Bitcoin Forum
January 22, 2020, 08:08:57 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 ... 158 »
1101  Economy / Lending / Re: Bryan Micon's List of BTC Ponzi Schemes that should not be listed as "Lending" on: August 15, 2012, 04:04:20 AM
So, your argument boils down to "because Bitcoin". I'm afraid that you'll have to back that statement up then. What is special about Bitcoin that allows Pirate to provide such large returns at this scale?

Im only going to answer this part. Thats exactly why he isnt sharing, I have had some of my very own short term legit lucrative ideas that I never revealed which later on got caught up by other people. You are effectively requesting what he is doing to make money, surely you cant be this naive to think that if its all legit and not a ponzi like Lord Micon and co. wants it to be then not revealing the actual business is +EV for pirate ?

I agree with this.  I gave you a lead with the futures thing, someone said it was a 0 sum gain, (which technically, any business is.. you can't just make new money, only the fed does that) and that was countered explaining how its not and then basically people forgot about it.  If you really want to know, then talk to some economists and/or traders and work through the possibilities.  Ignore most of the people here for that, because they're just the internet and have too much riding on being "right" vs being accurate.
Thank you for that, by the way. I am currently following up on this lead to see where it goes.
1102  Economy / Lending / Re: Bryan Micon's List of BTC Ponzi Schemes that should not be listed as "Lending" on: August 15, 2012, 03:27:52 AM
On the contrary, when it comes to Ponzis, a lack of evidence of anything is evidence of a Ponzi. It's also extremely easy to disprove if it's not a ponzi. As it is, there is no evidence that a business side of BS&T even exists. If I'm wrong about this, let me know.
Well, there are quite a few respected members of this very forum, that know exactly about the BS&T business. You being a Moderator, did you even think about asking them privately before making your ponzi accusations?
Of course, both as a public call for information, and as private requests. I finally have a lead, so I'm going to see where that brings us.
Now it might well be a ponzi, but the last two months led me to think it's not. The "ponzi campaign" seemed to work quite well, the withdrawal must have been large, according to GLBSE PPT rates and forum talks, yet he has been able to meet his obligations.
That's a common misconception. The "ponzi campaign" did work well... for Pirate. Sure, a vocal minority withdrew a large chuck of money, but what you aren't seeing behind the scenes is that the "ponzi campaign" actually brought Pirate significantly more money. He was receiving close to 10% in deposits per week, even after you subtract the withdrawals. Of course he was able to meet those obligations, knowing that.

Hey, you Pirate supporters, could you point me to ONE case in history where someone has paid consistently several thousand percent REAL interest rate for an unlimited number of debtors over extended time where the nature of the business was not disclosed to investors that didn't turn out to be a scam.

The extended time you speak of is right at a year and its in a brand new/emerging technology.  Look at any brand new, rapidly growing company and their rates will be off the charts and of course if you extrapolate those rates to infinite they look ridiculous. That's part of the point that the 'pirate supporters' are trying to make.. a high interest rate isn't a clear indicator all by itself.
So, your argument boils down to "because Bitcoin". I'm afraid that you'll have to back that statement up then. What is special about Bitcoin that allows Pirate to provide such large returns at this scale?
1103  Economy / Lending / Re: Bryan Micon's List of BTC Ponzi Schemes that should not be listed as "Lending" on: August 14, 2012, 05:40:31 AM
For those of us who aren't experts in the futures trading market, could you please explain how your theory might work? I am willing to be open-minded about this, so I'm all ears.

Also, we can easily check the BTC side of MtGox without them even assisting us, so the comparison isn't even close to valid. Because the BTC used by Pirate can move back and forth between USD and BTC, we cannot check those numbers without his assistance.

With Gox, I simply was trying to illustrate that coins can change hands without every actually being published in a public record.  To assert that the blockchain is the end all, be all, to prove a transaction.. well, its just wrong.
Yes, I believe that everyone on the audit team can agree with you there.
Now on to futures:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_contract, "In finance, a futures contract is a standardized contract between two parties to buy or sell a specified asset of standardized quantity and quality for a price agreed today (the futures price or strike price) with delivery and payment occurring at a specified future date, the delivery date."

Are you familiar with shorting a stock or buying a stock on margin?
Please, assume basic Wiki knowledge. Of course I'm familiar with shorting a stock and buying on margin.

I'm most curious about the following:
1) What about futures would have such a continuous need, regardless of whether the price is going up or down?
2) Why would such an exchange not be public?
3) Why is the need for bitcoins to be held continuously growing, especially with the price going up? Shouldn't it only go up as the price goes down?
4) Why wouldn't Pirate just request a loan for the bitcoins on-demand instead of holding them at a constant interest rate?
1104  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Not afraid of risk? Get up to 1% daily! - OBSI.HRPT on: August 14, 2012, 05:13:21 AM
Damn you people are stupid.
Honestly, I don't understand why such stuff is even allowed on GLBSE, this is right against rule #9 imho:
Quote
9. The Exchange reserves the right to suspend trading of any asset, or suspend access to an asset creator's account, for failure of an asset creator to provide requested information, or in the event of suspected fraud.
I highly suspect fraud in this venture and I think I'm not the only one, judging from posts so far.

From your prior posts in my threads it seems you suspect anything you don't understand, and thus end up suspecting nearly everything. I know how scary it can be to live with paranoia and fear and hope you can overcome them one day.
Gee, this sounds familiar. Congratulations, folks, you fell for the second most obvious ponzi scheme on this forum. I'd say that "that takes skill!", but it really doesn't. You all should have known going into this that you weren't going to get what you expected.
1105  Economy / Lending / Re: Bryan Micon's List of BTC Ponzi Schemes that should not be listed as "Lending" on: August 14, 2012, 02:51:11 AM
What about the claim of "there is no evidence that your business has the required income to pay its incredible interest bill without eroding principle balances"?

Surely it's fairly easy in a currency in which all transactions are on public record in the blockchain to show that you're doing a substantial amount of business?

I mean, given the weekly interest bill, you'd expect BTCST to be doing at least 150k BTC per week in trades even if they were dealing in something with a very high profit margin. It shouldn't be difficult to show.

Unless of course they are futures contracts and don't actually require the  coins to move.  How about you ask mtgox to show all of their btc transfers in the block chain... oh wait, you can't because some of it is internal/on paper.
For those of us who aren't experts in the futures trading market, could you please explain how your theory might work? I am willing to be open-minded about this, so I'm all ears.

Also, we can easily check the BTC side of MtGox without them even assisting us, so the comparison isn't even close to valid. Because the BTC used by Pirate can move back and forth between USD and BTC, we cannot check those numbers without his assistance.

Wouldn't it just be easier for people to show they're not scammers?
Against what proof?
As it stands there is nothing to defend against but baseless claims that don't need any defending against, perhaps I missed some proof amongst the 'ponzi ponzi ponzi' chants, because I've seen none backing up your accusations, so then, with such a lack of proof (And indeed, victims) i think "people" have shown they are not scammers.

What about the claim of "there is no evidence that your business has the required income to pay its incredible interest bill without eroding principle balances"?

Surely it's fairly easy in a currency in which all transactions are on public record in the blockchain to show that you're doing a substantial amount of business?

I mean, given the weekly interest bill, you'd expect BTCST to be doing at least 150k BTC per week in trades even if they were dealing in something with a very high profit margin. It shouldn't be difficult to show.
A lack of evidence is evidence of nothing, so, you have nothing but baseless claims, again please come up with something that isn't 1) "You don't know therefore ponzi" or 2) "7% therefore ponzi", there were some people a while ago trying to prove that pirate never moved any of the coins, I'm guessing they failed at that... Surely with all of your investigations and 36 pages of discussion you have SOMETHING right?
On the contrary, when it comes to Ponzis, a lack of evidence of anything is evidence of a Ponzi. It's also extremely easy to disprove if it's not a ponzi. As it is, there is no evidence that a business side of BS&T even exists. If I'm wrong about this, let me know.
1106  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: How come I can't post?? on: August 14, 2012, 01:02:26 AM
Can someone please tell me how I can gain normal privileges on this forum?

Thanks
Technically, by asking in the whitelist request thread. Of course, we're also good at catching newbies "in the wild", so to speak, but you should post there if you want to be noticed for sure.

Whitelisted.
1107  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Whitelist Requests (Want out of here?) on: August 14, 2012, 12:58:53 AM
Hey

From my former posts you can see that I'm serious and that I'm not going to post much rant.

I want to be the first to congratulate BFL_Josh (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97269.40) on his new job in BFL, since he starts his job today, Monday the 13.th of August.

I have also bought a BF Single, and want to be able to communicate with others who have bought the product in this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77796.720

So I'd appreciate if you could let me in.

Thank you.

Edit:
I'm also using the default Bitcoin wallet, have Mt Gox account set up with payment system, a website accepting Bitcoin, so I think I have above average understanding of Bitcoin.
You seem to know your stuff! Whitelisted.

Please whitelist.  Been working with BTC since early '11.  Need to get into LTC discussions.

Thanks.
No, you spammed to try getting out. We don't like that.
Hi, I've made 11 posts but I don't meet the 4 hour requirement. Can I get whitelisted?
It would be nice if we saw more than one-sentence posts from you.
Hey, I don't meet either of the requirements but I want to buy broken/non functioning gpus for parts in marketplace... Can I be whitelisted too?
You can PM the seller.
1108  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Here's why BTCST won't last for one year on: August 14, 2012, 12:40:47 AM
Oh and if I had to guess just based on the estimated volume of pirate's business, I'd tend to say it was skewed towards fewer, larger persons, but I really have no idea.  If there were only a few, it would explain why there aren't people talking about it. 
My thoughts exactly. It just isn't possible that he's dealing with many people. So, let's assume that he is dealing with 20 people. We know that Pirate needs to use most of his reserves, otherwise he wouldn't have borrowed anything. For simplicity, let's say that is 90% of his investments. My guess is that 90% is around 400k BTC right now. Let's assume that he charges 10% on all transactions within his business. Let's also assume that transactions are only done with people once a week.

That's 20k BTC that each person is transacting per week, or almost a quarter of a million dollars. Again, this is per person, per week.

Ok, so maybe this is happening more than once a week. In that case, he can get away with charging lower fees. However, he could also get away with having a lower reserve, so that means that far more money than that is going through him each week. You can see how quickly this gets insane
1109  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Here's why BTCST won't last for one year on: August 13, 2012, 03:59:51 PM
But thats besides the point. Someone controlling a botnet has no reason to interact with the bitcoin community. Someone buying or selling coins on a massive scale and overpaying, literally, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, would have every interest in seeking competitive alternatives.

Or perhaps said buyer doesn't want to deal with the flakes on this forum, instead dealing with a specific person who might cater to their specific needs and doesn't ask a bunch of questions and therefor paying them well for it.
By saying this you are then claiming that Pirate's business is only used by a few very rich people, not many moderately rich people. I don't know about you, but whenever I've done business with just a few large customers, they very quickly pushed me into receiving lower and lower profit margins by percentage. In a real business, that's not that big of a deal since I'm still making more money in terms of amount I'm making, but Pirate needs to pay people back in terms of a percent. Now, again, in a normal business, that isn't a big deal because you advertise and find more customers, but there is no evidence that Pirate is doing that.

I'm not claiming that everything happens on this forum, but like with the mysteryminer example, I'm claiming that someone here would know something.
1110  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Here's why BTCST won't last for one year on: August 13, 2012, 04:57:09 AM
Pirate could very possibly be doing the same on a much larger scale, and it wouldn't show on the exchanges.
By making this claim you are saying that the offers that are publicly posted are a very small minority of all such transactions that take place at that valuation. As such, you are also claiming that many people exist that are directly using Pirate or there are a few mega-investors who give away 10% just because they can. Either way, not one single person has ever claimed to use Pirate's business. Additionally, if that is his business, why have none of his competitors who are doing these transactions more publicly not making this kind of money?

Seriously consider those thoughts. We can speculate what his business is all we want, but we need to wonder: why haven't we heard of a single customer?
1111  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [Announcement] Litecoin-based BFL Singles on: August 13, 2012, 04:10:47 AM
a scammer tag would be in place here mods/admins ^
Fortunately for me, this forum has a retarded policy of only applying the scammer tag AFTER the damage has been done.  And at that point as Bad Bear pointed out, the account has long since been abandoned.
Wrong. We also apply the scammer tag to impersonators.

When will this happen? 2 week is average right?
When theymos gets around to it.
1112  Other / Meta / Re: Gathering Opinions: Stickies in Lending on: August 13, 2012, 03:09:03 AM
I created the subforum. Someone else can move the posts.

I saw that, and saw Maged wasn't on so I went ahead and got a good start. I did a lot at once so people will see where they go.
Thanks! I was watching the closing ceremony, so I was gone for awhile. From a quick glance, this looks good.

Wasn't sure what to do with Micon's thread so I just left it for now, but since it's about those long term offers it should probably be there as well.
That's a hard call. One of the things you need to consider when placing a thread is what its primary audience is. Although the topic itself doesn't fit there, it's very clear that its target audience is specifically that forum. That's what makes this a hard call. I can't decide either way on this.
1113  Other / Meta / Re: Gathering Opinions: Stickies in Lending on: August 13, 2012, 01:03:47 AM
I never liked the stickies. Using stickies for categorization seems like a misuse of the feature. How about "long-term offers" under "Lending" for this kind of stuff, and no restrictions on post content?
As always, theymos solves a whole set of problems with one simple solution. I support this.

Since we have a "Who Pays What?" sticky (which would be moved over), we should also have a sticky listing the major lenders. Thinking it over, the "How to Request a Loan." thread already does this and should remain in the main Lending section, while the lending threads themselves should be unstickied and moved over.

I am prepared to have this implemented immediately. That's why I posted this thread - getting the community's input was extremely valuable. Thanks to everyone who contributed.
1114  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [Announcement] Litecoin-based BFL Singles on: August 13, 2012, 12:40:16 AM
a scammer tag would be in place here mods/admins ^
Fortunately for me, this forum has a retarded policy of only applying the scammer tag AFTER the damage has been done.  And at that point as Bad Bear pointed out, the account has long since been abandoned.
Wrong. We also apply the scammer tag to impersonators.
1115  Other / Meta / Re: Proposed removal of Matthew N Wright from forum staff. on: August 12, 2012, 06:56:55 PM
Yup, we're all criminals and Bitcointalk is a subsidiary of Silk Road, Mybitcoin, MtGox, and Bitcoinica. We're all nothing but scammers, liars, thieves, murderers and druggies.
(/sarcasm)
1116  Other / Meta / Re: Gathering Opinions: Stickies in Lending on: August 11, 2012, 06:00:04 AM
Then perhaps there needs to be a deposits subforum.  While deposits/loans can be considered the same thing, I'd argue the loans are typically given by the more trusted to the less trusted, whereas the deposits are given by the less trusted to the more trusted and as such, represent two different market segments.  The people stickied in the deposits subform, while not officially endorsed, would be your long term, seemingly highly reliable people.
Absolutely not. The sooner you realize that loans and deposits are ABSOLUTELY the same thing, the sooner you'll wise up and realize that the risk profile is no different. We will not separate deposits from regular loans other than through the "Who Pays What?" sticky, no exceptions.
1117  Economy / Lending / Re: Bryan Micon's List of BTC Ponzi Schemes that should not be listed as "Lending" on: August 11, 2012, 05:36:13 AM
So are operators of this forum, by making threads of various intermediaries of a highly likely ponzi scheme(s) sticky threads in the lending section.
I assure you, that's not intentional. In fact, since you're the third person to bring that up to me, I'm considering changing the sticky policy in Lending:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99856.0

Why no, I didn't miss that. In fact, just to make sure, I just read it again. I see no public announcement about getting additional interest if you stay within 5%, however. If such announcement was made publicly, it was made on IRC, and you can't expect everyone to have all of the logs of that channel, yet alone the time to read them all. So no, this part was not public knowledge, in the general sense.

Posting on IRC is public knowledge.  The nice thing about IRC is that the comments can't be edited like they can be in the forums.  Once its said, its said for good.  I agree, a person can't be everywhere.  I do my darnedest to try to keep up with everything said on the forums but as everything has become more polarized and seemingly less factual, I grow weary from it.

I don't understand why, if you or someone else has linked conclusive proof of shenanigans going on why it can't be disclosed.  If freedom of expression allows a person to call someone else a ponzi without any proof, then surely that same freedom of expression covers honest mistakes.  Further, if there's such a moral obligation to speak out against pirate being a ponzi, surely there's just as much of an obligation to actually release evidence of said ponzi.  At least more than "It lives where ducks live" or "Its colored like a duck".
You keep thinking that I'm saying that I have proof that this is a ponzi. By definition, that is impossible. My only proof was that your claim about staying within 5% has historically been false, and it turns out that that was just a miscommunication because you thought that everyone knew that the policy hadn't started yet. Of course, until the policy goes into effect, it still doesn't do anything to help your side because Pirate could run with the money before the policy even takes effect on Monday.
1118  Other / Meta / Gathering Opinions: Stickies in Lending on: August 11, 2012, 05:28:20 AM
Hi guys,

As some of you may know, I'm the main person in charge of stickies in the Lending forum along with John. Our current policy is to sticky major lenders in order to separate them out from all of the lending requests. I believe that this is reasonable, since there are far fewer lenders than lendees, and when people go to the lending board for the first time, chances are that they are looking for a loan, so making them be stickies makes sense.

However, what has happened is that many of these lenders have started taking out loans of their own in the form of deposit programs and they are advertising them through their sticky, giving them an unfair advantage over all of the other loan requests. In fact, just this last week I had to yell at BurtW for converting his sticky into ONLY the deposit program. As a result, I took about a week to reevaluate the sticky requirements in the Lending board, and I think I have a solution that I want to hear the community's opinion on.

I propose that after giving the current sticky holders a few days of notice, no current sticky in the Lending board other than the Who Pays What? sticky can even mention a deposit program in the first post of the sticky. The only exceptions to this would be for mentions that are part of the company name and the user's signature. No other mention would be allowed in the first post of the sticky, and any other mention would most likely be considered off-topic and subject to deletion as per standard moderation rules. As such, I will likely request that the users make a whole new thread to replace the current sticky, and one of us will swap the two threads out.

Let me know what you guys think.
1119  Economy / Lending / Re: Bryan Micon's List of BTC Ponzi Schemes that should not be listed as "Lending" on: August 11, 2012, 04:09:08 AM
Maged: I have a proof that this is a ponzi. But I will not tell ya, coz people who dug it up did not give me permission.
I made no such assertion. I was merely saying that we had proof that imsaguy's claim that pirate is discouraging deposits and is being effective in doing do is patently false. Of course this was the case, because apparently the discouraging hasn't started.
He's penalizing deposits as well as withdrawals.  How many times do I have to say this before you actually acknowledge it?
You can say it all you want, because the unofficial audit team has irrefutable proof that this is absolutely not the case. For example, despite growing over 10% per week, BitcoinMax is still making 7.7% per week in interest.

The rules don't take effect until the middle of the month...
Weird that you never brought that up... Well, guess we now know what is happening on the 14th...

Did you miss the posting where Pirate said trust accounts are pushed back?  I didn't think I had to regurgitate public knowledge.  Contrary to public opinion, I don't have some special access to Pirate and only know what he announces to everyone else.
Why no, I didn't miss that. In fact, just to make sure, I just read it again. I see no public announcement about getting additional interest if you stay within 5%, however. If such announcement was made publicly, it was made on IRC, and you can't expect everyone to have all of the logs of that channel, yet alone the time to read them all. So no, this part was not public knowledge, in the general sense.
1120  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoinica Lawsuit filed on: August 11, 2012, 12:53:23 AM
We know. See the post linked in the important announcements section.
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 ... 158 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!