Bitcoin Savings and Trust | Home | Closed

[BoardGameCoin]

pirate: I just have to say that if you were the one who put up the 'BTCST defaults July 4 or before' post, that would be the coup de grâce.

[Tomatocage]

pirate: I just have to say that if you were the one who put up the 'BTCST defaults July 4 or before' post, that would be the coup de grâce.

Payouts already happened for this week.  So there goes that bet.

[Maged]

The "big one" could have been one from MtGox for example.

OK, that is probably a MtGox-address, judging from the amounts and how often they come in.

Nevertheless the total BTC volume of the other large addresses would be in the hundreds of thousands and would likely exceed the total number of deposits at BTCST especially considering that they aren't that old. And they are all immediately following, ie. next step, addresses.

I would be interested in seeing a Deposit address or ten, to see what happens with deposited funds. As far as GPUMax, based on what I've seen, there is either nothing of note going on there (I'd need deposit addresses to know more), or this is a massive money-laundering operation. Money launders can make upwards of 50% of what flows though them, so that would both pay for the whole show as well as explain why Pirate doesn't feel like using his own BTC.

I am quite qualified to do blockchain analysis, and I promise not to reveal addresses sent to me, just the information that I find.

[BoardGameCoin]

pirate: I just have to say that if you were the one who put up the 'BTCST defaults July 4 or before' post, that would be the coup de grâce.

Payouts already happened for this week.  So there goes that bet.

"This statement is true if Bitcoin Savings and Trust is unwilling or unable to pay out requested deposits on or before July 4th, 2012 according to the opinion of Bitcointalk.org members on the Bitcoin Savings and Trust Forum Thread. "

If he posted 'Yup, it was a Ponzi', and then stonewalled withdrawals tomorrow, the bet would be true. Full disclosure: I'm not on either side of the bet.

-bgc

[Tomatocage]

I would be interested in seeing a Deposit address or ten, to see what happens with deposited funds. As far as GPUMax, based on what I've seen, there is either nothing of note going on there (I'd need deposit addresses to know more), or this is a massive money-laundering operation. Money launders can make upwards of 50% of what flows though them, so that would both pay for the whole show as well as explain why Pirate doesn't feel like using his own BTC.

I am quite qualified to do blockchain analysis, and I promise not to reveal addresses sent to me, just the information that I find.

That's the side I'm leaning toward at this point. If that's the case, I want no part of it, but that's not going to deter a lot of people.  7% is a pretty big carrot.

[conspirosphere.tk]

I seem to remember about a CDS or an insurance on pirate's default on the GLBSE, but I can't find it.
If really there is not, it could be a good idea.

[Vandroiy]

Pirateat40: lol... you got me. I'm not even going to repeat the amortization thing. That post toward us is too awesome. Anyone stupid enough to keep going now deserves it, what would those people have done with the funds anyway?

This is actually why I don't have anything against the MMM schemes. If you give people a fair chance to notice, it's no more a scam than selling ground on Mars. A part of me is now going to laugh with you when you call it quits.

Also, lol Herzmeister

[FredericBastiat]

I hate to step in the middle of this ****storm to slow things down a bit, but would it be possible for those who have already made their point to stop repeating themselves so that other threads in the parent category can get a fair shake at getting read? Their moment to shine perhaps??

I'd also like to ask a favor and allow Pirate to control his thread a bit more, as it was his to start with. Do we need a child board just for Pirate discussions (ponzi and anti-ponzi rhetoric)? I'd like to think we're all adults here and we can reasonably fend for ourselves. Both sides to this argument have been made. Some good, some not so good. I'd say were fairly satiated with the nuances and details regarding the speculation surrounding Pirate's business.

I don't think much more light will be shed on the topic matter until new events transpire. I think there were some interesting questions Pirate could have responded to regarding some of his new changes to the "program", but were buried in all of the tit-for-tat inundation.

Respect begets respect.

[hazek]

No, I need no details. I just want to know why you don't have enough BTC to continue without investors by now. Exponential growth is pretty neat, and I don't see why these peoples' BTC should be better than your own.

If there's one thing I found out by now, then it's that you joke a lot less than it seems. I trust you can fulfill the promise above, and you'll have a laugh at a lot of people when you do.

I can't remember how many times I've explained this, but for you I'll do it again.

Bitcoin is not fiat yet.  That doesn't mean it won't be at some point nor does it mean I don't believe in it.  There's simply no reason at this time for me to risk market movements with my converted fiat > bitcoin when there's hundreds of users that will let me make money with their coins.  I don't need them, I just prefer them.

My operation is funded by my lenders and I do hold a few personal coins myself.  

Riiiight ok, that's a valid reason.. Except there's one tiny little problem with your story: Your clients haven't had any loses yet even though the price rose which should have meant that you couldn't have possibly bought back all the bitcoins people "invested" with you that you initially, as you claim, converted to fiat. How is this possible? How are you able to meet your obligations even though the risk event for which you insured yourself against by using other people's bitcoins clearly happened?

[imsaguy]

I hate to step in the middle of this ****storm to slow things down a bit, but would it be possible for those who have already made their point to stop repeating themselves so that other threads in the parent category can get a fair shake at getting read? Their moment to shine perhaps??

I'd also like to ask a favor and allow Pirate to control his thread a bit more, as it was his to start with. Do we need a child board just for Pirate discussions (ponzi and anti-ponzi rhetoric)? I'd like to think we're all adults here and we can reasonably fend for ourselves. Both sides to this argument have been made. Some good, some not so good. I'd say were fairly satiated with the nuances and details regarding the speculation surrounding Pirate's business.

I don't think much more light will be shed on the topic matter until new events transpire. I think there were some interesting questions Pirate could have responded to regarding some of his new changes to the "program", but were buried in all of the tit-for-tat inundation.

Respect begets respect.

Pirate can't control his thread other than to ask people to stop.  OP have no real control over their threads other than to lock them.

[bpd]

Unfortunately none of that proves it's a Ponzi.  And even more unfortunate is that seldom Ponzi can be proven until it's too late.  In the case of each one of your three end-game scenarios, we still have full dox on him, and some people still have a lot of BTC.  

Who is "we"? And what are these full docs? I have heard this claim multiple times, but no evidence has been presented that it is true.

[BoardGameCoin]

Riiiight ok, that's a valid reason.. Except there's one tiny little problem with your story: Your clients haven't had any loses yet even though the price rose which should have meant that you couldn't have possibly bought back all the bitcoins people "invested" with you that you initially, as you claim, converted to fiat. How is this possible? How are you able to meet your obligations even though the risk event for which you insured yourself against by using other people's bitcoins clearly happened?

I think there's some confusion here: By having a liability in bitcoins, he's insuring himself against a DROP in BTCUSD. A rise in BTCUSD is the wrong direction for his supposed hedge and is the reason why the argument 'I have my liability in BTC because it's not as good as $' doesn't hold water: Cross-currency risk exists regardless of which side the liability is on.

-bgc

[Clipse]

Unfortunately none of that proves it's a Ponzi.  And even more unfortunate is that seldom Ponzi can be proven until it's too late.  In the case of each one of your three end-game scenarios, we still have full dox on him, and some people still have a lot of BTC.  

Who is "we"? And what are these full docs? I have heard this claim multiple times, but no evidence has been presented that it is true.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doxing

You don't really know who roam those forums, who owns BTC and who have BTC in pirate business. If pirate scam everybody, I think that some guys have good tools to find him back. Especially with the amounts involved.

I think he knows what doxxing is, him and many others including myself arnt aware of these details.

[hazek]

Riiiight ok, that's a valid reason.. Except there's one tiny little problem with your story: Your clients haven't had any loses yet even though the price rose which should have meant that you couldn't have possibly bought back all the bitcoins people "invested" with you that you initially, as you claim, converted to fiat. How is this possible? How are you able to meet your obligations even though the risk event for which you insured yourself against by using other people's bitcoins clearly happened?

