Pages:
Author

Topic: Bryan Micon's List of BTC Ponzi Schemes that should not be listed as "Lending" - page 35. (Read 119665 times)

legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1014
FPV Drone Pilot
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

Quote
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. 


legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1014
FPV Drone Pilot
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.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
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)
legendary
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1005
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.  Roll Eyes

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  Smiley

Yup, the pipes analogy is great. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
sr. member
Activity: 275
Merit: 250
Quote
Did I understood correctly? Or I'm completely wrong?

The latter.  Dude is running a Ponzi scheme. 
sr. member
Activity: 451
Merit: 250
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
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250

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
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250


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.
legendary
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1005


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

Ignore.
vip
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.
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.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
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.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1015
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.
vip
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.
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.  Roll Eyes
vip
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.
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.
legendary
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1005
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.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
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

Quote
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).
legendary
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000
Si vis pacem, para bellum
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 .
vip
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.
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

Quote
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.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
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

Quote
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
Pages:
Jump to: