Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 04:33:57 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bryan Micon's List of BTC Ponzi Schemes that should not be listed as "Lending"  (Read 108021 times)
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
August 23, 2012, 12:45:01 AM
 #1081

In general, the two main reasons for a company to issue public stock are:

1) To raise capital without having to put cash flow at risk or at better rates than you could otherwise get with an unsecured loan.

2) To establish a consensus value for your company to allow investors to cash out when that meets their personal financial goals without having to find private buyers, go through due diligence, and so on.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
1481214837
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481214837

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481214837
Reply with quote  #2

1481214837
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481214837
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481214837

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481214837
Reply with quote  #2

1481214837
Report to moderator
1481214837
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481214837

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481214837
Reply with quote  #2

1481214837
Report to moderator
RoloTonyBrownTown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
August 23, 2012, 03:58:16 AM
 #1082

we tried to tell you over 50 pages imsaguy - we all tried to explain it in as much detail as we could - u think we all just got lucky on this one?  or did the scam exhibit all the signs the entire time, start to finish, of a classic Ponzi?

Hey troll, it hasn't been a week yet.  You're pulling a George W. and declaring Victory long before its over.

Quite possible that Micon is actually dumber than George W as well, and I don't say that lightly.

Micon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


I'm not the law, but I represent justice


View Profile WWW
August 23, 2012, 04:58:48 AM
 #1083

Matt Wright was on the show at the beginning -->  we talk Pirate, Ponzi, his giant bet

http://www.donkdown.com/donkdown-radio-bitcoin-magazine-matt-pirateat40-ponzi-poker-is-skill-it-wasnt-just-bad-luck-all-these-years-crazier-mike/

Chairman SwCPoker.eu Bitcoin Poker 2.0 |  Pro Poker Player  |  blog & podcas DonkDown.com | @BryanMicon | 2015- PGP Key
softwareseller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
August 23, 2012, 06:17:09 AM
 #1084

2 hours???

memvola
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


View Profile
August 23, 2012, 09:09:16 AM
 #1085


Wow, I remember when MNW first appeared on the forums but I somehow thought he himself forgot that, lol. A +1 to MNW and recommended hearing.
Matthew N. Wright
Untrustworthy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet


View Profile
August 23, 2012, 09:14:46 AM
 #1086

Dude there is a big difference between not investing and starting a fucking crusade.

QFT. This should be everyone's signature from now on to remind them of the time they lost $50,000USD to Matthew.

cuz0882
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
August 23, 2012, 09:15:55 AM
 #1087

You should add Clipse to this list. He took the money from bonus pool and invested it with pirate without telling anyone or increasing payouts. At least people who invested with pirate knew the risks and got paid for it. He owes me about 90 btc, which was a good chunk of change when I requested payment. To me, this kind of behavior is far worse then selling pirate bonds.
Micon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


I'm not the law, but I represent justice


View Profile WWW
August 23, 2012, 09:27:19 AM
 #1088

Dude there is a big difference between not investing and starting a fucking crusade.

QFT. This should be everyone's signature from now on to remind them of the time they lost $50,000USD to Matthew.

Damn I forgot to ask you this Matt - did you think I was one of the guys that "didn't have enough info to convict" because I went the 100% it's a scam line?

Chairman SwCPoker.eu Bitcoin Poker 2.0 |  Pro Poker Player  |  blog & podcas DonkDown.com | @BryanMicon | 2015- PGP Key
Matthew N. Wright
Untrustworthy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet


View Profile
August 23, 2012, 09:30:52 AM
 #1089

Dude there is a big difference between not investing and starting a fucking crusade.

QFT. This should be everyone's signature from now on to remind them of the time they lost $50,000USD to Matthew.

Damn I forgot to ask you this Matt - did you think I was one of the guys that "didn't have enough info to convict" because I went the 100% it's a scam line?

Information can be anything. I am looking for evidence. For example, this dumbfuck "mem" is in his gambling thread right now trying to convince me and the world that he has an article where it is mentioned that I am 17 years old (obviously ridiculous) and yet refuses to provide the evidence. This is no different than saying you "know" it's a ponzi. This intellectually lazy mentality is destroying our community. I am aware it walks like a duck, but I have reason to believe it's a chicken with big floppy feet.  Wink

elux
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1454



View Profile
August 23, 2012, 10:05:24 AM
 #1090


Surprisingly hilarious. Thoroughly entertaining.

Came to hear what Matthew had to say, stayed for Crazier Mike. (Old man cranky call-in.)  Cheesy

Whenever you start echoing when you talk to a caller on the phone, ask the caller to mute the podcast or kill their speakers for the duration of the call.
dooglus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002



View Profile
August 23, 2012, 03:29:05 PM
 #1091

You should add Clipse to this list. He took the money from bonus pool and invested it with pirate without telling anyone or increasing payouts. At least people who invested with pirate knew the risks and got paid for it. He owes me about 90 btc, which was a good chunk of change when I requested payment. To me, this kind of behavior is far worse then selling pirate bonds.

Is that what Clipse was doing all along to make his pool pay?

After all his rudeness on his thread about how we just didn't understand his business plan he was investing his miners' funds in a probable ponzi?

JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
August 23, 2012, 03:49:05 PM
 #1092

If I understand you correctly, this is inaccurate, as some borrowers (we were debating vescudero) say they guarantee deposits. They may or may not be lying, but that still makes your statement invalid.
Read over the statement. I don't think it does. I'm not saying all investments are equal. I'm saying we've seen obviously absurdly bad investments that people have taken seriously and been willing to invest in. I believe that indicates a serious problem in the community.

Quote
My other point is, what is the difference between these business descriptions:

  • lending out to other borrowers, investing in short term opportunities and investing in other bitcoin projects
  • buying and mining with 10 BFL Single's and preordering 10 more Single SC's

Both have the same potential to be a scam. If you would support a bias towards the second one, the effect would be nothing more than making the scammers pick that method instead.
There is nothing inherently different in those two. Either of them could be perfectly legitimate if there's transparency. Both of them are bad investments if there's not. Investors should be careful with both such business plans.

Quote
All I'm saying is, your point is less convincing when presented as clear-cut. Even though the basic reasoning is sound, the dismissive approach will continue to lose effectiveness as exceptions to the "rule" increases.
What exceptions are there to the rule that an investment with no transparency or that promises suspicious return relative to risk is almost certainly a scam? (Or, in the rare case where there really does seem to be an unusually good business plan, must at least be evaluated with extremely heightened suspicion to ensure it's not a scam.)

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
Shadow383
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
August 23, 2012, 04:33:53 PM
 #1093

You should add Clipse to this list. He took the money from bonus pool and invested it with pirate without telling anyone or increasing payouts. At least people who invested with pirate knew the risks and got paid for it. He owes me about 90 btc, which was a good chunk of change when I requested payment. To me, this kind of behavior is far worse then selling pirate bonds.

Is that what Clipse was doing all along to make his pool pay?

After all his rudeness on his thread about how we just didn't understand his business plan he was investing his miners' funds in a probable ponzi?
Nah, Clipse was hopping, I run a similar (but much, much smaller) little proxy, splitting my hashrate between hopping and a couple of other bonus pools to reduce variance.
I'm able to offer 105-110% PPS without ever investing the coins anywhere. To be honest I think clipse should have offered two rates for mining with and without BS&T exposure. That'd have been the ethical thing to do.

I just hope his miners get paid even if BS&T defaults  Undecided
Micon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


I'm not the law, but I represent justice


View Profile WWW
August 23, 2012, 09:54:15 PM
 #1094


Surprisingly hilarious. Thoroughly entertaining.

Came for Matthew had to say, stayed for Crazier Matt. (Old man cranky call-in.)  Cheesy

Whenever you start echoing when you talk to a caller on the phone, ask the caller to mute the podcast or kill their speakers for the duration of the call.

my show is run by 1 man. 

That echo is classic computer-listener echo - but there is one problem - Crazier Mike does not own a computer

no clue why it echo'd so bad only when I was speaking.  One for him, many calls from skype to other phones that show worked fine.  I'm pretty sure he has a land line too. 

Chairman SwCPoker.eu Bitcoin Poker 2.0 |  Pro Poker Player  |  blog & podcas DonkDown.com | @BryanMicon | 2015- PGP Key
memvola
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


View Profile
August 24, 2012, 01:24:15 PM
 #1095

Read over the statement. I don't think it does. I'm not saying all investments are equal. I'm saying we've seen obviously absurdly bad investments that people have taken seriously and been willing to invest in. I believe that indicates a serious problem in the community.

My bad, I read it as if you were speaking about all offers. Then again whether or not there are some terribly unappealing investment offers doesn't seem too relevant to the case of vescudero and the like, which I was talking about regarding the notion of being too dismissive.

Since you haven't touched the subject of how vescudero's guarantee is worse than, say, CPA's guarantee, I'll go ahead and assume it's the fixed interest, which to me isn't very convincing. A better metric would be risk/reward ratio of running with the money, and I would more likely look at the deposited amounts. It fits perfectly to BTCS&T, MyBitcoin, Bitcoinica, bitscalper, REBATE and the like and excludes vescudero and CPA (for now of course).

Since no one is actually signing anything and almost all identities have almost perfect deniability, I would go a step further and suggest we usually include personality assessment when calculating the risk. This explains borrowers paying up after shutting down operation much better than "luck".

I think we both agree that these measures aren't good enough and we have to find a way to weed out scams. What we don't agree on is the hope that people will stop depositing money to fixed interest offers.

There is nothing inherently different in those two. Either of them could be perfectly legitimate if there's transparency. Both of them are bad investments if there's not. Investors should be careful with both such business plans.

Transparency is no absolute, and it can be very misleading for gullible investors. For those who can assess the risk, this is already not a black and white thing.

What exceptions are there to the rule that an investment with no transparency or that promises suspicious return relative to risk is almost certainly a scam? (Or, in the rare case where there really does seem to be an unusually good business plan, must at least be evaluated with extremely heightened suspicion to ensure it's not a scam.)

Even if there aren't any exceptions, you've successfully excluded everyone who claims (truthfully or untruthfully) to be even a little transparent, which almost all do. Also how do you measure suspicious returns? I remember my bank offering more than 100% "overnight" interest for extended periods, even when the inflation rate wasn't as high as Bitcoin's.

If we add some tolerance to the claim, then the ones that have paid up all debt before shutting down operation so far become exceptions, which are AFAIK all of the offers so far (hopefully pirate will be the first one to successfully complete a Bitcoin based HYIP scam). Should we do a generalization based on this sample? The same goes for other sorts of extreme generalizations.

So in summary, when you say that a well known person who gives a guarantee for deposits, who is limiting the total deposits to an amount that's not worth stealing, and who is mostly transparent with his investments is a Ponzi scheme because he's paying out interest more than banks do (but well within range of what can be done in the market), the argument seems to me to lose credibility. He might still steal my money, but the reasoning behind why the risk is supposed to be higher than any other investment option (available currently in the greater Bitcoin market) isn't clear at all.
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
August 24, 2012, 02:59:55 PM
 #1096

Even if there aren't any exceptions, you've successfully excluded everyone who claims (truthfully or untruthfully) to be even a little transparent, which almost all do.
I don't think I did that. I certainly didn't intend to. Perhaps it was a case where there was bogus transparency -- transparency that leads to complete opacity. For example, a bond that "transparently passes all money through to Pirate" is bogus transparency.

Quote
Also how do you measure suspicious returns? I remember my bank offering more than 100% "overnight" interest for extended periods, even when the inflation rate wasn't as high as Bitcoin's.
Suspicious would be, order of magnitude, more than double what you would expect from most completely transparent investments offering about the same level of risk.

Quote
So in summary, when you say that a well known person who gives a guarantee for deposits, who is limiting the total deposits to an amount that's not worth stealing, and who is mostly transparent with his investments is a Ponzi scheme because he's paying out interest more than banks do (but well within range of what can be done in the market), the argument seems to me to lose credibility.
I agree. I hope I didn't say that.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
Frankie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 206



View Profile
August 25, 2012, 04:10:33 AM
 #1097

Dude there is a big difference between not investing and starting a fucking crusade.

This is fair, but there's also a big difference between investing and attacking skeptics as FUDsters and worse.  I don't care what people want to do with their money, but a lot of the folks on this thread are culpable co-conspirators morally, if not legally.
imsaguy
General failure and former
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 574

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.


View Profile WWW
August 25, 2012, 04:19:05 AM
 #1098

Dude there is a big difference between not investing and starting a fucking crusade.

This is fair, but there's also a big difference between investing and attacking skeptics as FUDsters and worse.  I don't care what people want to do with their money, but a lot of the folks on this thread are culpable co-conspirators morally, if not legally.

There's a difference between being skeptical and calling someone a scammer.  Most of the FUDsters were claiming 100% irrefutable proof, when none existed.

Coming Soon!™ © imsaguy 2011-2013, All rights reserved.

EIEIO:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60117.0

Shades Minoco Collection Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65989
Payment Address: http://btc.to/5r6
Frankie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 206



View Profile
August 25, 2012, 04:33:25 AM
 #1099

Dude there is a big difference between not investing and starting a fucking crusade.

This is fair, but there's also a big difference between investing and attacking skeptics as FUDsters and worse.  I don't care what people want to do with their money, but a lot of the folks on this thread are culpable co-conspirators morally, if not legally.

There's a difference between being skeptical and calling someone a scammer.  Most of the FUDsters were claiming 100% irrefutable proof, when none existed.

Really? Where did someone claim 100% irrefutable proof?  I saw a lot of people claiming that it exhibited all the characteristics of a Ponzi. That was true. If a passive investor felt differently, they were free to keep their high rates of return to themselves. That's not what many conspirators did.

In my humble opinion, you are being dismissive because you're convinced that it would be best if everyone stopped investing in these schemes.
Yes, exactly. Legitimate investments don't involve a complete absence of disclosure of what you're investing in, no way to estimate the actual level of risk, and no way to tell whether claimed losses were actually incurred or whether claimed profits were actually legitimate. No honest person should ask for investments on terms only a fool would accept.

We have actually seen offers that were basically: "Give me some money to invest, if I make money, I'll share it with you. Otherwise, you'll have to take my word that I actually lost your money in some kind of actual investment". That was literally all they were saying. And people were actually taking this offer seriously. That shows that this community is massively disconnected from reality.
I agree it's disappointing, and it's especially disappointing to see bitcoin rhetoric co-opted by Ponzi-boosters. Yes, Bitcoin is great, and has the potential to reduce transaction costs, but it's not the ticket to absurd rates of return.
makomk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
August 25, 2012, 08:31:58 AM
 #1100

seriously kids, get fucked on this one.  You were all so arrogant to the bitter end.

I'd say the fact that you're still trolling about it, long past the time when anyone can make a deposit or withdrawal on their own proves your own arrogance.  Its not like you can 'warn' anyone off.  You're just trolling for your own amusement.
I'm pretty sure that BS&T isn't the only investment scheme on these forums with suspiciously high returns and no evidence of actual investment, and it's definitely not going to be the last one.

There's a difference between being skeptical and calling someone a scammer.  Most of the FUDsters were claiming 100% irrefutable proof, when none existed.
There's a difference between skepticism and fake skepticism. You're asking for evidence which no-one would have even if BS&T was a ponzi, and so the lack of it gives no reason to doubt that BS&T is in fact one. We know this from previous ponzi schemes that have actually been investigated by law enforcement; the 100% proof isn't available until well after the scheme's collapsed, by which time it's a bit late to do anything about it.

(That's assuming people will believe they've been scammed then. I was looking into the whole Perma-Pave swindle the other day, and despite one of their investors filing a lawsuit with evidence that the payments to them had been made using the investments of others, goods they had been promised hadn't been delivered, and none of the customers the company claimed to have had actually received any goods from them either, there were still a whole bunch of people on forums who continued to insist that the company was above board and all the investors who'd not been paid the money they were promised were just a bunch of paranoid whingers.)

Quad XC6SLX150 Board: 860 MHash/s or so.
SIGS ABOUT BUTTERFLY LABS ARE PAID ADS
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 »
  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!