Discussion about 10,000BTC Bet (Official)

[myrkul]

If Matt wins, I will pay him every last satoshi of my bet. To not do this would go against my word and honor.

Additionally, he is providing a great service by allowing people to hedge their situation.

This^

If you're into Pirate for any amount, your best bet (heh) is to wager up to 50% of that with Matt. The inverse, however, is not true. Buying Pirate debt after making a wager with Matt is betting against yourself. Never do that. You always lose.

[1714950827]

1714950827

[1714950827]

1714950827

[1714950827]

1714950827

[bg002h]

Reading this thread makes me realize how weak people are in game theory and statistics.
organofcorti : Thanks for defending Maths

Not sure understanding either is necessary to understanding compound interest...and that's all ya really gotta know to see through the pirate scandal.

[labestiol]

Reading this thread makes me realize how weak people are in game theory and statistics.
organofcorti : Thanks for defending Maths

Not sure understanding either is necessary to understanding compound interest...and that's all ya really gotta know to see through the pirate scandal.

I agree, I was more talking about "Investments are not bets" or "Luck is not involved in risk"

[DeathAndTaxes]

If Matt wins, I will pay him every last satoshi of my bet. To not do this would go against my word and honor.

Additionally, he is providing a great service by allowing people to hedge their situation.

This^

If you're into Pirate for any amount, your best bet (heh) is to wager up to 50% of that with Matt. The inverse, however, is not true. Buying Pirate debt after making a wager with Matt is betting against yourself. Never do that. You always lose.

Logical fallacy.

If keeping Pirate debt debt and hedging it is a "best bet" then buying Pirate debt bet and hedging is equally the "best bet".
Conversely if buying Pirate debt and hedging it is a "bad bet" then someone with a with an existing debt shouldn't keep it they should sell it and thus keeping the Pirate debt and hedging it is equally bad.

If someone can buy then someone else can sell.  One can't be bad and the other the "best bet".

Does your brain not comprehend logic.  Is everything just luck and unicorns?

[stochastic]

If keeping Pirate debt debt and hedging it is a "best bet" then buying Pirate debt bet and hedging is equally the "best bet".

What he means is (I think), if you already have money loaned with pirate the bet is good as you can hedge your loss.  If someone hedges 50% of what they loaned to pirate then if pirate does not pay at all the person gets even money.  If pirate pays pays 10% of his obligations, then the creditor makes a 10% return after getting their money from their hedge.  A person can reduce their risk to essentially the probability that Matthew will honor the bet.

Also, it is not a logical fallacy as conditions change over time.  It just depends on the risk/reward ratio of the debt being purchased.  Loaning money to someone in the past may have made sense, but if they default and their credit rating changes, loaning more money to them for the same reward would be foolish as the risk has increased.  The investor/gambler needs to see how much is debt being sold for, and calculate how much they need to hedge and still make a profit.

[silverbox]

Guys, investments and bets are not the same thing. You're both confusing a "gamble" with "risk". Gambling is risky, but risk is not a gamble. Gambling involves blind luck. When you walk across a tight rope, you're risking your life, but it's hardly blind luck. Anyone making this bet is basically blindly gambling. If you invested in pirate without even bothering to research his business model, find out his info, etc, you're also basically gambling, but only -you-. Others who invested in him may not be gambling, they may be just taking risk. I am taking a risk with this bet. I believe I know what he's doing and I believe it is not a ponzi. I am taking a risk of being wrong, but to me it is hardly "dumb luck". That said, since I have absolutely no control or even influence on payment, I admit that I could succumb to dumb bad luck and lose on a shit technicality (couldn't make it to the bank on time, lost his password, electricity cuts out, tornadoes takes out his house, any number of things).

So what is it that you think he's doing?  That you bet 30k btc on..??

[myrkul]

If Matt wins, I will pay him every last satoshi of my bet. To not do this would go against my word and honor.

Additionally, he is providing a great service by allowing people to hedge their situation.

