alexanderanon: here is my brief response to you: "utter nonsense"
now in more details:
Vladimir's logic, in every one of this cancerous threads/posts:
1. If anyone refuses to disclose their business details, they must be doing something bad that *others* would get upset about.
Why must *others* necessarily be investors? I can think of a handful of other groups who could become alarmed by his business dealings and seek to a) shut him down, b) steal his idea.
2. If someone offers returns far that "sound too good to be true"...
a. If legitimate, others will discover his idea and by competition, push the rate down.
b. If illegitimate, then it is a ponzi and will collapse.
Nope! Do not put your words in my mouth. Remember that we are talking here about 3 orders of magnitude higher returns than those the very best (and lucky) hedge fund managers can realistically and sustainably produce.
3 orders of magnitude! Can you grasp that?
3 orders of magnitude!
There is simply no known viable business model that can sustainably produce 3000% annual returns, except ponzi (direct or indirect). Technically, if you leverage something high enough, returns on some speculation can be indeed enormous but it ALWAYS, ALWAYS comes with corresponding risks, that make the biz model not viable. Continuously betting on the red and reinvesting all the winnings is one example of that.
Moreover, my posts are not so much about producing those returns, as about BORROWING at that kind of interest. The only good reason to borrow like that is when there is no intention to pay out the capital.
Again, even if we go wild and assume hubrisly that those magical free markets of yours and revolutionary, out of this word, Bitcoin, indeed allows such outlandish returns for some unknown mysterious biz models, there is still only one "viable" biz model known that requires BORROWING at 3000% per annum. Yes the only biz model where such BORROWING required is Ponzi.
Since when, in your rationalistic scenario, is there any competitive freedom in the money markets? Currencies are printed by treasuries, their prices (interest rates) closely controlled by state banks, and alternatives suppressed by state force. Efforts by the free market to circumvent these state controls will reap massive profits for those so bold --- but not everyone can simply set up shop across the street and provide a little "competition". Casino owners are in a far better position, for example, to launder money because they are a cash focused business. According to your arguments, competitive pressures should force down the rate to launder money because anyone can just set up up their own casino across the street. How many casinos and strip clubs are there that launder money? How many tax evasion services are there? How many loopholes exist in the US tax code? How many people know what the hell a "bitcoin" is?
"According to your arguments"? another pile of BS. Go get logic 101 class.
Tax evasion? yea right, let's borrow at 3000% to avoid 30% hit.
You have proven yourself to be one of the many econ/investor-types who likes to shout mantras louder and louder as if this will somehow have any influence. Think outside the box, and see how bitcoin's unique properties allow for unique business opportunities with, as all revolutionary ideas do, massive returns. More than your day trading commodities certainly. Sure, pirate could wake up one morning and decide to jettison with our bitcoins (though people know who he is and where he lives), and he could in fact be running an elaborate ponzi that will collapse soon.
Where did you get all those bullshit assertions from?
I do not trade commodities. I do not daytrade. I almost do not trade at all. I make maximum 3-4 non trivial bitcoin transaction per year these days.
But the notion that his ambiguity and high returns *necessitate* a ponzi is ludicrous. We have a scenario where an honest person taking advantage of bitcoin's unique characteristics and who is in a good position to do so, and a dishonest ponzi operator will, from the public's perspective, look the same. I'm willing to bet from the curious, forward-thinking individuals the bitcoin community so attracts that he is of the former, a belief only further strengthened by his willingness to expose himself to personal scrutiny that would render the latter an extremely unfavorable position.
"high returns *necessitate* a ponzi", what is high return you mean? 5%? 10%? 20% 100%? 1000%? 3000%? [per annum, of course].
3000% is not just
high. 3000% is
"only naive idiots can believe that" high.
You can believe whatever.
"his willingness to expose himself to personal scrutiny" is not necessarily true. Actually objective evidence, so far points to exactly the opposite. Some announcement that he will appear on some meetup does not guarantee that this will happen. However, it creates a great window of opportunity to run away with money. Ponzi is based on lie, remember. This is a form of fraud after all.
If you think about it, that defcon appearance announcement is pointing to a high probability window of the default, specifically sometime between now and July 27th.
Also, Madoff did not hide where he live. Here goes the rest of your argument even if (big IF) it is based on a true assertion.
In the end of the day, I do not know for sure if that Pirate biz a ponzi or not. I, however, assert that the probability of it being a poinzi is very high and, if so, the probability of pirate's default asymptotically approaches 100% over time.
