let's discuss it more *after* pirate pays (if ever).
You see the problem with this plan, I hope.
It's concerning that paybtc isn't explicitly stating that any payment will go first to repay principal (total deposits - total withdrawals) first before any "interest" is paid. In this case, the "interest" was just the btc of the new depositors.
In the event that paybtc did a straight percentage based payout across all his accounts just based on the current balance he would be running his own ponzi scheme.
This too could be the motivation in not handing over the details. The only reason to hide the details of a sub account would be if that sub account had withdrawn more than it had deposited and therefore revealed the location where other peoples btc went.
In the event that paybtc did a straight percentage based payout across all his accounts just based on the current balance he would be running his own ponzi scheme.
This too could be the motivation in not handing over the details. The only reason to hide the details of a sub account would be if that sub account had withdrawn more than it had deposited and therefore revealed the location where other peoples btc went.
actually, i have already stated that. sorry this thread is so disorganised. don't really have much time to write an essay in the OP.
i originally wrote the order of the payouts:
- those that requested withdrawals before BST closed.
- principal balance up until bst closed, in order of user id (account age)
- interest accrued after bst closed, in order of user id (account age)
all that pretty much assumed full payout.
if there's a partial payout, and funds are distributed via a %, then it doesn't matter if interest+principal is paid in one tx or two, it'll still add up to the same amount.
As you, Sir chairman, still have not tidied up the OP and opened shop with a legal ToS, please don´t make any plans before asking your accountholders
as any further losses to our claims, will need to be substracted from the 2 first admin/accounts of bitcoinmax.
Thanks Zyk