Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 48 results by bigbox
Re: [ANN] BitcoinStore.com (Beta) - Electronics super store with over 500K items!
I searched for toasters, and none of the results have images. Most of the results don't list the brand and have very limited descriptions. Not many people are going to buy something that doesn't have any photo or description.
It would actually be really nice if there were a link to the same item on Amazon.com. That way I could read full reviews, see full descriptions, etc. I would still buy the item on BitcoinStore, even if Amazon were cheaper in a specific case.
I'm trying to start buying with Bitcoins whenever possible, so thanks for your work and I hope you meet your quota!
It would actually be really nice if there were a link to the same item on Amazon.com. That way I could read full reviews, see full descriptions, etc. I would still buy the item on BitcoinStore, even if Amazon were cheaper in a specific case.
I'm trying to start buying with Bitcoins whenever possible, so thanks for your work and I hope you meet your quota!
Elsewhere, I brought up the issue of consent. I didn't consent to host a gamebot's traffic when I run the client, I was consenting to hosting Bitcoin's traffic. If Bitcoin traffic is now a subsidiary of SD's load, perhaps SD can be persuaded to start its own blockchain and stop taking advantage of the implied consent of others on this blockchain.
I doubt that SD can be shamed into stopping what they're doing but perhaps some users of the network can be persuaded into not giving them anymore business.
I doubt that SD can be shamed into stopping what they're doing but perhaps some users of the network can be persuaded into not giving them anymore business.
I didn't "consent to host" a pot smoker's traffic, so we should figure out a way to block Silk Road's transactions.
I didn't consent to host traffic for a site selling adult toys, so we should block Bitcoinin.com's transactions.
I didn't consent to host traffic related to adult content, so we should block transactions from all the porn sites.
I know somebody that is a luddite, so out of deference to him we should block transactions from electronics resellers like bitcoinstore.com.
I've never used SatoshiDice, but I'm not sure I like vilifying certain types of transactions. That said, I wouldn't mind if SD could figure out a way to lower their load on the network.
The FDIC is specifically insurance and specifically assumes the risk of bank failures.
Patrick specifically insured his deposits and specifically assumed the risk of loan failures.
In addition, there was no mistake on the part of the people whose funds the FDIC insured. So it would not have been equitable for the FDIC to split the losses with those it insures.
If the FDIC were named Patrick, you would probably say the depositors made the assumption that the banks loans weren't correlated, and thus should share in the losses. You would probably say that regardless of whether the depositors actually made that assumption.
It's possible he had different loans with different terms and some weren't predicated on the shared belief that he had limited Pirate exposure. You'd have to look on a case by case basis and decide in each case how to equitably divide the losses.)
Agreed. My deposit wasn't predicated on shared beliefs of what he would do with his loans, it was predicated on the shared belief that he guaranteed his deposits. He didn't specify exactly what he was going to do with the deposits, or who he was going to loan money to, so we couldn't have had shared beliefs on correlation which is irrelevant anyway. If he spent the money on hookers and blow, I would still expect him to honor the shared belief that he guaranteed his deposits.By the way, this was the same type of missed risk that resulted in the mortgage collapse. People who thought they were "diversified" didn't realize that a significant fraction of their assets were vulnerable to a drastic drop in the housing market because they were all ultimately tied to residential mortgages.
I'm glad you think it's the same. There have been hundreds of bank failures since 2008 in the USA due to correlated loans that went bad (mortgages). The FDIC guaranteed bank deposits. This guarantee was honored, regardless of whether the bad loans were correlated or not. Patrick also guaranteed his deposits.
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html
I think you're misunderstanding my argument.
I understand your argument. I'm saying you're wrong. I understood Patrick's guarantee to mean that my funds were guaranteed regardless of whether any or all loans went bad, correlated or uncorrelated. Any other kind of guarantee isn't a guarantee, it's pointless.I don't agree that that's an obvious risk.
A big reason I deposited with Patrick is because he is assuming the risk of loans going bad. If I knew that his guaranteed deposits really meant "guaranteed unless loans go bad", then I never would have deposited with Patrick. If I wanted to assume the risk of loss (and thus potentially higher profit), I could have made loans to other people myself.
You're saying I couldn't have foreseen the possibility of Patrick's loans going bad, and thus Patrick shouldn't have to pay me back. That's false. I did expect there was a possibility Patrick's loans could go bad. That's the whole point of depositing with Patrick: he guarantees his deposits against that scenario.
That's true, but I don't see why that matters.
Nothing specified what would happen in the event of a coordinated payback (everybody paid their loans back to Patrick, giving him more profit than he expected). Thus, in this hypothetical case, Patrick should equitably split all profits with his depositors (above and beyond the stated rate)? You are saying no, and in the opposite case, he doesn't get to push losses to his depositors when he guaranteed their funds.
Patrick guaranteed his deposits and did not place any conditions on that guarantee. Obviously one of the risks to Patrick is that many loans default at the same time, possibly because they are correlated. That is an obvious risk that a lender faces.
Patrick is one of the few people trying to make good on his obligations. I respect Joel, but I don't see why he is now encouraging Patrick to turn into a scammer. Even Patrick hasn't suggested that he should renege on his guarantee. I think it's time for Patrick to respond. Patrick, are you going to stand by your guarantee and be the honest person most people believe you to be, or are you going to let Joel turn you into a scammer?
I do not quite agree with the contract being risk neutral. The contract implicitly allocates the risk on Patrick's side by promising only a fixed and capped rate. In the opposite event of this business going better than expected there'd be no doubt the excess goes to Patrick for the risk taken.
Now for Kraken, this argument might hold better.
Now for Kraken, this argument might hold better.
The argument does not hold better for Kraken. Patrick also explicitly stated that any losses in Kraken would be covered by himself personally, and that he "insured" contributed deposits. Patrick caps the rate in Kraken too, and explicitly states that excess profits are kept by Patrick, and losses will be covered by Patrick.
Contributed capital is backed by my personal funds.
...
any losses will be funded personally.
...
Returns obtained over and above 2.5% are taken as my fee - that's how I can afford to support the minimum return and "insure" the capital.
...
any losses will be funded personally.
...
Returns obtained over and above 2.5% are taken as my fee - that's how I can afford to support the minimum return and "insure" the capital.
In both Starfish BCB and Kraken, Patrick gets to keep any profits above the rate cap, and he has to cover any losses.
Edit: Here's another quote from Patrick stating that he guarantees the full 100BTC value of a 100BTC Kraken deposit unit and is responsible for losses:
I am guaranteeing a minimum 100BTC price so am exposed to losses.
If you believe the contract implicitly allocates that risk to Patrick, then equitable mistake wouldn't apply.
Patrick explicitly allocated the risk to himself. Thus, equitable mistake doesn't apply.
I know there are some risks involved and potential to lose serious money on some of the loans I have out in the wild.
I... carry the risk from bad loans and the timing of requests.
This is explained a few posts up:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61262.msg1291861#msg1291861
As coinft points out, if the loans had done better than expected the excess profits wouldn't have been equitably split, they would have gone to Patrick.
Its his first offense. So don't expect much in court. Only serial offenders get in deep trouble.
It appears that this isn't his first offense:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119590.msg1289098#msg1289098
Does that mean he's a serial offender? Does that mean he'll get in deep trouble?
Both parties incorrectly (arguably, equally negligently) believed Starfish's high-interest loan model was sound. There's no evidence in the contract that the risk that the business model was fundamentally unsound was intended to be allocated to Patrick. So the contract cannot equitably be enforced as drafted because a situation not foreseen by the contract came to be. The risk of the unsound business model has to be allocated among the parties somehow, the contract doesn't specify how to allocate it, equity demands it be split.
Patrick described his deposits as guaranteed. He stated that he carries the risk from bad loans. That means that he takes the loss if his loans go bad.
Patrick knew that the loans were risky and had the "potential to lose serious money":
I know there are some risks involved and potential to lose serious money on some of the loans I have out in the wild.
I have a diversified portfolio of investments, a good mix of customers and carry the risk from bad loans and the timing of requests.
This isnt a charity and there is real money at stake. For January 2012 I have done a dozen loans, have one bad and another was impaired for a while before being paid back. There are two others due in February that I've flagged as higher risk, thats why the interest rates are high.
Lending and Seeking a Loan
I decide if youre a good credit risk or not.
Lending and Seeking a Loan
I decide if youre a good credit risk or not.
These quotes show that the risk that the business model was unsound was intended to be allocated to Patrick. Even though he knew he had the "potential to lose serious money" on his loans, Patrick guaranteed his deposits and explicitly stated that he carries the risk for bad loans. Thus, Patrick is on the hook for all of the losses and is responsible for paying pack his deposits. Simple.
Patrick is doing his best to live up to his promise, as he should, and I commend him for it.
I like the bot, I hope it's back up and running soon. At some point if it becomes really popular it might be a good idea to switch the bot's auto-replies to PMs to avoid spamming threads, but for now I think the viral factor of posting transaction confirmations is beneficial and helps show the tips are real.
However, any half-arsed attempt at looking at what their "high risk" bonds (fonds) were doing would have avoided them for their lower risk offerings
Unfortunately, ZiggiStar failed to pay his guaranteed and low risk offerings too. His high risk and guaranteed offerings turned out to be equivalent.
Re: Giving Away a FREE 840Mh/s ModMiner Quad FPGA Miner Every Week in October!
I am in again..whom won round 1?
Litebit won round 1.
Edit: Oh, I guess Litebit answered right above me. Congrats