Im only going to answer this part. Thats exactly why he isnt sharing, I have had some of my very own short term legit lucrative ideas that I never revealed which later on got caught up by other people. You are effectively requesting what he is doing to make money, surely you cant be this naive to think that if its all legit and not a ponzi like Lord Micon and co. wants it to be then not revealing the actual business is +EV for pirate ?

Thank you for that, by the way. I am currently following up on this lead to see where it goes.

As much as I respect Joel regarding other areas, here he's making a claim that's the equivalent of saying Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan shouldn't have been able to work. Numerous proposals have been put forth, a number of which are not just plausible, but have had successful implementations in traditional finance (though perhaps not legal). There have also been a few instances where traditional financial regulation has been projected onto Bitcoin's unregulated environment even though no such authority exists and may not even be capable of enforcing decisions.

In addition, to my knowledge he has not refuted any of the examples offered with any kind of explanation beyond the three items above. Claiming "implausibility" and "significant misunderstanding" is as helpful as the statements that 7% returns are factual evidence of Ponzi practices; implausibility is subjective, and misunderstandings can be dependent upon which school of economic though you adhere to.

I also don't know of any links that have been provided to relevant information on this matter. At this point, I could fire back the exact same accusations of implausibility and significant misunderstandings on his part about finance. Joel, any clarification or information would be greatly appreciated.

I'll say this regarding item #1:

Gains can be had by all, but some gains may be greater than others. Steady appreciation in value allows for this.

Example:

• We both buy BTC1 @ $5
• I sell at $6
• I buy again at $7
• I sell at $8
• I buy again at $9
• I sell at $10
• I buy back at $11
• We both sell at $12

The end result is that we've both gained, but because I was hopping in and out (whether trading, mining, running a business, etc), my gain due to BTC appreciation is only $4 whereas yours would be $7.

That dynamic flow is where the gains are made - the overall gains are made at the expense of the USD, as wealth represented by the dollar is transferred into Bitcoin. Read FOFOA's It's the Flow, Stupid post for a more in-depth discussion on this in terms of oil value flowing into the USD.


Yes. At the same time, I'm concerned about Micon's sham of investigative journalism hawking conclusive evidence when it's based on conjecture and opinion. No evidence other than pattern similarities have been presented, and the emotional fervor has completely discredited any semblance of professionalism.

The likes of znort987 and organofcorti would be more appropriate for this analysis IMO.


Holding shares for capital appreciation arrives at the same end point as receiving full payments on profit for the same duration.

Example:

1 share valued at $1 rises to $100.

or

1 share valued at $1 generating simple interest payments of 10% for about 84 periods (or totaling the same duration the capital appreciation took to achieve $100).

You still have the same amount deposited either way. The former makes sense when an asset is undervalued, while interest payments usually make sense when asset valuation and capital flow are stable. We're used to seeing established firms paying a dividend based on profit from a fully-realized operation. Receiving payments on profit during growth is a completely foreign concept to the majority of investors today.


There is still no legal precedent regarding Bitcoin in the first place. Nothing guarantees they'll be treated as existing intangible items are. And would the funds clawed back be in USD? Will that be done through liquidation of BTC? Even if all of the individuals could be identified, if they're distributed across jurisdictional borders, how would that reverse anything without being able to retrieve the bitcoins that have been sent? Would those targeted be subject to remuneration of the entirety, being in excess of their own participation? How would off-blockchain exchanges be handled?

This is a legal and regulatory nightmare that is not confined to a single system of law. Bitcoin is not explicitly subject to any law as of yet, and its very nature defies traditional structures to begin with.


Looking forward to actual proof, one way or the other.

I think you didn't understand what I was saying. I didn't say every claim violated every item. In fact, I specifically listed some claims that are fine by item 1 but busted by the others.