I think there's some confusion here: By having a liability in bitcoins, he's insuring himself against a DROP in BTCUSD. A rise in BTCUSD is the wrong direction for his supposed hedge and is the reason why the argument 'I have my liability in BTC because it's not as good as $' doesn't hold water: Cross-currency risk exists regardless of which side the liability is on.

-bgc

If he takes the bitcoins and converts them into fiat:

Bitcoin is not fiat yet.  That doesn't mean it won't be at some point nor does it mean I don't believe in it.  There's simply no reason at this time for me to risk market movements with my converted fiat > bitcoin

.. and after he does what ever he is doing, which I believe to be nothing at all, he has to buy back bitcoins to meet his obligations. How is a drop in the BTCUSD rate hurting him in this again?

[bpd]

Unfortunately none of that proves it's a Ponzi.  And even more unfortunate is that seldom Ponzi can be proven until it's too late.  In the case of each one of your three end-game scenarios, we still have full dox on him, and some people still have a lot of BTC.  

Who is "we"? And what are these full docs? I have heard this claim multiple times, but no evidence has been presented that it is true.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doxing

You don't really know who roam those forums, who owns BTC and who have BTC in pirate business. If pirate scam everybody, I think that some guys have good tools to find him back. Especially with the amounts involved.

Okay, I wasn't familiar with that term. But that still sounds like something that would have to be done in the future, unless you are saying someone has already applied these techniques to identify him. Is that what you're saying?

I assume if Pirate is sophisticated enough to run a successful long-running ponzi scheme, he's sophisticated enough to also cover his tracks. Or at least thinks he is.

[hazek]

Bitcoin is not fiat yet.  That doesn't mean it won't be at some point nor does it mean I don't believe in it.  There's simply no reason at this time for me to risk market movements with my converted fiat > bitcoin

Riiiight ok, that's a valid reason.. Except there's one tiny little problem with your story: Your clients haven't had any loses yet even though the price rose which should have meant that you couldn't have possibly bought back all the bitcoins people "invested" with you that you initially, as you claim, converted to fiat. How is this possible? How are you able to meet your obligations even though the risk event for which you insured yourself against by using other people's bitcoins clearly happened?

Btw ^ this is what they call a smoking gun I believe.

[BoardGameCoin]

hazek: we may be talking around each other. I'm just saying that his hedge only helps if the BTCUSD drops, and if it rises, he has extra liability. This is probably what you're saying as well.

[hazek]

hazek: we may be talking around each other. I'm just saying that his hedge only helps if the BTCUSD drops, and if it rises, he has extra liability. This is probably what you're saying as well.

Not at all. His "hedge" is that he is using other people's money. If the BTCUSD rate drops, he makes more, if it goes up his clients lose, or so the story goes. His clients should have lost money with the recent significant exchange rate increase, they haven't, why? Because he's not really exchanging anything.

[pirateat40]

Riiiight ok, that's a valid reason.. Except there's one tiny little problem with your story: Your clients haven't had any loses yet even though the price rose which should have meant that you couldn't have possibly bought back all the bitcoins people "invested" with you that you initially, as you claim, converted to fiat. How is this possible? How are you able to meet your obligations even though the risk event for which you insured yourself against by using other people's bitcoins clearly happened?

Do you really think someone that manages as many coins as I do, doesn't have an influence on market movements?  What I do with the coins is my business and my lenders are well aware of the risks associated with entrusting someone with them.  If anyone has a reason to not trust me with their coins they're more than welcome to withdraw them.

I'm done discussing the same stuff over and over, if someone has something new to add fine but until then...  I be havin' t' get aft t' me ship.

[Tomatocage]

Okay, I wasn't familiar with that term. But that still sounds like something that would have to be done in the future, unless you are saying someone has already applied these techniques to identify him. Is that what you're saying?

I assume if Pirate is sophisticated enough to run a successful long-running ponzi scheme, he's sophisticated enough to also cover his tracks. Or at least thinks he is.

Yes, that's what he is saying.