Going after Trendon Shavers, Pirateat40, BTCST

[MPOE-PR]

This is still going on? Allow me to try once again.

You don't derive that BS&T was a Ponzi using only formal logic statements. Almost anything is somehow possible. If I claim to be an alien who has traveled to Mars and back yesterday, nobody can formally prove me wrong. Pirate's chances of being legitimate were just small -- not in a "I don't believe it" kind of way, but in the way a physicist uses the word. Let's do an example; there are much better combinations in the threads from back then, but this already shows the point:

• BS&T scaled on a smooth exponential, which means its reservoir of unfulfilled trades at horrible rates was really large compared to the entire market. I'd bet chances for that to be below 20%.
• Pirateat40 made statements that seem unbefitting for a qualified trader. I'd give it a maximum 40% that he is able to beat competition by such a wide margin.
• There are wealthy investors around who would finance an operation like his if explained under NDA. This would also help speed up the fundraising process to avoid competition. I'd give him 1:4 at best that he neither found a way to use a large investor nor had a situation in which he'd stop taking deposits and switch to his own funds.
• The above statements are independent.

With only this primitive reasoning, I already expect a maximum probability of legitimacy of 0.2 * 0.4 * 0.25 = 2%.

Go figure what happens when looking at more independent statements, such as the abundant warning signs of a Ponzi scheme! The possibility of legitimacy becomes bunk, nothing a serious analyst would care about. I could not assign a final probability to it because it becomes noise to the probability of myself being insane, among other things that become relevant at such low probabilities.

Now maybe some people disagree on the points above. But it shouldn't be hard to find three to four independent statements like this and conclude that "non-Ponzi" chances are just horribly low.

Oh hai V.

[JoelKatz]

Stuck in a loop: People who say "a legit business MUST X" are amusing to me, regardless of X.

It's like they've completely shut off the possibility that there could ever be people who know things about business that they don't know.

Everyone on the internet is automatically an expert at everything though.

Are you opposed to learning a lesson on some sort of principle? People who say things that are phenomenally improbable and where they have an enormous incentive to lie, where they are anonymous and everyone in the past who has made similar claims has been lying, are almost certainly lying. This is an undeniable fact and the effort spent evading it and attacking the people explaining it would be comical if they weren't doing so much real harm to real people.

Nobody has ever found any legitimate, low risk investment that requires taking on more and more high interest debt, yet any number of scams are based on this. The probability that the person asking you for money will be the first is near zero, and absent some plausible explanation of how they could possibly be that person, only a fool would consider any other possibility than that it's a scam. This is simple, basic common sense.

Simply put, anyone who sees an absurdly high interest rate and thinks "what a wonderful opportunity" rather than "what an obvious scam" lacks common sense. And, honestly, anyone who suggests that the community ought not to learn this lesson, in my opinion, is most likely seeking to exploit that lack of common sense. There is no other reason I can think of to preserve it rather than combat it.

[Cyberdyne]

Simply put, anyone who sees an absurdly high interest rate and thinks "what a wonderful opportunity" rather than "what an obvious scam" lacks common sense.

In keeping an open mind, for me it is neither of those.

It is more like "this is probably a scam, but since I recognize that there are things in this universe that I am not an expert in, and will never be an expert in, it's possible that it's actually a wonderful opportunity."

It's not lacking common sense to say that something being a scam is not a complete certainty. It's just logical.

[Puppet]

Then just multiply your potential profit with the extreme low probability its not a scam and you can see why its definitely stupid to "invest" in it.

[JoelKatz]

It's not lacking common sense to say that something being a scam is not a complete certainty. It's just logical.

I totally disagree. In fact, to talk about what can be known with "complete certainty" is the very opposite of common sense. Common sense is about making decisions that will almost always be right given that we never have complete certainty. Common sense is not letting scammers sucker you in with arguments about how you can't know their obvious lies are nonsense with "complete certainty" and how you must always entertain the possibility that might have found some miracle. Common sense is knowing there are no miracles, not keeping your mind perpetually opened to the possibility that there might be so that you can be taken advantage of.

Common sense is knowing when *not* to keep an open mind. Common sense is knowing when you know something. Entertaining miniscule possibilities is the antithesis of common sense.

[Cyberdyne]

It's not lacking common sense to say that something being a scam is not a complete certainty. It's just logical.

I totally disagree. In fact, to talk about what can be known with "complete certainty" is the very opposite of common sense. Common sense is about making decisions that will almost always be right given that we never have complete certainty. Common sense is not letting scammers sucker you in with arguments about how you can't know their obvious lies are nonsense with "complete certainty" and how you must always entertain the possibility that might have found some miracle. Common sense is knowing there are no miracles, not keeping your mind perpetually opened to the possibility that their might be so that you can be taken advantage of.

Okay sure, I'll sum up by saying:

Logic compels me to believe in the possibility that some suspicious-looking investment scheme is not a scam.

Common sense compels me to not invest in such wacky schemes, despite the possibility of it being legit.

[JoelKatz]

Okay sure, I'll sum up by saying:

Logic compels me to believe in the possibility that some suspicious-looking investment scheme is not a scam.

Common sense compels me to not invest in such wacky schemes, despite the possibility of it being legit.

And I have no problem with that position. What I have a *huge* problem with is people who say things like:

"People who say "X is impossible" are amusing to me, regardless of X."

And

"It's not lacking common sense to say that something being a scam is not a complete certainty."

And

"Stuck in a loop: People who say "a legit business MUST X" are amusing to me, regardless of X.
It's like they've completely shut off the possibility that there could ever be people who know things about business that they don't know."

These are all things you said, and they are all foolish and harmful. Invoking notions of metaphysical certainty, in a conversation about anything but metaphysics, is an attempt to reject common sense and has the actual effect of causing people to make bad decisions. It is also, quite simply, wrong.

"Impossible" does *not* mean "beyond logical possibility". Buying a car that goes 300 miles per gallon of gas is not a logical impossibility, but it is also impossible. "Complete certainty" is a metaphysical concept. Its relevance to investing is nil. And "MUST" does not mean complete metaphysical certainty either.

That is all complete and harmful foolishness.

[Cyberdyne]

"Impossible" does *not* mean "beyond logical possibility".

If that's really true, then this is the point in my day when I learn something, thanks.

Er, now considering the possibility that my definition of 'impossible' is flawed.


No wait, sorry it's still amusing - Why would anyone (who hasn't inspected every single car on the earth) ever claim that buying a car that gets 300 mpg is impossible? How do they know that? Amusing.

[donut]

"Impossible" does *not* mean "beyond logical possibility".

I think you may be confusing "impossible" with "improbable". Impossible means that it will never ever happen under any conceivable circumstances. Improbable is just highly unlikely - like guessing a private key is about as unlikely as walking through a wooden door.

[JoelKatz]

I think you may be confusing "impossible" with "improbable". Impossible means that it will never ever happen under any conceivable circumstances. Improbable is just highly unlikely - like guessing a private key is about as unlikely as walking through a wooden door.

No, that's not what "impossible" means. That's a childish word game. In fact, that's a concept that is so rarely useful there is no need to give it is own word. I just picked four completely random uses of the word "impossible" in a Google search:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/09/10/impossible-to-default/
"It Is Impossible For The US To Default"
This clearly means it is impractical under the current circumstances. But this use of the word "impossible" is not wrong. To respond to the writer of this headline that there are conceivable circumstances under which the US would default would be idiotic, and everyone knows it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/david-calling/355981/compromise-impossible-egypt-david-pryce-jones
"Compromise Is Impossible in Egypt"
Really? Compromise will never happen in Egypt under any conceivable circumstances? Really? Is this headline wrong?

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/238710
Okay, this is a poem.

http://news.yahoo.com/blackberry-impossible-value-now-165548321.html
This uses the word "impossible" to refer to something that is merely difficult to do well. Wow, so many people don't understand how to correctly use the word "impossible".

No wait, sorry it's still amusing - Why would anyone (who hasn't inspected every single car on the earth) ever claim that buying a car that gets 300 mpg is impossible? How do they know that? Amusing.

Because that's how the English language works. That's what the word "impossible" means.

Can we stop the childish word games now? Please.

[jbreher]

impossible |imˈpäsəbəl|
adjective
not able to occur, exist, or be done: a seemingly impossible task | [ with infinitive ] : it was almost impossible to keep up with him.
• very difficult to deal with: she was in an impossible situation.
• informal (of a person) very unreasonable: “Impossible woman!” the doctor complained.
ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French, or from Latin impossibilis, from in- ‘not’ + possibilis (see possible) .

not. able. to. occur.

It matters not one whit to me that you have been able to find four articles on the interwebs that misuse the word. We already have a concise and compact term for the improbable - and that is.... 'improabable'. Why on earth would we overload the meaning onto another word (impossible), leaving us no compact and concise word to use to convey the meaning of 'not able to occur'? It defies all reason.

As an aside, the real performance of bitcoin against a numeraire of USD is not that far off of Pirate's advertised performance of his so-claimed investment against a numeraire of bitcoin. Using the concept of the numeraire to factor out the evident compounding of BTCST against USD, should we not then logically conclude that the performance of bitcoin is so outrageous as to make it an obvious scam by your stated criteria?

[Cyberdyne]

not. able. to. occur.

Yes, thank you. I'm dumbfounded that a grown adult (especially one who has decided to use the word 'childish') could define it any other way.

[JoelKatz]

impossible |imˈpäsəbəl|
adjective
not able to occur, exist, or be done: a seemingly impossible task | [ with infinitive ] : it was almost impossible to keep up with him.
• very difficult to deal with: she was in an impossible situation.
• informal (of a person) very unreasonable: “Impossible woman!” the doctor complained.
ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French, or from Latin impossibilis, from in- ‘not’ + possibilis (see possible) .

not. able. to. occur.

Definitions don't work that way. You can't parse them like a lawyer to figure out what does or doesn't quality.

It matters not one whit to me that you have been able to find four articles on the interwebs that misuse the word. We already have a concise and compact term for the improbable - and that is.... 'improabable'. Why on earth would we overload the meaning onto another word (impossible), leaving us no compact and concise word to use to convey the meaning of 'not able to occur'? It defies all reason.

They were randomly selected. Impossible and improbable don't mean the same thing. Impossible conveys a much higher level of unlikelihood than "improbable" does. There is no common English term for actual metaphysical impossibility because it is only useful in metaphysics.

As an aside, the real performance of bitcoin against a numeraire of USD is not that far off of Pirate's advertised performance of his so-claimed investment against a numeraire of bitcoin. Using the concept of the numeraire to factor out the evident compounding of BTCST against USD, should we not then logically conclude that the performance of bitcoin is so outrageous as to make it an obvious scam by your stated criteria?

I know you're being deliberately idiotic but just in case anybody thinks you're being serious rather than playing a childish game of "gotcha", the difference is that nobody claimed that you should trust them to invest your money in Bitcoins because Bitcoins were certain to appreciate in this way and that such an investment was low in risk.

[jbreher]

impossible |imˈpäsəbəl|
adjective
not able to occur, exist, or be done: a seemingly impossible task | [ with infinitive ] : it was almost impossible to keep up with him.
• very difficult to deal with: she was in an impossible situation.
• informal (of a person) very unreasonable: “Impossible woman!” the doctor complained.
ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French, or from Latin impossibilis, from in- ‘not’ + possibilis (see possible) .

not. able. to. occur.

Definitions don't work that way. You can't parse them like a lawyer to figure out what does or doesn't quality.

You can't refer to a dictionary to determine the meaning of a word? Crazy.

It matters not one whit to me that you have been able to find four articles on the interwebs that misuse the word. We already have a concise and compact term for the improbable - and that is.... 'improabable'. Why on earth would we overload the meaning onto another word (impossible), leaving us no compact and concise word to use to convey the meaning of 'not able to occur'? It defies all reason.

They were randomly selected.

Seems unlikely, but I'll take your word for it. After all, I can see the predominance of people using 'loose' when they men 'lose'. Just because it is widespread does not make it correct.

Impossible and improbable don't mean the same thing.

Thank you for that admission.

Impossible conveys a much higher level of unlikelihood than "improbable" does.

Yes - impossible conveys a probability of zero - to infinite decimal places. So says the dictionary.

There is no common English term for actual metaphysical impossibility because it is only useful in metaphysics.

Don't be obtuse. Of course there is a simple single word for probability = 0, as it is such a simple and useful concept. As the dictionary so says.

As an aside, the real performance of bitcoin against a numeraire of USD is not that far off of Pirate's advertised performance of his so-claimed investment against a numeraire of bitcoin. Using the concept of the numeraire to factor out the evident compounding of BTCST against USD, should we not then logically conclude that the performance of bitcoin is so outrageous as to make it an obvious scam by your stated criteria?

I know you're being deliberately idiotic but just in case anybody thinks you're being serious rather than playing a childish game of "gotcha", the difference is that nobody claimed that you should trust them to invest your money in Bitcoins because Bitcoins were certain to appreciate in this way and that such an investment was low in risk.

Well, no. I was not being deliberately idiotic. Are you now saying that the relative probability of an event occurring depends directly upon whether or not certain parties are claiming you can make a profit off it? Now who's being metaphysical? Actually, I know that is not what you mean to assert - but I cannot devine what it is that you mean to convey in your retort.