This^

If you're into Pirate for any amount, your best bet (heh) is to wager up to 50% of that with Matt. The inverse, however, is not true. Buying Pirate debt after making a wager with Matt is betting against yourself. Never do that. You always lose.

Logical fallacy.

If keeping Pirate debt debt and hedging it is a "best bet" then buying Pirate debt bet and hedging is equally the "best bet".
Conversely if buying Pirate debt and hedging it is a "bad bet" then someone with a with an existing debt shouldn't keep it they should sell it and thus keeping the Pirate debt and hedging it is equally bad.

If someone can buy then someone else can sell.  One can't be bad and the other the "best bet".

Does your brain not comprehend logic.  Is everything just luck and unicorns?

Of course, if you can sell it for 50% or better, that's probably a better deal. Taking a hedge bet like this reduces your risk from already purchased debt. Buying debt after making a bet like this only increases your risk.

Look at it this way:
Long ago, you invested in BS&T. At the time, you thought it was a good investment. Now it's looking like it's not, so you pick up some of Matt's action. If it was a bad investment, he'll pay you half (let's say) of what you lost. If it somehow turns out to be a good investment, still, you'll have to pay him half of that, so basically what you're doing is trading some of your Pirate risk for Matt risk, but they even out, so either way, you get half of what you've already risked. Even if he doesn't pay out, you're no worse off than you started, because before he did this, you would have lost 100% anyway.

The other way around, however, is not so beneficial. You start out with X Bitcoins. You bet some of that on Matt's venture. Half is easy to work with, so let's keep that. At this point, if Pirate defaults, and Matt doesn't pay, you still have X. If he does pay, you have 1.5X. If Pirate pays out, you have .5X, if you choose to pay out, otherwise you'll be labeled a scammer. If you then buy pirate debt, again, let's assume .5X worth, you now have X-Y Bitcoins (Y being the amount you paid for that debt). If Pirate doesn't pay out, and Matt does, you now have 1.5X-Y, less than you would have had if you had not bought the debt. If Pirate doesn't pay out, and Matt doesn't either, you still have X-Y, again, less than you would have had if you had not bought the debt. If Pirate does pay out (and for ease of math, we'll assume 100%, but that's by no means certain), you now have X-Y, less than you would have had if you had not made the bet at all, but more than if you had not bought the debt. (and, you'll note, less than you started with)

To sum up:
If you have already sunk money into Pirate, but aren't sure he'll pay back, it makes sense to hedge that money with a bet against Matt. Worst case scenario, you're no worse off, and best case scenario, you'll at least get some of what you've lost back.

If you have not yet sunk money into Pirate, but are pretty sure he won't pay back, it makes sense to bet against Matt.

If you have not yet sunk money into Pirate, but are pretty sure he will pay back, it makes sense to buy Pirate debt.

Under no circumstances does it make sense to do both.

[BrightAnarchist]

Reposting from another thread:

Well as I said, if you are indeed very honnest, I will deeply apologize. And I appreciate the fact that you stay civilised even when accused

I still dont understand why you did not make your topic with a big & trusted escrow so nobodies would have had any doubt of your legitimacy

I'll do that last, just as a final show. I love keeping people in suspense and I want to teach people a lesson who are saying "Pirate is a scam because he's waiting". Those same people say "Matthew is a scam because he's waiting". If you had everyone bothering you, stalking you, harassing you, lying about you, wouldn't you want try to prove them wrong in a highly dramatic manner that makes them question the very foundation of their sick, pedantic reasoning?

[Chang Hum]

Mathew I'm curious how you made any money to bet in the first place, this bet and the "statement" you are trying to make about pirate makes you come accross like a border line foolish imo

[organofcorti]

Mathew I'm curious how you made any money to bet in the first place, this bet and the "statement" you are trying to make about pirate makes you come accross like a border line retard imo

Sigh. "come accross like a border line retard". Ignoring for the moment your spelling difficulty, please do not use such childish and bigoted language. The following would be acceptable: "I'm not a developmental paediatrician and you should know that I have no idea what I'm talking about when I say this, but you are borderline developmentally delayed".

