|
If you have 1000 posts and you registered in the last two weeks, you'll have an activity of 14. Then, you can post once every 14 days, and as long as your activity is less than your post count, your activity will increase by the full 14 every 14 days.
|
|
|
|
I wasn't aware that accounts had a money value associated with post count, which depending on post quality could be a pretty subjective thing. It's not a direct relationship. It's just a very rough estimate of the effort invested in your identity. Someone with 4 posts is more likely to throw away their account for 1 BTC than someone with 1000 posts. I'm aware of the lending sites that exist, but I'm not really keen on uploading personal documents to a website, especially with the potential for hacking or misuse. I'd potentially be ok with sending someone personal documents, but the same concerns are there. Good luck. There's got to be a way - and I have no idea what it could be - to do these kind of short term loans with BTC but having some kind of credit rating in place. Without a scammer running the credit rating agency of course. Post counts only really show that you, well, post a lot.
Problem is, since identities are disposable, transactions are irreversible, and prosecution is out of the question, your credit rating starts at 0, not 800. |
|
|
|
Well I'm asking for 1 BTC, which at this time is just about $75. If I wait until something I could ship arrives, I really won't need the loan anymore, so I guess that's out. I understand the positions here, I'm just trying to figure out something that works for everyone.
Unfortunately, an account like yours, with <60 posts, costs much less than 1 BTC. This gives you an incentive to scam and buy a new account; therefore you won't be receiving a loan, whether you are actually legit or not, since we have no way to know. |
|
|
|
Sorry nimda but obvious troll is obvious.
If you say so I just can't believe someone who advertises leveraged options in their sig can't wrap their minds around a simple loan/btc hedge. You never answered the "expect to lose" part. Same goes for deprived, if he really doesn't get it that's pretty scary considering how many assets he runs (seven? eight? i can't count that high).
Which is more likely? - You explained it wrong - Everyone in this thread except you is crazy |
|
|
|
Right, so the leading byte is treated differently than the rest of the address.
Is that only the case when the leading byte(s) are 0?
Yes. It is possible (depends on the underlying public key) to have multiple leading zeros. For example the public key: 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000094A00911 Produces the Bitcoin Address: 1111111111111111111114oLvT2 Yes it is a valid address: http://blockchain.info/address/1111111111111111111114oLvT2I thought that address was a public key which hashes to 0, and the 4oLvT2 was the checksum? |
|
|
|
|
There are actually only 989999 choices to bet on.
|
|
|
|
ahahaha , I just realized , tomatocage is the 'catcher of scammers' guy and he tought I was a scammer  You were wrong this time my brother , you were wrong this time There's an old saying about this, hmm... "better safe than sorry?" Or maybe, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, don't send it money over the internet" |
|
|
|
|
+1. 2FA adds a ton to security.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a very effective spam-prevention tool. Think of it as a "proof of work" for forum users.
|
|
|
|
|
Full members can't start new topics? This is news to me.
If true, that's a problem because the advice with self-moderated threads is "start your own."
|
|
|
|
Site profit as a percentage of total wagered (should converge to 1%, the house edge): (parseFloat($('.sprofitraw')[0].innerText.replace(',','')) / parseFloat($('.swagered')[0].innerText.replace(',','')) * 100).toFixed(5)+'%'current output: "2.07705%" Expected site profit: (parseFloat($('.swagered')[0].innerText.replace(',','')) * 0.01).toFixed(8) |
|
|
|
|
Salutations. I'd like 1-100 BTC to 1NimdaiY9RGwM8cSvus55Hko2NiTaxFCNX pay back later thanks
|
|
|
|
If the price of BTC goes up, I simply pay off the loan with the loan itself plus 1%. I end up not losing very much since I don't pay transfer fees on the fiat.
if the price of BTC goes down, I can buy more BTC which covers the 1%.
I'm going to respond to this with a quote from... yourself. I believe the price will rise later.
You're expecting to lose money?  It's called a loan nimda. There's a reason CoinLenders specifically prohibits lending to gamblers. Answer the question. With the things I quoted, it follows that you expect to lose money on the loan. There's many things I want to use the money for. For example, my bitvps annual bill just came in yesterday. I could also use the money to fund activities of TU.SILVER. Silver is below $19 last I checked and I would like to buy another 50 oz.
You didn't specify that before. Before, you simply had a plan that made no sense to anyone except yourself. But it's beginning to look like the actual mechanics of how I hedge are clearly beyond a cursory explanation and I don't have time to get into it beyond what I have said -- this is a loan -- etc. People normally don't lend blindly; they want to know what you're using the money for so that they can be reasonably sure that you can pay them back. |
|
|
|
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you say, "I disagree on every level except the binary 'someone is trustworthy or they aren't' level." What is it specifically that you disagree with? You said There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy. Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.
This seems to imply that there's no such thing as partial trust. There are things that anyone can do to partially gain my trust. Huh? There's nothing to interpret. You're reading way too much into my statement. There is no hidden message to decipher.
Why exactly don't you want to make a bet? With a bet, you tie up no capital and have a positive EV. |
|
|
|
I would appreciate it if you gives could loan me the 0.14 btc. I will pay back 0.15. If you cant make the loan a donation would help too thank you so much. I'll be getting the 0.15 btc by July 12 at the latest.
Take the Satoshi or leave it. It might be the biggest offers you'd get. Thank you soo much for your offer but I live in the United States so I cant take that/ A satoshi is 0.00000001 BTC. It's the atomic (smallest possible) unit. Named after Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonym of the creator of Bitcoin. Not to be confused with SatoshiDICE, the gambling site. |
|
|
|
There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy. Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.
I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient. I agree that there are levels of trustworthiness and we all have different criteria for deciding who we want to trust, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust. This statement is a little wonky. "Proving that they will never violate trust" is an absolute: it's white, 1, one bit. Levels of trustworthiness are probabilities that the person will not violate the trust. I can consider someone to be very trustworthy, but there is nothing they can do to prove that they are absolutely trustworthy and will not scam you in the future. Nothing wonky there, just a simple fact. You said: there are levels of trustworthiness but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust. i.e. trust is a gradient attaining 100% trust is impossible This was in defense of: There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy. Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before. i.e. attaining 100% trust is impossible attaining 0% trust is possible To which I had responded, I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient. i.e. attaining partial trust is possible Do you see how your statement doesn't contradict mine? Yes, there is more than one way to make money, but if what I'm doing now works, why bother? Thanks, but if I want to make/risk more money, all I need to do is invest more.
There are only two ways I can interpret this statement: 0. You (nimda) do not provide a higher reward/risk than my current options AND 1. My current options are perfectly scalable OR 2. My investable money is less than the amount needed to break #1, i.e. bringing its reward/risk lower than your option I'm skeptical of #0 (i.e. both ways) and #1.
I'm pretty sure I have his home phone, address and an old headshot. Anyone else can do the same in 20 minutes with the google, he has a pretty big online footprint. That's better than both frott and I got. The risks are obvious, and as investment levels keep exploding upwards (>24,000BTC!?!) and thus expected yield goes down, the market will determine the 'value' of his rep. Not really, as there's some perceived morality included too, as you explain: A fair number of people don't want to be criminals or a thief even with 2.4M, oh wait, $1.7M (damn u gox), in value on the line. I think he is in that camp. Also, just try to cash out $1.7M in coins. Not that easy these days. It's not that hard, especially for someone with $1.7M worth of coins. Of course there will be slippage, but that didn't stop pirate. |
|
|
|
He has very strong economic incentives to take the money and run. The fact that others have scammed gives us a lot of information:
- Anonymous people here often favor the economic incentive to scam over the moral / reputational incentive not to
- Post count / duration on board is not a reliable indicator of trust
- A significant portion of the trusted people here have simply been pulling long-cons
(These actually do affect the likelihood that dooglus will scam, because probability.)
By this logic you are best off not investing in bitcoin in the first place Sorry, That was poor phrasing on my part. What I meant was "You're better off not investing your bitcoins into anything in the first place"
Nope. I gave reasons that increased the chance of scammers who deal in Bitcoin. That doesn't mean the chance reaches 100%, which is the point at which no investment makes sense. |
|
|
|
|
Cool. How long are you planning on running this?
|
|
|
|
He has very strong economic incentives to take the money and run. The fact that others have scammed gives us a lot of information:
- Anonymous people here often favor the economic incentive to scam over the moral / reputational incentive not to
- Post count / duration on board is not a reliable indicator of trust
- A significant portion of the trusted people here have simply been pulling long-cons
(These actually do affect the likelihood that dooglus will scam, because probability.)
By this logic you are best off not investing in bitcoin in the first place That most certainly does not follow from what I have said. 'Bitcoin' as an entity cannot scam me, judging by my own review of the code as well as that of others. Please explain your reasoning.
It's worth noting that 'dooglus' with the same real name has had a definite online presence well before the beginning of Bitcoin. It's a rather well thought out scam, if he indeed did create a false online personality for scamming purposes before Bitcoin was invented.
Creating a false personality for scamming purposes is not the only possible scenario. Another is that Bitcoin provides a way to capitalize on trust through irreversible online transactions. If you were dooglus, would you value your online persona at more than $1M?
There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy. Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.
I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient. I agree that there are levels of trustworthiness and we all have different criteria for deciding who we want to trust, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust. This statement is a little wonky. "Proving that they will never violate trust" is an absolute: it's white, 1, one bit. Levels of trustworthiness are probabilities that the person will not violate the trust. Bitcoin eliminates the need to trust bankers and their currencies. With bankers out of the loop, we each individually have to decide who we are going to trust when we transact or invest. That's inescapable. Yes, some have scammed, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to scam, just because they have the opportunity to. It means that the chance of scam is higher. The fact that many other people have scammed and gotten away with it increases the risk here. I never said that everyone is going to scam, nor did I claim with 100% certainty that dooglus is going to scam. I believe having a diversified portfolio is the best way for me to "hedge" my investments and protects me from having something go horribly wrong with one of them.
If we disagree on the probabilities of outcomes, there is always money to be made. There is also money to be made by investing in projects run by individuals that I consider to be competent and trustworthy. That's been working well for me so far. That's a rather silly statement. You say it like you're contradicting me or giving a reason to avoid my offer, but you haven't actually put forth a logical objection. I'm offering you a chance to make more money, by way of a hedge that has, from your estimated probabilities, a positive expected value. I stand by my above statement, that there is money to be made, until you can offer an actual opposing argument rather than a pattern-matched statement pretending to be an argument. There is money to be made in selling salt. There is also money to be made in selling pepper. This latter fact does not contradict the first statement, and it does not mean that pepper vendors should not sell salt.
Re dooglus, I think he was also a contributing programmer for MAME (Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator) before bitcoin existed. Can't verify that, but there are chat logs from 2005 on some ubuntu discussion.
See above response to juhakall. That unverifiable thought adds to the uniqueness and value of his persona, but I don't think it is enough. It makes it a more costly identity to throw away, and a more costly identity to replicate, but I wouldn't value those costs at 14K BTC. I'd be happy to lend $5 to an anonymous person with 1000 page-long posts, no questions asked, because their identity is likely worth more than $5 to them. I would not lend a newbie $5, nor would I lend the aforementioned anonymous person $1M. NOTE: I'm not some kind of doomsayer. With pirate the question was "when" but with dooglus the question is "whether." I assign his being a scammer a less than 50% probability. I have a few BTC invested, and I'm wondering how much more to put in; it will probably be a few thousand dollars worth. |
|
|
|
If the price of BTC goes up, I simply pay off the loan with the loan itself plus 1%. I end up not losing very much since I don't pay transfer fees on the fiat.
if the price of BTC goes down, I can buy more BTC which covers the 1%.
I'm going to respond to this with a quote from... yourself. I believe the price will rise later.
You're expecting to lose money? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
