Bryan Micon's List of BTC Ponzi Schemes that should not be listed as "Lending"

[imsaguy]

The burden of proof is on pirate and his shills. It is a ponzi until proven otherwise as far as any reasonable person is concerned.

Why? [additional bullshit omitted to spare humanity]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]

Are you not asserting the claim that Pirate is a ponzi?  Guess that means its on you.

[1714039432]

1714039432

[1714039432]

1714039432

[1714039432]

1714039432

[gene]

miscreanity is spouting vague salesman-type Ponzi gibberish like its his job

lmao

nothing he says makes any sense

"churn at the margins is being capitalized upon"

[industrial quantities of horseshit]

Your arguments aren't... compelling. Coherence usually helps.

[gene]

The burden of proof is on pirate and his shills. It is a ponzi until proven otherwise as far as any reasonable person is concerned.

Why? [additional bullshit omitted to spare humanity]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]

[vomit, diarrhea, more farts from the mouth...]

Permit me to simplify:

E_p > E_np

where E_p = N (for large positive values of N) is evidence of being flaming ponzi
and E_np = 0 is evidence of not being a flaming ponzi

[imsaguy]

The burden of proof is on pirate and his shills. It is a ponzi until proven otherwise as far as any reasonable person is concerned.

Why? [additional bullshit omitted to spare humanity]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]

[vomit, diarrhea, more farts from the mouth...]

Permit me to simplify:

E_p > E_np

where E_p = N (for large positive values of N) is evidence of being flaming ponzi
and E_np = 0 is evidence of not being a flaming ponzi

Oh right, once again, no facts.

[CoinCidental]

I'm pretty sure Maged knows what he's talking about on that part. But still, I don't understand if people have data, why don't they share it. I mean, you guys are asking for proof of pirate business, but you don't provide much on your part either.

I wish that they would, but I'm not authorized to.

Ok, fine, I see there's other people in this.

But don't be surprised if some people have a hard time taking you seriously. I've done my own due diligence, taking many, MANY hours to read about pirate business, pro and cons. My current conclusion is that pirate have provided a lot more information and confirmation of his good business than you guys could provide that his business is bad.

I'm open-minded and if I'm wrong, I can assume it. Still, show some meat.

The numbers IS  the meat ,7.7% IS  the meat ,  if after "many,MANY hours" of diligent research you still
think its legit your either supporting it or you need to get a new calculator because your old one is bonked .

[gene]

The burden of proof is on pirate and his shills. It is a ponzi until proven otherwise as far as any reasonable person is concerned.

Why? [additional bullshit omitted to spare humanity]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]

[vomit, diarrhea, more farts from the mouth...]

Permit me to simplify:

E_p > E_np

where E_p = N (for large positive values of N) is evidence of being flaming ponzi
and E_np = 0 is evidence of not being a flaming ponzi

Oh right, once again, no facts. [to be read in a pathetic, withering squeal]

Facts in bold:

A simple truism: the burden of proof lies on those making incredible statements which contradict all experience. The returns promised require extraordinary explanation.

FACT: No explanation is provided. End of story. One can only conclude that what looks and smells like an utter fraud is, in fact, an utter fraud.

Obviously, much evidence exists that this is a ponzi scheme [as in exhibits literally each and every characteristic of a ponzi scheme], and the lack of any evidence to counter is sufficient for appropriate branding.

Demand for the impossible proof of a negative is a reliable gambit for the conman and also assuages the bedeviling consciences of the naively complicit (and there are many of those, indeed).

[miscreanity]

Your arguments aren't... compelling. Coherence usually helps.

If you want a Kardashian dog & pony show, you won't get it from me. Ignorance prevents you from connecting the dots and engaging in any argument of substance. Read the links to expand your knowledge.

A buyer at $5 may be a seller at $10. New entrants may be buyers at $10 and sellers at $9. In either situation, supply is replenished and available for acquisition to be redirected as return for investors. Everyone is looking at the total amount of BTC in existence rather than the churn at the margin, where holders of bitcoins sell, reintroducing flow into the market. Once more - that flow becomes fodder to be picked up and supplied to Pirate & investors. There is a recirculating dynamic.

Get it? No? Read the links again. Then read them a third, fourth, and fifth time. Sleep on it. Read it again. Read through my explanations in this thread again. Not an easy concept to wrap your head around when you're stuck in the fiat world, is it? Keep reading.

To help, study the difference between cash/physical market pricing and derivative-driven pricing of underlying assets (esp. options & futures). Bitcoin is almost entirely a cash/physical market, and its stock to flow ratio works nearly identically to gold.

[imsaguy]

Demand for the impossible proof of a negative is a reliable gambit for the conman and also assuages the bedeviling consciences of the naively complicit (and there are many of those, indeed).

I guess that means whoever thought up "Innocent until proven guilty" was a conman. 

Obviously, much evidence exists that this is a ponzi scheme [as in exhibits literally each and every characteristic of a ponzi scheme], and the lack of any evidence to counter is sufficient for appropriate branding.

So far, your evidence is an unjustified return and the lack of disclosing trade secrets.  What other characteristics?   Please, document them.  Don't make generic statements, they just repeat whats already been said.

[imsaguy]

A buyer at $5 may be a seller at $10. New entrants may be buyers at $10 and sellers at $9. In either situation, supply is replenished and available for acquisition to be redirected as return for investors. Everyone is looking at the total amount of BTC in existence rather than the churn at the margin, where holders of bitcoins sell, reintroducing flow into the market. Once more - that flow becomes fodder to be picked up and supplied to Pirate & investors. There is a recirculating dynamic.

I already brought this up.  Clearly it isn't a compelling argument. 

[Maged]

Maged: I have a proof that this is a ponzi. But I will not tell ya, coz people who dug it up did not give me permission.

I made no such assertion. I was merely saying that we had proof that imsaguy's claim that pirate is discouraging deposits and is being effective in doing do is patently false. Of course this was the case, because apparently the discouraging hasn't started.

He's penalizing deposits as well as withdrawals.  How many times do I have to say this before you actually acknowledge it?

You can say it all you want, because the unofficial audit team has irrefutable proof that this is absolutely not the case. For example, despite growing over 10% per week, BitcoinMax is still making 7.7% per week in interest.

The rules don't take effect until the middle of the month...

Weird that you never brought that up... Well, guess we now know what is happening on the 14th.

[gene]

Oh right, once again, no facts.

Assuming arguendo that Pirate is operating a Ponzi, the burden of proof is still on those asserting such because Pirate has not, to my knowledge, made a statement regarding his Ponzosity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

You and your ilk are not fooling anyone.

Your arguments aren't... compelling. Coherence usually helps.

[dog and pony show]

Did you go to night school to learn to talk like that?

Demand for the impossible proof of a negative is a reliable gambit for the conman and also assuages the bedeviling consciences of the naively complicit (and there are many of those, indeed).

[wet fart]

Obviously, much evidence exists that this is a ponzi scheme [as in exhibits literally each and every characteristic of a ponzi scheme], and the lack of any evidence to counter is sufficient for appropriate branding.

[squeaky fart]

See the above link.

[imsaguy]

Maged: I have a proof that this is a ponzi. But I will not tell ya, coz people who dug it up did not give me permission.

I made no such assertion. I was merely saying that we had proof that imsaguy's claim that pirate is discouraging deposits and is being effective in doing do is patently false. Of course this was the case, because apparently the discouraging hasn't started.

He's penalizing deposits as well as withdrawals.  How many times do I have to say this before you actually acknowledge it?

You can say it all you want, because the unofficial audit team has irrefutable proof that this is absolutely not the case. For example, despite growing over 10% per week, BitcoinMax is still making 7.7% per week in interest.

The rules don't take effect until the middle of the month...

Weird that you never brought that up... Well, guess we now know what is happening on the 14th...

Did you miss the posting where Pirate said trust accounts are pushed back?  I didn't think I had to regurgitate public knowledge.  Contrary to public opinion, I don't have some special access to Pirate and only know what he announces to everyone else.

[miscreanity]

<Pure ignorance>

You're giving Atlas a run for being the most obnoxious troll around.

Ignore.

[gene]

<Pure ignorance>

You're giving Atlas a run for being the most obnoxious troll around.

Ignore.

I'll say this for Atlas: at least he wasn't an eager participant in the biggest bitcoin fraud to date.

[gene]

Ad hominem. If you want to contribute anything of substance, you need to have comprehension of the dynamics I'm talking about. The critical concepts:

Capital flow

Stock to flow ratio

Video discussing S:F

Everyone is concentrated exclusively on the stock, which not where the action is. The margins are where the flow becomes most important, and also where the profit is gained. It's very similar to hydraulics, where a marginal effort amplifies results.

Woah, that's really interesting, I didn't knew about those dynamics.

I'm a newbie at that sort of thing, here's a theory coming from my ass, tell me if I'm wrong:
So, the value of pirate business is not about how many BTC he have, but how many BTC he can circulate between USD and BTC? If BTC was a water tank, it is not about how big is the water tank, but mainly how big are the pipes?

[...]




Did I understood correctly? Or I'm completely wrong?

More info for this amazing investment opportunity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfW0ke4bwI4

[totaleclipseofthebank]

Clearly, Pirate is recirculating the flows of the gross BTCUSD capital-flow ratios through a proprietary securities algorithmic trading process by which the future net present value discounted interest rate is projected onto present equity value market-velocity parameters!

Thanks, it all makes so much sense now!

also xfd at the scuba

[BorderBits]

Did I understood correctly? Or I'm completely wrong?

The latter.  Dude is running a Ponzi scheme. 

[Serge]

Your arguments aren't... compelling. Coherence usually helps.

If you want a Kardashian dog & pony show, you won't get it from me. Ignorance prevents you from connecting the dots and engaging in any argument of substance. Read the links to expand your knowledge.

A buyer at $5 may be a seller at $10. New entrants may be buyers at $10 and sellers at $9. In either situation, supply is replenished and available for acquisition to be redirected as return for investors. Everyone is looking at the total amount of BTC in existence rather than the churn at the margin, where holders of bitcoins sell, reintroducing flow into the market. Once more - that flow becomes fodder to be picked up and supplied to Pirate & investors. There is a recirculating dynamic.

Get it? No? Read the links again. Then read them a third, fourth, and fifth time. Sleep on it. Read it again. Read through my explanations in this thread again. Not an easy concept to wrap your head around when you're stuck in the fiat world, is it? Keep reading.

To help, study the difference between cash/physical market pricing and derivative-driven pricing of underlying assets (esp. options & futures). Bitcoin is almost entirely a cash/physical market, and its stock to flow ratio works nearly identically to gold.

Ad hominem. If you want to contribute anything of substance, you need to have comprehension of the dynamics I'm talking about. The critical concepts:

Capital flow

Stock to flow ratio

Video discussing S:F

Everyone is concentrated exclusively on the stock, which not where the action is. The margins are where the flow becomes most important, and also where the profit is gained. It's very similar to hydraulics, where a marginal effort amplifies results.

Woah, that's really interesting, I didn't knew about those dynamics.

I'm a newbie at that sort of thing, here's a theory coming from my ass, tell me if I'm wrong:
So, the value of pirate business is not about how many BTC he have, but how many BTC he can circulate between USD and BTC? If BTC was a water tank, it is not about how big is the water tank, but mainly how big are the pipes?

I'm starting to understand. BTC <-> USD flow is somewhat jammed, because the pipes between them are too small. You can't purchase 100 000 BTC without blowing up the price on Mt. Gox, and we can forget about the smaller exchanges. You're stuck moving small amount of BTC because the flow BTC <-> USD have a limit.

So pirate, with his business, found a way to make fucking big pipes, to have a big flow between USD and BTC. His money is made, not on the amount of BTC he have, but on the amount of BTC he can move. His pipe have a maintenance cost (the 7%/week), so, if somebody want to use his big pipe, he simply charges more money to cover his cost of using the pipe.

His current BTC stock is probably relatively small, something toward 10% to 20% of the BTC lend. He can pay interest and withdrawal with relative ease, since he has that big fucking pipe that move big amount of USD - BTC really fast. That's why he's telling he will repay everybody, since he can move USD - BTC really easily. Probably that if you would look at the blockchain, you would find the BTC tank almost empty and wonder where is the money. But pirate capacity is not in having a lot of BTC in the same address, it's his capacity to move money around. Even a blockchain analysis would be flawed, since you're looking at only one side of the pipe (the BTC side) and you don't have the data on the other side (the USD side).

At the end, pirate would never have all the BTC in existence, even if it last 10 years, because he's not stocking them. The interest are a representation of how much money is flowing through his business. If he generates 100 000 000 000 BTC in interest, it's because those BTC, at a certain period of time, used the pirate pipe.

Did I understood correctly? Or I'm completely wrong?

very interesting. thanks 

[miscreanity]

A buyer at $5 may be a seller at $10. New entrants may be buyers at $10 and sellers at $9. In either situation, supply is replenished and available for acquisition to be redirected as return for investors. Everyone is looking at the total amount of BTC in existence rather than the churn at the margin, where holders of bitcoins sell, reintroducing flow into the market. Once more - that flow becomes fodder to be picked up and supplied to Pirate & investors. There is a recirculating dynamic.

I already brought this up.  Clearly it isn't a compelling argument. 

Yeah, nothing like a closed mind to make you want to leave the sheep behind. At least some can maintain a productive discussion.

So, the value of pirate business is not about how many BTC he have, but how many BTC he can circulate between USD and BTC? If BTC was a water tank, it is not about how big is the water tank, but mainly how big are the pipes?

very interesting. thanks 

Yup, the pipes analogy is great.

[finkleshnorts]

To the water tank poster,

That's pretty much the only idea that could possibly work for Pirate. His supporters agree with you, the naysayers call bs and just say it's a Ponzi.

Borrowing coins to do this could be profitable, in my mind. But 7% is just a gimmick. He would have the same amount of investors at 4% or 5% a week. A variable percentage rate would also be acceptable. You see, to pay 7% for this long, Pirate would have to:

1. Have the connections. This entails knowing people who are a.) filthy rich b.) willing to pour money into bitcoin c.) haven't already done so. d.) are too stupid or lazy to figure out bitcoin-OTC (just like me!)

2. have these "rich folk" lining up at his doorstep week after week after week. Pirate apparently needs more and more coins all the time. He can't sell enough of them! He keeps borrowing more and more because these hungry little birds just can't get enough of bitcoin.

3. HE WOULD HAVE TO OBTAIN THE BITCOINS TO REPAY HIS DEBTORS. He has already explicitly said that GPUmax has nothing to do with BTCST (too bad, would have been a decent explanation). This means he buys them all on OTC (very unlikely imo), or on Gox. Which defeats the whole purpose (profit) of the entire operation. This point as been brought up time and time again, but it has never been explained.

Even if the first 2 requirements are met, the 3rd just makes no damn sense to me. It never will until somebody explains it in a way other than "ooh its a secret, don't invest in something you don't understand." Still waiting.

If pirate is legit, and he is rapidly expanding the bitcoin economy under the table, then he is playing a zero sum game (i think). In theory, it all comes back around to market in the end, and everyone benefits from the delayed price hike. It's just delayed. (could be totally wrong about this last paragraph)