Dank Bank is structurally not a ponzi scheme. But opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
Dank Bank is like an asshole. Everyone thinks it smells funny. This reminds me why I'm one of the few people who haven't clicked your orange ignore button  |
|
|
|
I'm bored, Let me help you build trust with your depositors.
What's your full name ?
What country / state do you reside in ?
What's your facebook page ?
Can you post a pic of yourself handing a paper with your btc name on it ?
I imagine if you did the above, it will go along way in people accepting your low post count / new join date.
Or you could just ignore me... I don't mind. Like i said, im just bored. ( working late on a saturday does that )
Additionally... How much Pirate exposure do you have? Shoe on head? Have you ever sold or bought anything for BTC and had the other person send first? #bitcoin-otc rep? Most important, though, is getting a credit rating from PatrickHarnett. |
|
|
|
hi! bitcoinica still owes my 40 btc.
i would like to take a 35 btc loan, and return 40 btc if/when bitcoinica pays back my 40 btc.
i will return nothing before bitcoinica pays me back.
Maybe Zhou Tong or the Bitcoin Consultancy will loan you the 35 BTC, because that's an awfully bad deal for anyone else lol Good luck  how low do you think i should set the price before someone makes a offer? 30btc? 20btc? should i provide 50% back guarantee by christmas? None of that will solve the "i will return nothing before bitcoinica pays me back." problem, because the most certain is that you won't get a dime back. Even if you guarantee 50% back by Christmas, they will still lose. i know, but i though someone might be willingly to take that risk... i would take the offer of loan 30btc payback 40btc, and 50% (15btc) by christmas, if i had btc enough, and the loan taker was a reputable forum member. Basically, you're offering gambling on a Bitcoinica payback. The problem is, you have the wrong odds. 35/40 is 87.5%  Personally I think Bitcoinica has a 10% chance of paying back, so I'd buy your debt for less than 4 BTC. Not 35. i think there is about 30-40% chance they will payback, but i kind of need the money now, thats why i tried to sell their debt. You value their debt too high then. You'll find very few people who think that Bitcoinica has a 40% chance of paying back, and even if that is the case, the debt is worth no more than 16 BTC. |
|
|
|
Basically, you're offering gambling on a Bitcoinica payback. The problem is, you have the wrong odds. 35/40 is 87.5% Personally I think Bitcoinica has a 10% chance of paying back, so I'd buy your debt for less than 4 BTC. Not 35. |
|
|
|
|
Thank you for reminding me why I use AutoHotkey.
|
|
|
|
Nothing in this thread so far beats the current logo. Not even close. Until something comes close, they are all useless. That's my opinion anyway.
A professional designer will be working with me on it starting Tuesday. You ain't seen nothing yet Damm I tought I was on a winning design path :p Hope the designer can come up with something nice. Just wondering if he is working 'pre-paid', so I still have a chance if I design some more  The design is awesome, the text: Global Digital Currency is perfect. But the double B paranoia is just stupid. Even my wife said that she preferred the previous version with the "Bitcoin", and the "itcoin" version looks a bit circumsized.
Thanks Personally also liked the Bitcoin in full. Also gives the opportunity to use the -B in the logo. Made a version of the 'Bitcoin accepted here' button  Wow. That looks amazing. I don't like the color  Really? It looks clean and fresh to me. Very professional also. |
|
|
|
Nothing in this thread so far beats the current logo. Not even close. Until something comes close, they are all useless. That's my opinion anyway.
A professional designer will be working with me on it starting Tuesday. You ain't seen nothing yet Damm I tought I was on a winning design path :p Hope the designer can come up with something nice. Just wondering if he is working 'pre-paid', so I still have a chance if I design some more The design is awesome, the text: Global Digital Currency is perfect. But the double B paranoia is just stupid. Even my wife said that she preferred the previous version with the "Bitcoin", and the "itcoin" version looks a bit circumsized.
Thanks Personally also liked the Bitcoin in full. Also gives the opportunity to use the -B in the logo. Made a version of the 'Bitcoin accepted here' button Wow. That looks amazing. |
|
|
|
 R has too much of a learning curve (get it?  ) for me. Apparently, in order to plot two functions, you have to combine them into a matrix and stuff... it's just failing for me. So... enjoy this :-/  Equations used are 0.05/(X-1) and 0.069*(X-1)+0.01 Now let's just check that math: Scenario 1:Alice buys a share of YARR for 1.782 BTC. She gets 0.06 weekly. On default: 1 BTC + 0.06w Scenario 2:Alice puts .782 into BitcoinMax and 1 into Starfish BCB. On default: 1 BTC + 0.01w + 0.053889w > 1 BTC + 0.06 w So I did something wrong. It's actually closer to 1.725 BTC. Edit: I should probably have given the YARR line a time value of 0%. In any case, this graphic is a "good enough" representation.
|
|
|
|
Cool. I'm always open to new programming languages/environments. Luckily I picked up 70 shares of YARR for 1.17 not long after the IPO  Then you are a very lucky man France legislated pi = 4 (since corrected)
There are other issues around that require attention too, but it is descending into hysteria like the Salem trials with the newest crusader messing things up rather than applying any logic or thought. So, this thread is refreshing. The math can be taken even further if we come up with investors confidence in each party. For example, if the investor thinks YARR, PPT.X, CPA, BitcoinMax etc is more likely to default than pirate himself. The concept of capital at risk is a bit novel, as you normally look at overall return. Surely you want to know the result for all funds. For example, as I progressively cash out my initial seed money, my return becomes higher and higher until it hits infinity.
It may be novel, but it is the correct way to go about it. When I gave you money for the 1.5%/week compounding interest, the risk is the same for every satoshi I gave you. Either you default, or you don't, or you say "sorry, here's a partial return." When Bob gives money to Alice, though, the risk varies. Some BTC is at risk of a pirate default, and some isn't. Some BTC is at risk of Starfish BCB defaulting, and some isn't. To accurately calculate the reward/risk ratio, we need to take that into account. The reason I had Bob give Alice money instead of investing himself is because YARR and PPT.X come as a "bundle:" you give them 1 or 0.32 BTC respectively that you are guaranteed, then you give them .89 or .75 BTC to gain interest, which you won't get back if pirate defaults. Furthermore, if the investor's confidence in usagi/CPA or the "cartel of lenders" is 100%, then the risk on the guaranteed portion is 0. The return can be 0 or negative. I believe that my examples show that my model is correct. Now off to download R! (Not R-) |
|
|
|
Yes and no. Have to manually feed it..so a bit slow. Also, it doesn't separate out CAD pennies..which would be illegal to melt down in Canada. Im in Canada, and pennies up to '96 are 98% i think. Got boxes of it in my room. It's not the copper content, it's the fact that if someone wants to take all my pennies across the border [you can carry 1 million pennies on you legally (~6300 lbs of copper)] and melt them down, they can't melt the CAD pennies. They can melt the American pennies for the copper content, but not the CAD pennies. Same in America, if you have a bunch of copper CAD pennies, you can melt them in America, but not American pennies. (Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331: Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; or whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled or lightened - shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Emphasis added.) It says bringing coins INTO the United State to be mutilated, not exporting them. So, you can't bring me a ton of Canadian pennies IANAL, but the reason that penny presses are allowed at major attractions is because of the word "fraudulently." |
|
|
|
Save your nands.
I like it! |
|
|
|
we see how volatility significantly effects demand Actually, there's a little-known but perfectly valid meaning of the word 'effect:' "to bring about / to cause to happen" Therefore, the statement "volatility effects demand" could be interpreted as "volatility creates demand." However, the use of 'significantly' totally throws it off, and the end result is a grammatically incorrect sentence. |
|
|
|
|
We'll get pruning eventually.
|
|
|
|
Totally normal. If 3GiB is too much, then the Satoshi client is not for you. There are tiny trustless alternatives such as Electrum and trustless online wallets like http://blockchain.info/wallet . |
|
|
|
I heard my name, so I'd better sub - plus it's an interesting thread and attempts to cover some of these items more logically than several others.
Actually I was about to ask if it was OK to use your name -- I assumed so, as my posts don't portray you in a negative light -- but it's best to be sure. I should probably PM PayB.tc soon. As for the logic, I saw theymos' post about "local rules" and decided that there are enough "Pirate is a ponzi" arguments already. How dare you nimda to base your post on mathematics? Well... uhhh... how dare you not have defaulted on my deposit with you yet? SO THERE!  I'm open to anyone pointing out math flaws -- a fatal rounding error which when combined with a year of compound interest states that tennis racket companies pay more than pirate, or my algebra being wrong, or it being against U.S. law to use e the way I did etc Fun Fact: according to this book (which I highly recommend) in one state, a man successfully filed a patent on the "mathematical truth" that pi = 4. |
|
|
|
In one thread a steam account was used as collateral. Yours is probably worth more than $63.
The last one I remember that happening the lender got burned on the loan, so... Well then the lender got a lot of cheap steam games. Life is tough, but I bet the lender managed to sell off the account for nearly the cost of the loan (if not, then the lender made a poor decision in the first place) |
|
|
|
Here is a multiple-scenario example: Time Value of 0%, Pirate defaultsScenario 1:Bob has 18.995 BTC. He says "here Alice, I trust you. Invest this money in the best possible way." After taking out 0.0005 for a transaction fee just to be safe, Alice has 18.9945 BTC on the GLBSE to invest. Turns out, that's the perfect amount for 10 shares of YARR at 1.89 each plus the 0.5% trade fee. What a perfect world. Alice now has 10 YARR shares. Every day, she gets 0.1 BTC, except for Sundays. That's 0.6 weekly, or 3.15881% weekly on the 18.9945. Then one day (dun dun dun) Pirate defaults  Given w weeks have passed since the investment, Alice now has the dividends of 0.6w plus 10 BTC. Scenario 2:Blah blah money changes hands. Alice gives 8.695652174 BTC to Bitcoinmax (earning 6.9%). She puts the rest (about 10.2988) in cold storage. She gets 0.6 BTC weekly, or 3.15881% weekly on the 18.9945. blah blah pirate defaults in this universe too Alice now has 0.6w plus 10.2988 BTC. This is the better dealTime Value of 1% weekly, Pirate defaultsScenario 1:Same story as the very first scenario. Scenario 2:Same as the original scenario 2, but with 1 modification: instead of cold storage, Alice gives the 10.2988 to PatrickHarnett (earning 1% weekly). That last bit is perfectly reasonable, since Patrick provides some of the "lowest" rates and is one of the most trusted. Besides, like you said, no one is going to keep bitcoins in cold storage not gaining interest anywhere. When pirate defaults, Alice has 0.6w + 10.2988 e^.01w (also expressed as 0.6w + 10.2988 * 1.01^w) This is the better dealHopefully it is now clear why time value is an argument against "insured" pirate bonds (not just YARR). In another set of hypotheticals, pirate doesn't default, but Bob wants to buy a wikispeed car with his money (it's been many years now, pirates rates have never changed, and pirate owes more bitcoins than can ever exist ). Set 1: BitcoinMax or any other non-bond instrument: 0.0005 max is paid on withdrawal. Set 2: GLBSE, and Bob wants that money NOW: 0.5% fees are paid when selling the shares. I have to ask -- is this an attack on YARR? Nope. It's math. If the whole market could do middle school math and the whole market read this post, prices would probably go down some. But that doesn't hurt you, as you've said. Finally, let's look at 2 more sets (these show a cheaper YARR is a mathematical pipe dream ): Time value of 0%, YARR price is 1.3, Pirate defaults, no fees paidScenario 1:So Bob gives Alice 13.0005 BTC. She puts 3 into BitcoinMax and 10 into cold storage. She gets 0.207 weekly. When pirate defaults, she has: 10 BTC + 0.207w Scenario 2:Drop the fee and buy 10 shares @ 1.3 BTC each (bids got filled; Alice wasn't the taker). That's 0.1 daily except Sundays, for 0.6 weekly. When pirate defaults, Alice has: 10 BTC + 0.6wThis time, YARR is the better deal, because it cost 1.3 BTC, not 1.89 BTC.Time value of 1%, YARR price is 1.3, Pirate defaults, 0.5% GLBSE feeScenario 1:Bob --> Alice 13.0655 BTC. 10 go into PatrickHarnett, 3.065 go into BitcoinMax (actually, we'd need to multiply every number in this last set by 10, since BitcoinMax has a minimum of 5 BTC, but it doesn't matter really). When Pirate defaults: 0.2114w + 10 + .01w (or .2114w + 10 * 1.01 ^ w if the Starfish account was compounding, but that's unfair because YARR wasn't compounding -- it's difficult to compute compounding with multiples and not really relevant) Scenario 2:Alice gets 13 YARR shares. When pirate defaults: 0.78w + 13
This is the better deal.Conclusion:YARR is worth more than 1.3 BTC, and less than 1.89 BTC. Those who bought in at 1.3 BTC are getting an amazing deal. What is that deal though? WELL! The capital at risk or "exposed" to a pirate default is only .3 BTC. The other capital is guaranteed. Thus, the risk is identical to giving pirate .3 BTC. The return, however, is huge. The people who bought in at that price are getting 0.06 weekly per .3 BTC risk. That's an ASTOUNDING 20% WEEKLY ON RISKED CAPITAL There is the small problem of time value: the other btc is at no risk. If one were to invest 1 BTC in PatrickHarnett and 0.3 direct with pirate, one would get 0.031 weekly. Just over HALF of what YARR brings you. If we treat the lost time value as a detractor, then we're losing a possible 0.01 weekly on that 1 BTC. So... 0.05 weekly on that 0.3 BTC risk. Still an ASTOUNDING 16.67% weekly on risked capital Conclusion: I should have bought very large amounts of YARR at the IPO. Perhaps I will get a chance when usagi sells down to 1.4 BTC. Even at the worst case estimate, I'd "get" 0.05 weekly on 0.4 risk and 1 BTC which I can't trade or invest. STILL AN ASTOUNDING 12.5% I think now is the time for the graphs. We'll see visually the exact fair price of YARR. But I have other work to do. See you tomorrow! P.S. The fair price is about 1.76 BTC. P.P.S. Does anyone have a nice (command line or GUI) graphing tool for Windows? P.P.P.S. All of this applies to PPT.X too; 1.07 is the fair price |
|
|
|
|
In one thread a steam account was used as collateral. Yours is probably worth more than $63.
|
|
|
|
Ooh, that sounds like quite the idea |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