Pattern similarities are extremely strong evidence. If someone behaves just like Madoff or Stock Generation, that very strongly suggests that they're doing the same thing, right? This is especially strong, almost conclusive, when no alternative has been suggested or can even be imagined.  As for "emotional fervor", I think it's not coming across clearly that this is intellectual fervor, not emotional.

It's an intangible thing of value. No complex considerations are really involved. They'd be treated as something of value, with a fair market value established as of the time they were transferred. I guess we'll find out for sure if any of the current cases involving theft of Bitcoins proceeds.

Yes, it's possible courts might do something really strange. But it's very, very likely they'll treat this the same as stocks or any other thing whose value can be established at the time it was transferred.

I should point out that greed for ill gotten gains is one of the things scammers have been exploiting for centuries. To some extent, if you want to be the beneficiary of fraudulent transfers of other people's money, you deserve to be scammed.

Micon has underestimated the extent to which greed can overpower sense. Not sure if that speaks for or against him. He thought some people were better, i.e. less greedy and more intelligent, than they actually turned out to be.

So what's a better estimate? We know that a Ponzi scheme can, in theory, go on forever, as long as people believe in it. However, in this particular case there are good reasons for a relatively short remaining time, particularly the extremely high interest rate and the resulting exponential growth.

Assuming that a certain fraction of "investors" withdraws some part of their paper gain, at first sight this part also grows exponentially, which will break the Ponzi scheme at some time. However, the steep exponential curve works against the pirate in two additional ways that may well make withdrawals grow more steeply than this assumption:

1. As the perceived wealth of some early "investors" grows way beyond their initial investment, they are increasingly tempted to withdraw a part of it, because they figure that the rest will soon make up for the withdrawal. BullShit Trust is now trying to counteract that by lowering the interest rate to discourage exactly this effect and make people leave everything in for longer.

2. As the figure grows, people may get suspicious and begin to ask themselves where all that money comes from. Some may withdraw when they realize that early withdrawal is their only chance to keep their money.

Still, as long as people believe in a Ponzi scheme, it can, in theory, go on forever. On the other hand, if just one person withdraws a larger amount, the pirate will shut down to avoid that payment. This can happen any day now, but if it doesn't, then the growing sum of smaller withdrawals will eat away on the pirate's stash until it becomes unbearable for him to see his heap shrink.

He may be able to keep going for a couple of weeks. With a lot of luck he may keep going for a few months. If something happens that brings in a load of new "investors", he may be able to go on for even longer, but that seems unlikely, as the potential newbies are probably all here in the forums already and should have made their decision.

Also, the discussions here, in which the BullShit Trust supporters look increasingly isolated, stupid, devoid of believable arguments for their case, and are increasingly recognized as greedy accomplices, may convince "investors" to withdraw and thus bring down the Ponzi scheme.

Sure. Just explain how that's possible. I've offered to do this several times, but I can't consider something if I can't imagine how it could be possible.

You can't consider a "green idea" until someone explains to you how an idea can be green. It's not possible.

Well, exactly. If you want us to consider something, you have to convince us that it's possible. Until you do that, we *can't* consider it. He is asking us to do something that is impossible for us to do. If you consider that our fault, so be it. But it's just how the world works.

We can't consider a possibility until we are convinced it is possible. We are not convinced it is possible, so asking us to consider it will not work. Convincing us it is possible is logically prior.

It's not that I'm unwilling to do this, I simply do not know how to.

No, that's not what I said, please try reading it again. It's not that I don't know how it makes money, it's that I don't know how it could be possible that it makes money. So if I try to consider the possibility that it's making money, I literally have no idea what I'm considering.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if I don't know how something could be possible, I cannot consider the possibility of it. I literally don't know what it is I would be considering. My very first step in reasoning would be blocked as I tried to consider the consequences of an unknown thing.

And why is it that you need to know everything that goes on with other peoples business?
Is it such a difficult concept to grasp that some people know some stuff you don't know and that they are not obliged to disclose their trade secrets to you?

Cant wait for the book to come out