Bitcoin Forum

Pirate should deal exclusively with the PPT operators so you, the account holders, get the most money possible.

If he deals with individuals exclusively, he can ignore their pleas one-by-one, like ants. He can make them settle for as low as possible.

Dealing with an antpile is a different story.

Unionize. Stick with your union leaders. Get what you are due.

*salutes Chaang-Noi*

in b4 matthew says "Shut up Atlas".

Oops.

Prisoner's Dilemma!

Ants=Doomed

This is interesting. Where is the alternative explanation from pirateat40?

I just can't make sense of it. Why does pirate want to handle it this way?

I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate.  I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.   :-\

lulz @ post & handle

Matthew, since your bet was 100% payout, and some bond holders are settling for less than 100%, haven't you already lost your bet?

Didn't his bet refer to pirate paying people 100%?  If people have sold their debt to someone else for less, pirate no longer owes them anything - the full amount is owed to whoever bought their debt.

Regardless of who owns the bond or what price they purchased it for, pirate needs to pay the full amount to the current bond holder for Matthew to win the bet. if anyone has received a payment less than 100% of the bond's value, Matthew loses the bet. No need to wait until September 9th... I just want to make sure the terms of the bet aren't dynamic in favor of Matthew.

i think if Chaang Noi's doest want to release the info in order to get paid, the fair case is to assume that pirate wants to pay the bonds,  no?

how can he block them?

i don't see how he can stop lenders from telling pirate their own account info.

Not to pick any sides in this but is there ANY proof that pirate is trying to settle for less? Newer OP here making a baseless accusation without any proof to back it up makes it pretty hard for me to believe this.

but then:


And pirate's thread:


By this criteria Matthew has lost the bet. Pirate has admitted default and interest is no longer accruing which is in breach of the terms. QED.

Of course pirate wants to pay the bond holders individually. I'm sure a large amount of the bond holders purchased the bonds at significantly lower than face value and would be pleased to get something from pirate. However, if I purchase a 1 BTC bond for .50 BTC, and pirate settles with me for .75 BTC, that is not 150% payback, that's 75% payback, and Mathew's bet is lost given the original terms. Given the original terms of Matthew's bet, if anyone settles for less than face value of the bonds, the bet is lost.

You could argue the accounts were automatically closed when he defaulted. If he pays 100% up until the default that would be hard to call Matthews bet lost.

Once again is there any proof he is trying to settle for less than is owed?

Matt,

I hope your not setting up to win the bet on a technicality.. If the investors don't get at least 90 percent of their money back and it was agreed by the investors and Pirate, (including all interest owed up to the minute of the deal, (if there is one)) then he is in default and is fraudulent.. Now, if Pirate says, i ill give you guys 50 percent as long as you take my deal. I would consider that being held hostage and he is in default.. The way its written, if Pirate doesn't pay at least 90 percent back and its agreed upon by the lenders, then Matt would win.. Anything less, then the bettors would win..Plain and simple..

AR

It's a mute point. He HAS defaulted.. He's admitted it.. No way will everyone get at least 90 percent of their money back...

oh good, now I can tell pirate about my bitcoin max account that had 40k coins in it.  I even have a screen shot to prove it.  ::)

You could argue, Matthew would be a nutter not to unless he really hates loads of cash.

The way I read it, and I admit I am biased, Matthew has already lost his bet. Pirate has defaulted. Interest has stopped. This is in breach of pirate's own terms.

 

90% would be a loss as well, the bet was that pirate would repay 100% and nothing less.

Well considering the bet doesn't have an arbiter, its a sucky bet anyway.

He cant MAKE his clients do anything.. He can recommend action, but he certainly cannot make anyone do or say anything. (Unless he has a gun to their heads)

But, we have to wait til the 9th of September until we can officially call the bet between Matthew and the bettors. The point it mute, but since Matt doesn't have to pay interest, no reason to start paying til he has to..

yeah, there is that...

i wouldn't say lack of verification counts as 'blockage' or censorship.

matt said
i was wondering how goat can even disallow this.

duct tape?

if I had 350k on the line i would enter full time silly mode.

Chaang Noi's clients are his - not Pirate's. Your bet surely requires that Chaang Noi (Pirate's client) is paid.  (?)  

Goat isn't a straight passthrough, he takes a commission.

And this changes things how...?

Maybe he meant to say he's a gay passthrough? But yeah, even then, I don't think sexuality has much to do with anything here. :P

That's the second time, and I really have to correct you there because "mute point" bugs the shit out of me.

The phrase is "moot point". It comes from the "moots" or debates old english counties would have. Clearly, mutes would not have been much use at moots.

(I'm ignoring the Australian usage of the word "moot", since that means "vagina")

Pronounced differently.  "Moot" as in point is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as hoot.  "Moot" as in vagina is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as foot.

Huh. I'd always thought "moot" as in debate was pronounced like "foot" and I always wondered how I was supposed to use the word in polite society. Now I know.

Nah.  That's why Americans sometimes confuse it with "mute".  If you've noticed, some US dialects pronounce "u" as in ewe (the sound in mute) the same was they pronounce "u" as in "hoot".  You notice it a lot with "new".  It seems to be regional, but a lot of people say "Noo York".

Wild guess? He is going to pay a small amount of PPT holders directly, and blame the PPT operators for not refunding everyone else, possibly claiming he paid them back. Divide and conquer.  It would be interesting to have a breakdown of sums owed directly and indirectly to see how/if this could work though.

Mental note: Before entering debate with an Aussie, have him pronounce both "hoot" and "foot" so I know what he's calling my arguments.

Yeah, won't help when you get asked for a "root" though.

Try listening to a conversation between an Aussie, a Kiwi and a South African some time.  We all pronounce our vowels slightly differently and if you're not attuned to the different accents you won't have a clue what people are actually saying.


I strongly suggest never asking an Aussie woman which sports team she roots for.  Avoid comments about her fanny, too.

On topic : It will be interesting to see whether pirate gives any further explanations, hands everything over to his lawyers, or just drops out of sight after midnight Friday.

Very good advice, all around. I know at least one person from each of those areas, and I can fairly easily tell them apart, and usually even tell what they're saying. ;)

I don't think he has a choice. If he reveals his client information to Pirate, what keeps Pirate from trying to negotiate individual settlements with them? He has an obligation to his investors to ensure that any Pirate payments on their collective debt is divided according to his agreement with them. If he lets them contact Pirate individually, how can he comply with his obligation?

He can't stop his customers from contacting Pirate directly, of course. But Pirate paying them directly wouldn't settle his debt with Goat anyway.

If my local sandwich store lets me have a sandwich on credit, I have to pay the shopkeeper back because he's the one who gave me the sandwich. I can't make individual deals with the shop's employers and suppliers and then claim I've settled the debt for the sandwich. The shop owner gets to decide how the money is divided per his agreement with the employers and suppliers. Me settling with them individually would cause the shop owner to be breaching his agreement with his employers and suppliers, which I would have no right to do.

Well you can argue anything doesn't mean it is logical.  Try this.  Call your bank up and tell them you want to close your mortgage.  You will pay it off eventually but since it is closed you want the interest reduced to zero. 

The idea that someone can borrow money at x% then not repay it upon demand and then choose to pay a different interest (or none) doesn't even pass the chuckle test.

Pirate has default and will never pay according to the terms of his contract.  Matt simply can not win the bet.  The only thing which is unknown is will he payout or not (I bet not).

Proof?  Also how exactly would Goat BLOCK other people from contacting Pirate even if Goat wanted to.  Does he have complete control over the internet and all other methods of communication?

I'm not sure which side to take here, but maybe this will help clarify the issue: Matthew offered his bet after Pirate had already defaulted. Only an additional, subsequent default can cause Matthew to lose his bet. If the loss of additional interest was part of the original default, it cannot cause Matthew to lose his bet unless Pirate agreed to pay it back as part of the terms Matthew bet Pirate would stick to.

The truth comes out... Goat is..... AL GORE!

(Damnit Bruno... where were you on that one?)

Matthew offered his bet before pirate contractually defaulted. He continued taking bets after the contractual default despite already losing the bet. Check into it.

Each bet is its own bet.  Perhaps they share the same terms, but they were all entered into separately.

... despite already losing the bets

are you checking into it?

Pirate defaulted as soon as he didn't process a withdrawal on time. Matthew's bet was offered in response to Pirate's response to his failure to pay. Any defaults prior to or implied by Pirate's agreement wouldn't cause Matthew to lose the bet.

"Post in this thread how much you're committing and I will double that amount you commit (maximum of 10,000BTC in bets allowed in this thread total) if Pirate does not pay out in 3 weeks as he described in his thread."

I can't quite figure out which thread that's referring to. Anyone have a link?

This will probably all become academic anyway once Matthew's deadline passes. I have a feeling we won't need to do any lawyerly parsing of ambiguous terms to figure out who won.

Joel, he was referring pirate BTCST thread here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822.0


Since then, and since Matthew posted his bet thread, Pirate announced interest will no longer accrue. There is no way Matthew can win his bet.

Thanks for the link. I think you're right.

This is what Pirate said that preceded Matthew's bet:

"Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred.  I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent."

So if he is to pay "as agreed" above, for anyone who doesn't agree to any other terms in place of those above, he must pay all coins plus interest earned up until the hour he makes payment. There is no mention there of any additional terms or conditions, so any such additional conditions would not be "as agreed" unless people choose to accept them.

Pirate said he is in default. Matthew can win the bet if pirate's statement is false and he does pay all his lenders with interest up to the hour it was sent on or before September 9th.

PPT issuers do not know who their bond holders are in GLBSE.
If I recall, PPT or any other security issuer can not get that information from GLBE even if they wanted to, unless Nefario has made some changes to GLBSE and made this information available.