again, all I see are people making an empty allegation, and wasting forum space.
you guys just bored or something?
The company just started this year, just because they have some elements about them that "seem" similar to the business model of another site, doesn't call for ablolute assurance that they are doing the exact same thing.
Remember, with BT we still don't know they actually operated as a ponzi. no one and i mean NO ONE has yet posted any documentation EVIDENCING this. Just lot of ppl blowing smoke up each other's asses do get ppl stirred up.
So chill out, and let Esoteric get their shit together, all new businesses can't possibly have all every lil aspect covered a 100% because nobody can predict the future, as things change so does a company, and so far as we have seen up to this point, Esoteric has been extremely up front with their business.
And granted most of you are critical hanging on every word phantom trader says, or myself, and trying to look for any "sign" of ponzi, is fine, but keep your words to yourself until you have the evidence to indicate otherwise.
Because right now all you are doing is Assuming. and We all know those that assume (are making an ass out of you and me).
Be civil people, seriously.
Topic: bitcoin-trader.biz - page 10. (Read 203918 times)
Oh, what happened to this thread.. 
Actually it was always like this.
Oh, what happened to this thread..
HYIPs smelling fresh meat in the water.
Oh, what happened to this thread..
Typical for the "freest country in the world" to have such stupid laws. So if I call any US citizen a paedophile he must prove that HE IS NOT.
Reading comprehension isnt your forte clearly. No, he must NOT, because calling someone a paedophile constitutes a "defamation per se" while saying a ponzi is a ponzi is not a personal injury litigation case. Anyway, if you need further legal advice, I will have to charge you for it.
Back to the point, if the people behind this scam think they have a case and want to file a suit against me for libel for saying
esotericinvestments is a ponzi
anywhere in the world, Id be more than happy to provide my identity. Just file suit against unknown, and I will provide my ID gladly.
What a fucking moron you are. You should continue to believe in your holy government and use their worthless paper money. End of story for me, Puppet!
Typical for the "freest country in the world" to have such stupid laws. So if I call any US citizen a paedophile he must prove that HE IS NOT.
Reading comprehension isnt your forte clearly. No, he must NOT, because calling someone a paedophile constitutes a "defamation per se" while saying a ponzi is a ponzi is not a personal injury litigation case. Anyway, if you need further legal advice, I will have to charge you for it.
Back to the point, if the people behind this scam think they have a case and want to file a suit against me for libel for saying
esotericinvestments is a ponzi
anywhere in the world, Id be more than happy to provide my identity. Just file suit against unknown, and I will provide my ID gladly.
In which jurisdiction are you living? If I call you a paedophile and you sue me, I have to submit evidence that you are one. You personally don't have to prove nothing.
The ponzi claims to operate in the US, so lets stick to US regulation. IF you call me a paedophile, that constitutes a "Defamation Per Se" and I dont have to prove that Im not:
Quote
Defamation Per Se
Most jurisdictions recognize "per se" defamation, in which the allegations made by the defendant are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Normally in personal injury litigation, including actions for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Within the context of defamation, that means that the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's statements were false, and that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known them to be false at the time the statements were made. Defamation per se provides a significant exception to that rule: Typically, where the statements made by the defendant constitute defamation per se, the defendant has the burden of proving that the allegations are true.
Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
Additionally, some states consider allegations that a married person was unfaithful to constitute defamation per se.
http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intentional/defamation.htmlMost jurisdictions recognize "per se" defamation, in which the allegations made by the defendant are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Normally in personal injury litigation, including actions for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Within the context of defamation, that means that the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's statements were false, and that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known them to be false at the time the statements were made. Defamation per se provides a significant exception to that rule: Typically, where the statements made by the defendant constitute defamation per se, the defendant has the burden of proving that the allegations are true.
Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
Additionally, some states consider allegations that a married person was unfaithful to constitute defamation per se.
Saying this is a ponzi doesnt fall under any of the above, and the burden of proof would be with the plaintiff.
Typical for the "freest country in the world" to have such stupid laws. So if I call any US citizen a paedophile he must prove that HE IS NOT. That is like the witch-hunt in middle age Europe - one got the stupid idea that one is a witch, if she can't prove otherwise (and how can she), she will get burned...
Otherwise if this (Paedophile) is "Defamation Per Se" to call somebody a Ponzi operator would fall under "Defamation Per Se" as well - at least in the old world (Europe).
In which jurisdiction are you living? If I call you a paedophile and you sue me, I have to submit evidence that you are one. You personally don't have to prove nothing.
The ponzi claims to operate in the US, so lets stick to US regulation. IF you call me a paedophile, that constitutes a "Defamation Per Se" and I dont have to prove that Im not:
Quote
Defamation Per Se
Most jurisdictions recognize "per se" defamation, in which the allegations made by the defendant are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Normally in personal injury litigation, including actions for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Within the context of defamation, that means that the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's statements were false, and that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known them to be false at the time the statements were made. Defamation per se provides a significant exception to that rule: Typically, where the statements made by the defendant constitute defamation per se, the defendant has the burden of proving that the allegations are true.
Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
Additionally, some states consider allegations that a married person was unfaithful to constitute defamation per se.
http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intentional/defamation.htmlMost jurisdictions recognize "per se" defamation, in which the allegations made by the defendant are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Normally in personal injury litigation, including actions for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Within the context of defamation, that means that the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's statements were false, and that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known them to be false at the time the statements were made. Defamation per se provides a significant exception to that rule: Typically, where the statements made by the defendant constitute defamation per se, the defendant has the burden of proving that the allegations are true.
Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
Additionally, some states consider allegations that a married person was unfaithful to constitute defamation per se.
Saying this is a ponzi doesnt fall under any of the above, and the burden of proof would be with the plaintiff.
blah blah blah
The threat of libel is kinda funny. I hope you realize that to win a libel case, you must prove the statement to be false. Im looking forward to your evidence this is not a ponzi. Of course, you'd also need to identify yourself before a court, which is something Im looking forward to even more. IOW, bring it on!
As for proving you're a ponzi; again the burden of proof lies with you, since you are the one soliciting funds. Yet you're anonymous, your website is full of lies, you are promising impossible returns with no explanation as to why you would give those profits to "investors" rather than keeping them for yourself, etc etc. Frankly Im rather shocked you think you can pull this off just weeks after BT collapsed. You're not even trying to look any different as BT. Are people really this gullible?
In which jurisdiction are you living? If I call you a paedophile and you sue me, I have to submit evidence that you are one. You personally don't have to prove nothing.
blah blah blah
The threat of libel is kinda funny. I hope you realize that to win a libel case, you must prove the statement to be false. Im looking forward to your evidence this is not a ponzi. Of course, you'd also need to identify yourself before a court, which is something Im looking forward to even more. IOW, bring it on!
As for proving you're a ponzi; again the burden of proof lies with you, since you are the one soliciting funds. Yet you're anonymous, your website is full of lies, you are promising impossible returns with no explanation as to why you would give those profits to "investors" rather than keeping them for yourself, etc etc. Frankly Im rather shocked you think you can pull this off just weeks after BT collapsed. You're not even trying to look any different as BT. Are people really this gullible?
5% monthly ROI is for a USD investment into our company for infrastructure not into the pool for trading. This sort of a deal for an investment into a company isn't all that uncommon.
I don't need you to think this isn't a scam and don't care stay un-invested, but do not call me a criminal or a scammer when we are working hard to make this company work
I don't need you to think this isn't a scam and don't care stay un-invested, but do not call me a criminal or a scammer when we are working hard to make this company work
That is all you need. Any legit company that could offer 5% a month would be flooded with billions of dollars. It is a lie, you can't find real deals like this anywhere. This is a HYIP and clearly a scam.
Deja vu all over again...
ok ignoramus, how about you show that in fact esoteric is operating as a ponzi before you make unbacked accusations. you can be sued for libel, you know that?
until you have the proof of it, keep your trap shut.
until you have the proof of it, keep your trap shut.
From the website:
"Each month your Plan is active you will earn a 5% return on your original investment!"
Proof. Nobody is that consistent with returns that they can guarantee this type of performance, ever. As I brought up earlier, the most famous person who did was Bernie Madoff, and he offered exactly 12% a year. You are offering an 80% ANNUAL RETURN.
This is a scam, you are a scammer, so is Phantom Trader. You've both been outed as criminals. Now please GTFO.
5% monthly ROI is for a USD investment into our company for infrastructure not into the pool for trading. This sort of a deal for an investment into a company isn't all that uncommon.
I don't need you to think this isn't a scam and don't care stay un-invested, but do not call me a criminal or a scammer when we are working hard to make this company work it's basically a fuck you to us for spending my entire day staring at a screen communicating with everybody while watching markets to be sure we're in on the next big movers. More transparency is coming for investors along with other features to show we aren't a scam. Until then stop calling me one unless you have some proof of it that I can address. Anything other then that is as good as me saying that your a child rapist, for all I know it could be true but how do I know. At least you can do some background research on us to support being a scam or not, so why don't you do that before calling us one as I wouldn't call any of you a rapist without some evidence behind it.
and digicoin is the mot well informed of any of the investors that I've talked to and answered questions to about esoteric investments. He's not part of my team here in anyway. He is one of the few that is doing his background research and so far I think is doing the best research of anyone that's contacted us in any way. And he's sharing his information with you all, which you should thank him for, not call him an idiot. Ignorant stuff like that only makes you the dumbass.
You're the one asking for investments with a setup that looks exactly like the many Ponzi schemes we've seen before. The burden of proof is on you to show that you're not just the next in a long line of Ponzis that will inevitably collapse. Transparency is not something you promise as an afterthought in this scene, it is something that should be there from day 1. Until you show solid proof that you are actually performing trades to earn the profits that you claim to earn, I see no reason why anyone should believe anything you say, given your extraordinary claims of profit.
Bravo! I can't agree more.
Oh look, the self-admitted Ponzi-player/pumper is back to support Esoteric Investments. Readers, make of that what you will. ok ignoramus, how about you show that in fact esoteric is operating as a ponzi before you make unbacked accusations. you can be sued for libel, you know that?
until you have the proof of it, keep your trap shut.
until you have the proof of it, keep your trap shut.
From the website:
"Each month your Plan is active you will earn a 5% return on your original investment!"
Proof. Nobody is that consistent with returns that they can guarantee this type of performance, ever. As I brought up earlier, the most famous person who did was Bernie Madoff, and he offered exactly 12% a year. You are offering an 80% ANNUAL RETURN.
This is a scam, you are a scammer, so is Phantom Trader. You've both been outed as criminals. Now please GTFO.
5% monthly ROI is for a USD investment into our company for infrastructure not into the pool for trading. This sort of a deal for an investment into a company isn't all that uncommon.
I don't need you to think this isn't a scam and don't care stay un-invested, but do not call me a criminal or a scammer when we are working hard to make this company work it's basically a fuck you to us for spending my entire day staring at a screen communicating with everybody while watching markets to be sure we're in on the next big movers. More transparency is coming for investors along with other features to show we aren't a scam. Until then stop calling me one unless you have some proof of it that I can address. Anything other then that is as good as me saying that your a child rapist, for all I know it could be true but how do I know. At least you can do some background research on us to support being a scam or not, so why don't you do that before calling us one as I wouldn't call any of you a rapist without some evidence behind it.
and digicoin is the mot well informed of any of the investors that I've talked to and answered questions to about esoteric investments. He's not part of my team here in anyway. He is one of the few that is doing his background research and so far I think is doing the best research of anyone that's contacted us in any way. And he's sharing his information with you all, which you should thank him for, not call him an idiot. Ignorant stuff like that only makes you the dumbass.
Bravo! I can't agree more.
Does anyone have any idea how they got their yield numbers? The mining part is easy, just provide difficulty adjusted returns. But what about the trading pool. How did they pick the numbers?
No. I do think Shadowscripts has options to calculate the optimal payouts for you. They probably looked at the market a bit and adjusted it one direction or another a little bit -- But the schedule was pretty set.. The average would be steady for a couple months, the step down a quarter percent and stay steady for a couple months until the end. In Feb and March 1.5% days where pretty normal at the end it was more .7%...
ok ignoramus, how about you show that in fact esoteric is operating as a ponzi before you make unbacked accusations. you can be sued for libel, you know that?
until you have the proof of it, keep your trap shut.
until you have the proof of it, keep your trap shut.
From the website:
"Each month your Plan is active you will earn a 5% return on your original investment!"
Proof. Nobody is that consistent with returns that they can guarantee this type of performance, ever. As I brought up earlier, the most famous person who did was Bernie Madoff, and he offered exactly 12% a year. You are offering an 80% ANNUAL RETURN.
This is a scam, you are a scammer, so is Phantom Trader. You've both been outed as criminals. Now please GTFO.
5% monthly ROI is for a USD investment into our company for infrastructure not into the pool for trading. This sort of a deal for an investment into a company isn't all that uncommon.
I don't need you to think this isn't a scam and don't care stay un-invested, but do not call me a criminal or a scammer when we are working hard to make this company work it's basically a fuck you to us for spending my entire day staring at a screen communicating with everybody while watching markets to be sure we're in on the next big movers. More transparency is coming for investors along with other features to show we aren't a scam. Until then stop calling me one unless you have some proof of it that I can address. Anything other then that is as good as me saying that your a child rapist, for all I know it could be true but how do I know. At least you can do some background research on us to support being a scam or not, so why don't you do that before calling us one as I wouldn't call any of you a rapist without some evidence behind it.
and digicoin is the mot well informed of any of the investors that I've talked to and answered questions to about esoteric investments. He's not part of my team here in anyway. He is one of the few that is doing his background research and so far I think is doing the best research of anyone that's contacted us in any way. And he's sharing his information with you all, which you should thank him for, not call him an idiot. Ignorant stuff like that only makes you the dumbass.
the point is I agree with you and all other are bloody ponzi too
hope no one invest any more
OK thanks I guess I just didn't understand, my bad
and that:
Thomas Opperman:
"Howard,no comapny would spend the amounts BT spent on advertising and sponsorships if they plan to disappear.
And then they disappeared right? WTF was the point you were trying to make?
the point is I agree with you and all other are bloody ponzi too
hope no one invest any more
and that:
Thomas Opperman:
"Howard,no comapny would spend the amounts BT spent on advertising and sponsorships if they plan to disappear.
And then they disappeared right? WTF was the point you were trying to make?
why don't you actually do some bitcoin trading yourself and see what is actually possible.
http://www.coindesk.com/mit-bitcoin-trading-simulation-yields-profit-89-50-days/
read this
http://www.coindesk.com/mit-bitcoin-trading-simulation-yields-profit-89-50-days/
read this
This is your defense? You're an idiot. I hope you didn't actually manage to fool anybody and your boss sees this and fires you from his spam squad.
PexPay withdrawals still work, weird?
and that:
Thomas Opperman:
"Howard,no comapny would spend the amounts BT spent on advertising and sponsorships if they plan to disappear. The NABCGT is only the half of it. we were paying deposits for events in November the day before John "went missing". If he wanted to steel our cash he wouldn't have wasted so much on stuff that he wasn't planning to complete."
I am not that stupid I think that is over we lost our money but what about that above ?
Ponzi schemes typically last until the withdrawals start to outpace the deposits. The operator (John) may have planned on carrying on much longer, but instead encountered a drop in new deposits or increase in withdrawals and decided to pull the plug.
Thank you for explanation.
Anyway it is possible according to this article Bitcoin Trading Simulation Yields Profit of 89% in 50 Days http://www.coindesk.com/mit-bitcoin-trading-simulation-yields-profit-89-50-days/
The MIT thing was not talking about Arbitrage trading though - It was trading through Technical indicators.. Stuff that the BT website poo poos as being too risky.
Jump to: