Hey Pirate, it's Monday....WHERE ARE MY BITCOINS ?

[Gyrsur]

In forex it is possible to earn 1-2% daily interest if you are a very good daytrader.

That is a myth perpetuated to lure in fresh meat that is required to feed the brokers. (coz those who were lured in earlier are chewed and thrown out by now).

It is true! Ask Maria... 

[mobodick]

In forex it is possible to earn 1-2% daily interest if you are a very good daytrader.

That is a myth perpetuated to lure in fresh meat that is required to feed the brokers. (coz those who were lured in earlier are chewed and thrown out by now).

It is true! Ask Maria... 

Yeah, what happened to maria?
She used to be so vocal on the forums but i somehow lost track of what went on.

[Gyrsur]

In forex it is possible to earn 1-2% daily interest if you are a very good daytrader.

That is a myth perpetuated to lure in fresh meat that is required to feed the brokers. (coz those who were lured in earlier are chewed and thrown out by now).

It is true! Ask Maria...  

Yeah, what happened to maria?
She used to be so vocal on the forums but i somehow lost track of what went on.

you can still setup your trading environment with her to improve your trading skills.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96059.0

[mobodick]

In forex it is possible to earn 1-2% daily interest if you are a very good daytrader.

That is a myth perpetuated to lure in fresh meat that is required to feed the brokers. (coz those who were lured in earlier are chewed and thrown out by now).

It is true! Ask Maria...  

Yeah, what happened to maria?
She used to be so vocal on the forums but i somehow lost track of what went on.

you can still setup your trading environment with her to improve your trading skills.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96059.0

Aah, same old, same old.
Shouting from her ivory tower..

[alexanderanon]

[ribuck]

He has much more incentive to sell his debt than to buy it.

No, I don't think so. Buying his debt at discount is one way he could actually avoid technically defaulting. For example (using exaggerated numbers to make the math easier):

1. Suppose pirate has taken 50,000 BTC in direct loans, and 500,000 BTC via passthroughs.
2. Suppose pirate, after paying weekly interest, still has 150,000 BTC in his bitcoin wallet.
3. Suppose pirate pays back the direct loans, leaving him with 100,000 BTC.
3. Suppose the passthrough shares are being sold for 10% of their face value.
4. Suppose pirate buys all the passthrough shares for 50,000 BTC, leaving him with 50,000 BTC.
5. Suppose pirate pays back the passthroughs, 50,000 BTC at a time.
6. The coins pass through, back to pirate, who then pays back the next tranche of 50,000 BTC.
7. Repeat ten times, and pirate has technically not defaulted (although he has screwed those who sold their passthrough shares at 10% of their face value).

Sure, there are a lot of suppositions and extreme figures above. But something like this is not impossible.

[dust]

He has much more incentive to sell his debt than to buy it.

No, I don't think so. Buying his debt at discount is one way he could actually avoid technically defaulting. For example (using exaggerated numbers to make the math easier):

1. Suppose pirate has taken 50,000 BTC in direct loans, and 500,000 BTC via passthroughs.
2. Suppose pirate, after paying weekly interest, still has 150,000 BTC in his bitcoin wallet.
3. Suppose pirate pays back the direct loans, leaving him with 100,000 BTC.
3. Suppose the passthrough shares are being sold for 10% of their face value.
4. Suppose pirate buys all the passthrough shares for 50,000 BTC, leaving him with 50,000 BTC.
5. Suppose pirate pays back the passthroughs, 50,000 BTC at a time.
6. The coins pass through, back to pirate, who then pays back the next tranche of 50,000 BTC.
7. Repeat ten times, and pirate has technically not defaulted (although he has screwed those who sold their passthrough shares at 10% of their face value).

Sure, there are a lot of suppositions and extreme figures above. But something like this is not impossible.

I am concerned this could happen.  This could be pulled off more easily if pirate colluded with some of his top supporters (BurtWagner, imsaguy etc)  Has anyone seen any suspicious  purchases of pirate debt?

[muyuu]

He has much more incentive to sell his debt than to buy it.

