I posted this over in Goat's PPT thread, but I probably should have posted this here:
So what's this I hear about sending a receipt of your GLBSE holdings directly to Pirate in order to be paid out? I read that in this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-bought-some-of-goats-ppts-and-now-pirate-wants-to-deal-with-me-directly-104944
Can anybody verify this is how PPT bond-holders are supposed to recoup their funds?
Topic: pirate payments list -- accounts paid: 23/459 - page 15. (Read 62234 times)
The reputation bitcoin is garnering with the endless parade of frauds and thefts is doing far more harm than any regulation ever could. In any case, by tolerating these scams and failing to handle the situation, this community is inviting the attention all by itself.
It's not obvious to me that the attention is negative on balance. The fact that thieves are stealing bitcoin amounts worth such large sums when priced in USD reinforces the idea that bitcoins are worth stealing. What's the net psychological effect of these competing influences?Time will tell. But time is also a factor. These are some rough hits to be taking at such an early stage. If the bad press dissuades potential vendors, developers, and investors from using bitcoin before it can attain "critical mass," bitcoin may well end up as just another forgotten nerds-only project. It will also poison any future iterations by association.
The reputation bitcoin is garnering with the endless parade of frauds and thefts is doing far more harm than any regulation ever could. In any case, by tolerating these scams and failing to handle the situation, this community is inviting the attention all by itself.
It's not obvious to me that the attention is negative on balance. The fact that thieves are stealing bitcoin amounts worth such large sums when priced in USD reinforces the idea that bitcoins are worth stealing. What's the net psychological effect of these competing influences? From principles of self-preservation, the possibility of being caught figures into the calculation of wether or not attempting some misdeed is worth the price. If a criminal underestimates risk and is caught (as in the liquor store example), then that just makes him a dumb criminal. If you assume that all criminals are incapable of estimating risks and potential rewards, then you may have a point. However, not all criminals are so stupid. If you remove the possiblity of being caught, then a rational criminal (and without moral qualms) will see that the risk to reward ratio is zero; it would be irrational not to commit the crime.
This all seems embarrassingly obvious to me.
Probably because you are not a criminal. Also (and I don't mean this how it sounds) you have obviously not spent much time around criminals. While not all criminals are stupid, a large number are. Their actions are not based around rational thinking. So while what you say logically makes sense, it is not how the criminal mind works.This all seems embarrassingly obvious to me.
If some people are afraid of being caught and for that reason elect not to commit a crime, then deterrence works. Period. Anything else is an argument for making normal people hapless victims without recourse for justice.
I don't mean technical regulation; however if the US were to 'outlaw' bitcoin use that would have a very dramatic effect on price. While the US is not the world (despite their actions) a large number of US users would no longer use bitcoins because they are not criminals, and as you stated the risk/reward scenario would be too high. (Unless you assume that most bitcoin users are also SR members).
The reputation bitcoin is garnering with the endless parade of frauds and thefts is doing far more harm than any regulation ever could. In any case, by tolerating these scams and failing to handle the situation, this community is inviting the attention all by itself.
From principles of self-preservation, the possibility of being caught figures into the calculation of wether or not attempting some misdeed is worth the price. If a criminal underestimates risk and is caught (as in the liquor store example), then that just makes him a dumb criminal. If you assume that all criminals are incapable of estimating risks and potential rewards, then you may have a point. However, not all criminals are so stupid. If you remove the possiblity of being caught, then a rational criminal (and without moral qualms) will see that the risk to reward ratio is zero; it would be irrational not to commit the crime.
This all seems embarrassingly obvious to me.
Probably because you are not a criminal. Also (and I don't mean this how it sounds) you have obviously not spent much time around criminals. While not all criminals are stupid, a large number are. Their actions are not based around rational thinking. So while what you say logically makes sense, it is not how the criminal mind works.This all seems embarrassingly obvious to me.
In a similar vein: bringing legal punishment to bitcoin thefts is very much a double edged sword. The more 'official' attention it gets then the possibility for more regulation.
The protocol possesses technical qualities that prevent the types of regulation that matter most. Besides, isn't self-policing an important part of libertarian philosophy? Maybe that was last year's version...
Justice entails both punishment and restitution. Deterrence is a way to control sociopaths and is certainly effective. Like the above poster, you seem quite pleased with the current state of affairs in which criminals operate without fear of consequences. This strikes me as a nauseatingly servile and passive position (so to speak) to take. And take it you shall, unless people start growing spines and cerebral cortexes.
My point was that deterrence really doesn't work that well (not that I have a solution for what does). There are examples of that all over. The criminals always think they are smart enough to get away with it. No one robs a liquor store thinking the cops will show up... they always think that they will finally be the ones to get away with it.If you say so. From principles of self-preservation, the possibility of being caught figures into the calculation of wether or not attempting some misdeed is worth the price. If a criminal underestimates risk and is caught (as in the liquor store example), then that just makes him a dumb criminal. If you assume that all criminals are incapable of estimating risks and potential rewards or that they care nothing of their own well-being, then you may have a point. However, not all criminals are so stupid and/or suicidal. If you remove the possiblity of being caught, then a rational criminal (and without moral qualms) will see that the risk to reward ratio is zero; it would be irrational not to commit the crime.
This all seems embarrassingly obvious to me.
In a similar vein: bringing legal punishment to bitcoin thefts is very much a double edged sword. The more 'official' attention it gets then the possibility for more regulation.
The protocol possesses technical qualities that prevent the types of regulation that matter most. Besides, isn't self-policing an important part of libertarian philosophy? Maybe that was last year's version...
Justice entails both punishment and restitution. Deterrence is a way to control sociopaths and is certainly effective. Like the above poster, you seem quite pleased with the current state of affairs in which criminals operate without fear of consequences. This strikes me as a nauseatingly servile and passive position (so to speak) to take. And take it you shall, unless people start growing spines and cerebral cortexes.
My point was that deterrence really doesn't work that well (not that I have a solution for what does). There are examples of that all over. The criminals always think they are smart enough to get away with it. No one robs a liquor store thinking the cops will show up... they always think that they will finally be the ones to get away with it.In a similar vein: bringing legal punishment to bitcoin thefts is very much a double edged sword. The more 'official' attention it gets then the possibility for more regulation.
Most people learn to ignore p4man. He attacks before thinking. I guess he has nothing better to do.
What like you!!! I sent you one pm about a charity idea and my first ever pm to you and you go trolling my thread saying I've been spamming you!!!
you may want to stick to using fiat currencies that are well regulated by corrupt governments. If you invest in a bad-judgement and it turns out to be ponsi, said government will protect you by imprisoning said ponsi operator. No, you won't get your investment back, but the ponsi operators conviction will make you feel a lot better. bitcoin leaves you free to make your own choices, and then live with those choices.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that criminals be permitted to operate without limits and with no fear of consequences? I suspect that you are an American-style "libertarian." The need for justice exists regardless of your juvenile political leanings.
it seems you're not quite ready for that level of freedom.
I don't see how this follows.
It would delight me to see all responsible parties be made to pay for their activities and a measure of punative and restorative justice materialize. Maybe then future would-be scammers would think twice.
First: I didn't mean to attack you specifically, but more the trend, it was not meant personally.
Second: Your logic is that we should have a punishment so that criminals won't break the law then?
Justice entails both punishment and restitution. Deterrence is a way to control sociopaths and is certainly effective. Like the above poster, you seem quite pleased with the current state of affairs in which criminals operate without fear of consequences. This strikes me as a nauseatingly servile and passive position (so to speak) to take. And take it you shall, unless people start growing spines and cerebral cortexes.
It would delight me to see all responsible parties be made to pay for their activities and a measure of punative and restorative justice materialize. Maybe then future would-be scammers would think twice.
First: I didn't mean to attack you specifically, but more the trend, it was not meant personally.
Second: Your logic is that we should have a punishment so that criminals won't break the law then?
gene,
you may want to stick to using fiat currencies that are well regulated by corrupt governments. If you invest in a bad-judgement and it turns out to be ponsi, said government will protect you by imprisoning said ponsi operator. No, you won't get your investment back, but the ponsi operators conviction will make you feel a lot better. bitcoin leaves you free to make your own choices, and then live with those choices. it seems you're not quite ready for that level of freedom.
