Topic: BS&T -- Are you staying or leaving? - page 3. (Read 24789 times)

You are probably relatively new here, you look at that statement of mine slightly out of content (long term).

I beg your pardon? Why are here in the first place if you don't even believe in bitcoins? What a waste of time

That's the kind of thing that will drag even more people to pirate's thing, whatever it is. Because we're mostly here because we trust bitcoin to be a sound and good investment.

There is no limitation to 5000- thats only for the "smaller accounts" that get miniumum %


The forced withdraws were mostly from the smaller newer accounts and NOT the old BIG  accounts


or he just likes to have some fun now and again ....


He hasnt really lowered the rates - most investors will move to the trust funds which gets top % just like before.

FTFY

You guys are like a bunch of old women at the market. Nothing important to say but mouths (fingers) are moving at maximum speed.
For frack sake! Stop whining about BFL and Pirate. Spend this energy on finding out, who prints those damn chips for BFL and at what price. Report back, when you actually have something valuable to say. If not, send your yapping to /dev/null

15 pages of useless and utterly pointless ego stoking verbal diarrhea. If you can not shut up, sit on your fat grabby fingers and count to 99 000.
You guys make the bitcoin community look like a bunch of retards with keyboards.

And now, STFU and go help your mom do your laundry.

Lol, you don't know what you are talking about 

Pirate has not yet limited account size. He's been running 7 months without doing so (and 8 before he does). Also, PPTs still generally have no limits and pay higher interest. Most of his customers are moving or have moved over to PPT programs for these reasons (including myself, although I was not previously a pirate customer). As a result he'll probably be paying 7% to a larger group of people, and may already be doing so through outside interest in the programs. Why would a ponzi seek to give the majority of its clients a raise?


Except that forced withdrawals were not done on an account-size basis, but rather by seniority. Basically every lender on the lending forum has a limit to how much capital they can move in a week. Pirate's method of handling that is simply more flexible than others.


His thread got like 25 pages of spam in a week, mostly idiots with "proof" that him changing his account policy is a sure sign that he's a ponzi scheme. I would have done the same thing.


The SEC is an organization which oversees the largest ponzi scheme in history, they ought to know (funny though, cause their rates are shit). However, I've already mentioned most all of the ways in which pirate's organization differs significantly from the mechanics which would support a ponzi. Next, I think I'll try out that cool "ignore" button everyone's been raving about.

Can you explain why you have suddenly decided to invest your time in saving the poor, simple minded folk in this forum from ourselves? Seems a happy coincidence that so many other like minded internet heroes arrived simultaneously to froth and foam about the same subject  .

Crawl back under your bridge, troll.

Haplo, thank you for writing your reasoning in such detail. It helps me understand how, and what, pro-Pirate people think. This better understanding helps me present counterpoints, and hopefully change your mind and save your money.

Firstly, you want to read about a great Ponzi scheme? Read the original one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi

Secondly, Currin Trading demonstrated that a Ponzi scheme with 1 investor disproportionately larger than the others puts the whole scheme at risk (if this investor pulls out, the scheme collapses.) This is precisely why Pirate limits the investment amount to 5k BTC per account.

Thirdly, this is also the reason why Pirate has done forced withdrawals. Because the big investors letting the interest compound over and over would become disproportionately larger than the others, and would put the Ponzi scheme at risk if they withdraw.

Fourthly, like Currin Trading, Pirate is making great efforts to keep his Ponzi floating. He locked down his BTCS&T forum thread to silence the critics. He announced he will show up in person at DEFCON in Las Vegas to drive buzz. He gave away 50 BTC as a surprise prize to some random guy who noticed Pirate's avatar image was being rotated every day (very much like CT trying to re-inforce their "good guys" image with the lottery.)

Fifthly, the reason Pirate is planning to lower his interest rate is to keep his scheme alive longer. For example, compare Charles Ponzi to Madoff. The first ran his scheme for only 8 months because he was doubling the investors' money every 45 days or so. The second was able to run his for almost 20 years because he was doubling the money only every 6 years. The lower the rates, the longer the scheme goes on.

Sixthly, the "security deposit" is nothing more than one more way to take money from depositors to pay those who withdraw (the very essence of a Ponzi scheme.)

Seventhly, you say that policy changes like having "trust accounts" to reduce admin hassle add "no advantage to the Ponzi structure". Well of course they do: they reduce the admin hassles of running the scheme!

Eightly, Pirate, of all the people, should be the one the most confident in his insanely profitable investments. Logically he should have offered his friends and family the opportunity to invest. But in reality, I believe that none of them, not even Pirate himself, have invested personal money... because he knows this is a scam.

Lastly, you attempt to explain why BTCS&T may be a legitimate business, but you don't acknowledge the numerous "red flags" indicating it is a Ponzi. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has a list of such red flags: http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm  Pirate's actions raise almost all of them: overly consistent returns, unregistered investments, secretive and/or complex strategies, etc. (The only red flag not occuring is "difficulty receiving payment" because the scheme has yet to collapse...)

I will conclude by saying to those who invested in BTCS&T: don't tell the critics to shut up. I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I hate debates as much as you do. I am simply and genuinely trying to save you from losing money!

Your math looks about the same as mine. 15-30 weeks or so, maybe slightly longer at best depending on the actual distribution of people taking all their payments and varying interest rates. Technically sending everyone to PPT accounts that all pay 7% would push it towards the lower end of the scale.

One of the interesting facts about pirate is that he pays very large interest payments every Monday.  15 weeks would be enough to bankrupt him if deposits stall (if BTCST is a ponzi). 

Example (Jun 18 2012 payments)
http://blockchain.info/tx-index/9782336/11bd062981e13d6e20f765b1a9770f3dd89493f09f9b4f8da15ff523ecfabe53
http://blockchain.info/tx-index/9782978/f11b9e1e61b56762f0370c38fd9ad4c4fdfa6b825f332dbce410b3ade439a30e

Subtract the largest address (change) -> still 10000 BTC of payments, and these are partial.  It may be as high as 20000... or 30000...

Let's assume Pirate runs when deposits stall.  This means that he takes in 5 digits worth of *new* coins (minus withdrawals) every week on average to keep it going (since he hasn't run away yet).  Is this feasible?  I don't know, it seems borderline impossible to me. 

Lol. You're right, I only read the first part. Now I'm kinda pissed that the link at the end of the story doesn't work. However, the second half still doesn't change anything I've already said.

And some things I forgot to mention.

Including:
-CT never had to deal with a bank run. Even a mild bank run can be a challenge for a solvent financial institution, and it's absolutely indemnifying for a ponzi. Pirate passes the bank run test. (I did mention this)

-CT set things up so that his 'investors' were all paid on different days. This was necessary in order to keep the revolving door going. Pirate pays everyone on the same day, and not all people choose to reinvest their interest. It wouldn't be impossible to run a ponzi under pirate's policies, I think, but it certainly wouldn't make it easier. (but I forgot this)

----------------
Ok I found the second part of the story (telling of the actual #1 scammer on eve), and it seems that the #1 scammer had a policy of never directly paying out interest or principle unless the 'investors' directly requested it. Again, yet another case where a ponzi scheme has significant differences with pirate, and where it is obvious how a different policy would make it easier to run a ponzi undetected. Again, if pirate is running a ponzi, he's doing it in a way that would make it awful difficult for himself.

Who knows, and who cares.  Just put him on ignore.

Dun dun dun...

Pirateat40 has always done what he has said he would do. Actions, in my book, are way more important than words.

He is one of the best in Bitcoin. (even if we are the same person...)

Have you actually read the second part of the story as well, or only the first one?

+1 well put

I recently invested with pirate (via a certain respectable pass-through). It's not magic that he gets money.

Also, I've noticed people keep whinging about "Currin Trading" and saying "Pirate is just like currin trading, just watch". Well, after digging through the main BS&T thread I found a link detailing what "Currin Trading" was and gave it a good read-through.

First, I think it's worthwhile to point out, if you really want people to take you seriously, maybe you should be referring to real life ponzi schemes rather than some no-name n00b scammer on some game probably 3/4 of the people here have never played. That's child shit.

Secondly, there are a number of obvious discrepancies between pirate and "Currin Trading" which have led me to discredit the "pirate is an obvious ponzi" terror talk.

For example:

-CT had to pay his large investor (which he only really had 1) less than what he paid his smaller investors, due to the fact that the paycheck for the former had to come from the latter. Pirate pays large investors more, which would be near impossible unless he was losing money by paying them out of pocket, or else if he had a real business of some sort.

-CT had to turn away (or delay) large investors in order to accumulate enough small investors to pay for them. Pirate, when running low on storage availability, turns down newer investors first, which is consistent with a lending business with finite capacity attempting to be fair to account holders in a simple fashion.

-CT never turned away small investors or new investors, as he needed them to continue the ponzi. Pirate made his service invite only and has in the past done forced withdrawals. A ponzi has no benefit to handing people their money back.

-CT had to make up a big publicity stunt in order to keep his ponzi floating for just a short while longer. Pirate, on the other hand, gets called a ponzi because of minor changes to his normal business even though he hasn't made any effort to attract attention.


In clarification of that last point, please allow me to point out the final and obvious reason why the ponzi whingers are morons who don't do any due diligence to back up their shit talk.

Pirate, ever since before making his service invite only, has more or less clearly stated that his reasons for changing his policy was to reduce the administrative overhead of dealing with many accounts (completely understandable). Making the service invite-only was not necessarily the best way of doing that, however at least the action was consistent with his stated goals.

His latest changes, however, are actually quite economically (and logistically) brilliant in terms of achieving his stated goal of less admin hassle.

-The lower rate and account limits on the new savings accounts prevent unauthorized people from making PPT programs, and make them unattractive to potential users who can just get a pirate account of their own now. (or use an authorized PPT for a higher rate)

-The flat interest rate on the standard savings also removes incentives to starting unauthorized PPT programs since there is no benefit to a larger account.

-The new "trust accounts" allow pirate to easily manage and authorize people to run PPT programs and do his admin work for him.

-The security deposit on trust accounts further disincentivizes PPT operators who might otherwise allow users to run wild and make admin work harder rather than easier.

Also, if it were a ponzi scheme, these policy changes would not have any advantages to the ponzi structure, and would be rather arbitrary. Ponzis are benefited by the ignorance of their users, and CT specifically used that ignorance to create unequal treatment between his "clients". CT also tried to make his business seem much older than it was (complete with fake users) prior to advertising. Pirate has not done any of those things; his advertisement was (and continues to be) very straightforward and his policies are very public and transparent (even if his business activities aren't).

Speculate away about what his business is or why he keeps it secret, but as far as being a ponzi, his actions are consistent with the intentions he has expressed.

Thanks for clarifying.

This is actually quite funny.  I've always had my account on payout rather than reinvest.

Yes, I'm spending some coins, about a day's worth.  And given my history around here and my risk profile, being called "lucky" from someone new is, as I said, amusing.