Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 11:59:55 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: « 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [BitcoinMax.com] Closed  (Read 178543 times)
unclescrooge
aka Raphy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 02:40:50 PM
 #1561

Joel,  you don't have the start of a proof, so stop accusing.

Assumptions and facts are different things.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481198395
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481198395

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481198395
Reply with quote  #2

1481198395
Report to moderator
Inedible
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630


What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 02:46:10 PM
 #1562

Was I aware of what I was getting myself into? Yes.
Then you are a scammer. You knowingly paid Pirate to fraudulently transfer other people's money to you without their consent.

Quote
It's not like I didn't read payb.tc's warnings. It's not like he didn't say you stand to lose your entire gam...er...invstment.
That's not the issue. It's not what Pirate did with your money, it's what you paid him to do.

Quote
Everyone's saying "a 3400% annual return rate - it's got to be a scam" - well I agree with you. Did I still take a chance, sure.
Okay, so you knowingly participated in a scam. You are a scammer.

Quote
I don't think anyone who can think rationally could believe that there wasn't something fishy here, especially with no information as to how these returns were being generated.
Right, so you knew it was a scam.

Quote
I'm also as suspicious of people who are calling people like payb.tc scammers, for exactly the same reasons.
Umm, how do you figure? You don't agree that they paid Pirate to fraudulently transfer other people's money to them?

Quote
If you're a rational person who can think for themselves, how can people who operated passthroughs be considered scammers?
Because they knowingly participated in a scam and tried to profit from it. Duh.

Quote
Some have said that they're scammers because they helped legitimise Pirate... how? Am I a scammer because I gambled? Did I legitimise him?
You are a scammer because you knowingly participated in a scam, paying Pirate to make you the beneficiary of fraudulent transfers of other people's money. Sorry, but that's the truth.

True or false: Pirate induced people to invest in him by claiming to have an actual business that turned a legitimate profit. You knew, however, that he was probably using new investments to pay off interest on previous investments. You knew or should have known that by investing with Pirate, you were in fact paying him to transfer some of those funds that others were lead to believe would be invested to you, which is in no way an investment of those funds.

How can you say that doesn't make you a scammer? How long until reality sinks in and the cognitive dissonance stops?


Ah - I think I see the problem.

There are two subtle issues here which appear to be being called the same thing by both sides and thus causing some confusion.

1) I've been scammed - I don't feel this to be the case as I went into this knowing I could lose my investment.

2) I'm scamming - This would only be true of people who went into this believing they would never lose anything (this can't be true either as they will have gone into it knowing what I knew) and me expecting my returns to come from those that invested after me (which I didn't).

Did anyone invest believing they wouldn't lose anything?
Did anyone invest expecting their payments would come from others who joined later?

Neither of those are true of me but I can't speak for everyone else.

If this post was useful, interesting or entertaining, then you've misunderstood. 1N6rmaDiPf8ke3mx8217NykAMDZXkX713x
Vladimir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


-


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 02:53:07 PM
 #1563

The extraordinary claim is not that pirate and his crew run a ponzi. The extraordinary and preceding claim is that pirate and his crew are operating some biz model producing ~14204% annual ROI and that it reasonably requires capital to be borrowed at ~3372% APR.

As such the burden of proof never even initially was on JoelKatz. It was and is on pirate and his shills and his captives and simply idiots who think that a biz model with 14204% ROI biz model is in a realm of possibility.

Even if the above is not the case, and someone first claimed that pirate is operating a ponzi, and only after that pirate claimed his magical money making machine existence. Still Occam's Razor argument effectively shifts burden of proof back to pirate and his shills.

Nobody needs to prove anything to claim that an operation claiming ~14204% annual ROI (10%/week) and requiring capital to be borrowed at ~3372% APR (7% a week) is indeed a ponzi scheme (or some other kind of fraud and combination of various fraudulent activities) for all practical purposes until proven otherwise.

The only slight innacuracy here is saying that it is definitely a ponzi. It is just being said so for convenience and simplicity. There of course could be other types of fraud involved and even one type of fraud could be converted into other type of fraud over time etc.