Enigma
you may want to stick to using fiat currencies that are well regulated by corrupt governments. If you invest in a bad-judgement and it turns out to be ponsi, said government will protect you by imprisoning said ponsi operator. No, you won't get your investment back, but the ponsi operators conviction will make you feel a lot better. bitcoin leaves you free to make your own choices, and then live with those choices. it seems you're not quite ready for that level of freedom.
Enigma
It amuses me (but does not surprise me) to see that pass-through operators continue posting as if they weren't profiting wildly from the scheme -- as if they are also just victims with no responsibility. Paybtc, burt, goat, starfish, and many others aren't fooling anyone with half a brain.
i'd love to see actual evidence of my 'profits', then perhaps i could attempt to spend some of it in real life instead of just viewing it as a meaningless number on the BS&T website.
See that's just the thing. Even if you took a loss, you still bear substantial responsiblity for the fraud that occurred. You are an accomplice even if pirate ripped you off in the end. There is enough evidence to demonstrate that you played a crucial role in helping pirate pull off the scam to greater effect than he could have alone. Your pleas of ignorance are also not convincing, even if they were a defense (which they are not).
Of course, I don't believe for a second that you didn't profit. You took a cut from the difference in "interest rates." This makes it even worse.
It amuses me (but does not surprise me) to see that pass-through operators continue posting as if they weren't profiting wildly from the scheme -- as if they are also just victims with no responsibility. Paybtc, burt, goat, starfish, and many others aren't fooling anyone with half a brain.
i'd love to see actual evidence of my 'profits', then perhaps i could attempt to spend some of it in real life instead of just viewing it as a meaningless number on the BS&T website.
My problem are the many people that were not vocal that maybe once before said "hrm.. ya it could be a ponzi" and are now coming out of the woodwork saying "oh ya see I told you!!! listen to me I always said that".
Not that I am god's gift to tracking 'team ponzi' but a lot of these people I have never heard of. It was always very clear where some people stood (like yourself) and the very vocal ones, the ones who stuck their necks out WAY before anything fell apart and did their own research/proof I have no issues with. It is the ones who seem to be jumping on the credibility train (micon) that really annoy me.
Perhaps I am being unfair.
Not that I am god's gift to tracking 'team ponzi' but a lot of these people I have never heard of. It was always very clear where some people stood (like yourself) and the very vocal ones, the ones who stuck their necks out WAY before anything fell apart and did their own research/proof I have no issues with. It is the ones who seem to be jumping on the credibility train (micon) that really annoy me.
Perhaps I am being unfair.
No. Like many others who apparently either lack moderate reading comprehension skills or are self-deluded, etc., you're simply missing the point. The only reason I even mentioned that I had tagged the obvious ponzi scheme was to refute myrkul's insinuation that I had failed to recognize the scam and "invested." My pseudonymous persona's ego doesn't benefit from credit (which I don't seek) for seeing what is plainly a fraud.
The point of my posts in this thread is to show how deep the corruption runs around here (theymos knowingly took part in the scheme and continues to facilitate an impressive array of chicaneries) and how illusory the notion of "reputation" has become. It amuses me (but does not surprise me) to see that pass-through operators continue posting as if they weren't profiting wildly from the scheme -- as if they are also just victims with no responsibility. Paybtc, burt, goat, starfish, and many others aren't fooling anyone with half a brain.
It would delight me to see all responsible parties be made to pay for their activities and a measure of punative and restorative justice materialize. Maybe then future would-be scammers would think twice.
My problem are the many people that were not vocal that maybe once before said "hrm.. ya it could be a ponzi" and are now coming out of the woodwork saying "oh ya see I told you!!! listen to me I always said that".
Not that I am god's gift to tracking 'team ponzi' but a lot of these people I have never heard of. It was always very clear where some people stood (like yourself) and the very vocal ones, the ones who stuck their necks out WAY before anything fell apart and did their own research/proof I have no issues with. It is the ones who seem to be jumping on the credibility train (micon) that really annoy me.
Perhaps I am being unfair.
Not that I am god's gift to tracking 'team ponzi' but a lot of these people I have never heard of. It was always very clear where some people stood (like yourself) and the very vocal ones, the ones who stuck their necks out WAY before anything fell apart and did their own research/proof I have no issues with. It is the ones who seem to be jumping on the credibility train (micon) that really annoy me.
Perhaps I am being unfair.
No. Like many others who apparently either lack moderate reading comprehension skills or are self-deluded, etc., you're simply missing the point. The only reason I even mentioned that I had tagged the obvious ponzi scheme was to refute myrkul's insinuation that I had failed to recognize the scam and "invested." My pseudonymous persona's ego doesn't benefit from credit (which I don't seek) for seeing what is plainly a fraud.
The point of my posts in this thread is to show how deep the corruption runs around here (theymos knowingly took part in the scheme and continues to facilitate an impressive array of chicaneries) and how illusory the notion of "reputation" has become. It amuses me (but does not surprise me) to see that pass-through operators continue posting as if they weren't profiting wildly from the scheme -- as if they are also just victims with no responsibility. Paybtc, burt, goat, starfish, and many others aren't fooling anyone with half a brain.
It would delight me to see all responsible parties be made to pay for their activities and a measure of punative and restorative justice materialize. Maybe then future would-be scammers would think twice.
Why is everyone so goddamned happy about pointing out that they "told you so".... I don't mean to 'pick on you' gene, you are one of many many many people that are saying "if you read my posts....." and I just don't get it? What is the point?
It's a way to reduce the chances that we have to do this again, and again, and again. The goal is to learn the maximum from this incident that it is possible to learn. And the key thing to learn is that if something looks exactly like a Ponzi, it's almost certainly a Ponzi.Not that I am god's gift to tracking 'team ponzi' but a lot of these people I have never heard of. It was always very clear where some people stood (like yourself) and the very vocal ones, the ones who stuck their necks out WAY before anything fell apart and did their own research/proof I have no issues with. It is the ones who seem to be jumping on the credibility train (micon) that really annoy me.
Perhaps I am being unfair.
I'm just tired of all the hate splashing off Pirate onto people who were offering a service the community clearly desired.
There's a desire for the endorsement of scams by bitcoin-forum admins
I didn't see endorsement. I saw offering of a way for the little guys to lose their shirts, too. Since so many of you jumped at it, clearly that was desired.
Heh, there's an original, completely irrelevant analogy. Never heard that one before. Remind me next time you get mugged to ask how you didn't see the cliff coming.
Right, because pirate held a gun to your head and forced you to give him your coins. Whose analogy is irrelevant?
Ehhh... the irony. I think you missed the point?
You had a point?
Did you, by chance, run a PPT? Is that the hidden land mine I stepped in?
Nope. In fact, I've been one of the ones advising against investing in pirate from the moment I noticed it.
I'm just tired of all the hate splashing off Pirate onto people who were offering a service the community clearly desired.
Ahhh, hate's a pretty strong word. I don't deal in hate. Life's too short.
There's a massive difference between a guy that dealt direct with Pirate and lost his own BTC, and a PPT op that managed other people's money for their own financial means.
The PPT ops let everyone down. The lowly guy investing 10 BTC is in no position to hire a PI and investigate every single asset he puts a bitcent into. The asset owner on the other hand... the PPT op... who is handling thousands of BTC -- other people's money --. Could have, maybe should have, just maybe done a little bit of research? I find it very disappointing how easily Trendon's bankruptcy and prior scams have come to light, not from the PPT ops who lost thousands of dollars of other people's money, but from other diligent forum members doing basic internet searches of public records. I don't hold the PPT ops responsible, rather, just find myself very disappointed. You have to hold yourself to a higher standard when working with other people's money. You have a duty to protect and represent them in a way that you would want to be protected and represented.
I'm just tired of all the hate splashing off Pirate onto people who were offering a service the community clearly desired.
There's a desire for the endorsement of scams by bitcoin-forum admins
Heh, there's an original, completely irrelevant analogy. Never heard that one before. Remind me next time you get mugged to ask how you didn't see the cliff coming.
Right, because pirate held a gun to your head and forced you to give him your coins. Whose analogy is irrelevant?
Ehhh... the irony. I think you missed the point?
You had a point?
Did you, by chance, run a PPT? Is that the hidden land mine I stepped in?
Nope. In fact, I've been one of the ones advising against investing in pirate from the moment I noticed it.
I'm just tired of all the hate splashing off Pirate onto people who were offering a service the community clearly desired.
Jump to: