BTCS&T – Why many people here are massive scammers and suckers

[N12]

Let us assume that pirate is running a legit business. In that case, what would depositors have to lose from FUD/trolling? It makes people withdraw, so that interest rates do not have to decrease and forced withdrawals are less likely to occur. Pretty good for any depositor, no? At least, as a depositor and when I believed it was no ponzi, this was pretty much how I thought about "FUD".

However, many vocal people in these forums are different. They intend to silence critics as trolls or FUD spreaders, while it would benefit them if it was an honest operation. So, I have to assume that some proponents are indeed, at the very least on a subconscious level, secretely assuming it is a ponzi scheme, particularly the people who are eligible for "Trust" accounts, only to keep their own scheme and profits running. A hostile forum would be an absolute hazard for a ponzi because it depends so very much on new investors coming in.

The main method being employed by this circlejerk is spamming topics with ironic jokes to hide critical postings or alternatively directly attempting to pressure and silence people.

BTCS&T is indistinguishable from a real ponzi scheme, so we have to assume that proponents would and will also defend a real ponzi scheme (even in the off chance this isn't)!

On the other hand, though, we have the suckers, who ignore or do not understand any of the evidence. They would also fall for the next ponzi scheme, even if this is not a ponzi, because they invested for the same (lack) of reasons.

The group think/herd mentality in this forum is dangerous, and I'm glad that there are people to break it, like I'm glad there were people to break it in May/June 2011.

[hgmichna]

Interesting thought, but the explanation may be that the defenders of the Ponzi scheme do not even calculate that far. They simply defend the thing they believe in. And they believe in it, because they wish it so much to succeed.

In other words, much simpler psychology explains it. People tend to defend their past decisions, even if they show signs of failure. The wish overpowers their rational thinking (for those who have the capacity of rational thinking in the first place).

[hazek]

If this kind of stuff continues we shall soon find out:

Disclosure: I pulled all of my money from pirate. I had around $1000 dollars in it, which compared to my income is a large amount. I could no longer ignore the feeling in my gut.

That being said, this situation is getting to the point of ridiculousness. Pirate just keeps assuring people he is legit, without ever really doing anything else besides paying out 7%. He never states what he is doing, he just has some secret where he can pull BTC from some unknown source to give back to investors. It resembles a ponzi, I'm sorry but it does. I've watched the bonds issued by Goat and Foo grow every week as more and more people join in. Pirate can't prove he isn't a ponzi, and if anyone says contrary it just turns into a flame war and gets nowhere.

I don't know if it's legit, I don't know if it's illegitimate. Nobody does. The retarded amount of flaming is a sad state of affairs. I appreciate opposing view points, there is no reason not to. Investing money is serious business, and people deserve all the information they can get their hands on. Unfortunately, there isn't much information to be found. All people see is 7%. Until Pirate comes out and gives a detailed description of what he does, the theories will keep on coming.

Sorry pirate (assuming your legit) but it's inescapable. This is a very high risk investment due to the lack of information. I knew that when I signed up, and I'm sure others do to. You can't be mad when people point out the raging similarities between your operation and a ponzi.

1) No information
2) Nice returns for investors
3) Ever increasing amounts of money thrown your way
4) Capital based incentives (at this point)

You can't escape these claims until more transparency is provided about your operation. You won't. Sorry. Get used to it.

On Pirate's side are people assuring a legitimate operation based solely on returns (up to this point), which investment-wise is a fair point. On the other side are people pointing out the similarities between this operation and a ponzi, also a fair point. Bad news Pirate's side, your assurance is how a ponzi operation works, so it's not really evidence to the contrary.  

Anyone with their head not wedged tightly in their ass could step back and see the merits of the opposing argument. What they are saying DOES make sense, it looks EXACTLY like a ponzi. That doesn't mean it is, and it is up to investors to weigh the pros and cons before investing.

All this being said, since I cannot prove or disprove your legitimacy, I would like to thank you for my returns for 5 weeks. I had GLBSE investments provided by Goat and Foo and never had a problem with either of them.

If you are illegitimate, I'll see you in hell.

[sadpandatech]

1. BTCS&T Defaults
2. Blames it on all the negative talk.
3. something here.
4. Profit $$$

[danieldaniel]

I personally don't think that pirate is a scam/ponzi, but I have to agree with your points. 

There is no real evidence to defend him, aside from the fact that it's not obvious that he needs deposits to keep it running. 

Would people defend a real ponzi scheme?  Probably, and that's a problem.

[hazek]

1. BTCS&T Defaults
2. Blames it on all the negative talk.

Wow wow wow! Blame it on negative talk? Why would BTC&T default at all just because of people leaving? Don't you remember? There was a time when he even had a limit to how many could deposit! What in the world could have possibly changed with his supposedly legitimate business that suddenly if clients left it would sink him?

[danieldaniel]

1. BTCS&T Defaults
2. Blames it on all the negative talk.

Wow wow wow! Blame it on negative talk? Why would BTC&T default at all just because of people leaving? Don't you remember? There was a time when he even had a limit to how many could deposit! What in the world could have possibly changed with his supposedly legitimate business that suddenly if clients left it would sink him?

He said blame, I don't think he really meant it actually was because of people leaving.  I think he meant "I'll leave because everyone hates me".

[sadpandatech]

1. BTCS&T Defaults
2. Blames it on all the negative talk.

Wow wow wow! Blame it on negative talk? Why would BTC&T default at all just because of people leaving? Don't you remember? There was a time when he even had a limit to how many could deposit! What in the world could have possibly changed with his supposedly legitimate business that suddenly if clients left it would sink him?

He said blame, I don't think he really meant it actually was because of people leaving.  I think he meant "I'll leave because everyone hates me".

aye, 'blames' with an s. As in past tense.

[hazek]

1. BTCS&T Defaults
2. Blames it on all the negative talk.

Wow wow wow! Blame it on negative talk? Why would BTC&T default at all just because of people leaving? Don't you remember? There was a time when he even had a limit to how many could deposit! What in the world could have possibly changed with his supposedly legitimate business that suddenly if clients left it would sink him?

He said blame, I don't think he really meant it actually was because of people leaving.  I think he meant "I'll leave because everyone hates me".

How can he mean "I'll leave because everyone hates me", when he defaulted.. If he would be leaving because everyone hated him it shouldn't prevent him from fulfilling his obligations..

[koin]

The group think/herd mentality in this forum is dangerous

there are a lot of things that don't add up on both sides of the ponzi / not-a-ponzi arguments.

i haven't read much describing this as possibly being an attack against bitcoin itself.  we worry endlessly about defending against a 51% attack, but we put our head on the chopping block with this ponzi-like scheme.   if someone were trying to smear bitcoin, a story describing the several million dollar "bitcoin ponzi" collapse would be something that would spread wide and far.  can you picture the post-mortem reported in gawker?    it will be written in a way where there is no sympathy given.  like ... "guys the fact that it was run by a person called pirate should have been your first clue.  all the markings of a ponzi were ignored.  you deserved to lose ever penny you idiots".

that solves a few problems all at once.  it takes money from the early miners and others with lots of bitcoins.  ask a random person on the street and the majority of those that know anything about bitcoin will remember that it "crashed down to a penny" (because that is what the media told them happened, regardless of what really happened).  "bitcoin really was just a big ponzi" will be the take-way from this once it makes it into the headlines.  even though this has nothing to do with bitcoin digital currency itself, this is what people will remember and bitcoin will continue to have an "image problem".

we've forgotten that there are people who do not want bitcoin to succeed.

[Vladimir]

Ponzi "investors" shall be more worried about return of capital, as opposed to return on capital. Specifically between now and miracle of anonymous operator ceasing being anonymous event that is reportedly scheduled to happen a few weeks down the road.

[ribuck]

Like Warren Buffet said, only invest in businesses that you understand.

I don't know of any evidence that Pirate is conducting a ponzi, but I don't understand his business model and wouldn't invest a satoshi in BS&T.

[Bigpiggy01]

Like Warren Buffet said, only invest in businesses that you understand.

I don't know of any evidence that Pirate is conducting a ponzi, but I don't understand his business model and wouldn't invest a satoshi in BS&T.

+1 on the other hand there isn't much evidence of him not being running one either.

The entire situation is a bit like:

[hgmichna]

there are a lot of things that don't add up on both sides of the ponzi / not-a-ponzi arguments.

i haven't read much describing this as possibly being an attack against bitcoin itself.  we worry endlessly about defending against a 51% attack, but we put our head on the chopping block with this ponzi-like scheme.   if someone were trying to smear bitcoin, a story describing the several million dollar "bitcoin ponzi" collapse would be something that would spread wide and far.  can you picture the post-mortem reported in gawker?    it will be written in a way where there is no sympathy given.  like ... "guys the fact that it was run by a person called pirate should have been your first clue.  all the markings of a ponzi were ignored.  you deserved to lose ever penny you idiots".

that solves a few problems all at once.  it takes money from the early miners and others with lots of bitcoins.  ask a random person on the street and the majority of those that know anything about bitcoin will remember that it "crashed down to a penny" (because that is what the media told them happened, regardless of what really happened).  "bitcoin really was just a big ponzi" will be the take-way from this once it makes it into the headlines.  even though this has nothing to do with bitcoin digital currency itself, this is what people will remember and bitcoin will continue to have an "image problem".

we've forgotten that there are people who do not want bitcoin to succeed.

I would not worry too much. There are only so many suckers. Only an extremely stupid person will hand his money over to someone anonymous, claiming to get him 7% per week. That is so obviously ridiculous.

The Ponzi scheme will not garner any very large fraction of all existing bitcoins. And if you are worrying about the Ponzi operator suddenly selling his entire mountain of bitcoins, no, he does not have to do that, because he has already sold most of them. He is a rather evil scammer, but stupid he is not.

There may be a dent in the bitcoin value when the Ponzi scheme finally shuts down, which may happen soon. But I will not sell now. If the dent is strong enough, I will buy then. If more people think like me, the dent will be limited. I will certainly do my best not to let bitcoin sink below $5. We want stability.

The US Treasury's and ECB's own Ponzi schemes may well blow up in a few years too and will help bitcoin even more. Watch the poor euro owners flock to bitcoin already today.

[Vladimir]

i haven't read much describing this as possibly being an attack against bitcoin itself.  we worry endlessly about defending against a 51% attack, but we put our head on the chopping block with this ponzi-like scheme.   if someone were trying to smear bitcoin, a story describing the several million dollar "bitcoin ponzi" collapse would be something that would spread wide and far.  can you picture the post-mortem reported in gawker?    it will be written in a way where there is no sympathy given.  like ... "guys the fact that it was run by a person called pirate should have been your first clue.  all the markings of a ponzi were ignored.  you deserved to lose ever penny you idiots".

I think that this would not be a viable attack on Bitcoin. As it was suggested by people previously evolutionary cleansing of bitcoin population, might be actually a healthy thing long term for Bitcoin. Fools and money and all that.

But being on receiving side of such humiliation is not that much enjoyable at all. Being associated indirectly with all the losers via Bitcoin is not that much fun either.

At least I'll get on my usual "I told you so" bandwagon.

[organofcorti]

Being associated indirectly with all the losers via Bitcoin is not that much fun either.

At least I'll get on my usual "I told you so" bandwagon.

Be associated with the winners instead: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91661.0

[R-]

Be associated with the winners instead: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91661.0