Putting your money where Pirate's mouth is.

[Serge]

Yup. Should be easy money for the ones who's determined pirate runs ponzi

[1714771495]

1714771495

[1714771495]

1714771495

[1714771495]

1714771495

[pirateat40]

Not using a platform like GLBSE means an advantage to Pirate. If he does run a Ponzi, he has access to (and can afford to lose) much more cash than Vandroiy can.

Using GLBSE means:
1. that anyone could enter and Vandroiy wouldn't have to stump up a large amount of coins by himself;
2. The amounts wagered on either side could be dissimilar without a significant change in risk;
3. trading of bonds and their relative prices could be a good indicator of informed public opinion (well, public opinion, anyway) .

I understand Pirate won't  use GLBSE, but a bunch of his supporters will. I still think a paired bond like proposed in the OP would be a good way to proceed, and let more people in on the wager.

This is me vs the anti-me.  GLBSE doesn't allow that to happen and requires more trust than just using Nanotube.

[organofcorti]

Using GLBSE means:
1. that anyone could enter and Vandroiy wouldn't have to stump up a large amount of coins by himself;

Exactly why it should not be used.  Vandroiy and others have has given a value to their his opinion.  If they he no longer values the opinion that much, then it's clear their his resolve is not aligned with their his public, criminal, possibly libelous, accusations.

Whether or not BS&T is legit, Pirate will be easily able to silence dissenters by making the cost too high for any one individual to bear. This makes the wager asymmetric. I agree that there should be something that the "Pirate will default" group should risk, but not going one on one against a financial giant.

Otherwise it's like accusing Miguel Torres of a rape, but instead of court you get to go one on one with him in a cage match.

[pirateat40]

Using GLBSE means:
1. that anyone could enter and Vandroiy wouldn't have to stump up a large amount of coins by himself;

Exactly why it should not be used.  Vandroiy and others have has given a value to their his opinion.  If they he no longer values the opinion that much, then it's clear their his resolve is not aligned with their his public, criminal, possibly libelous, accusations.

Whether or not BS&T is legit, Pirate will be easily able to silence dissenters by making the cost too high for any one individual to bear. This makes the wager asymmetric. I agree that there should be something that the "Pirate will default" group should risk, but not going one on one against a financial giant.

Otherwise it's like accusing Miguel Torres of a rape, but instead of court you get to go one on one with him in a cage match.

One on One?  I want One vs Anyone but I want his name on it.

[pirateat40]

One on One?  I want One vs Anyone but I want his name on it.

"his"?  Are you implying that women would not be stupid enough to waste their time or assets on this dick–oh, I got it.

[organofcorti]

Weak sauce.  I haven't seen pirate force anyone to a specific value.  He's just accepted all challenges.  The fact that the accusers are Lilliputian shouldn't matter.

As a bystander, I'm not really that interested in whether Pirate alone is willing to take this wager. As I mentioned before, it's no big loss to him if he is running a Ponzi scheme if it keeps investor confidence high, and if he is legit then it's a risk free bet to him. I took it as read that he'd want to wager something.

It's his investors I'm interested in. There seem to be as many as there are detractors. By selling bonds to either side, the price movements of the bonds would let anyone gauge the current confidence in BS&T.

A simple one to one bet between Pirate and Vandroiy might make them both feel better, but no one else can participate without it requiring a public platform one which to show the accounting. GLBSE already does that.

[phelix]

Vandroiy may know the "red flags" of ponzi, but he should learn the "red flags" of poker. The guy have pocket aces in his hands, and is looking to see how much money he can get.

Anyway, that is completely insane, and I love it!  

+1 to both


For maximum impact on our great vision the money should only go to a charity that accepts Bitcoin donations.

[chunglam]

Vandroiy may know the "red flags" of ponzi, but he should learn the "red flags" of poker. The guy have pocket aces in his hands, and is looking to see how much money he can get.

He can use GLBSE to share the risk with other anti-pirate forum members

[RoloTonyBrownTown]

I hope you remember the day you let your emotions get the best of you.  

Ready when you are.

Sure! How's this for the terms:

Both I and you (Pirateat40) place 5000 BTC each into an escrow held by Nanotube. If after 2013-10-01, that's the first of October 2013, BS&T has not defaulted on payments, Pirateat40 gets the funds. In the case of a default, I (Vandroiy) get the funds.

A default is identified by customers' funds being locked down for two consecutive weeks.

Something among these lines?

Perfect and I don't think you could have picked a better escrow.  When your funds hit the escrow let me know.

I'll add 3k BTC to this, same escrow, same terms (except Vandroiy = Blitz), so I can also "put my money where my mouth is". Agree?

Time for popcorn, this is going to be interesting!

Bahaha, brilliant    Man, it's going to be a long wait until Oct 2013 for the hilarity.  That's assuming Vandroiy actually comes through obviously.   

[Vandroiy]

Vandroiy may know the "red flags" of ponzi, but he should learn the "red flags" of poker. The guy have pocket aces in his hands, and is looking to see how much money he can get.

Anyway, that is completely insane, and I love it!  

The only "pocket ace" I'm afraid of is people discrediting me for obtaining stolen funds I can't pay back for a multitude of reasons. I don't think that is something Pirateat40 cares about though, and I'm not so certain he wants to get back at me. Just playing his game like a pro.

Good thing if you love the show.

To these joining: please be aware that odds of this working get worse if too many people join. Due to the charity operation, risk is not super-high, but I just want to say the 5k were deliberate because of some tail risks I can't rule out.

Also, I will keep the bet such that it doesn't end before the target date or a default, and add a clause against payout-rename tricks and the likes for the unlikely case he can still push in BTC from wherever and is aiming for the sky of Bitcoin Ponzis. And a comment on the charity thing on Pirateat40's side -- really, what a move. I basically can't feel bad about it even if he had some way to trick me.

I will have access to a trading PC later today, and hope we can seal this then.

[organofcorti]

Also, I will keep the bet such that it doesn't end before the target date or a default, and add a clause against payout-rename tricks and the likes for the unlikely case he can still push in BTC from wherever and is aiming for the sky of Bitcoin Ponzis.

Vandroiy, you've gone from a wager where the risks were known and (IMO) fairly equitable, to a wager where the risk is all on your side. Pirate can't lose: either he's stumping up 5000 btc to buoy investor confidence, or he's got nothing to fear because he's legit. Either way, your risk is higher since his is nil.

Also, if you're correct and BS&T is a Ponzi, simply having a bet against Pirate only rather than his followers will do more harm than good. The 5000 btc bet will make people far more confident of BS&T, and people will lose interest in it the bet very quickly. In fact, after the initial publicity, I predict that people will forget unless reminded, or Pirate defaults, or a year is up without him defaulting.

I'd ask you to think twice but you're clearly going to go ahead. Folly! I say.

[fatigue]

Also, I will keep the bet such that it doesn't end before the target date or a default, and add a clause against payout-rename tricks and the likes for the unlikely case he can still push in BTC from wherever and is aiming for the sky of Bitcoin Ponzis.

Vandroiy, you've gone from a wager where the risks were known and (IMO) fairly equitable, to a wager where the risk is all on your side. Pirate can't lose: either he's stumping up 5000 btc to buoy investor confidence, or he's got nothing to fear because he's legit. Either way, your risk is higher since his is nil.

Also, if you're correct and BS&T is a Ponzi, simply having a bet against Pirate only rather than his followers will do more harm than good. The 5000 btc bet will make people far more confident of BS&T, and people will lose interest in it very quickly. In fact, after the initial publicity, I predict that people will forget unless reminded, or Pirate defaults, or a year is up without him defaulting.

I'd ask you to think twice but you're clearly going to go ahead. Folly! I say.

Shh! i like it when people throw away their money without weighing their situation or seeing it from anything but their tunnel-vision view!

[bitdragon]

Also, I will keep the bet such that it doesn't end before the target date or a default, and add a clause against payout-rename tricks and the likes for the unlikely case he can still push in BTC from wherever and is aiming for the sky of Bitcoin Ponzis.

Doesn't this contradict the note below?

So, just to make this clear, I can do a bet on default for a time like End-2013 or worse, and that's OK. 1:1 bet on you defaulting?

This sounds doable. I don't see how it makes any sense for you, but that's not my problem, is it? I'll just have to ask around for some third parties.

Right but you must add that if BS&T makes it public (at anytime prior to the deadline) that it's closed and all coins were returned and confirmed I win the bet.

[Vladimir]

It is not wise to make a bet on some event where outcome of that even depends (even if only to some degree) on actions of the party that takes the other side of the bet.

I suggest to back out and to not give any further incentive to prolong the alleged ponzi.

[ribuck]

Vandroly, have you taken into account the possibility that a pre-announced large reduction in interest paid by Pirate could occur and wouldn't count as a default.

You're convinced that 3000%+ per annum must be a ponzi, but perhaps 150% per annum wouldn't be. Or even if it was, it might delay default beyond the closing date for the bet.

[Vandroiy]

I am very pleased that Vandroiy is not going to back down:)

Did you really think we would do that, after an enormous campaign and nanotube ensuring that on error, all the funds go to charity? This is am important point: even if we miss our estimate and there's a catastrophe, my name should be redeemed at all times -- either I'm donating to charity, or there was a default and everyone must shut up. All effect on the Ponzi is locking down 5k and a little publicity he could get for that price anyway.

Why in the world would I not accept? Because you track stolen funds to me in the block chain? It's been discussed, returning them holds way too much danger of Pirateat40 screwing with bookkeeping, also it would be nuts if the community were to punish betting against a Ponzi after the fact -- the funds may be stolen, but they hedge the risk we're taking now. People should have used their brain before this is the last way out.

Either way, we can cheaply get a warranty that either we do not lose money or there is a hard time-limit on a Ponzi operation. It's perfect! All we want, pretty much no matter what happens. This ends our problem with the situation conclusively.

It's win-win-win. Even the unlikely scenarios are no catastrophe, and each one should make this place more civilized.



ribuck, Vladimir: it goes to charity! Whatever.

Edit: I can prove he can't strengthen the Ponzi with this financially or in terms of timing, and I'm long lost at psychology, so hell knows about that. Anyway, this bet should not help the Ponzi in terms of funds. Even if I lose, all that happens from his point of view is 5k being locked up. He can't run in Ponzi mode even at +100% pa or I can profit from him regardless. He'd have to go down to Madoff-style, which is insane given his current position.

Also, I will keep the bet such that it doesn't end before the target date or a default, and add a clause against payout-rename tricks and the likes for the unlikely case he can still push in BTC from wherever and is aiming for the sky of Bitcoin Ponzis.

Doesn't this contradict (...)

Yes, this is something Pirateat40 still has to agree on. If he is able to shut down and wait until the deadline, yes I am fine with the donation then. However, if he just builds some temporary shutdown, then continues with his name/company/reputation in a similar operation and defaults with that before the deadline, I still win.

I hope it's understandable that a real Ponzi pro might be able to obtain funds somewhere that can temporarily pay out people or might be able to trick large depositors into faking a temporary shutdown. Bitcoins don't go bad, there will still be the need for charity later on, I don't see a reason to hurry.

[organofcorti]

You're convinced that 3000%+ per annum must be a ponzi, but perhaps 150% per annum wouldn't be.

The bet isn't about what rate of interest would make you suspect a Ponzi, but whether BS&T defaults.

Or even if it was, it might delay default beyond the closing date for the bet.

If BS&T is a Ponzi, then reducing the interest rate might make it last longer. But another year? Another 18 months? It would be a lot of work for little gain. I don't think there are enough btc investors to make it worthwhile running a Ponzi for another 12 months at 150% pa, unless nobody takes their interest payments.

Hey, I know what Pirate's doing! I've changed my mind. He's not running a time travel operation in order to own bitcoin - he's a rich kid with a coke habit and borrowing money from coiners is less risky than owing the mob.

[Vandroiy]

To make this stand out:

Pirateat40, is it okay if the donation funds get locked up until the end of the bet even if you manage a seemingly orderly shutdown, and the bet continues on whatever operations of similar type you might run until the deadline or that stem off BS&T? This is security against tricks in which BS&T effectively just renames or re-opens, and the pay-out is not really what is seems to be.

I'll try to get a final formulation of the bet asap.

[organofcorti]

@ Vandroiy: I'm reminded that Meni Rosenfeld actually IPO'd a better bond than my OP and much better than the wager you're considering: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77265.0

It would mean you could indeed put your money where your mouth it without risking increasing investor confidence in BS&T. Quite the reverse.

You really wont reconsider?

[Vandroiy]

organofcorti: (oops, edited for spellfail)

As I see it, that bond was not just one, but two classes worse than the current bet. If I understood it correctly, this stems from the mistake of identifying funds within a Ponzi, paper money, with real funds -- the time-frame in which a majority of imaginary funds get inflated in the Ponzi is used as a reference, to then eat up real funds in the bond. But it would be good if we don't discuss this here, it just distracts from the bet at hand.