-
Inedible
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630


What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 02:55:19 PM
 #1564

Sorry - re-replying because I didn't answer one of your questions directly.

Quote
I'm also as suspicious of people who are calling people like payb.tc scammers, for exactly the same reasons.
Umm, how do you figure? You don't agree that they paid Pirate to fraudulently transfer other people's money to them?

I don't believe payb.tc paid Pirate to fraudulently transfer other people's money to them. Personally, I hope that the money is generated in some high, risk, high reward scheme. 3400% is just too good to believe and that's where we differ. I believe it's more likely to blow up than to work out. I've made some high risk investments (run by me) that if they'd worked out would have made me very wealthy but they didn't work out.

I think this lies at the heart of our disagreement. You rightly believe that if someone were going into an investment knowing the money was being used in a Ponzi that they're implicit in the wrongdoing. I agree with you but we differ in our belief that Pirate is a scammer (currently anyway).

Quote
If you're a rational person who can think for themselves, how can people who operated passthroughs be considered scammers?
Because they knowingly participated in a scam and tried to profit from it. Duh.

Quote
Some have said that they're scammers because they helped legitimise Pirate... how? Am I a scammer because I gambled? Did I legitimise him?
You are a scammer because you knowingly participated in a scam, paying Pirate to make you the beneficiary of fraudulent transfers of other people's money. Sorry, but that's the truth.
[/quote]

I agree with your conclusion but I disagree that Pirate is a scammer (with the existing evidence).

Quote
True or false: Pirate induced people to invest in him by claiming to have an actual business that turned a legitimate profit. You knew, however, that he was probably using new investments to pay off interest on previous investments. You knew or should have known that by investing with Pirate, you were in fact paying him to transfer some of those funds that others were lead to believe would be invested to you, which is in no way an investment of those funds.

How can you say that doesn't make you a scammer? How long until reality sinks in and the cognitive dissonance stops?


False. I disagree completely but if I did believe Pirate to be a scammer, yes I'm with you 100%.

If this post was useful, interesting or entertaining, then you've misunderstood. 1N6rmaDiPf8ke3mx8217NykAMDZXkX713x
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
August 28, 2012, 03:02:25 PM
 #1565

Ah - I think I see the problem.

There are two subtle issues here which appear to be being called the same thing by both sides and thus causing some confusion.

1) I've been scammed - I don't feel this to be the case as I went into this knowing I could lose my investment.
I'm with you on that one.

Quote
2) I'm scamming - This would only be true of people who went into this believing they would never lose anything (this can't be true either as they will have gone into it knowing what I knew) and me expecting my returns to come from those that invested after me (which I didn't).
I can't follow this reasoning at all.

Say I promise you a 10% weekly return if you lend me $500. I have no intention of paying you back. I am trying to scam you.

You say, "I won't have $500 until payday. But if you buy me lunch today, I'll lend you the $500."

If I buy you lunch, now my $500 loan scam, that I still fully intend to carry out, isn't a scam because you might not lend me the $500?

No, not every scam is a sure thing. Otherwise, nothing is a scam because someone might steal the money you scammed.

Quote
Did anyone invest believing they wouldn't lose anything?
Did anyone invest expecting their payments would come from others who joined later?

Neither of those are true of me but I can't speak for everyone else.
The operative question is this one: Did anyone invest knowing that this scheme was indistinguishable from one in which interest payments to earlier investors come from later investors and no (or insignificant) legitimate investment actually takes place?

And, by the way, several people have admitted that they thought it was a Ponzi but invested anyway. Necessarily, they expected their payments to come from others who joined later.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
Vladimir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


-


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 03:03:11 PM
 #1566

I can't stand how people keep bringing up the yearly compounded interest rate and how it was impossible.

Bitcoin Savings & Trust didn't even run for a year.

Get back to us once you understand meaning of compound interest, annual ROI and APR (AER to be more accurate, we are not talking about US version of APR here).

-
Inedible
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630


What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 03:05:29 PM
 #1567

hgmichna & JoelKatz

I'm beginning to understand what you're saying now.

Your argument is a moral one.

Whilst there is a hope that such a highly profitable venture exists, belief in one is naive and almost wilfully ignorant. Is that roughly what you're saying?

If that's the case you're making then I can see where you're coming from and I guess all that's left for me to say is that I hope there is some legitimacy in Pirate's venture.

If this post was useful, interesting or entertaining, then you've misunderstood. 1N6rmaDiPf8ke3mx8217NykAMDZXkX713x
unclescrooge
aka Raphy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 03:06:55 PM
 #1568

The extraordinary claim is not that pirate and his crew run a ponzi. The extraordinary and preceding claim is that pirate and his crew are operating some biz model producing ~14204% annual ROI and that it reasonably requires capital to be borrowed at ~3372% APR.

As such the burden of proof never even initially was on JoelKatz. It was and is on pirate and his shills and his captives and simply idiots who think that a biz model with 14204% ROI biz model is in a realm of possibility.

Even if the above is not the case, and someone first claimed that pirate is operating a ponzi, and only after that pirate claimed his magical money making machine existence. Still Occam's Razor argument effectively shifts burden of proof back to pirate and his shills.

Nobody needs to prove anything to claim that an operation claiming ~14204% annual ROI (10%/week) and requiring capital to be borrowed at ~3372% APR (7% a week) is indeed a ponzi scheme (or some other kind of fraud and combination of various fraudulent activities) for all practical purposes until proven otherwise.

The only slight innacuracy here is saying that it is definitely a ponzi. It is just being said so for convenience and simplicity. There of course could be other types of fraud involved and even one type of fraud could be converted into other type of fraud over time etc.



It has actually been exposed how such return could be possible on this very forum (only to be dismissed by mockery). I even tried to discuss that yesterday with Joel in another thread. He didn't responded to the point I made and went on how "even if it is possible why wouldn't he pay his debt back instead of continuing to borrow".

He should have done that though, that wouldn't have put him in the situation he is now, with his name, adress and face known, and a debt of 5 millions he can't repay because at some point he screwed up :/

Inedible
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630


What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 03:08:44 PM
 #1569

I can't stand how people keep bringing up the yearly compounded interest rate and how it was impossible.

Bitcoin Savings & Trust didn't even run for a year.

It's the crux of why we should have seen it as a scam. There are almost no legitimate businesses that can make those kinds of returns.

It's the equivalent of someone offering you a £1000 television for £10. Sure, it's possible but very unlikely to be legal.

If this post was useful, interesting or entertaining, then you've misunderstood. 1N6rmaDiPf8ke3mx8217NykAMDZXkX713x
dextryn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 198



View Profile
August 28, 2012, 03:09:54 PM
 #1570

This is all so annoying.  All of you anti-pirate people, please find a different thread.  This thread is for people involved in bitcoinmax, not for you to spew your endless rage of anti-pirate sentiment.  We're all aware of both sides at this point, so please stop trying to stroke your ego by hijacking threads.
marks1976
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 249



View Profile WWW
August 28, 2012, 03:12:50 PM
 #1571

This is all so annoying.  All of you anti-pirate people, please find a different thread.  This thread is for people involved in bitcoinmax, not for you to spew your endless rage of anti-pirate sentiment.  We're all aware of both sides at this point, so please stop trying to stroke your ego by hijacking threads.

+1
I also think OP should lock thread again to stop the wasted space.  This is for bitcoinmax and it's users.  Thread was unlocked to allow business to occur between site users.  That hasn't been the case in some time again.

bitinc-investing.com   bitcoinmetals.us- copper, gold and silver
Inedible
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630


What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 03:14:27 PM
 #1572

Quote
2) I'm scamming - This would only be true of people who went into this believing they would never lose anything (this can't be true either as they will have gone into it knowing what I knew) and me expecting my returns to come from those that invested after me (which I didn't).
I can't follow this reasoning at all.

Say I promise you a 10% weekly return if you lend me $500. I have no intention of paying you back. I am trying to scam you.

You say, "I won't have $500 until payday. But if you buy me lunch today, I'll lend you the $500."

If I buy you lunch, now my $500 loan scam, that I still fully intend to carry out, isn't a scam because you might not lend me the $500?

I don't quite follow. I agree it's still a scam but I don't follow the 'lunch' part of the analogy.

Quote
Quote
Did anyone invest believing they wouldn't lose anything?
Did anyone invest expecting their payments would come from others who joined later?

Neither of those are true of me but I can't speak for everyone else.

The operative question is this one: Did anyone invest knowing that this scheme was indistinguishable from one in which interest payments to earlier investors come from later investors and no (or insignificant) legitimate investment actually takes place?

And, by the way, several people have admitted that they thought it was a Ponzi but invested anyway. Necessarily, they expected their payments to come from others who joined later.


The scheme being indistinguishable from a ponzi doesn't make it a ponzi. I'm not saying that shouldn't be the conclusion to be reached but in this case, if you've been told it's a ponzi and everyone else participating knows it's a ponzi, I don't see the harm of people joining in. Haven't there been multiple ponzi threads on Bitcointalk where people participated of their own volition?

(BTW, did your avatar previously have a photograph of you wearing glasses or am I thinking of someone else?)


If this post was useful, interesting or entertaining, then you've misunderstood. 1N6rmaDiPf8ke3mx8217NykAMDZXkX713x
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
August 28, 2012, 03:21:57 PM
 #1573

The scheme being indistinguishable from a ponzi doesn't make it a ponzi.

I'm not saying that shouldn't be the conclusion to be reached but in this case, if you've been told it's a ponzi and everyone else participating knows it's a ponzi, I don't see the harm of people joining in. Haven't there been multiple ponzi threads on Bitcointalk where people participated of their own volition?
Seriously? You're going to argue both that it might not be a Ponzi and that everyone knew it was a Ponzi? That both arguments are even superficially plausible demonstrates that it's a fraudulent scheme.

Quote
(BTW, did your avatar previously have a photograph of you wearing glasses or am I thinking of someone else?)
That was me.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
hgmichna
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 598



View Profile
August 28, 2012, 03:43:14 PM
 #1574

hgmichna & JoelKatz

I'm beginning to understand what you're saying now.

Your argument is a moral one.

Whilst there is a hope that such a highly profitable venture exists, belief in one is naive and almost wilfully ignorant. Is that roughly what you're saying?

Yes, roughly.

If that's the case you're making then I can see where you're coming from and I guess all that's left for me to say is that I hope there is some legitimacy in Pirate's venture.

I do not believe that anybody capable of running a front-end operation for the pirate, for example, processing "investments" for a significant number of clients, is at the same time so stupid that he does not see the scam in the face of a continuous stream of explanations and warnings.

I also cannot believe that you indeed hope even today that "there is some legitimacy in Pirate's venture".
c0in$
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 03:47:50 PM
 #1575

The extraordinary claim is not that pirate and his crew run a ponzi. The extraordinary and preceding claim is that pirate and his crew are operating some biz model producing ~14204% annual ROI and that it reasonably requires capital to be borrowed at ~3372% APR.

As such the burden of proof never even initially was on JoelKatz. It was and is on pirate and his shills and his captives and simply idiots who think that a biz model with 14204% ROI biz model is in a realm of possibility.

Even if the above is not the case, and someone first claimed that pirate is operating a ponzi, and only after that pirate claimed his magical money making machine existence. Still Occam's Razor argument effectively shifts burden of proof back to pirate and his shills.

Nobody needs to prove anything to claim that an operation claiming ~14204% annual ROI (10%/week) and requiring capital to be borrowed at ~3372% APR (7% a week) is indeed a ponzi scheme (or some other kind of fraud and combination of various fraudulent activities) for all practical purposes until proven otherwise.

The only slight innacuracy here is saying that it is definitely a ponzi. It is just being said so for convenience and simplicity. There of course could be other types of fraud involved and even one type of fraud could be converted into other type of fraud over time etc.



Vladimir, there is something you are overlooking...  7% ROI in btc is not equivalent to 7% ROI in $... you will see what I mean in 48 hours Wink
piotr_n
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


aka tonikt


View Profile WWW
August 28, 2012, 03:49:02 PM
 #1576

Guys, I believe that matthew is still accepting the bets for weather pirate will eventually pay out or not.
So, instead of flooding this topic with your useless whimpering, why won't you just go talk to him and put your money where your mouth is?
Or - if you don't want to put any money where your mouth is - why won't you just start your own whimpering topic and shut the fuck up here?

Check out gocoin - my original project of a bitcoin client written in Go, with some unique features.
PGP fingerprint: AB9E A551 E262 A87A 13BB  9059 1BE7 B545 CDF3 FD0E
LoweryCBS
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


firstbits 1LoCBS


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 03:54:13 PM
 #1577

Quote from: Buncha Blowhards
It was a scam all along! toldyasolol!

Wait...    what?

WHY DIDN'T ANYBODY WARN ME ABOUT THIS ?!?





Seriouslly, payb.tc: lock this thread until there's news.



ErebusBat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560

I am the one who knocks


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 04:54:42 PM
 #1578

higher risk means higher reward.
This is not about risk. Risk is the chance that you'll lose the spin of the roulette wheel. This is about the casino planting a magnet under the roulette wheel.

When you hire someone to clean your house and he steals your jewelery, people don't say that this was a risk you accepted when you hired someone to clean your house and that you knew a house cleaner might steal.
IMHO this is not a congruent argument.  Pirate explained his business as market arbitrage and selling to people of 'influence'.  I am not going to get into it here, but given his background in forex the detailed explanation made sense to me.  It was very clear that it was a high risk investment that could go away, but not stealing, which are two different things.


░▒▓█ Coinroll.it - 1% House Edge Dice Game █▓▒░ • Coinroll Thread • *FREE* 100 BTC Raffle

Signup for CEX.io BitFury exchange and get GHS Instantly!  Don't wait for shipping, mine NOW!
zyk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 07:00:06 PM
 #1579

Hi mate,

Post a screenshot in the thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102659.msg1125608#msg1125608) of your account page showing the amounts and your place in line.

If you're really far down the line I might pass, as it's a lot of risk for a small amount, but go ahead and post it anyway,

Thanks,

Tony

Here my two accounts:

Logged in as: zyk (User #119 of 373)      Balance: 7.45718104      Next Payment: 0.51454549


Logged in as: Andiescoins (User #361 of 373)      Balance: 11.51955357      Next Payment: 0.79484920

so now the market even in form of Sir Rolo (the steadfastest believer in Santa Claus)...is seeing  that the scheme just serves to rob the latecoming little fish in favour of the fat-cat perpetrators?

People....and all together now!...we all should really think of the legitimity( already looks wrong this word Wink ) of "the service" we got involved in....
At least the crumps of the remaining assets should be distributed evenly as its already an obvious insider scam or is it not?

Thanks for listening  Cheers Zyk

P.S.   Who, when and where is the payout - order to be fixed ?
 

All of the customers coins are still with payb.tc he simply transferred the risk to the customers and collected a fee  unless he also deposited his own coins with pirate Smiley





that might be true if i were rich enough to own 150,000 btc.

but in reality practically none of the coins are with me... almost all of them got sent to pirate to earn interest.

i have less than 100 btc of these coins in my wallet.



Thanks for opening up an ear and posting about accounting statistics.

We can hope for but still its against all odds, as there is no fell swoop coming -  what is the pay - out order of bitcoinmax?? --- please let us discuss until its fixed in the OP!

Cheers Zyk

Quote

Quote from: payb.tc on July 04, 2012, 09:39:53 PM
Quote from: zyk on July 04, 2012, 08:25:20 PM
Quote from: payb.tc on July 04, 2012, 02:51:25 PM
following on from the previous post, i just want to make one point clear:

your investment is 100% exposed to BST as soon as you send it to me, regardless of where the outputs of your actual transaction get spent.


whats are your take on to what kind of service BCST is providing to its clients and therefore the risk exposure to your buiseness and that of your lenders?

Cheers Zyk



P.S.  you mean if pirate goes bust you are free of returning principal ?

my take is that it works, so i don't really concern myself with trying to find out why it works. if pirate really wanted us to know, he'd tell us.

and yes i'm free of returning principal: your principal 'amount' is with BST.

an example of that would be let's say to start with i have 200 btc which i keep here:

BST wallet   100   i own 100% of these coins
My wallet   100   i own 100% of these coins

then, a bitcoinmax lender decides to invest 40 btc (sending it to MY wallet), the ownership changes immediately to:

BST wallet   100   i own 60 of these coins, and the bitcoinmax lender owns the other 40
My wallet   140   i own 100% of these coins

then if BST stops paying, i've lost 60 btc, and the bitcoinmax lender has lost 40 btc, even though the actual 40 bitcoins that he sent are still unspent in my own personal wallet.




Quote
payb.tc
Hero Member
Posts: 2346
The Free Bitcoin Address Shortener 

Ignore
   
Re: Bitcoin Savings & Trust - Money Returned List (One reported).
August 24, 2012, 12:00:12 AM
 #292
Quote from: muyuu on August 23, 2012, 11:48:58 PM
Quote from: myrkul on August 23, 2012, 11:45:29 PM
Participate in the panic selling. He'll pick 'em up cheap.

I will participate in the panic buying 

i'm going to do a bit of panic holding.

mostly just holding though, not so much of the panicking.


Quote

Quote from: hgmichna on August 27, 2012, 10:19:06 PM
Quote from: payb.tc on August 27, 2012, 02:07:34 AM
… i definitely rate personal responsibility way above victimism... people have noone to blame but themselves.

If one of the victims had said that, I might not have replied, but if you say it, a few words are in order.

i am one of the 'victims', therefore didn't bother reading the rest as the logic doesn't follow...

i've lost 5300 btc.

i'm sure micon and the likes will love to hear me publish my exact personal stake.

but clearly, i take sole responsibility for losing those coins.

edit: okay so i read a bit more of your post... if pirate doesn't pay out i've made practically nothing at all from this venture. perhaps 20 btc, haha i'm rich!


As i really love theoretical and philosophical discussions about the wherewithall of ponzis, currency systems and bitcoin, i really think they should have been

posted in the original OP before rather than being discussed only after the shit has hit the fan in the Bitcoinmax thread.

Which mindset produces the "older accounts first"!!??   As long as it works....shut up its an investment which can go wrong...and when pirate busts the "hypothetical" remnants will

be treated as a scammers ponzi loot ? -- those in front of the chain -letter first?

Can you  confirm your personal responsibility by paying out those 20 coins left to " Andies coins" account before you victimize yourself please? Wink

Even pirate himself closes smaller accounts first...for not being accused to keep bitlane earily quiet Cheesy

Tell us how the first hypothetical swoop of say 5300 coins would be distibuted ?


Thanks for an answer to the layman

Cheers Zyk

miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 08:00:19 PM
 #1580

I figured out the moralistic logic. It's all predicated upon the notion that the world's population exists in an infantile intellectual state, virtually incapable of acting independently on anything more complex than inserting food into the mouth hole.

  • Anything that generates a return is a scam because the operators could be misrepresenting data, especially when the business model isn't disclosed and/or is incomprehensible to the uninitiated.
  • Therefore we're all scammers and should kill ourselves, except for those who screamed 'scam' because they're more human than human.
  • Pirate and payb.tc should kill themselves twice, just because.
  • The suicide pact shall commence during the passing of a famous asteroid.

Problem solved. The moral dictators will then be able to sit around and mentally masturbate for the rest of their lives, even though nobody else will be around to care.

Maybe I can extrapolate this to education.

  • Pay thousands for a college education.
  • Work at a company.
  • Get laid off.
  • Vilify the college, burn down the company.

The first and last parts are interchangeable. Makes perfect sense - about as much as the witch hunt. It's about as actionable, too.

I risked and (maybe) lost. That's more than Team Ponzi can say; they need to get over their bad selves. Now it's time to get back to doing something more worthwhile than making a mockery of holier-than-thou Internet dictators.
Pages: « 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!