Or you can just call someone foolish, or lacking in appropriate decision making skills. Note that these options do not require you to make a comparison to a group of people who already have enough problems to deal with.

Unless of course you are childish and bigoted and developmentally delayed, in which case go ahead with your original statement.

[AndrewBUD]

Mathew I'm curious how you made any money to bet in the first place, this bet and the "statement" you are trying to make about pirate makes you come accross like a border line retard imo

Sigh. "come accross like a border line retard". Ignoring for the moment your spelling difficulty, please do not use such childish and bigoted language. The following would be acceptable: "I'm not a developmental paediatrician and you should know that I have no idea what I'm talking about when I say this, but you are borderline developmentally delayed".

Or you can just call someone foolish, or lacking in appropriate decision making skills. Note that these options do not require you to make a comparison to a group of people who already have enough problems to deal with.

Unless of course you are childish and bigoted and developmentally delayed, in which case go ahead with your original statement.

* AndrewBUD thinks what to say while drooling on himself

[Chang Hum]

Mathew I'm curious how you made any money to bet in the first place, this bet and the "statement" you are trying to make about pirate makes you come accross like a border line retard imo

Sigh. "come accross like a border line retard". Ignoring for the moment your spelling difficulty, please do not use such childish and bigoted language. The following would be acceptable: "I'm not a developmental paediatrician and you should know that I have no idea what I'm talking about when I say this, but you are borderline developmentally delayed".

Or you can just call someone foolish, or lacking in appropriate decision making skills. Note that these options do not require you to make a comparison to a group of people who already have enough problems to deal with.

Unless of course you are childish and bigoted and developmentally delayed, in which case go ahead with your original statement.

Edited original post to foolish however it has been socially acceptable to call someone a retard in the UK for over a year now (so long as they do not suffer from retardation). Hatty in Eastenders made the statement "stop acting like such a retard" in January 2011 prior to the 9pm watershed, in a poll of Sun readers 86% of readers found this acceptable.

Retard
1. A person with a mental deficiency
2. An offensive term used to refer to someone acting in an irritating or generally stupid way.
3. Someone trying to either con $200+k in bets out of a community of people or worse still lose it making a nonsensical statement about god only knows what!

[Matthew N. Wright]

Mathew I'm curious how you made any money to bet in the first place, this bet and the "statement" you are trying to make about pirate makes you come accross like a border line retard imo

Sigh. "come accross like a border line retard". Ignoring for the moment your spelling difficulty, please do not use such childish and bigoted language. The following would be acceptable: "I'm not a developmental paediatrician and you should know that I have no idea what I'm talking about when I say this, but you are borderline developmentally delayed".

Or you can just call someone foolish, or lacking in appropriate decision making skills. Note that these options do not require you to make a comparison to a group of people who already have enough problems to deal with.

Unless of course you are childish and bigoted and developmentally delayed, in which case go ahead with your original statement.

Edited original post to foolish however it has been socially acceptable to call someone a retard in the UK for over a year now (so long as they do not suffer from retardation). Hatty in Eastenders made the statement "stop acting like such a retard" in January 2011 prior to the 9pm watershed, in a poll of Sun readers 86% of readers found this acceptable.

Retard
1. A person with a mental deficiency
2. An offensive term used to refer to someone acting in an irritating or generally stupid way.
3. Someone trying to either con $200+k in bets out of a community of people or worse still lose it defending a nonsensical statement about god only knows what!

4. Creating sockpuppets to hide your true identity but forgetting that people can recognize you by the way you talk.

[Blind]

Reposting from another thread:

Well as I said, if you are indeed very honnest, I will deeply apologize. And I appreciate the fact that you stay civilised even when accused

I still dont understand why you did not make your topic with a big & trusted escrow so nobodies would have had any doubt of your legitimacy

I'll do that last, just as a final show. I love keeping people in suspense and I want to teach people a lesson who are saying "Pirate is a scam because he's waiting". Those same people say "Matthew is a scam because he's waiting". If you had everyone bothering you, stalking you, harassing you, lying about you, wouldn't you want try to prove them wrong in a highly dramatic manner that makes them question the very foundation of their sick, pedantic reasoning?

