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

[Micon]

Again, I'm not giving you grief here.  Your statement that "most of them feign not being interested in taking your money (even though they are supposedly paying absurd rates). Ponzi schemes like to seem "exclusive"; this is a diagnostic characteristic." is fascinating, and I would love to read case law or the original research that has concluded this.

Honestly, this is really, really basic stuff. It's Ponzi 101. Any good introduction to Ponzi schemes will cover this. Madoff famously refused many investor's money. It was not unusual to hear people argue that if Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme, he wouldn't refuse any deposits. He also cleverly warned people that because withdrawals disrupted his strategy, people who withdrew might not be permitted to re-invest.

One very basic thing any major scammer does is at least occasionally, intentionally act against type. You have to look carefully to get the big picture.

+1

please continue smacking down the Fuddettes with fact and logic.  tytytyty for being vigilant in this thread.

[Micon]

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).

very well said.

I tell internet:

 "I have a secret business plan that if you told you then I could no longer profit"

now according to skeptics in this thread, after making this statement no acceptable concrete proof of Ponzi can be accepted because of this super-secret vague money machine you should take me at my word that I have & it's extremely profitable.  but want to let you invest in it. 

[Micon]

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"

reverse FUD IMO.

Pirateat40 even called for "anti-FUD" in the latest edit of BCST OP.  So sick how he has these affiliates doing his bidding for him, both collecting and shipping him tons of BTC and defending the scam to the forums.  All of them working for pennies on the dollars he is stealing.  Disgusting, even more so if the pass-through operations actually understand what they are doing.  After it goes boom most pass-through operators will claim ignorance, so it's important to remember their tone here. 

Further more the most staunch supporters like BurtW and Bitcoinmax will completely disappear, but will reappear on these forums under a new name.  Watch for them / always try and connect the human to the multiple accounts.  IMO the search for Dox should commence now but be held private until the boom. 

[finkleshnorts]

BurtW and payb.tc will completely disappear, but will reappear on these forums under a new name.  

Bullshit, Micon.


These are honest guys.

(FTFY... You meant payb.tc)

[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...

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.

Why no, I didn't miss that. In fact, just to make sure, I just read it again. I see no public announcement about getting additional interest if you stay within 5%, however. If such announcement was made publicly, it was made on IRC, and you can't expect everyone to have all of the logs of that channel, yet alone the time to read them all. So no, this part was not public knowledge, in the general sense.

[Vladimir]

Assuming that pirate is operating a ponzi, which is the only reasonable assumption that can be made given the facts, pirates shills by promoting the scheme are likely complicit in fraud.

So are operators of this forum, by making threads of various intermediaries of a highly likely ponzi scheme(s) sticky threads in the lending section.

So are are operators of GLBSE by not performing trivial due diligence and allowing operations that are exhibiting all the signs of a ponzi scheme and their affiliates to list their "securities" on their trading platform.  The policy "you will not be allowed to be listed only if you tell me you are operating a ponzi" is not good enough for a financial service.

I long ago have correctly predicted that Intersango trio will be sued personally over the Bitcoinica matter. I now predict that most pirate's intermediaries and operators of GLBSE will be sued personally over the pirate matter. Just watch.

[imsaguy]

Why no, I didn't miss that. In fact, just to make sure, I just read it again. I see no public announcement about getting additional interest if you stay within 5%, however. If such announcement was made publicly, it was made on IRC, and you can't expect everyone to have all of the logs of that channel, yet alone the time to read them all. So no, this part was not public knowledge, in the general sense.

Posting on IRC is public knowledge.  The nice thing about IRC is that the comments can't be edited like they can be in the forums.  Once its said, its said for good.  I agree, a person can't be everywhere.  I do my darnedest to try to keep up with everything said on the forums but as everything has become more polarized and seemingly less factual, I grow weary from it.

I don't understand why, if you or someone else has linked conclusive proof of shenanigans going on why it can't be disclosed.  If freedom of expression allows a person to call someone else a ponzi without any proof, then surely that same freedom of expression covers honest mistakes.  Further, if there's such a moral obligation to speak out against pirate being a ponzi, surely there's just as much of an obligation to actually release evidence of said ponzi.  At least more than "It lives where ducks live" or "Its colored like a duck".

[Shadow383]

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?  Do you have funds involved?  Is there a law being broken?  Has someone committed a tortious offense?

I'm curious why spectators are so excitable about this, other than,"Internet arguing!  Wheee!"

This:

Who needs a 51% attack when you can just make sure every newspaper article on bitcoin forever mentions the countless ponzi schemes and untold millions stolen from credulous fools?

It is clear that the repercussions will be substantial.

And now you've hit the nail on the head for why I care.

If this was a scam occurring in USD or something similar - wouldn't bother me, buyer beware and all that.

But really now, how do you think the press will react if someone successfully steals about 5% of all the bitcoins in circulation?
That'd be the USD equivalent of someone stealing in the many trillions of dollars.
If some poor misguided fool's been scammed out of his college fund, do you really think he's going to be coming back to bitcoin in a hurry? Do you really think someone who knows that person or who reads about the story online will be rushing straight over to the forum or to Mtgox?

pirate have provided a lot more information and confirmation of his good business than you guys could provide that his business is bad.

What confirmation?

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

Intentionally or not, you're confusing the issue here.

If I come on here asking for a 20000BTC loan, because I've got an awesome business plan that pays 4500% per year, but won't tell you what it is, what my assets are or anything of that nature, I'd be laughed off the forums, and rightly so. People would naturally assume that it was a scam unless I provided clear evidence of my ability to repay that money.

Why is it any different for pirate, when he's doing exactly this and operating at somewhere between fifteen and twenty five times that scale?
Basically:

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).

[Maged]

So are operators of this forum, by making threads of various intermediaries of a highly likely ponzi scheme(s) sticky threads in the lending section.

I assure you, that's not intentional. In fact, since you're the third person to bring that up to me, I'm considering changing the sticky policy in Lending:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99856.0

Why no, I didn't miss that. In fact, just to make sure, I just read it again. I see no public announcement about getting additional interest if you stay within 5%, however. If such announcement was made publicly, it was made on IRC, and you can't expect everyone to have all of the logs of that channel, yet alone the time to read them all. So no, this part was not public knowledge, in the general sense.

Posting on IRC is public knowledge.  The nice thing about IRC is that the comments can't be edited like they can be in the forums.  Once its said, its said for good.  I agree, a person can't be everywhere.  I do my darnedest to try to keep up with everything said on the forums but as everything has become more polarized and seemingly less factual, I grow weary from it.

I don't understand why, if you or someone else has linked conclusive proof of shenanigans going on why it can't be disclosed.  If freedom of expression allows a person to call someone else a ponzi without any proof, then surely that same freedom of expression covers honest mistakes.  Further, if there's such a moral obligation to speak out against pirate being a ponzi, surely there's just as much of an obligation to actually release evidence of said ponzi.  At least more than "It lives where ducks live" or "Its colored like a duck".

You keep thinking that I'm saying that I have proof that this is a ponzi. By definition, that is impossible. My only proof was that your claim about staying within 5% has historically been false, and it turns out that that was just a miscommunication because you thought that everyone knew that the policy hadn't started yet. Of course, until the policy goes into effect, it still doesn't do anything to help your side because Pirate could run with the money before the policy even takes effect on Monday.

[imsaguy]

You keep thinking that I'm saying that I have proof that this is a ponzi. By definition, that is impossible. My only proof was that your claim about staying within 5% has historically been false, and it turns out that that was just a miscommunication because you thought that everyone knew that the policy hadn't started yet. Of course, until the policy goes into effect, it still doesn't do anything to help your side because Pirate could run with the money before the policy even takes effect on Monday.

You're right, I misread that.  I just went back and reread the post. 

[imsaguy]

the most staunch supporters like BurtW and Bitcoinmax

staunch supporter? i think i've been pretty agnostic to be honest.

i've never said pirate's op is a ponzi, but have also never claimed that it isn't.

Who needs details when you can make them up as you go?

[Micon]

BurtW and payb.tc will completely disappear, but will reappear on these forums under a new name.  

Bullshit, Micon.


These are honest guys.

(FTFY... You meant payb.tc)

meh, we'll see / I'll bet u will have different words for them in 2013

[Micon]

the most staunch supporters like BurtW and Bitcoinmax

staunch supporter? i think i've been pretty agnostic to be honest.

i've never said pirate's op is a ponzi, but have also never claimed that it isn't.

maybe you didn't see the link in your sig:

Bitcoin Max - Paying 6.9% per week... Small accounts welcome.

I'd say being the single largest contributor to a guy named Pirateat40, gathering all the smaller monies to ship him one big headshot each week minus a few points for yourself qualifies you as being a staunch supporter of his scam.

you are the largest affiliate of the BTC Bernie Madoff.  

If you "Never claimed it wasn't a Ponzi" it means you are smart enough to know damn well it's a ponzi and you want to close your eyes and put fingers in your ears because you are making .1% + Pirate bonuses (he gave u some "atta boy!" btc I'll bet - you have helped him steal quite a lot) each week you continue to take deposits you continue to ship money to a guy named Pirateat40 and continue the scam's operation so Pirate can profit 1 more week. 

I'm a realist.   It's a scam and you know it.  You know he doesn't have everyone's principle.  You know he's using new investment to pay interest for previous investors.  You are helping it grow, spreading evil.  

I'm not the law, but I represent justice.

You need to change your ways.

[dust]

I don't see anything wrong with running a passthrough that makes it clear what investors are investing in.  They are providing a service people want and do it in an honest way. All of the GLBSE passthroughs are very clear they are pirate related. All of the GLBSE passthroughs are very clear they are pirate related.  Bitcoinmax might be an exception as it could mislead novice investors.  On the other hand I suspect some of the "dank bank" kind of investments paying 1-3%/week are undisclosed passthroughs.

[Micon]

I don't see anything wrong with running a passthrough that makes it very clear what investors are investing in.  They are providing a service people want and doing it in an honest way. All of the GLBSE passthroughs are very clear they are pirate related. All of the GLBSE passthroughs are very clear they are pirate related.  Bitcoinmax might be an exception as it could mislead novice investors.  On the other hand I suspect some of the "dank bank" kind of investments paying 1-3%/week are undisclosed passthroughs.

1)  If anyone gives any BTC to Dank Bank I can't help you.  The guy posted about getting a loan for a new car.  He wanted $17k / repay $34k.  Sounds like I guy I want to do business with.  Oh he also has a 1-3%/wk Ponzi Scheme?  shocking.

2) Bitcoinmax, in addition to enjoying the Lending category, is a main fuel source for fresh weekly investment into Pirate's scam.  Bitcoinmax "Small deposits welcome" sweeps up all the tiny scam BTC monies from the internets and ships it to a guy named Pirate in 1 lump sum.  This is disgusting what the passthroughs in general  are doing, trying to make .1% and listing clearly "If BCST fails, so does this" - this means the pass-through running knows it's a scam, but is willing to perpetuate it as long as possible making small % for himself and greatly benefiting the scammer.

[Stephen Gornick]

operators of GLBSE will be sued personally over the pirate matter.[/b]

Would an SEC action count?  4:1 odds say not likel anything will be done, at least not before October.

 - http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=334

[Bitcoin Oz]

operators of GLBSE will be sued personally over the pirate matter.[/b]

Would an SEC action count?  4:1 odds say not likel anything will be done, at least not before October.

 - http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=334

Seems like an incentive for someone to report it to the SEC......

[Vladimir]

operators of GLBSE will be sued personally over the pirate matter.[/b]

Would an SEC action count?  4:1 odds say not likel anything will be done, at least not before October.

 - http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=334

The timeframe is too short, give it more time and probabilities will start approaching 100%.

[farfiman]

BurtW and payb.tc will completely disappear, but will reappear on these forums under a new name.  

Bullshit, Micon.


These are honest guys.

(FTFY... You meant payb.tc)

meh, we'll see / I'll bet u will have different words for them in 2013

Great, Micon says we are SAFE till the end of 2012- works for me,

[Bitcoin Oz]

operators of GLBSE will be sued personally over the pirate matter.[/b]

Would an SEC action count?  4:1 odds say not likel anything will be done, at least not before October.

 - http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=334

The timeframe is too short, give it more time and probabilities will start approaching 100%.

GLBSE isnt USD based.