Topic: Putting your money where Pirate's mouth is. - page 34. (Read 73367 times)

I've been running BS&T awhile now and the ultimate goal to prove your case is that I don't have the coins to repay my lenders.

The terms I stated before are still the only way I'll play this game.

If I default (payments fall past-due longer than 7 days or BS&T is unable to process a withdraw after 72 hours.), you win.

If I return every coin to my lenders at anytime prior to the end of the bet or my operation last longer than the deadline, I win.

Good point. I think the losing penalty needs to be more severe for both players (no, not a sexual punishment, Psy, although I like the way you think).

Vandroiy's risk is not huge, it's just that for Pirate - regardless of the truth - there is no risk at all. It's a pointless bet. Pirate wins either way.


Psy, you're right. I should just come out and say it here: I'm actually Vandroiys mother.

*sigh*

As you can see I'm not a very good troll, Psy, but when I am I'm an Equal Opportunities troll. I promise I'll try harder next time.

This bet is actually a win-win for both players

-Vandroyi: He deposits let's say 2.500 coins with Pirateat40; if he wins the bet he wins 2.500 BTC (100% return) and if he loses he will get 82.500 BTC from Pirateat40

-Pirateat40: It's a confidence booster for BTCST, so legit or not he will profit from it

Excellent job, they are both buying time and both stand to gain much more they they bet

Wasn't talking about my proposal, I was asking you for your opinion on Meni's which is a completely different kettle of boots. As for a thread split, you might just want to start an Official BS&T Wager thread for clarity.

Because Pirate has nothing to lose. For him, it's not a bet. If he's going to default, it's an investment to encourage investor confidence.


It's not that. I'm sure you have assessed the risks and are comfortable with them. I just don't think it will achieve anything other than one of you losing. It certainly won't make people stop and think before investing more with BS&T.

Let the kid manage his own risk.
Or are you just like him and will troll him until he drops any risky investment he's about to do?

Uh-huh.    Aaaanyway, are we also to assume that by you making this bet you're going to give it a rest and stop trolling pirate going forward, along with whichever other cronies also join in?

Hm, you're right I have somehow derailed the thread. I explained on PM why your bond doesn't make sense though. Should we still split the thread or something? Oh, and sorry for the nick typo.

I fear the bond discussion will just get convoluted. Short version: if you really want to know, sit down and try to simulate that bond with an actual Ponzi as a model. You'll see the Ponzi paying ridiculous interest on ridiculous numbers in the end, which can never be paid, while the bond burns real money rapidly.

Trying to explain the reasoning here in detail contradicts the very reason Pirateat40 is offering this bet: many people don't really try to understand things even if they are important and happen in plain sight. He is an expert on judging what people will and will not see. It's not the right game for me to play. Plus, if I'm right, it would cost me a bet with positive expectation value even if I persuade people against all odds, so why not try the bet first?

I never claimed it'll work for me with 100%. I won't starve if I lose the 5k. Bitcoin would just miss out on some later move I might use them for. But it's surprising how people are concerned for me, yesterday I was still under the impression the whole forum hated me.

Hah! I see what you did there. Serves me right for having a cut and paste nick.

  I don't see it. Pirate has nothing to lose in your current arrangement. The risk is all yours and the bet itself will work against your stated aims.


Not discuss it here? The thread that started by suggesting a bond based wager? Perhaps you should start an official "Bet" thread, then

organofcorti: (oops, edited for spellfail)

As I see it, that bond was not just one, but two classes worse than the current bet. If I understood it correctly, this stems from the mistake of identifying funds within a Ponzi, paper money, with real funds -- the time-frame in which a majority of imaginary funds get inflated in the Ponzi is used as a reference, to then eat up real funds in the bond. But it would be good if we don't discuss this here, it just distracts from the bet at hand.

@ Vandroiy: I'm reminded that Meni Rosenfeld actually IPO'd a better bond than my OP and much better than the wager you're considering: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/glbse-discontinued-anti-pirate-bonds-for-negative-btcst-investments-77265

It would mean you could indeed put your money where your mouth it without risking increasing investor confidence in BS&T. Quite the reverse.

You really wont reconsider?

To make this stand out:

Pirateat40, is it okay if the donation funds get locked up until the end of the bet even if you manage a seemingly orderly shutdown, and the bet continues on whatever operations of similar type you might run until the deadline or that stem off BS&T? This is security against tricks in which BS&T effectively just renames or re-opens, and the pay-out is not really what is seems to be.

I'll try to get a final formulation of the bet asap.

The bet isn't about what rate of interest would make you suspect a Ponzi, but whether BS&T defaults.


If BS&T is a Ponzi, then reducing the interest rate might make it last longer. But another year? Another 18 months? It would be a lot of work for little gain. I don't think there are enough btc investors to make it worthwhile running a Ponzi for another 12 months at 150% pa, unless nobody takes their interest payments.

Hey, I know what Pirate's doing! I've changed my mind. He's not running a time travel operation in order to own bitcoin - he's a rich kid with a coke habit and borrowing money from coiners is less risky than owing the mob.

Did you really think we would do that, after an enormous campaign and nanotube ensuring that on error, all the funds go to charity? This is am important point: even if we miss our estimate and there's a catastrophe, my name should be redeemed at all times -- either I'm donating to charity, or there was a default and everyone must shut up. All effect on the Ponzi is locking down 5k and a little publicity he could get for that price anyway.

Why in the world would I not accept? Because you track stolen funds to me in the block chain? It's been discussed, returning them holds way too much danger of Pirateat40 screwing with bookkeeping, also it would be nuts if the community were to punish betting against a Ponzi after the fact -- the funds may be stolen, but they hedge the risk we're taking now. People should have used their brain before this is the last way out.

Either way, we can cheaply get a warranty that either we do not lose money or there is a hard time-limit on a Ponzi operation. It's perfect! All we want, pretty much no matter what happens. This ends our problem with the situation conclusively.

It's win-win-win. Even the unlikely scenarios are no catastrophe, and each one should make this place more civilized.



ribuck, Vladimir: it goes to charity! Whatever.

Edit: I can prove he can't strengthen the Ponzi with this financially or in terms of timing, and I'm long lost at psychology, so hell knows about that. Anyway, this bet should not help the Ponzi in terms of funds. Even if I lose, all that happens from his point of view is 5k being locked up. He can't run in Ponzi mode even at +100% pa or I can profit from him regardless. He'd have to go down to Madoff-style, which is insane given his current position.



Yes, this is something Pirateat40 still has to agree on. If he is able to shut down and wait until the deadline, yes I am fine with the donation then. However, if he just builds some temporary shutdown, then continues with his name/company/reputation in a similar operation and defaults with that before the deadline, I still win.

I hope it's understandable that a real Ponzi pro might be able to obtain funds somewhere that can temporarily pay out people or might be able to trick large depositors into faking a temporary shutdown. Bitcoins don't go bad, there will still be the need for charity later on, I don't see a reason to hurry.

Vandroly, have you taken into account the possibility that a pre-announced large reduction in interest paid by Pirate could occur and wouldn't count as a default.

You're convinced that 3000%+ per annum must be a ponzi, but perhaps 150% per annum wouldn't be. Or even if it was, it might delay default beyond the closing date for the bet.

It is not wise to make a bet on some event where outcome of that even depends (even if only to some degree) on actions of the party that takes the other side of the bet.

I suggest to back out and to not give any further incentive to prolong the alleged ponzi.

Doesn't this contradict the note below?

Shh! i like it when people throw away their money without weighing their situation or seeing it from anything but their tunnel-vision view!

Vandroiy, you've gone from a wager where the risks were known and (IMO) fairly equitable, to a wager where the risk is all on your side. Pirate can't lose: either he's stumping up 5000 btc to buoy investor confidence, or he's got nothing to fear because he's legit. Either way, your risk is higher since his is nil.

Also, if you're correct and BS&T is a Ponzi, simply having a bet against Pirate only rather than his followers will do more harm than good. The 5000 btc bet will make people far more confident of BS&T, and people will lose interest in it the bet very quickly. In fact, after the initial publicity, I predict that people will forget unless reminded, or Pirate defaults, or a year is up without him defaulting.

I'd ask you to think twice but you're clearly going to go ahead. Folly! I say.

The only "pocket ace" I'm afraid of is people discrediting me for obtaining stolen funds I can't pay back for a multitude of reasons. I don't think that is something Pirateat40 cares about though, and I'm not so certain he wants to get back at me. Just playing his game like a pro.

Good thing if you love the show.

To these joining: please be aware that odds of this working get worse if too many people join. Due to the charity operation, risk is not super-high, but I just want to say the 5k were deliberate because of some tail risks I can't rule out.

Also, I will keep the bet such that it doesn't end before the target date or a default, and add a clause against payout-rename tricks and the likes for the unlikely case he can still push in BTC from wherever and is aiming for the sky of Bitcoin Ponzis. And a comment on the charity thing on Pirateat40's side -- really, what a move. I basically can't feel bad about it even if he had some way to trick me.

I will have access to a trading PC later today, and hope we can seal this then.