Pages:
Author

Topic: Putting your money where Pirate's mouth is. - page 25. (Read 73367 times)

mrb
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1027
 
I would consider it. You didn't reveal the "secret" of your miner until others discovered the same leverage, did you?
Edit: From https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.40902 I note you claimed a 6.3% advantage for owners of 69xx cards, with minimal disclosure, for 250BTC.  At least you said GPUs were involved.  Wink

Correct.

Now, back to my thought experiment: it is interesting because, as a matter of fact, it is more than merely a thought experiment. I do run at least 3 Bitcoin ventures and I would accept capital to fund their expansion. I can talk about 2 of them. My first venture is a 24Ghash/s FPGA farm. My second is the development and sale of a small number of prototype devices to remotely power on and off up to 36 computers, whose price will significantly undercut all commercial offerings by a large margin. Finally, my 3rd venture shall remain undisclosed.

Running some numbers, I am prepared to make the following offer to you (or anybody else who is interested):
- invest 10 BTC minimum, 100 BTC maximum
- I guarantee a return on investment of 5% per week (not quite 7%, I admit, but enough to compete reasonably with pirate who will lower his rates on August 1st)

reeses: I emailed you a deposit address if you wish to invest. Anybody else who is interested to invest should PM me. I will close this investment opportunity as soon as I deem I have received enough funds.

Thanks!
hero member
Activity: 695
Merit: 500
Charles Ponzi, in 1920, was in a different situation, compared to an anonymous bitcoin environment. He ran his scheme to the very end, went bankrupt and into jail, because he could not run away and disappear. He served drinks to his "customers", who were staging a bank run and gathering at his door, just to extend his time of fame by one more minute.

But now let's look at the personality of a (still hypothetical) Ponzi scheme operator. (I'll call him "he" for simplicity.)

We know some of his personality traits pretty well. He lacks law abidingness. He is extremely greedy. He must be an excellent liar. He must be thoroughly anti-social. He must be somewhat intelligent. (If he were highly intelligent, he probably would not have to resort to crime to make a good living.) In short, he is a low-life form you don't really want to share the same planet with.

Now let us look at how a Ponzi scheme ends. At first thought, one would think that it ends when interest exceeds new deposits, but it is not so. In fact, forget about interest. Think about the actual heap of money the Ponzi scheme operator has collected.

He will continue running the scheme as long as that heap grows. But, of course, growth will sooner or later stagnate and make way for some random sequence of growth and shrink phases, as "investors" withdraw some or all of their gain.

That is the time when an intelligent Ponzi operator will shut down and run with the money. However, greed may get in his way. He will hope to rake in a million of dollars, if he could just bridge this problem period and convince more newcomers to part with their money.

He will do anything to make that happen. He will keep promising totally unsustainable yields, he will accept any new "investment", no matter what, he will try various kinds of publicity stunts, even bets he is sure to lose.

However, at some point even the stupidest "investor" will realize that, assuming that at some time a Ponzi scheme amassed, say, BTC100,000, at 7% per week there would be BTC10million just 1.3 years later. BTC10m? Where would these  come from?

So sooner or later the "investors" will attempt to withdraw. Some will do that anyway, because they want to buy a new car or a new house. The early "investors" should have amassed a neat stash after a couple of months, many times more than their original "investment", so the tendency to withdraw grows by the day.

Needless to say, the amount of money actually available in a Ponzi scheme is tiny, compared with the amount the scheme owes, so even a trickle of payouts will quickly make its operator very nervous.

Sooner, rather than later, the Ponzi scheme operator will realize that the millions of dollars he hoped to rake in are unattainable, and he'd better be content with what he has, so he will disappear. Perhaps he will make some moves before that, designed to stall and confuse the "investors". He might state that he sold or gave away his business, he might pretend he got sick or died, he might do confusing deals with sub-contractors, he might invent maneuvers I cannot even think of. But ultimately he will cease to pay up, and that will be the end.

Now let's look at the currently ongoing Ponzi scheme. After the discussion here, new "investors", even the most gullible ones, may have become a bit weary, so we may currently experience a phase of stalling new "investments". Whether this is enough to let the bubble burst, remains to be seen. In the most Ponzi-favorable circumstances, i.e. no big withdrawals and a very optimistic (or greedy, to be more precise) Ponzi operator, willing to risk much of his accumulated stash, the scheme may weather this storm and carry on, but how long would it take for the less optimistic "investors" to run for safety and withdraw? After all, they could withdraw their money, wait for just a month or two, and if the "business", against all odds, survives, come back and "reinvest". At least some people believe that only the first very few withdrawers will actually see their money, so a withdrawal now would be the safest path to riches. My personal guess is weeks or a few months. A year should be out of the question because there aren't enough bitcoins in existence to make it believable, even for the mathematically challenged.

And don't think that he could just lower the interest rate. If he did, more people would withdraw their money. It's a one-way road, and not a long one.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
Arghhh.... Don't ruin this thread with all this spam. I was actually enjoying the show with all them bets and everything until it turned into insult on insult.

Anyone mind if I change the thread name to the "Let's insult each other"?

I propose an entirely new thread dedicated to insulting each other.

Done. Please move insulting posts to:  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1020413

hero member
Activity: 695
Merit: 500
hey Vandroiy, can i ask why you are not hedging your bet?? 66BTC at 65 weeks is all it would take...
seems rather illogical not to.

Why should he hedge a bet that he'll win anyway?
vip
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.
There really is no reasoning with you because you flat out see it as a ponzi because of one or many of the following assumptions/premises, even though they may/may not by faulty:

  • No business can earn 7%+ a week over the course of a long term.
  • No business would borrow at 7% a week over the course of the long term.
  • No business would continue to borrow at 7% over the course of the long term, instead opting to use their own funds/profits.
  • Pirate has an insatiable appetite for more coins.
  • Pirate won't reveal his day to day business operations.


Have I missed something?

That's a pretty comprehensive list, I think you covered all the bases.

Ok, now that we established the reasons you think its a ponzi, it is much simpler to talk about.  Saying 'ponzi ponzi ponzi' doesn't make it one and its hard to rebut.


Now please explain how those items make pirate a ponzi. Don't pull in other stuff, use those items.  You said it was a comprehensive list.

Right off the bat, I see items 1,2, and 5 as being patently false and not ponzi behavior, which leaves only 3 and 4, both of which need citation/documentation.
member
Activity: 89
Merit: 10

But debating all this is pointless, as pirateat40 divulges no information whatsoever.

False.


Just to give a ballpark idea, since this thread started (July 4th) my net change in storage is +9.96%. 

mrb
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1027
reeses, honest question: if I tell you I have a business plan that I want to keep secret, but that I am a trusted forum member since Dec 2010 and have a good rating on btc-otc (both true), and that my business will return 7% per week, would you invest in me? If not, why?
mrb
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1027
The wall isn't hit until the withdraws start. If the biggest investors aren't compounding, that means there's even less in there since they've been continually pulling their interest. Now its just about who's the first to pull their principal.
No derp.  Let me explain it for you.. the largest accounts are taking interest payments, which means the little accounts would have to be depositing like crazy in order to pay for the large accounts.  If the little accounts are depositing like crazy, they aren't going to be the little accounts anymore, which means they really AREN'T depositing enough which means pirate is finding the funds elsewhere... like profits, not ponzi.  You idiots think the 7%ers are blind, but damn, you guys are failing basic logic now.

Or, the most likely explanation, is that the rate of creation of new accounts is increasing over time at a rate sufficient to cover interest payments (like most Ponzi schemes, until they collapse).

But debating all this is pointless, as pirateat40 divulges no information whatsoever. He does not even publish basic financial information, such as the total amount invested in BTCS&T, or deposits/withdrawals per week, which he could do without revealing his "secret business plan" (but he can't because revealing his books would expose the fraud...)
legendary
Activity: 826
Merit: 1001
rippleFanatic
They should withdraw if they see their own deposits slowing.

See, now you're making assumptions.  You're telling people what to do as if it were a ponzi but you've not actually established it is one. 

There really is no reasoning with you because you flat out see it as a ponzi because of one or many of the following assumptions/premises, even though they may/may not by faulty:

  • No business can earn 7%+ a week over the course of a long term.
  • No business would borrow at 7% a week over the course of the long term.
  • No business would continue to borrow at 7% over the course of the long term, instead opting to use their own funds/profits.
  • Pirate has an insatiable appetite for more coins.
  • Pirate won't reveal his day to day business operations.


Have I missed something?

That's a pretty comprehensive list, I think you covered all the bases.
vip
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.
Ahh... I am closer to you than you think. Mountain View is just south of SF  Wink
We do not have the Euro in Denmark, but we are part of the EU. Slightly confusing. The Danish currency has however been locked to the Euro for years, and before that to the German Mark. So we have all the trouble of not having the Euro, while none of the benefits.
OK, back on topic.

Having the Euro is a benefit?   Roll Eyes
Jan
legendary
Activity: 1043
Merit: 1002
Sorry, I didn't get much sense out of your reply.
Anyway, I don't know where you live, but visiting Denmark on the way to Dubai is for most people not exactly on the route.
(BTW: Denmark is not exactly a continent.)

I live in San Francisco, on the western coast of the USA.  København is "on the way" to Dubai and India if you have to hit all three in a week. ;>

And as I understand it, the Euro is a currency that covers more than Denmark.

I apologize for being confusing.

Ahh... I am closer to you than you think. Mountain View is just south of SF  Wink
We do not have the Euro in Denmark, but we are part of the EU. Slightly confusing. The Danish currency has however been locked to the Euro for years, and before that to the German Mark. So we have all the trouble of not having the Euro, while none of the benefits.
OK, back on topic.
Jan
legendary
Activity: 1043
Merit: 1002
Sorry, I didn't get much sense out of your reply.
Anyway, I don't know where you live, but visiting Denmark on the way to Dubai is for most people not exactly on the route.
(BTW: Denmark is not exactly a continent.)
vip
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.
They should withdraw if they see their own deposits slowing.

See, now you're making assumptions.  You're telling people what to do as if it were a ponzi but you've not actually established it is one. 

There really is no reasoning with you because you flat out see it as a ponzi because of one or many of the following assumptions/premises, even though they may/may not by faulty:

  • No business can earn 7%+ a week over the course of a long term.
  • No business would borrow at 7% a week over the course of the long term.
  • No business would continue to borrow at 7% over the course of the long term, instead opting to use their own funds/profits.
  • Pirate has an insatiable appetite for more coins.
  • Pirate won't reveal his day to day business operations.


Have I missed something?
Jan
legendary
Activity: 1043
Merit: 1002
To put things into perspective, the Danish currency is pretty popular in these financial crisis times, so to keep the Danish Kroner at the same exchange rate towards the Euro they have lowered the interest rate to -0.2% (yes, thats negative interest rate). Banks are still investing as they consider this a safer place to invest than many alternatives out there.
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKL6E8I5A8520120705?irpc=932

For some reason BS&T can give you 3000+%, maybe I should contact some Danish bankers and thell them that there are alternatives  Roll Eyes
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
Perhaps a suggestion to Pirate --just to shut the critics up:

Very simply, why not just return all the principal and interest to all of your clientele? It's likely that all the investors you have now will reinvest and/or return to you even after the interim closure. It might temporarily disrupt your business for a few days, but it's probably nothing you couldn't cure over the short term with your profits.

I'm not sure how this could be proven without full disclosure from all of the participants, and it does expose some of the privacy from each of the account holders, but I'm sure it could be arranged with nanotube for him to make the final determination. Additionally, it shouldn't be considered a trick either, since if it were a true Ponzi, the interest and principal could not be returned, thus incurring a default. The only other possibility is Pirate's deep pockets and infinite altruism.

All things being equal, I think it would be a hassle, but it would make for some really interesting newsworthiness. Events such as these could very well prove that the less the regulatory friction, the better returns on the average, are available to market participants. I hate the cost of overhead...

Personally, I don't care whether or not it's a Ponzi, I like the game. It is what it is. I can live with that.

EDIT: Scratch that. I just remembered that Mt.Gox limits outflows. That would suck for me until I became qualified. I guess I better get on that, eh?
legendary
Activity: 826
Merit: 1001
rippleFanatic
No derp.  Let me explain it for you.. the largest accounts are taking interest payments, which means the little accounts would have to be depositing like crazy in order to pay for the large accounts.  If the little accounts are depositing like crazy, they aren't going to be the little accounts anymore, which means they really AREN'T depositing enough which means pirate is finding the funds elsewhere... like profits, not ponzi.  You idiots think the 7%ers are blind, but damn, you guys are failing basic logic now.

Or pirate is making those interest payments with investor principal both large and small (as I originally said, not enough principal to go around now). If you allow for that possibility, then you can't derive your proof by contradiction ("if little accounts are depositing like crazy, they aren't little accounts. therefore, pirate is generating real profits. ergo sum").

So, therefore, he's been using investor principal to pay large lenders' interest. As long as new deposits come in faster than the interest payments, then the total funds grow and it makes sense for the operator to continue paying interest. When new deposits stop coming, an operator who wants to maximize his personal profit will stop paying interest and you get default.

The lenders doing pass-through have an edge on the timing since they have access to more information. They should withdraw if they see their own deposits slowing.
member
Activity: 89
Merit: 10
hey Vandroiy, can i ask why you are not hedging your bet?? 66BTC at 65 weeks is all it would take...
seems rather illogical not to.
vip
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.
Or the part where many people don't compound...

the largest investors aren't compounding.  We'd have hit the wall already if it were really a ponzi.

The wall isn't hit until the withdraws start. If the biggest investors aren't compounding, that means there's even less in there since they've been continually pulling their interest. Now its just about who's the first to pull their principal.

No derp.  Let me explain it for you.. the largest accounts are taking interest payments, which means the little accounts would have to be depositing like crazy in order to pay for the large accounts.  If the little accounts are depositing like crazy, they aren't going to be the little accounts anymore, which means they really AREN'T depositing enough which means pirate is finding the funds elsewhere... like profits, not ponzi.  You idiots think the 7%ers are blind, but damn, you guys are failing basic logic now.
legendary
Activity: 826
Merit: 1001
rippleFanatic
Or the part where many people don't compound...

the largest investors aren't compounding.  We'd have hit the wall already if it were really a ponzi.

The wall isn't hit until the withdraws start. If the biggest investors aren't compounding, that means there's even less in there since they've been continually pulling their interest. Now its just about who's the first to pull their principal.
vip
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.
Or the part where many people don't compound...

the largest investors aren't compounding.  We'd have hit the wall already if it were really a ponzi.
Pages:
Jump to: