Topic: Bryan Micon's List of BTC Ponzi Schemes that should not be listed as "Lending" - page 7. (Read 119665 times)

Indeed, BurtW strikes me as one of the shilliest of the shills. Bet he turned a profit.

Weird how quiet it's gotten on this thread now that it's increasingly clear OP is basically right on the big one.

This.

I wonder if an apology will be forthcoming any time soon...

Oh, and BurtW still hasn't updated his bet thread. Using mark-to-market (y'know, as you do for debt instruments like this) I figure he's down about 6500BTC.
Except he's not, because he almost certainly never made that deposit 

I feel the fact that I received this casino mailer today hurts my chances, helps Matt's side.  Hopefully unrelated:

Lol no not the chair going to ISS. -That- would be a gamble.

Bet increase acknowledged.

ok, I'm in.  I assume we are talking about Pirate, not my chair going to the ISS.  I'll conf-post in the other thread or you can just do it / link to this acceptance

Wake up, Theymos.

I think the reason is that now, after the default, the people whose opinion you value can simply stand back for another week, until 90% of the believers finally grasp the truth. Conversely, those "investors" with at least half a brain recognize the default or the very high likelihood of it and also stand back waiting.

So only few people stay in the discussion, the hare-brained and the evangelists.  

By the way, now even the hare-brained should get second thoughts. The pirate has decided to shut down a business that ostensibly produced $50,000 per day. He does not gently wind it down over a couple of months. Instead he shuts it down from one day to the other, citing the reason that he wants time with his family. He does not pay out at least his bigger accounts, although each day would cost him another $50,000. How much crazier can it get?

I think, now we should indeed stand back until the last pirate fans see the light.

That is an impossible burden of proof.  Baring some insider blowing the whistle, or the Police seizing evidence under a warrant it is impossible to prove a ponzi, given the fact that the operator can simply choose to not provide enough information to make that proof possible.  Still it isn't up to you to decide what constitutes acceptable evidence.   

Anything offering 3400% APR on $5M in capital is a ponzi.  Anyone who could pay that much interest simply WOULDN'T.  If they are smart enough to earn >3400% per year, then you are smart enough to use that profit to pay down the debt and keep the entire 3400% return to yourself.

If you feel I can't say that then feel free to sue me.  Baring a lawsuit it doesn't really matter what you think other people can or can not say. 



Pirate is in debt service default of his own contract.  By the rules of this forum he is a scammer.   

He owes forum members in excess of $5M and has not repaid that nor provided any transparency on how/when he intends to repay it.   
His obligations are increasing at a rate of $57,600 per day. 

I mean by your logic as long as he never admits to it being a ponzi he simply can never pay anyone back ever and it isn't a ponzi or a scam. 
There may never be absolute proof baring a confession.  To be convicted in a criminal court only requires "proof beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT", in civil court is merely requires the "preponderance of evidence".  Yes based on the facts known unless Pirate provided additional evidence to his defense he would lose a civil case alleging fraud and running a ponzi scam.  Pirate is certainly free to provide evidence to his defense.  He has chosen to provide nothing, and not repay more than a token amount, provide no specific timelines on repayment, and is in default of his own contract.

THAT IS A SCAM.  PERIOD.

How do you know he didn't acquire them when bitcoin was pennies?  To make a huge deal of it because its workworth $100k today with no lock until a person does something with it is a bit.. short sighted.

This. People have started upteen threads with idiotic theories about Pirate's "business model," and this is more valuable than all of them.

Straw man fallacy. Try again. Try better.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy
• http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
• http://lesswrong.com/lw/85h/better_disagreement/

This devastating display of sanity should not be buried on page 57 of some obscure thread, but stapled to the church door.

Make it a top level post. Get it stickied as a warning, and for future reference. Perhaps the next would-be catastrophe can be averted.

It isn't $100k in bets, its BTC.  Until you convert, it has no USD value.

Serious question:
How are you going to fund >$100k in bets if you lose?

If you want to go another 500BTC in, I'm game ^_^

Maybe we're all in the matrix and the chair never existed at all?

Matt, you always suggest the 0.00001% scenario when making the non-Ponzi argument.  

Stephen Hawkings TV special recently taught me about "best fit reality" - i.e. when I leave my office and come back in an hour, my chair is always in the same spot I left it - I assume it has been sitting there the whole time I was gone.  But what if when I left my office, my chair opened the window and flew to the international space station then right before I get back in the room it flies back in, closes the window and returns to the exact same spot I left it an hour ago.  Of course my "best fit reality" is that it just stayed there the whole time.

99.99999999999%+ the chair was just there the whole time, but I can never be certain, however I'd bet Matt an additional 500BTC on every trial of that too.

No one is claiming he's not a Ponzi. All I see are a bunch of people claiming he is. Sounds like a logical fallacy on your part. "I believe in the Devil, and I'm going to make you prove to me that he doesn't exist or else I'm going to keep on believing and telling about he's the Devil because he's red and does parlor tricks".