I just want to jump in and say a couple things here.
I agree with copumpkin's comments on having loaded lenders that don't have control over when withdraws are made or going MIA and then blaming me for not paying them to pay their baby birds. I don't like where this is headed and it could end up really causing some issues with my operation.
With that said the majority of the coins I'm holding are in the top 15% of my lenders and rarely move their coins in an out which stabilizes my storage needs. I have two potentially new clients I'm talking with next week that were referred to me and not knowing their needs will keep me from make a change right now. So without putting a damper on new lenders not wanting to sign up for fear of being forced out, I am going to stick to the same method of threshold handling as I do now but that may be changing soon.
The last thing I want is tension between my lenders and fights breaking out in the thread so Ill make this point very clear. If you decide to borrow coins from members to lend to me. DO NOT mention anything about me or my program. If I see another comment from one of my lenders anywhere on the forums about "squeezing people out" or "I'm an early adopter so I don't have to worry." You'll see coins in your wallet and your account closed. PERIOD!
As always, thanks guys and hopefully we get this settled and behind us.
Topic: Bitcoin Savings and Trust | Home | Closed - page 56. (Read 802117 times)
All the potential problems would be fixed by bouncing the last deposit when there's overcapacity, instead of bouncing the newest account.
'nuff said.
I hope people realize they're still far better off being ejected and waiting a few days for space to clear than lending to this guy at half the interest rate.
"Sub leasing" out P@40 space while being moral, ethical, legal, unstoppable, etc. is just kind of, well ... rude (and a bit greedy).
It also just bothers me because consolidating lenders, in some sense, hurts pirateat40 (and all his lenders, by extension). For example, if I were his sole lender, and decided on a whim to withdraw one day, and he was in an awkward short position or something, he'd be forced to buy back coins at a disadvantageous rate. If people keep consolidating the lending I'd imagine pirateat40 might have to start instituting more rules to restrict withdrawals and such, so he covers his bases. There are book-keeping downsides to dealing with loads of lenders, but there are downsides to having too few, too.
I just hope this good thing doesn't turn into a tragedy of the commons where everyone looks out for themselves and forces pirateat40 to step in to restrict things more for everyone. Perhaps he doesn't care, but this behavior, taken to the extreme, is bad for everyone.
Perhaps the person selling their space could talk to pirate and set restrictions on themselves (and those who lend through them, of course) to only withdraw something like 20%/day.
Everybody had an opportunity to get in on this investment opportunity; shouldn't those who "took the risk" be rewarded?
Sure, there's definitely an argument for that, which is why I don't think anyone is claiming it's explicitly "wrong" for ineededausername or anyone else doing this to do so.
It also isn't wrong for all the villagers to take their animals to graze on the village commons; the end result is still that they kill off all the grass in the commons and nobody gets to graze their animals, though.
Obviously I paint a more dire picture than is really warranted here, and if pirateat40 had an opinion on this he'd probably have stepped in already. I just wanted to point out possible downsides of people acting in their own self-interest here. If I did so, (almost?) none of you guys would have any income from this anymore, which is "right" by some definition of me risking more by being his first lender, but still feels like a dick move. Of course, if there are no restrictions on it, if you don't do it, someone else will, so why not? It's a bit of a thorny issue, and one that was bound to arise.
I won't say I judge people who do do it, but I'm not comfortable with intentionally ejecting people myself.
All the potential problems would be fixed by bouncing the last deposit when there's overcapacity, instead of bouncing the newest account.
"Sub leasing" out P@40 space while being moral, ethical, legal, unstoppable, etc. is just kind of, well ... rude (and a bit greedy).
It also just bothers me because consolidating lenders, in some sense, hurts pirateat40 (and all his lenders, by extension). For example, if I were his sole lender, and decided on a whim to withdraw one day, and he was in an awkward short position or something, he'd be forced to buy back coins at a disadvantageous rate. If people keep consolidating the lending I'd imagine pirateat40 might have to start instituting more rules to restrict withdrawals and such, so he covers his bases. There are book-keeping downsides to dealing with loads of lenders, but there are downsides to having too few, too.
I just hope this good thing doesn't turn into a tragedy of the commons where everyone looks out for themselves and forces pirateat40 to step in to restrict things more for everyone. Perhaps he doesn't care, but this behavior, taken to the extreme, is bad for everyone.
Perhaps the person selling their space could talk to pirate and set restrictions on themselves (and those who lend through them, of course) to only withdraw something like 20%/day.
Everybody had an opportunity to get in on this investment opportunity; shouldn't those who "took the risk" be rewarded?
"Sub leasing" out P@40 FPS&T space while being moral, ethical, legal, unstoppable, etc. is just kind of, well ... rude (and a bit greedy).
Fixed my own post. "Sub leasing" out P@40 space while being moral, ethical, legal, unstoppable, etc. is just kind of, well ... rude (and a bit greedy).
It also just bothers me because consolidating lenders, in some sense, hurts pirateat40 (and all his lenders, by extension). For example, if I were his sole lender, and decided on a whim to withdraw one day, and he was in an awkward short position or something, he'd be forced to buy back coins at a disadvantageous rate. If people keep consolidating the lending I'd imagine pirateat40 might have to start instituting more rules to restrict withdrawals and such, so he covers his bases. There are book-keeping downsides to dealing with loads of lenders, but there are downsides to having too few, too.
I just hope this good thing doesn't turn into a tragedy of the commons where everyone looks out for themselves and forces pirateat40 to step in to restrict things more for everyone. Perhaps he doesn't care, but this behavior, taken to the extreme, is bad for everyone.
Ok, so be it First Pirate Savings and Trust it is! I like the sound of that.
First post!
Ok, so be it First Pirate Savings and Trust it is! I like the sound of that.
"Sub leasing" out P@40 space while being moral, ethical, legal, unstoppable, etc. is just kind of, well ... rude (and a bit greedy).
Yes. If he wants to get greedy about it, I know some people above him in line
I might know someone too.
gigavps hashes enough coins in one day to take everyone out.
"Sub leasing" out P@40 space while being moral, ethical, legal, unstoppable, etc. is just kind of, well ... rude (and a bit greedy).
Yes. If he wants to get greedy about it, I know some people above him in line
I might know someone too.
"Sub leasing" out P@40 space while being moral, ethical, legal, unstoppable, etc. is just kind of, well ... rude (and a bit greedy).
Yes. If he wants to get greedy about it, I know some people above him in line
By the time you are able to "punish" him by pushing him out you would also as a side effect punish ever single one of the very nice polite people below him by pushing all of them out.
"Sub leasing" out P@40 space while being moral, ethical, legal, unstoppable, etc. is just kind of, well ... rude (and a bit greedy).
Yes. If he wants to get greedy about it, I know some people above him in line
"Sub leasing" out P@40 space while being moral, ethical, legal, unstoppable, etc. is just kind of, well ... rude (and a bit greedy).
As the market suffers a correction, pirate runs out of room again! Time to send all your money to my side business 
They would only have to borrow more money from China to do it.
Nope, the gov has gotten smarter than that. It's called quantitative easing.... essentially creating money out of thin air.It is too expensive to borrow from China.
This is what my econ professor once said:
US borrows $100 from China, and pays 5% interest rate.
US use that $100 to buy $100 worth of raw materials from China.
US then use that $100 worth of materials to print $100 bills. It costs $0.02 to print one $100 bill.
The US then repays China 5% interest, using the $100 bill created using $0.02 of materials.
The cost for US to borrow $100 from china at 5% rate is thus calculated as $0.02 x 5% = $0.001.
And how does the US pay that $0.001? You guessed it, the US borrow another $100 from China, to buy $100 worth of materials, and to print $100 bills that cost $0.02.
There, he said that is why US cannot go bankrupt, as long as USD is the world reserve currency.
Good thing USD is not currency reserve, and USD would become worthless - simple international purchasing parity economics.
hmm, price has gone down 20% while I was drinking - must be time to buy some more coin. (edit - missed the % sign - fixed now - Finlandia - mmmmm)
They would only have to borrow more money from China to do it.
Nope, the gov has gotten smarter than that. It's called quantitative easing.... essentially creating money out of thin air.It is too expensive to borrow from China.
This is what my econ professor once said:
US borrows $100 from China, and pays 5% interest rate.
US use that $100 to buy $100 worth of raw materials from China.
US then use that $100 worth of materials to print $100 bills. It costs $0.02 to print one $100 bill.
The US then repays China 5% interest, using the $100 bill created using $0.02 of materials.
The cost for US to borrow $100 from china at 5% rate is thus calculated as $0.02 x 5% = $0.001.
And how does the US pay that $0.001? You guessed it, the US borrow another $100 from China, to buy $100 worth of materials, and to print $100 bills that cost $0.02.
There, he said that is why US cannot go bankrupt, as long as USD is the world reserve currency.
They would only have to borrow more money from China to do it.
And then give some back in "aid" :/
They would only have to borrow more money from China to do it.
Jump to: