Bitcoin Savings and Trust | Home | Closed

[BTCurious]

All the potential problems would be fixed by bouncing the last deposit when there's overcapacity, instead of bouncing the newest account.

[1715406181]

1715406181

[1715406181]

1715406181

[1715406181]

1715406181

[copumpkin]

"Sub leasing" out P@40 space while being moral, ethical, legal, unstoppable, etc. is just kind of, well ... rude (and a bit greedy).

It also just bothers me because consolidating lenders, in some sense, hurts pirateat40 (and all his lenders, by extension). For example, if I were his sole lender, and decided on a whim to withdraw one day, and he was in an awkward short position or something, he'd be forced to buy back coins at a disadvantageous rate. If people keep consolidating the lending I'd imagine pirateat40 might have to start instituting more rules to restrict withdrawals and such, so he covers his bases. There are book-keeping downsides to dealing with loads of lenders, but there are downsides to having too few, too.

I just hope this good thing doesn't turn into a tragedy of the commons where everyone looks out for themselves and forces pirateat40 to step in to restrict things more for everyone. Perhaps he doesn't care, but this behavior, taken to the extreme, is bad for everyone.

Thanks for the response. I really need some help figuring out the morality of this.
Perhaps the person selling their space could talk to pirate and set restrictions on themselves (and those who lend through them, of course) to only withdraw something like 20%/day.
Everybody had an opportunity to get in on this investment opportunity; shouldn't those who "took the risk" be rewarded?

Sure, there's definitely an argument for that, which is why I don't think anyone is claiming it's explicitly "wrong" for ineededausername or anyone else doing this to do so.

It also isn't wrong for all the villagers to take their animals to graze on the village commons; the end result is still that they kill off all the grass in the commons and nobody gets to graze their animals, though.

Obviously I paint a more dire picture than is really warranted here, and if pirateat40 had an opinion on this he'd probably have stepped in already. I just wanted to point out possible downsides of people acting in their own self-interest here. If I did so, (almost?) none of you guys would have any income from this anymore, which is "right" by some definition of me risking more by being his first lender, but still feels like a dick move. Of course, if there are no restrictions on it, if you don't do it, someone else will, so why not? It's a bit of a thorny issue, and one that was bound to arise.

I won't say I judge people who do do it, but I'm not comfortable with intentionally ejecting people myself.

[vuce]

I hope people realize they're still far better off being ejected and waiting a few days for space to clear than lending to this guy at half the interest rate.

[mcorlett]

All the potential problems would be fixed by bouncing the last deposit when there's overcapacity, instead of bouncing the newest account.

'nuff said.

[pirateat40]

I just want to jump in and say a couple things here.

I agree with copumpkin's comments on having loaded lenders that don't have control over when withdraws are made or going MIA and then blaming me for not paying them to pay their baby birds.  I don't like where this is headed and it could end up really causing some issues with my operation.

With that said the majority of the coins I'm holding are in the top 15% of my lenders and rarely move their coins in an out which stabilizes my storage needs.  I have two potentially new clients I'm talking with next week that were referred to me and not knowing their needs will keep me from make a change right now.  So without putting a damper on new lenders not wanting to sign up for fear of being forced out, I am going to stick to the same method of threshold handling as I do now but that may be changing soon.

The last thing I want is tension between my lenders and fights breaking out in the thread so Ill make this point very clear.  If you decide to borrow coins from members to lend to me.  DO NOT mention anything about me or my program.  If I see another comment from one of my lenders anywhere on the forums about "squeezing people out" or "I'm an early adopter so I don't have to worry." You'll see coins in your wallet and your account closed. PERIOD!

As always, thanks guys and hopefully we get this settled and behind us.

[copumpkin]

I just want to jump in and say a couple things here.

I agree with copumpkin's comments on having loaded lenders that don't have control over when withdraws are made or going MIA and then blaming me for not paying them to pay their baby birds.  I don't like where this is headed and it could end up really causing some issues with my operation.

With that said the majority of the coins I'm holding are in the top 15% of my lenders and rarely move their coins in an out which stabilizes my storage needs.  I have two potentially new clients I'm talking with next week that were referred to me and not knowing their needs will keep me from make a change right now.  So without putting a damper on new lenders not wanting to sign up for fear of being forced out, I am going to stick to the same method of threshold handling as I do now but that may be changing soon.

The last thing I want is tension between my lenders and fights breaking out in the thread so Ill make this point very clear.  If you decide to borrow coins from members to lend to me.  DO NOT mention anything about me or my program.  If I see another comment from one of my lenders anywhere on the forums about "squeezing people out" or "I'm an early adopter so I don't have to worry." You'll see coins in your wallet and your account closed. PERIOD!

As always, thanks guys and hopefully we get this settled and behind us.

Thanks for making an official statement on this!

I'd just like to add that even though the membership of your bank is mostly public, seeing a known lender of yours ask for a loan publicly does not necessarily mean they are performing interest rate arb, so borrowers shouldn't necessarily be penalized unless they make it really obvious they're doing it.

As an example of non-arby things to do with a loan while lending, I see nothing wrong with taking short-term loans to do everyday business while leaving one's coins with the pirate bank. I just feel uncomfortable with intentionally ejecting younger accounts to grow one's own profits.

[Mageant]

If Pirate can focus on growing his business then he will be able to borrow more BTC.

I'm grateful to Pirate for this wonderful business opportunity he is providing both for his lenders and for Bitcoin.

Imagine how the word is spreading amongst his customers about the usefulness of Bitcoin.

All holders of Bitcoin will profit from this in the long run.

[chungenhung]

http://btclending.com/ is down? Can't connect

[wachtwoord]

confirmed

[Matthew N. Wright]

Am I the only one here that thinks this entire thing will end badly?

[Raoul Duke]

Am I the only one here that thinks this entire thing will end badly?

Pretty much, yeah, only you.

[Turbor]

[imsaguy]

Am I the only one here that thinks this entire thing will end badly?

Hey, troll somewhere else. kthnx

[ineededausername]

Am I the only one here that thinks this entire thing will end badly?

Hey, troll somewhere else. kthnx

+1

[pirateat40]

Am I the only one here that thinks this entire thing will end badly?

I am truly honored the be trolled by the king of all trolls.  I fell like I have gotten to the top somehow.  Thanks

In other news I wake to find that the DC where btclending.com is being hosted is under DDoS attacks.

I am not a happy camper. 

[copumpkin]

Am I the only one here that thinks this entire thing will end badly?

There's always a non-zero risk of defaulting in any loan situation. As a compulsive loaner on IRC, pirateat40 was just another borrower to me, and I evaluated him as I do with anyone else and decided it seemed safe enough for me to risk it. His actions since my initial loan to him have reinforced my trust in him, but anyone who assumes you can make big money with no risk is going to get burned eventually.

Personally, I'd be pretty bummed if he disappeared with my money, but I won't have trouble making the rent and will probably keep dealing bitcoins with other people. And on the grand scheme of things, I still think this deal has probably one of the highest reward/risk ratios out there.

So anyway, I think it's a lot more likely to end well than to end badly, but one can never be sure the only difference between us is that I've dealt with pirateat40 a hell of a lot more than you have. That could either cloud my objectivity or give me more information to form a correct opinion, and I guess time will tell which

tl;dr: yours is a valid concern, and is definitely one that all lenders should be aware of at all times, but I think the risk is low, and I'm risk-tolerant enough to bet a lot of "real money" on that viewpoint

[imsaguy]

Am I the only one here that thinks this entire thing will end badly?

There's always a non-zero risk of defaulting in any loan situation. As a compulsive loaner on IRC, pirateat40 was just another borrower to me, and I evaluated him as I do with anyone else and decided it seemed safe enough for me to risk it. His actions since my initial loan to him have reinforced my trust in him, but anyone who assumes you can make big money with no risk is going to get burned eventually.

Personally, I'd be pretty bummed if he disappeared with my money, but I won't have trouble making the rent and will probably keep dealing bitcoins with other people. And on the grand scheme of things, I still think this deal has probably one of the highest reward/risk ratios out there.

So anyway, I think it's a lot more likely to end well than to end badly, but one can never be sure the only difference between us is that I've dealt with pirateat40 a hell of a lot more than you have. That could either cloud my objectivity or give me more information to form a correct opinion, and I guess time will tell which

tl;dr: yours is a valid concern, and is definitely one that all lenders should be aware of at all times, but I think the risk is low, and I'm risk-tolerant enough to bet a lot of "real money" on that viewpoint

Aren't you dating his sister?

[pirateat40]

Am I the only one here that thinks this entire thing will end badly?

There's always a non-zero risk of defaulting in any loan situation. As a compulsive loaner on IRC, pirateat40 was just another borrower to me, and I evaluated him as I do with anyone else and decided it seemed safe enough for me to risk it. His actions since my initial loan to him have reinforced my trust in him, but anyone who assumes you can make big money with no risk is going to get burned eventually.

Personally, I'd be pretty bummed if he disappeared with my money, but I won't have trouble making the rent and will probably keep dealing bitcoins with other people. And on the grand scheme of things, I still think this deal has probably one of the highest reward/risk ratios out there.

So anyway, I think it's a lot more likely to end well than to end badly, but one can never be sure the only difference between us is that I've dealt with pirateat40 a hell of a lot more than you have. That could either cloud my objectivity or give me more information to form a correct opinion, and I guess time will tell which

tl;dr: yours is a valid concern, and is definitely one that all lenders should be aware of at all times, but I think the risk is low, and I'm risk-tolerant enough to bet a lot of "real money" on that viewpoint

Aren't you dating his sister?

both of them.

[chungenhung]

lol

[wachtwoord]

Sounds like good collateral