Quote from: JoelKatz on August 22, 2012, 12:26:29 PM

Quote from: memvola on August 22, 2012, 11:14:16 AM

In my humble opinion, you are being dismissive because you're convinced that it would be best if everyone stopped investing in these schemes.

Yes, exactly. Legitimate investments don't involve a complete absence of disclosure of what you're investing in, no way to estimate the actual level of risk, and no way to tell whether claimed losses were actually incurred or whether claimed profits were actually legitimate. No honest person should ask for investments on terms only a fool would accept.

We have actually seen offers that were basically: "Give me some money to invest, if I make money, I'll share it with you. Otherwise, you'll have to take my word that I actually lost your money in some kind of actual investment". That was literally all they were saying. And people were actually taking this offer seriously. That shows that this community is massively disconnected from reality.

If I understand you correctly, this is inaccurate, as some borrowers (we were debating vescudero) say they guarantee deposits. They may or may not be lying, but that still makes your statement invalid. Guaranteed pass-throughs ran by anonymous parties are uniformly paying out of their pockets because of the default, what "reality" makes them obey the contract which somehow excludes a known individual?

My other point is, what is the difference between these business descriptions:

lending out to other borrowers, investing in short term opportunities and investing in other bitcoin projects
buying and mining with 10 BFL Single's and preordering 10 more Single SC's

Both have the same potential to be a scam. If you would support a bias towards the second one, the effect would be nothing more than making the scammers pick that method instead.

All I'm saying is, your point is less convincing when presented as clear-cut. Even though the basic reasoning is sound, the dismissive approach will continue to lose effectiveness as exceptions to the "rule" increases.

Quote from: JoelKatz on August 22, 2012, 12:26:29 PM

Quote

Although I agree with the sentiment, that approach is hopeless.

I'm not giving up so easily.

Okay, there may be a collective unconscious thing going on, but I'm not so sure. If we are to avoid a centralized authority AND do business with people we can't pose a physical threat to, it seems to me that short of independent audits and a transparent checklist (rather than a rating maybe?) will be totally ineffective.

My opinion may not have merit, but I haven't seen this perspective presented before, so there.

Quote from: Bascule on August 22, 2012, 12:06:58 PM

Even after Bernie Madoff, Allen Stanford and now pirateat40 you still write rubbish like this? You are a complete idiot. Just give your bitcoins away now, it will save you some time.

If you think your comment is anything but redundant, you're as delusional as the ponzi investors.