This reasoning is flawed, BTCS&T has every single attribute of a Ponzi scheme, down to collapse triggered by withdrawals, so everyone has a right to call it what it is, until proven otherwise. If they're wrong, then no harm done and there is something new to learn for them, and if they're right, hopefully few people not totally blinded by greed will be saved from losing their bucks. If one approaches any investments of unknown nature which looks and smells like a Ponzi scheme with thinking maybe my reasoning is sick and pedantic and this is totally legit, then I suggest investment in luxury cardboard while you can still afford it, so you can live like a king once you find yourself homeless under a bridge.

[Matthew N. Wright]

so everyone has a right to call it what it is, until proven otherwise. If they're wrong, then no harm done

You're a faggot child raping tax evading meth smoking pedophile. Prove me wrong. If I was wrong, no harm done. I mean, it's not like people listen to what others say, that what they say can affect business, and that we have defamation laws for that exact reason. 

[Blind]

Sun readers 86% of readers found this acceptable.

You're omitting the fact that 86% of Sun readers are retards.

[Blind]

so everyone has a right to call it what it is, until proven otherwise. If they're wrong, then no harm done

You're a faggot child raping tax evading meth smoking pedophile. Prove me wrong. If I was wrong, no harm done. I mean, it's not like people listen to what others say, that what they say can affect business, and that we have defamation laws for that exact reason. 

Do you have single bit of evidence or found similarity in my actions or appearance to make this claim?

[bitlane]

so everyone has a right to call it what it is, until proven otherwise. If they're wrong, then no harm done

You're a faggot child raping tax evading meth smoking pedophile. Prove me wrong. If I was wrong, no harm done. I mean, it's not like people listen to what others say, that what they say can affect business, and that we have defamation laws for that exact reason.

Hey Matthew, are you familiar with the term 'Dead Man Switch' ?

Could you please explain to me, how Pirate's Dead Man Switch works exactly ?
I wouldn't want to be accused of saying anything that would run the risk of being defaming.

Remember, when Trendon told everyone about the Dead Man's Switch ? and said we would all be OK ?

I am just unsure who, or which party exactly, is required to be dead, in order for the switch to engage. Clearly it has been over 2 weeks since BTCST defaulted now and if this Dead Man's Switch actually DID exist, how exactly did/does it work... in an 'end times' type of scenario...?

Cheers.

[SysRun]

so everyone has a right to call it what it is, until proven otherwise. If they're wrong, then no harm done

You're a faggot child raping tax evading meth smoking pedophile. Prove me wrong. If I was wrong, no harm done. I mean, it's not like people listen to what others say, that what they say can affect business, and that we have defamation laws for that exact reason. 

If I look and act like a meth head then tell people you think me a meth head. I understand what you're saying about defamation Matthew, but if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, while it may take additional scrutiny, it is probably a duck.

[SysRun]

so everyone has a right to call it what it is, until proven otherwise. If they're wrong, then no harm done

You're a faggot child raping tax evading meth smoking pedophile. Prove me wrong. If I was wrong, no harm done. I mean, it's not like people listen to what others say, that what they say can affect business, and that we have defamation laws for that exact reason.

Hey Matthew, are you familiar with the term 'Dead Man Switch' ?

Could you please explain to me, how Pirate's Dead Man Switch works exactly ?
I wouldn't want to be accused of saying anything that would run the risk of being defaming.

Remember, when Trendon told everyone about the Dead Man's Switch ? and said we would all be OK ?

I am just unsure who is actually required to be dead, in order for the switch to engage. Clearly it has been over 2 weeks since BTCST defaulted now and if this Dead Man's Switch actually DID exist, how exactly did/does it work... in an 'end times' type of scenario...?

Cheers.

BTCST Defaulted on the 29th, get your facts straight.