Topic: Starfish BCB - Loans and Deposits - page 15. (Read 60537 times)
I know financially that's not the case, but it just "feels" as if that's taking other people's interest to cover current people's withdrawals. Money is fungible, of course, so yeah, that's not the case.
I have not requested a withdraw and my account is a re-invest interest account. So my account is "all on paper."
As such, the latest amount shows that 1% was credited to my balance.
I don't know if that clears up anything, but that's what my numbers are.
As such, the latest amount shows that 1% was credited to my balance.
I don't know if that clears up anything, but that's what my numbers are.
He sent out a payment and adjusted our balances accordingly after including the interest.
Say he sent you 7 btc, he only took your balance down by like 6.6btc because he would have owed you ~0.4 btc in interest.
Say he sent you 7 btc, he only took your balance down by like 6.6btc because he would have owed you ~0.4 btc in interest.
quote.
I'm not sure actually, but I see what you are getting at.
I think the people who didn't ask for withdrawals just have everything "on paper" i.e. imaginary numbers signifying a debt. But he may be forcing everyone to withdraw, I'm not sure. Or maybe the people who haven't requested a withdrawal are earning more interest? (1% still), albeit still somewhat "imaginary".
He sent out a payment and adjusted our balances accordingly after including the interest.
Say he sent you 7 btc, he only took your balance down by like 6.6btc because he would have owed you ~0.4 btc in interest.
Say he sent you 7 btc, he only took your balance down by like 6.6btc because he would have owed you ~0.4 btc in interest.
Let me see if I can explain what I mean (example):
There are two investors, each invested 10BTC. Total of accounts is 20BTC
One investor notifies the bank that he wants to withdraw his money. The bank only has 5BTC on hand, so can't pay out in full.
Interest payment comes in. Interest earned on all accounts is 2BTC, so now each account should have 11BTC.
What the bank actually has on-hand is now 5BTC + 2BTC interest = 7BTC
The investor asking for a withdrawal comes up to get his money, and receives 7BTC. He is still owed 4BTC.
The second guy has 11BTC in the bank, but since there's no actual money there, it's all on paper.
Is that what's happening?
Or does the guy who asked for a withdrawal only gets 5 + 1 = 6BTC, with the other 1BTC going into the account of the guy who's not withdrawing?
EDIT: Though, now that I think about it, I guess it doesn't matter.
Anyway, weekly interest has been paid, and available funds (loan repayment proceeds) have been pro-rata paid to those with withdrawal requests. Transactions will hit the blockchain when the wallet syncs properly.
Waitwaitwait. You can't pay all the loan requests, but you can pay interest? Where are those interest payments coming from? I hope when you say "weekly interest paid" you mean you actually took what you received in interest, and split it up between all the investors, so that their actual BTC holding accounts have increased, instead of just increasing everyone's interest on paper, and giving out ALL available BTC to cover withdrawal requests. Cause, um, if this interest is just on paper, there's a word for that.
He sent out a payment and adjusted our balances accordingly after including the interest.
Say he sent you 7 btc, he only took your balance down by like 6.6btc because he would have owed you ~0.4 btc in interest.
Anyway, weekly interest has been paid, and available funds (loan repayment proceeds) have been pro-rata paid to those with withdrawal requests. Transactions will hit the blockchain when the wallet syncs properly.
Waitwaitwait. You can't pay all the loan requests, but you can pay interest? Where are those interest payments coming from? I hope when you say "weekly interest paid" you mean you actually took what you received in interest, and split it up between all the investors, so that their actual BTC holding accounts have increased, instead of just increasing everyone's interest on paper, and giving out ALL available BTC to cover withdrawal requests.
weekly interest has been paid, and available funds (loan repayment proceeds) have been pro-rata paid
received
Not sure why I'm responding to someone who has my on ignore, but I do agree that if breaching anonymity would harm collection efforts, that would justify preserving it. I would think the depositors deserve to be told specifically which loans are being kept anonymous for that reason, and if there wasn't reasonable progress towards collection on a reasonable schedule, anonymity should then be breached. Without being a jerk, the threat of publicized default can be leveraged to obtain collection. It's not that you're abusing this to pressure them to pay, it's just that realistically, those covering the default are entitled to either reasonable payments or knowing who defaulted on them.
The tricky case would be the guy who says something like, "Keep me anonymous, and I'll pay 35%. Tell anyone who I am, and I'll pay nothing."
The tricky case would be the guy who says something like, "Keep me anonymous, and I'll pay 35%. Tell anyone who I am, and I'll pay nothing."
Not so tricky. Patrick should then simply make public the extortion and let deposit holders decide if they want to accept it or not. Its their money on the line, so its their choice if they would rather lose 100% but know who owes it, or 65% to someone unknown.
IF you are going to +1 it, you might at least address Joel's point. Why would you want to protect the anonymity of defaulted lenders from the depositors that have to pay for it?
Joel is on ignore. As for the question, presumably you wouldn't need to protect the anonymity unless it harms collection efforts, which it very well may.The tricky case would be the guy who says something like, "Keep me anonymous, and I'll pay 35%. Tell anyone who I am, and I'll pay nothing."
Dont let the bastards get you down Patrick.
Actually, they are proving to be slightly irritating noise in the back ground currently, and I rather don't care what they have to say. The people I do care about are the people that have funds tied up in this mess, and while the trolls may have "saved" people from themselves and can have some nice "I told you so", they are probably the largest contributors to the current situation. They would of course deny that and probably spend the next few hours explaining why I am wrong.
Anyway, weekly interest has been paid, and available funds (loan repayment proceeds) have been pro-rata paid to those with withdrawal requests. Transactions will hit the blockchain when the wallet syncs properly.
Updated list of balances at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.981017
+1
IF you are going to +1 it, you might at least address Joel's point. Why would you want to protect the anonymity of defaulted lenders from the depositors that have to pay for it?
Joel is on ignore. As for the question, presumably you wouldn't need to protect the anonymity unless it harms collection efforts, which it very well may.
+1
IF you are going to +1 it, you might at least address Joel's point. Why would you want to protect the anonymity of defaulted lenders from the depositors that have to pay for it?
He has never behaved less than impeccably in his business here yet since Pirate's gone he's the next easy target.
Has he yet disclosed to his investors what obligations he has, what assets he will use to cover those obligations, and what losses are being passed on to them? If not, I'd say he's behaving at least a bit less than impeccably.Shouldn't this be something very easy to put together? Would be a quick way to make the trolls go away.
If the list is going to be itemized, that's a privacy concern.
If it isn't, then haven't we been shown those numbers already?
I'm not sure the lack of such information impacts Patrick's peccability at all.
+1
If the list is going to be itemized, that's a privacy concern.
If you default on a loan, do you really have a right to hide your identity from the people who loaned you that money? Surely a promise of anonymity would be conditional on keeping the promise to pay. Even if not explicitly stated as such, if you promise to pay me $50/week and I promise to give you my car after 20 weeks, I sure as heck don't have to give you the car if you don't pay. And if they are kept anonymous, how can the people eating the default know that the default actually occurred?Quote
If it isn't, then haven't we been shown those numbers already?
Not quite. Patrick has posted and then unposted numbers. He hasn't, at least as far as I am aware, made a list of actual defaulted loans, even without their identity.Quote
I'm not sure the lack of such information impacts Patrick's peccability at all.
It's the difference between "Sorry, you lost 100 Bitcoins" and "Sorry, you lost 100 Bitcoins because I loaned 100 Bitcoins to Jeff in early December, transaction ID Y, and he made interest payments until last week, and has since been unable to pay principal." The former asks for a level of trust that would be unnecessary if he were telling the truth. It's roughly the difference between just telling someone else their property was stolen versus giving them a copy of the police report. 
He has never behaved less than impeccably in his business here yet since Pirate's gone he's the next easy target.
Has he yet disclosed to his investors what obligations he has, what assets he will use to cover those obligations, and what losses are being passed on to them? If not, I'd say he's behaving at least a bit less than impeccably.Shouldn't this be something very easy to put together? Would be a quick way to make the trolls go away.
If the list is going to be itemized, that's a privacy concern.
If it isn't, then haven't we been shown those numbers already?
I'm not sure the lack of such information impacts Patrick's peccability at all.
Would be a quick way to make the trolls go away.
The very fact that they are labelled trolls makes that highly unlikely.I guess "troll" is directly proportional to the level of transparency they're asking for.
Would be a quick way to make the trolls go away.
The very fact that they are labelled trolls makes that highly unlikely. He has never behaved less than impeccably in his business here yet since Pirate's gone he's the next easy target.
Has he yet disclosed to his investors what obligations he has, what assets he will use to cover those obligations, and what losses are being passed on to them? If not, I'd say he's behaving at least a bit less than impeccably.Shouldn't this be something very easy to put together? Would be a quick way to make the trolls go away.
As an example, I have 1000 coins with HashKing that I don't worry about,
I think you are giving him too much credit. His other actions strongly suggest that he knows fully well the likely consequences. His posting tactics (including those of his wife -- sorry, it's true) seem to go a bit too far for him to be just an "honest fool."
Let's see how moderate your language would be when your dearly beloved is being trolled FOR NO REASON! He has never behaved less than impeccably in his business here yet since Pirate's gone he's the next easy target.
I have as much right as you to be here but I get called ''shill'' (whatever that means) etc. I guess I make an easy target.
keep at it mrs. harnett, your husband has my respect and a few others, don't let these forum trolls get to you.
Dont let the bastards get you down Patrick.
Jump to: