337600+ entries in 2.035s
GamblingMan: You can probably buy
a few thousand shares.
GamblingMan: Sucks to take
a loss on this crap, but it is what
a deserve for funneling money to Mpex.
GamblingMan: You should have stuck with the original test, but I assume after losing
a few dozen times in
a row using the 98% address, you gave up. ;)
assbot: Requesting data from GLBSE (might take
a while, also might return fishy results as it does not account for splits etc).
GamblingMan: I guess I might as well cut my losses now and sell
a few thousand more.
GamblingMan: I've sold off
a few thousand shares already this morning.
mircea_popescu: GamblingMan suppose it doesn't want to send them w/o
a fee.
GamblingMan: Strange that
a site like Satoshi Dice can't figure out how to send transactions with no fees... That is beginner BTC stuff.
GamblingMan: I thought you'd post
a nice %. I already know what your results will be...
mircea_popescu: but anyway, iirc AAPL paid something like .5%
a year last, so
mircea_popescu: there's
a big ass independent audit thread in btctalk, want me to dig it ?
OneEyed: Shit, transactions not accepted to memory pool, sucker, after some of them. I'll have to wait
a bit to get 100 of them
GamblingMan: Run
a test, publish it, and prepare to be flamed.
GamblingMan: Their best claimed return address actuall returns less than 48% consistently in my tests that were performed over
a several week period.
OneEyed: Why would I play
a game where the odds are against me,
GamblingMan: Satoshi Dice is
a terrible site to use, terrible company to invest in, and it is listed on
a terrible exchange.
copumpkin: so you're seriously telling me "I went to
a casino and played for days, and I lost money! mommy mommy they're scamming"
GamblingMan: Turns out that was
a horrible financial decision.
jcpham: mpex isn't
a scam as far as i know
midnightmagic: GamblingMan: SatoshiDice is
a distributed denial of service attack that the creators have convinced users to do to themselves, while stealing their money, and forcing the users themselves to bloat their own blockchain .dat files. They are exploiting
a human cognitive bias to do so, and are therefore evil.
GamblingMan: Not sure why I thought it wasn't
a scam, being listed on the Mpex
OneEyed: Ok, so eating
a big plate of French fries makes you more efficient while you're digesting than eating
a salad, right? Can't believe this :)
jcpham: as an asset, as
a site, and an anything
midnightmagic: OneEyed: I'm saying fats crush appetites better than carbs do, and that comparison is
a good example of
a false analogy.
OneEyed: midnightmagic: are you saying that eating fat food compared to
a light meal does not divert blood for digestion?
midnightmagic: OneEyed: That's not
a fact. Fats it turns out may be better for humans, including human brains.
GamblingMan: Looks like the dividend is less than 6%
a year!
OneEyed: Smoovious: but would for example
a librarian endanger other people by having drunk
a little too much, or should he be helped to avoid that it happens again?
GamblingMan: I bought some shares thinking it would pay
a decent dividend...
OneEyed: Smoovious: didn't mean you wouldn't have done
a good job
OneEyed: I'm not saying that's
a reasonable plan, 5 strikes also seem
a lot to me. But you should try to put yourself into other people shoes before judging. Do you really think the teacher unions would battle to obtain such
a text just for free, out of the blue, without any discussion, just because union teachers get drunk all the time maybe?
OneEyed: Smoovious: sure, as people who get depressed, they can just work this out themselves, no need for help, that's not
a disease
OneEyed: Smoovious: this acknowledges it as
a disease, that can be cured, but is not easy to. I guess if the impregnated person was at risk of harming students in any way, then other texts and sanctions would apply.
OneEyed: midnightmagic: you could find it on the forum, I'm not sure I would be able to find it in
a reasonable time, but you should look for yourself, try "Trendon Shavers" "DBA" "English" if the forum software lets you do that
midnightmagic: OneEyed: I would be interested to know about the "name of
a guy who didn't even speak English" part. Where did you read that?
midnightmagic: OneEyed: If I had concluded it was not
a scam, I would have been on the "buying up pirate debt" train
a long time ago.
OneEyed: Smoovious:
a lot of *facts* call for scam. He took the money. He met only selected people in Vegas when he told he would meet anyone willing to, and some people have testified that they asked him to meet. He pretended that Trendon Shavers was
a DBA, and that it was the name of
a guy who didn't even speak English.
midnightmagic: OneEyed: That is correct, it would be foolish to assume or conclude it is not
a scam.
midnightmagic: Disclosure: I have zero dollars invested; I "own" zero pirate debt. I have zero to gain from his being, or not being,
a scam, except in the circuitous rep-of-bitcoin sense.
OneEyed: midnightmagic: sure, it would be foolish to assume in any way it is not
a scam, as not
a single fact suggests that it is not one. Not one! Did we find out the accounts supposed to have been repayed for example? Or did we get an amount? Nothing, none, zip.
midnightmagic: OneEyed: I just told you. I don't believe it's
a non-scam. Why do you think this is
a binary choice?
OneEyed: midnightmagic: once again, what makes you believe it can be
a non-scam? Only his declarations? You're
a trusting guy :)
OneEyed: midnightmagic: so turn it the other way: only vague declarations may suggest an alternate explanation -- that it is not
a scam.
OneEyed: midnightmagic: judging if an investment is
a scam is not the same thing as judging people, there is no "innocent until proven guilty", this is much more balanced. And right now, the balance clearly goes to the scam side, and by an enormous lot
OneEyed: midnightmagic: you have probably seen many signals that indicate that it may be
a scam (people not getting money for the main one, without any explanation). Have you seen any signal that may indicate it is not
a scam?
OneEyed: (it may not be
a scam, but pirateat40 has not offered any evidence [not even soft evidence] that the bitcoins were invested in anything real)
OneEyed: midnightmagic: what I'm saying is that in the absence of proof that it is
a scam and in the absence of proof that it isn't, given the current situation, it is most likely
a scam
OneEyed: midnightmagic: note the "may", as we may discover it is
a scam by proving it is
a scam if, for example, accounting books are found
OneEyed: midnightmagic: according to your reasoning, we may never be able to call it
a scam, if he continues to pretend he will pay later for centuries. Right?
midnightmagic: mircea_popescu: Your -pr girl wasn't the only one calling pirate
a scam. There were lots of other people. On the other hand, there's still no hard evidence that anyone has seen that it is. Not yet. The only thing going for the notion is time, but there are alternative explanations.
OneEyed: Smoovious: why would such
a guy take
a BTC loan with all the risks if brings?
mircea_popescu: it means there are very few competent people, and nobody is interested in
a. taking over
a blown asset ; b. doing anything on glbse
OneEyed: Or does that mean that he doesn't know competent people, or that those people wouldn't touch CPA with
a 10 foot pole?
OneEyed: I don't know, but he would probably know people trusting him to get
a healthy asset and that he trusts to hand it over
OneEyed: (it was funnier in my head read with
a robotic voice)
OneEyed:
A bug which you have nailed down, but reappears three days later
mircea_popescu: my pr girl called the pirate thing
a scam, at
a time nobody else was, the list goes on and on. for better or worse, i r messiah.
mircea_popescu: take
a simpler example : if you write
a bad check, whether you eventually cover it or not, you still break the law.
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: if I sell you
a "temperature bond" whose dividends are indexed on what the average temperature is at 6:00 in Paris every day, would it be
a fraud not to invest into hot air?
mircea_popescu: but back to the contract : if i sell you
a car when i own no car, even if later i acquire and deliver you
a car i can still be charged for fraud.
mircea_popescu: OneEyed its not
a violation of the contract. it's
a contract under false premises.
OneEyed: I really hope the coinbr/MPEX deal will make
a better exchange system.
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: yes, I understand. But even knowing he doesn't own some, as long as the investors get exactly what they paid for, i.e. coupons indexed on PPS 1MH/s, I don't see as
a violation of the contract itself. But I won't redo the discussion here :)
PsychoticBoy: I know, I also asked goat back in may, but he only said: go ride
a bike little boy, so at that point I really lhate goat
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: you belong to those thinking he has to own mining rigs to offer such
a contract whose coupons are based on
a fixed mining performance?
PsychoticBoy: but I am slowly pulling some btc out, even if its at
a loss
OneEyed: Smoovious: are you saying such
a imprecise contract would have been refused?
OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: why not in this case? You even see coinbr starting as
a broker for the MPEX exchange
OneEyed: Thiis is *really* not what
a broker should do…
OneEyed: Smoovious: let's agree to disagree here, I just read the contract, I don't see
a fraud, but that is my interpretation. People should learn to read contracts too before investing.
OneEyed: And handling the brokering part to Goat this way is wrong: not only Nefario didn't use
a secure way of identifying the claims, prevent double claims and so on, but also he forces people to go to Goat, while some of them had maybe invested in Goat assets only because GLBSE acted as
a middle man
OneEyed: Smoovious: he acts not only as an exchange but also as
a broker. The brokering part cannot be stopped this way, even if the exchange delists (by freezing for example) the asset.
OneEyed: So unless he intends to run, I see that more as
a guarantee. I would prefer to invest into
a guaranteed 1MH/s equivalent rather than some hardware whose returns would be distributed to me capped at 1MH/s equivalent.
femtotube: "Smoovious | and come on... I can't be the only one who saw how obvious..." Every one with
a half
a brain must have understood it but you see, lots of pole have coin in his crap so...
OneEyed: Smoovious: did he not pay and say "sorry guys, I'm broke and I didn't invest your money"? *That* would be
a scam, and I would be 100% on your side. But here, now that people know that he doesn't have mining hardware, he cannot even say "My hardware broke, sorry, no returns until I get
a replacement"
OneEyed: That was my only point. If he had invested into
a mining operation, then the investors would not have lost or gained one satoshi. So I don't see why investors are complaining.
OneEyed: But even if it had been
a real mining operation, it would have been the same for the investors.
PsychoticBoy: smoovious made the whole point clear: now if he had opened up the bond, named it something other than 'mining' related... that it was
a personal loan, and that he would repay the bonds, at
a rate determined by difficulty and 1 MH, etc etc etc... that would have been straight up... and we could invest or not, honestly... but no
OneEyed: Smoovious: well, Goat operation is, in some sorts,
a declared Ponzi, which can work if the reference dividend (1MH/s mining) falls quick enough
OneEyed: Was it supposed to be
a pass-through or
a hardware owner? I still can't understand what investors expected. One or the other or any of them or both.
OneEyed: So, PsychoticBoy and Smoovious: if you invest dollars into
a Euro fund, do you expect the dollars to be converted in Euros and be kept as bills? Or do you expect to get dividends based on the fluctuation of the EUR/USD?
OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: doesn't he? I thought he told he was the majority investor or owner of
a massive mining operation?
OneEyed: He sold the promised of
a return corresponding to
a well known value
OneEyed: "Mining bond" doesn't mean you'll mine yourself. Or does it? Or can you invest in
a mining operation? Directly? Also indirectly? What is acceptable and what is not? How does that make even
a tiny difference for the investors? This is
a bond, not
a share, you don't own the hardware assets in any way
PsychoticBoy: So be saying this, I agree Goat should get
a SCAMMER tag and he should never get the chance to issue shares of his crap on ANY exchange
PsychoticBoy: but still, you cant issue
a mining bond when you dont own hardware, its ethical not correct, so FRAUD
OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: well, when you invest in
a fund indexed on Euros, an Euro fund, then you have no guarantee that your money is kept in Euros, that's just
a reference value
OneEyed: Smoovious: you're thinking about
a ponzi over
a ponzi? That's
a possibility on the table since day 1, and bitcoinmax is also suspected to have done that
PsychoticBoy: He had
a mining bond named Tygrr-bond.
a , and did not have any mining hardware !!!
OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: that's not like he is in
a country where paying for sex is easy and well accepted… oh, wait
jcpham: is that like
a donkey punch?
imsaguy2: please don't tell me he pulled
a jesus