I'm giving 100% ROI away to anyone who thinks pirate is a fraud

[ribuck]

What conditions don't you agree from nanotube's post?

Muyuu, at some point you just need to trust Matthew to do the right thing. The closing of BS&T is a one-off occurrence and it would be impossible to pin down every possible contingency in writing, without making things so rigid that the terms and conditions would sometimes yield the "wrong" outcome.

It's probably going to be very obvious whether or not Pirate defaults. If it's not obvious, well, you just have to accept that your wager is also a bet on what Matthew will decide.

[1714202815]

1714202815

[1714202815]

1714202815

[el_rlee]

can some trusted proxy (I would consider all of the offers) please post an address where I can send my funds to?
much obliged!
also I didn't totally get your system of quoting and re-quoting... how can that be of any value if anybody can edit his post without it being visible?
thanks!

[Matthew N. Wright]

can some trusted proxy (I would consider all of the offers) please post an address where I can send my funds to?
much obliged!
also I didn't totally get your system of quoting and re-quoting... how can that be of any value if anybody can edit his post without it being visible?
thanks!

As you can see, the following users have offered this very service for a fee (most lower than the fee you offered). Please contact them through PM, no one should even know about your special arrangements.

Code:

Username		Fee

Scott J			0%(or 9%)
paraipan		5%
Vladimir		8%
nimda			10%
psy			50%

[Raoul Duke]

el_rlee, I explained the conditions. It's up to you to take it or leave it.
If you wish to accept them, I'll post a deposit address here in the thread.

And, Matthew, you forgot me, for 50%. The only one who explained the whole deal.

BTW, I make everything public. There are no hidden arrangements.

[glitch003]

the title of this thread is misleading.
if you bet and win, your gain is 100%, not 200%

but you have 200% of what you started on...

That's not how it works.  You start with 20 BTC for example.  A 100% gain means that you gained 100% of what you put in.  So if you put in 20BTC and get back 40BTC that's 100% ROI.  Why?  Because your investment was 20 BTC and your profit was 20BTC.  Your profit was exactly 100% of what you invested.  

The thread title should say "I'm giving 100% away to anyone..." because he's giving 100% return on investment.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return

The formula is yield = (FinalAmount - InitialAmount)/InitialAmount.  So (40-20)/20 = 1.0 which = 100% return.  If, instead, you made 10 BTC profit on a 20 BTC investment then you would be getting 50% ROI because you made 50% of your initial investment as profit.  

So once again, the thread title is wrong and misleading.  

[Matthew N. Wright]

el_rlee, I explained the conditions. It's up to you to take it or leave it.
If you wish to accept them, I'll post a deposit address here in the thread.

And, Matthew, you forgot me, for 50%. The only one who explained the whole deal.

BTW, I make everything public. There are no hidden arrangements.

Sorry, I didn't know you were serious. Adding you to the list with a 50% fee.

[el_rlee]

Wouldn't posting the address here in public make everything much more trustworthy? Everybody can see I sent the money... I would also post the address where I would expect my winnings to be returned.
Maybe that's just newbie thinking, what's the customs here?

[glitch003]

Title changed to: "I'm giving 100%(x2) away to anyone who thinks pirate is a fraud".

I think that explains enough for both sides.

This isn't a "sides" thing.  There is no debate about the mathematical definition of return on investment.  You're giving 100% ROI or Yield, not 100%(x2) which doesn't mean anything.  

Can we please stick to the widely accepted notation in use by the entire world instead of making up our own?  The thread title is still misleading.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return

[Matthew N. Wright]

Wouldn't posting the address here in public make everything much more trustworthy? Everybody can see I sent the money... I would also post the address where I would expect my winnings to be returned.
Maybe that's just newbie thinking, what's the customs here?

Uhh, I guess. But you sending money to someone else is none of my business. I was just saying that on my side, if I follow the OP to the letter, no one is eligible unless they are an established 100+ member. By you making it obvious here that you're just sending it to someone else and having them bet for you, how can I honestly accept it? Am I being too anal here?  

[Raoul Duke]

Wouldn't posting the address here in public make everything much more trustworthy? Everybody can see I sent the money... I would also post the address where I would expect my winnings to be returned.
Maybe that's just newbie thinking, what's the customs here?

Uhh, I guess. But you sending money to someone else is none of my business. I was just saying that on my side, if I follow the OP to the letter, no one is eligible unless they are an established 100+ member. By you making it obvious here that you're just sending it to someone else and having them bet for you, how can I honestly accept it? Am I being too anal here? 

You are. You already said it that you would accept bets from unestablished members if the paid upfront if that wouldn't make you change the terms outlined on the first post.
Unless you don't trust any of the proxies on their word that they have the funds to send you if you win.
I know I'm not risking a scammer tag.

[el_rlee]

guess I could make a simple bet with the other user, for the same (or a little worse) conditions. the other member re-insuring himself is not my business..

and of course I don't consider the 50% service...

[muyuu]

What conditions don't you agree from nanotube's post?

It's not what I don't agree with in principle, it's about tying a wager to other people's wager's, other people's commitments, other people's assets and other people's opinions. What if he changes the OP? What if they decide to cancel the wager? I'd be an idiot to tie everything down to their terms. I need to remain in control or I'm useless to everyone on either side of the bet.

You would just have to agree with the wording, not with the execution. He will execute his conditions on October 1st 2013 tops. You either win the bet with him, or lose it much earlier than he resolves any uncovered term.

That is called "matching", or "giving even odds" or just "evens". Doubling is putting down double as much as the counterpart.

So doubling would not include the original money, so if I were doubling and someone bet 1BTC they'd get 3BTC back?   (Doesn't seem like doubling, seems like tripling).

No. This is basic betting lingo. In financial terms this is a 100% ROI, not a bit more.

I believe wholeheartedly that Pirate is a Ponzi/scam

Which is why it should be seen as easy money for you.

Only if you are willing to put it beforehand. I have about as much trust for you as I have for Pirate.

and that you are reckless

Heard it before. Basically anyone who has imagination in this community is considered reckless.

Nothing to do with imagination. More to do with failing to deliver and there being record about it all about.

and fail to deliver on your promises.

For the same reason you're wrong about Pirate, you're wrong about me. You have no evidence, just vague ad hominem statements. muyuu, I can't trust you to bet either because you owe back child support.*

No clue if this is true or not, but it's the forums, so let's just make wild accusations without any evidence! yay!

Do you mean like, for instance, Ellet? anytime next week now? Do you know what is it called when I promise something for next week and I get it done in 10 months? it's called not delivering on my promise.

Read the OP. I stop accepting bets at 10,000BTC. You don't think I have 10,000BTC? Haven't you heard? I'm apparently paid to shill for everyone and Zhou Tong is reportedly my sugar daddy. As far as you know I have all the Bitcoinica funds in my desktop puter. But I digress, the idiotic baseless accusations on this forum are what got me to start this thread in the first place. You want to prove something, prove it and move on. You want to use a logical fallacy as your defense or reasoning, be prepared to pay for it.

As for you being into interracial gay sex with Asians, I don't care, that's none of my business.

As for the bet, I'm not willing to bet on your funds, because I have no idea. That's why I want you to pay up front and I would do the same. The same as you're optimistic about deadlines, you could be optimistic about your funds or even your willingness to pay. I'm willing to bet on Pirate failing to deliver funds within 3 weeks from today, that's the only thing I want to bet.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Title changed to: "I'm giving 100%(x2) away to anyone who thinks pirate is a fraud".

I think that explains enough for both sides.

This isn't a "sides" thing.  There is no debate about the mathematical definition of return on investment.  You're giving 100% ROI or Yield, not 100%(x2) which doesn't mean anything.  

Can we please stick to the widely accepted notation in use by the entire world instead of making up our own?  The thread title is still misleading.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return

Updated title with "100% ROI". Let me know if anything else seems odd.

[Gaff]

Considering the high probability of fraud from newbie sockpuppets, only established 100+ post users will be allowed to participate.

Fair enough. Would you be willing to accept bets from newbies if we pay our stake upfront. In the event of default you return double?

No risk to yourself, and everyone can check in the blockchain to show that you made good on every lost bet.

Yes, but only if you go through someone else, because I cannot change the rules mid-game like this or I'd never hear the end of it. I should have thought of a better method in the beginning. My bad.

I don't see how it's changing the rules - worst case it's an additional game that we can play, the original rules still stand for those playing that way. I'd rather go direct to you since I need to trust you anyway in order for this game to work. I don't want to have to trust anyone else.

[Matthew N. Wright]

As for the bet, I'm not willing to bet on your funds, because I have no idea. That's why I want you to pay up front and I would do the same. The same as you're optimistic about deadlines, you could be optimistic about your funds or even your willingness to pay. I'm willing to bet on Pirate failing to deliver funds within 3 weeks from today, that's the only thing I want to bet.

Okay, after re-reading it seems your merely worried about my ability to discern abilities to pay off on things, which I can't argue because it's an opinion. I have 40 employees in the Bitcoin Magazine who don't question my ability to pay them for the work I ask them to do, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Considering the high probability of fraud from newbie sockpuppets, only established 100+ post users will be allowed to participate.

Fair enough. Would you be willing to accept bets from newbies if we pay our stake upfront. In the event of default you return double?

No risk to yourself, and everyone can check in the blockchain to show that you made good on every lost bet.

Yes, but only if you go through someone else, because I cannot change the rules mid-game like this or I'd never hear the end of it. I should have thought of a better method in the beginning. My bad.

I don't see how it's changing the rules - worst case it's an additional game that we can play, the original rules still stand for those playing that way. I'd rather go direct to you since I need to trust you anyway in order for this game to work. I don't want to have to trust anyone else.

The trust issue with letting a virtually unknown user bet is that they can renig and run off and there's no way to go after the money. I on the other hand, everyone knows exactly where I live, I have shared countless private documents with my team and multiple others in the Bitcoin community. I'm not running off on any bets. To summarize, the reasoning behind it has nothing to do with your trust issues, it has to do with mine. It's an unfair bet. I'm not requiring anyone to put up first in escrow like other threads because I want to make things simple and easy. As trusted users here have already offered their services to do what it is you need to do, my recommendation is to simply take it.

[kronosvl]

What's stopping me to create a new account, make 100+ short posts in different threads, and after that make the 100BTC bet that is auto-accepted? if I don't win I'll just drop the account. the IP is irrelevant (anyone with some technical knowledge  can circumvent this).

[Matthew N. Wright]

What's stopping me to create a new account, make 100+ short posts in different threads, and after that make the 100BTC bet that is auto-accepted? if I don't win I'll just drop the account. the IP is irrelevant (anyone with some technical knowledge  can circumvent this).

Anyone (including myself) who renigs on their bets will be labeled a scammer on the forums. Theymos will retain the IP addresses of everyone who has committed here and as you are marked a scammer for not paying, you will also be reported to the bitcoin police and tracked. For this reason, it is important that you do not bet more than you can afford to lose. Considering the high probability of fraud from newbie sockpuppets, only established 100+ post users will be allowed to participate.

Someone who registered today and ran up 100 posts is not established.

[Rassah]

5 BTC
1Rassahgt3XSxKVJ62oSrQJxtH3wk4MKX
Any winnings will likely go towards purchase of Bitcoin Magazines 

[Matthew N. Wright]

5 BTC
1Rassahgt3XSxKVJ62oSrQJxtH3wk4MKX
Any winnings will likely go towards purchase of Bitcoin Magazines 

Then maybe I should pay you out in magazines anyway LOL