No, I don't think so. Buying his debt at discount is one way he could actually avoid technically defaulting. For example (using exaggerated numbers to make the math easier):

1. Suppose pirate has taken 50,000 BTC in direct loans, and 500,000 BTC via passthroughs.
2. Suppose pirate, after paying weekly interest, still has 150,000 BTC in his bitcoin wallet.
3. Suppose pirate pays back the direct loans, leaving him with 100,000 BTC.
3. Suppose the passthrough shares are being sold for 10% of their face value.
4. Suppose pirate buys all the passthrough shares for 50,000 BTC, leaving him with 50,000 BTC.
5. Suppose pirate pays back the passthroughs, 50,000 BTC at a time.
6. The coins pass through, back to pirate, who then pays back the next tranche of 50,000 BTC.
7. Repeat ten times, and pirate has technically not defaulted (although he has screwed those who sold their passthrough shares at 10% of their face value).

Sure, there are a lot of suppositions and extreme figures above. But something like this is not impossible.

I am concerned this could happen.  This could be pulled off more easily if pirate colluded with some of his top supporters (BurtWagner, imsaguy etc)  Has anyone seen any suspicious  purchases of pirate debt?

As I said above, this can only happen if Pirate had the BTC funds to refund everybody but still decided not to do so in time. He cannot buy his own debt in BTC and remain solvent in BTC to do refunds, unless he had an excess of BTC in the first place. This alone cannot work.

If he pulls that, props to him. That would mean he played insolvent and fooled a lot of people to great profit. I wouldn't bet on it though.

[JoelKatz]

He has much more incentive to sell his debt than to buy it.

No, I don't think so. Buying his debt at discount is one way he could actually avoid technically defaulting. For example (using exaggerated numbers to make the math easier):

1. Suppose pirate has taken 50,000 BTC in direct loans, and 500,000 BTC via passthroughs.
2. Suppose pirate, after paying weekly interest, still has 150,000 BTC in his bitcoin wallet.
3. Suppose pirate pays back the direct loans, leaving him with 100,000 BTC.
3. Suppose the passthrough shares are being sold for 10% of their face value.
4. Suppose pirate buys all the passthrough shares for 50,000 BTC, leaving him with 50,000 BTC.
5. Suppose pirate pays back the passthroughs, 50,000 BTC at a time.
6. The coins pass through, back to pirate, who then pays back the next tranche of 50,000 BTC.
7. Repeat ten times, and pirate has technically not defaulted (although he has screwed those who sold their passthrough shares at 10% of their face value).

Sure, there are a lot of suppositions and extreme figures above. But something like this is not impossible.

First, your scenario can't avoid a technical default, since he already *has* technically defaulted. There is at least one 100% documented payment he has missed and there's no evidence the repayments that were supposed to start have started.

Also, do you think that's better for Pirate than this scenario in which he sells:

1. Suppose Pirate has taken 50,000 BTC in direct loans, and 200,000 BTC via passthroughs but also holds 300,000 in passthroughs himself. (These are almost totally free for him to buy, the money just flows back to him.)
2. Suppose Pirate, after paying weekly interest still has 150,000 BTC in his wallet.
3. Suppose pirate doesn't pay back the direct loans, leaving him with 150,000 BTC. But he also sells 50,000 worth of direct loans that don't actually exist at 50% of face value, netting him an additional 25,000 BTC.
4. Suppose Pirate sells all his passthrough shares himself at 50% of face value, netting an additional 150,000 BTC for him.
5. Suppose Pirate doesn't pay back anything.
6. Pirate now has 150,000 + 25,000 + 150,000 = 325,000 BTC.
7. Pirate has technically defaulted, but he also has a *lot* more money than in your scenario.

In your scenario, Pirate winds up with about 50,000 BTC. In mine, he winds up with 325,000 BTC. And we both start with him in the same position (except in my scenario, he has been buying his own pass throughs for awhile now, which is certainly possible). My number for the discount on Pirate debt is more realistic than yours (50% versus 90%). It's definitely in Pirate's interest to *sell* Pirate obligations.

[Matthew N. Wright]

In forex it is possible to earn 1-2% daily interest if you are a very good daytrader.

That is a myth perpetuated to lure in fresh meat that is required to feed the brokers. (coz those who were lured in earlier are chewed and thrown out by now).

It is true! Ask Maria... 

Yeah, what happened to maria?
She used to be so vocal on the forums but i somehow lost track of what went on.

Banned. With a vengeance.

[muyuu]

5. Suppose Pirate doesn't pay back anything.
6. Pirate now has 150,000 + 25,000 + 150,000 = 325,000 BTC.
7. Pirate has technically defaulted, but he also has a *lot* more money than in your scenario.

In your scenario, Pirate winds up with about 50,000 BTC. In mine, he winds up with 325,000 BTC. Plus, my numbers are more realistic than yours. It's definitely in Pirate's interest to sell Pirate obligations.

LOL. IKR, running away with people's money is extremely lucrative.

[anfedorov]

His OTC ratings might be a good place to figure out how "real" he is, also... would any of the people who claimed to trade with him over PayPal be willing to reveal the email he used? Are they real people, or part of the ruse?

That's a good call.
But, "Trendon Shavers" seems a likely figure to be pirate, and the photos we have of him (via facebook) match the one from vegas.

Could very well be fake but usually when I come up with a fake ID I don't give it a criminal record for check fraud.

Ah, OK, I actually hadn't gotten a chance to read up on the threads behind that name. Now that I have (and did a bit more Googling), everything does seem to add up. I almost feel bad for him - I hope this is a temporary delay and doesn't end up in court.

There is also the possibility that whoever's behind pirateat40 is impersonating Trendon, but that does seem somewhat unlikely.

[JoelKatz]

LOL. IKR, running away with people's money is extremely lucrative.

Essentially, Pirate can pay everyone back or he can run off with somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million dollars. This is pretty much the way it is regardless of whether Pirate was running a ponzi scheme or not.

[softwareseller]

LOL. IKR, running away with people's money is extremely lucrative.

Essentially, Pirate can pay everyone back or he can run off with somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million dollars. This is pretty much the way it is regardless of whether Pirate was running a ponzi scheme or not.

Yes. But he has incentive to pay ppl back if it's legit bussiness

[Bascule]

LOL. IKR, running away with people's money is extremely lucrative.

Essentially, Pirate can pay everyone back or he can run off with somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million dollars. This is pretty much the way it is regardless of whether Pirate was running a ponzi scheme or not.

Yes. But he has incentive to pay ppl back if it's legit bussiness

NO LEGIT BUSINESS BORROWS AT 7% PER WEEK

[Vladimir]

LOL. IKR, running away with people's money is extremely lucrative.

Essentially, Pirate can pay everyone back or he can run off with somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million dollars. This is pretty much the way it is regardless of whether Pirate was running a ponzi scheme or not.

Yes. But he has incentive to pay ppl back if it's legit bussiness

NO LEGIT BUSINESS BORROWS AT 7% PER WEEK

Now after saying such a banality here, prepare to furnish beyond reasonable doubt proof of your words. (That how it works on this forum)

[makomk]

Essentially, Pirate can pay everyone back or he can run off with somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million dollars. This is pretty much the way it is regardless of whether Pirate was running a ponzi scheme or not.

Of course, if he's running a ponzi scheme he almost certainly doesn't have the option to pay everyone back because he doesn't have enough funds. His only options are to carry it on to the bitter end and default without making any money or to default before he's exhausted his reserves and run away with the rest.

[ribuck]

First, your scenario can't avoid a technical default, since he already *has* technically defaulted.

Agreed. Pirate actually defaulted on Monday.

But in the terms of his bet with Vandroiy he has two weeks grace. And in the terms of Matthew's bet he has three weeks grace.

In your scenario, Pirate winds up with about 50,000 BTC. In mine, he winds up with 325,000 BTC.

Agreed. If pirate's aim is to end up with as many BTC as possible, your scenario makes sense. But if his aim is to end up with a substantial profit, yet still be able to claim to have repaid all the loans, my scenario could do it (at the extremes of possibility, admittedly).

[wormbog]

LOL. IKR, running away with people's money is extremely lucrative.

Essentially, Pirate can pay everyone back or he can run off with somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million dollars. This is pretty much the way it is regardless of whether Pirate was running a ponzi scheme or not.

Yes. But he has incentive to pay ppl back if it's legit bussiness

NO LEGIT BUSINESS BORROWS AT 7% PER WEEK

Also, pirates are not generally known for running legitimate businesses.

[imsaguy]

Also, pirates are not generally known for running legitimate businesses.

If we were to be judged based only on our forum nicks, you'd already be at an extreme disadvantage.