been "reinvesting" as far as I know. And your opinion is based on the fact you were a PPT operator, right? My opinion is based on what I have read on the forum. I have been a part of this forum for quite some time. |
|
|
|
Since it seems to have been a ponzi scheme, pirate likely has no money, paid it all out in interest to keep the scam going.
I doubt he paid out much since pretty much everyone has been "reinvesting" as far as I know. |
|
|
|
You never answered my question. Are you willing to provide a copy of your ID, proof of income, phone number and address? It's a perfectly legitimate question. You could also try your luck on btcjam. I hope you don't consider this post as trolling.  |
|
|
|
|
Who is this "squal1066" that can vouch for you? Are you willing to provide ID, phone number, current address, proof of income, and a picture with a shoe on your head (the latter being the most important)?
|
|
|
|
Is it that you people are that mental, born with a less than adequate IQ... talking about less than adequate IQ... Since 10 BTC = 10,000 units on Seals and games run as low as 1/2, it is mathematically impossible to lose with the winrate established.
/facepalm. |
|
|
|
I am thinking that perhaps the server that the electrum client uses could be used for something like this? Certainly, electrum servers are easy to use, but unfortunately not (yet) very stable. You would also need to code the actual creation of a transaction (although electrum code is easy to read so that shouldn't be a big problem). |
|
|
|
I wouldn't really call Pirate a victim.
Exactly. That's why it doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Since there is no transparency, we can assume his inner circle received their loans back, leaving everyone else empty handed.
His inner circle? Who would that be? Like in every ponzi those who invested early had the chance to make a profit, but probably didn't since pretty much everyone "reinvested", as far as I can see. Re: pirate payments list -- accounts paid: 23/459I have no idea who they are. Since there were no confirmations of those payouts I'd say it's entirely likely that there actually were no payouts whatsoever. And in case they were, as far as I can see those were ( supposedly) all very small accounts, most likely paid out as a stalling tactic. I wouldn't call those people "his inner circle". Sure, you may be right. But if you think that he lied about paying anybody, why do you believe that the paid out accounts were very small accounts? Because it makes the most sense at this point. Grab the money, pay a few small accounts to keep people off your back for a while longer, disappear. |
|
|
|
Since there is no transparency, we can assume his inner circle received their loans back, leaving everyone else empty handed.
His inner circle? Who would that be? Like in every ponzi those who invested early had the chance to make a profit, but probably didn't since pretty much everyone "reinvested", as far as I can see. Re: pirate payments list -- accounts paid: 23/459I have no idea who they are. Since there were no confirmations of those payouts I'd say it's entirely likely that there actually were no payouts whatsoever. And in case they were, as far as I can see those were (supposedly) all very small accounts, most likely paid out as a stalling tactic. I wouldn't call those people "his inner circle". |
|
|
|
Since there is no transparency, we can assume his inner circle received their loans back, leaving everyone else empty handed.
His inner circle? Who would that be? Like in every ponzi those who invested early had the chance to make a profit, but probably didn't since pretty much everyone "reinvested", as far as I can see. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, of course. It wouldn't be very convenient otherwise. You can even go one step further, print the private key to paper and delete it from your computer, and you would still be able to get to all bitcoins that would eventually appear on the address.
To clarify a bit, there is no such thing as "bitcoins being sent to an address", per se. Bitcoins are there for the taking by everyone who has the appropriate private key.
|
|
|
|
|
None of those instawallet "accounts" (as far as I can see) has or ever had any bitcoins on them. Instawallet account identifiers have too high entropy for brute forcing them being profitable.
Instawallet is as safe as any other "shared wallet" out there.
|
|
|
|
|
You know you're going to be losing money in the long run with satoshidice, right?
|
|
|
|
If I had to guess I'd say they expect only one transaction, and not two as in your case.
If you read the mtgox screenshot they say he can send the btc "from dozens of different addresses". Yes, that could be done in a single transaction (actually, very rarely will transaction only contain one input). It also says "upon detection of the transaction", which made me think they could in fact be expecting a single transaction. |
|
|
|
|