JoeKatz, I respect you in many things. However, If your plan is to argue that the dictionary is employing an incorrect definition, I just don't know how to carry on a meaningful discussion.

[JoelKatz]

You can't refer to a dictionary to determine the meaning of a word? Crazy.

No. You can't. You have to look at how native speakers actually use the word. Really.

Seems unlikely, but I'll take your word for it. After all, I can see the predominance of people using 'loose' when they men 'lose'. Just because it is widespread does not make it correct.

That is correct, widespread use is not quite equivalent to correctness. I'll happily point you towards sources that explain where the truth is between prescriptivism and descriptivism.

Impossible conveys a much higher level of unlikelihood than "improbable" does.

Yes - impossible conveys a probability of zero - to infinite decimal places. So says the dictionary.

No, it doesn't. "Impossible" is not a measure of probability. It's not a mathematical concept. You can google "* is impossible" and take 50 random samples. The majority of them will *not* be using "impossible" this way.

Well, no. I was not being deliberately idiotic. Are you now saying that the relative probability of an event occurring depends directly upon whether or not certain parties are claiming you can make a profit off it? Now who's being metaphysical? Actually, I know that is not what you mean to assert - but I cannot devine what it is that you mean to convey in your retort.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Seriously, I just explained it. It's not hard to understand. If the person who claims there's a high chance of a profit is the very same person who claims it's low risk and expects you to trust them with your money with no legal recourse, that increases the probability that it's a scam. Yes. Really. (But the real point was that speculating in the price of Bitcoin is high risk and anyone who says otherwise should be ignored. If it was a sure thing, the price would already be higher.)

JoeKatz, I respect you in many things. However, If your plan is to argue that the dictionary is employing an incorrect definition, I just don't know how to carry on a meaningful discussion.

If you don't know how to use a dictionary properly, then it really doesn't mean much to me that you respect me. Dictionaries point you at the general concept of a word, actual use by native speakers is authoritative. Native speakers going to a dictionary to tell each other how they "should" use a word is flat out idiotic and flips the way language works on its head. (With the possible exception of words with which they're not familiar.) You are essentially arguing that the majority of uses of the word "impossible" by native speakers is wrong, which is insane.

[EskimoBob]

This idiotic thread keeps popping up to "New post..." list because you 2, armchair linguist, (still practicing armchair law?) are thread crapping as usual. 
LOL, you 2 really need to get a life outside of this forum. Get out, go have a pint in your local and talk to someone, face to face.

[hgmichna]

This idiotic thread keeps popping up to "New post..." list because you 2, armchair linguist, (still practicing armchair law?) are thread crapping as usual. 
LOL, you 2 really need to get a life outside of this forum. Get out, go have a pint in your local and talk to someone, face to face.

It seems that the recent discussion is about whether the pirate, of whom we know that he ran a Ponzi scheme, might have run something else. Isn't that rather pointless?

It seems to me that JoelKatz is perfectly correct. He provided ample proof in the form of traceable citations. I only fear he is wasting his time. It might be more useful to detect the next Ponzi scheme and warn its "investors".

[JoelKatz]

It seems to me that JoelKatz is perfectly correct. He provided ample proof in the form of traceable citations. I only fear he is wasting his time. It might be more useful to detect the next Ponzi scheme and warn its "investors".

Code red! Someone is wrong on the Internet!

Warning the investors won't work if lessons aren't learned. We warned until we were blue in the face about Pirate, and not enough people listened. For reasons I cannot fathom, there appear to be people actively opposed to learning lessons.

[hgmichna]

It seems to me that JoelKatz is perfectly correct. He provided ample proof in the form of traceable citations. I only fear he is wasting his time. It might be more useful to detect the next Ponzi scheme and warn its "investors".

Code red! Someone is wrong on the Internet!

Warning the investors won't work if lessons aren't learned. We warned until we were blue in the face about Pirate, and not enough people listened. For reasons I cannot fathom, there appear to be people actively opposed to learning lessons.

Yes, if even those who already know that Pirate ran a Ponzi scheme now try to argue that he could have been legitimate, then you must be right. Somehow this is funny.

[JoelKatz]

Yes, if even those who already know that Pirate ran a Ponzi scheme now try to argue that he could have been legitimate, then you must be right. Somehow this is funny.

Any suggestions? Is there some other way to say "this is obviously a Ponzi scheme"?