Bitcoin Forum

I hope he got the coins up front..  I wonder what his cut is for running it? 10%?

pirateat40

Think about it. He get's to keep the half million and pays out the 10k to the "told you so"s.

Perfect symmetry.

Thanks for the good idea! I'm gonna ask him if he's interested.

UPDATE: He declined and no action has happened since I asked. I guess he's not interested in backing up my silly bets.

It has to be a pirate supporter, but I don't think it would be pirate himself..

My first thought was insider info. Typical bitcoin antics.

I think Matthew is smarter then to risk 10k btc or being labeled a scammer for alltime.  Even on insider info (it can be very wrong you know ;))

He has a backer. 

Nope. I would never invest in pirate. I will invest -against- loud mouthed idiot cowards though, any day of the week.

Ballsy but respectable.

Unless he proves that they can fooled just as easily by not paying.

I think Matthew just went insane.

Maybe he has a bet for 50kBTC running that those fucking cowards would not even bring the 10k... would be interesting what the real cut-off condition with his partner is.

You actually work with this guy? Free advice: get out while you can.

that weird asian teenager he follows around?

Zhou Tong? He's in Australia. Long time no see buttcoins. How come you're not pumping out any more comedy?

No your backer is investing, your a great front man thu!! ;)

Do not bet with Matthew without escrow: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102354.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102354.0)

Never go full retard.

Maybe its a group of pirate supporters..

The first major public PPT was run by a group of guys wasn't it??

hmmm maybe it is pirate..

He said this in IRC:

"17:45  * pirateat40 must say that he owns 50% of _matthew_'s betting fund"

Good move, and quite obvious if he is really going to pay.
If not, it would be a double scam.

Post it in context. He was joking because people were trolling about it. I'm not a liar. I've already explained that I have nothing to do with him.

I already made my bet and I'm not having second thoughts about that. Any way this turns out I think the odds are against you, Matt.

But I don't understand your angle at all. Why do you want to make this kind of bet? It absolutely would make sense if you had inside information about Pirate being legit but somehow I don't think that's likely. It's as if you are making the bet and (likely) throwing away your money just to make the statement that you don't like people calling in question other peoples schemes that are very likely fraudulent. Why is this?

What's wrong in pointing out that from very early on, the most likely explanation for how BST works has been a ponzi scheme?

Because people were not saying "most likely"

QFT. Lynch mobs, fights, and discommunications from groups I'm in were starting to happen because people were taking sides on the issues when neither side even has proof. Do you know what it's like to work with people who call your friends "Shills" and "scammers" because they made an investment into something? Good god.

If your friends behave like shills and scammers this is what you get. Is it coming as surprise at all?

Define "behaving like shills"? Investing in pirate?

Asking for evidence or being on the site longer than them "I didn't see them join so they must be made up"

Apparently.

.. and promoting his op at every opportunity without disclosing own interest. Or do you define this as being a paragon of virtue?

Pics or it didn't happen lol

I am not saying something happened, I thought we are having a theoretical ethical discussion here. lol

Edit: Ethics? On this forum? Nahh forget about it...

When you are asking for loans like pirate was. It is your duty to prove what the funds are being used for. Not the other way around. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The very nature of a (successful) ponzi is that there isn't any evidence, otherwise it would never succeed. When things are so likely to be true, we have to accept them as truths at some point. Gravity for example, prove it, or it's not real. Using your logical that is a sound statement. Give me a fucking break.

I cannot agree more. Some people are just incapable of thinking logically (and no it is not an ad hominem attack) and just cannot grasp the above simple truth.

It is obvious that burden of proof is on suspected ponzi operator once occam's razor sez so. Some people just unable to see the difference between various standard of proofs and who burden of proof is on in various situations.

Treating an obvious ponzi allegation as murder trial with beyond any reasonable doubt proof demanded from potential investors is simply insane (or naive maybe).

However, this is offtopic in this thread probably.

Edit:
google "Ad Ignorantiam", This is a logical fallacy that ponzi operators typically use. They demand their opponents to prove non-existance of a underlying business model.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html


.. and some miracle business model delivering 3000%+ APR.

some simply cannot get it how it is different from "presumption of innocence" concept.

I don't know who you're talking to, but I never said we should invest in pirate. In fact, I've -only- ever said he's extremely high risk, would never recommend it, and absolute hate companies lacking any transparency whatsoever. That said, just because we don't know what's happening doesn't mean it is a scam with 100% certainty, and accusations should be made accordingly. Asking questions, presenting theories, advising others, it's all extremely important as a community. Know what's not important? Segregation, lynch mobbing, harassment, overly aggressive and abusive behavior, etc. When people learn how to talk, other people will know how to listen.

Where is "proof" anyone said it was 100% certain it was a scam though? I mean there's a few nuts on both sides. One of the biggest ones put his money on the line way before your bet. People like Vlad post a lot but I haven't seen him say he's certain without a doubt pirate is a ponzi, just that it is highly likely. Maybe I missed some posts though.

You are attacking a lot of people that just had/have good intentions. The people defending pirate the most had a direct financial benefit of continuing deposits, while the people claiming ponzi had nothing to gain. And you really think it's acceptable to attack these people?

BS&T was toxic to bitcoin. People offering lower returns had a much harder time getting investments. It's looking more and more likely that a lot of people will be out a lot of cash. I wonder if there will be any suicides if pirate defaults? MMM had at least 50 (admittedly much much larger scheme).

See if the people on "Team Ponzi" were wrong the consequences are MUCH lower than if the other side was wrong. And if it really hurt pirate so bad as to destroy his livelihood he could have disclosed at least some of the business model. With third party, signed NDA, audit. Of course never happened.

It's just ridiculous to act as if those people were out of line. Especially as it's looking more and more likely they were RIGHT.

I'm not attacking anyone. You're confusing me with the other forum trolls. I am working alone.

That's what they say about bitcoiners in the real financial world. Bitcoin must be a scam.

Who is attacking? I'm equalizing. I didn't -go after- anyone, they came to me.

See what I mean? This kind of talk has got to stop.

Poor babies. Free market sucks doesn't it? Maybe we should regulate it heavily.

That's ridiculous. Now you're telling me that it's fine for people to be abusive to others because if they're abusively trolling, harassing and stalking people who invest their money as they see fit, they might save a life? Nonsense.

The consequences of idiots throwing money into idiotic things are not my concern. My concern is that this community needed equalizing on the attitude. Even in our closed 60+ member incubator organization, people were being attacked heavily for even having stock in Pirate. This shit is more ridiculous than you realize. If I want to throw $20 away, it's none of your business. If I put $20 in Pirate (which I did not btw because I think it's risky and ridiculously nontransparent), are you going to follow me on every thread and tell me that I'm a scammer and a shill? Maybe not you, but do you realize that's what the lynch mob here was doing?


Please read my above statements then and maybe you'll see it differently. When the community has grown and learned to stop wasting money on stupid garbage (GLBSE? Seriously? There is absolute nothing legitimate about it. Why do we even bother trusting anything that comes from it? Nothing is legal, not a single success from it), I'll take your argument more seriously. In the meantime, we both agree that there are lots of idiots wasting money, but the difference is, not there's less idiots barking and annoying everyone. Seems better all around if you ask me.

Again cannot agree more with you. And thank you for supporting my position.

BTW I was very careful to not ever say that I have 100% proof that pirate is running a ponzi. Even if I said something to that effect at some point (doubtful, well... maybe in a private conversation) it would be just a mistake and omission of qualifiers with expectation that it is obvious in context anyway.

Ad Ignorantiam, as in my edited above post I have explained, is the crux of the problem and logical fallacy that is being used to attack valid arguments.

My position is that once Occam's razor strongly suggests that some investment is a ponzi scheme, the burden of proof is on alleged ponzi operator to prove otherwise. And again demands to prove a negative (i.e. non existence of a viable biz model) is just a logical fallacy known as Ad Ignorantiam

Until a proof presented that there is/was a viable business model generating 3000%+ per year profits exists and is the source of all the "dividends", logically, any reasonable observer should have assumed that it indeed was a ponzi. As simple as that.

So any business that operates now has to show you their books and operating procedures as soon as you question them? Okay, what if someone questions the Bitcoin Magazine. Are we going to show everyone all of our financial documents to prove we're not a sham? Who's business is it?

"Oh but matthew, we're not forcing anyone to invest in us!"

True! And neither is anyone else. Message to the community: Please be vocal, be less -abusive- about your voice and everyone will be happy. Harassment of people is unacceptable. If you try to tell them that you believe something is a ponzi, and they don't listen, let them lose their money. This is bitcoin, not USD. We have some freedoms. When you're leaving people alone to do what they want with their money, stop shouting at them from across the street "Shills!". This entire issue of mine is the -tone- of the community, not the concern.

,
Ok, so if we find out this was a ponzi with 100% certainty, do you think all the FUD being spread was unwarranted?

Considering it hit all the red flags (which is the only way to detect a ponzi, and as far as I know there are no examples of legit businesses hitting them like that) and considering what's at stake?


Do you also scold people who passionately warn others to encrypt their wallets, backup private keys, and maintain control of their own BTC?

I mean, you don't know for sure they're going to get hacked or have a hard drive crash, after all.

It's his opinion, he is entitled to it. If you can't  tell that from the context, then you must have really bad reading comprehension.

Restated:
I think it's his opinion. I think that if you can't  tell that from the context, then you must have really bad reading comprehension.

Disclaimer :
I cannot prove that 556j meant the statement "BS&T was toxic to bitcoin." as an expression of his opinion and not a statement of fact. But I am of the opinion that he did so. I am also of the opinion that BS&T was a ponzi.

Normally I would agree, but Ponzi isn't a victimless crime.

If I see you spamming forums like crazy about how everyone that thinks pirate is a ponzi is an idiot, a fool, has some agenda, ect. like imsaguy, BurtW, Goat, and all those guys yes I will think you are a scammer and a shill. Because if Pirate turns out to be a ponzi that's exactly what those people are. All of them mentioned (I believe) they "figured out" what pirates business model was. So again if it was a ponzi they themselves have admitted to knowingly participation in a scam, correct?

I'm totally against any sort of regulation of course. Strong supporter or Darwinism. But at the same time people can say whatever the fuck they want. Basically you are trying to regulate speech.


Why does it have to stop? If you don't like it ignore me. I can say this sort of thing about real world corporations as well. In fact I think Wal-mart is toxic to the entire planet, do you think I should be sued for having an opinion? That I should be silenced? It would never work anyway, unless admins here go on some massive banning spree. "Is this post MNW approved? No? BANNED." good luck with that.

If what I say is so unreasonable I only hurt my own credibility. No one else. Its basically Darwinism in action. If I want to be taken seriously I have to watch what I say (or produce results). We don't need you trying to nanny convos and telling us what needs to be stopped here. The funny part is this is your argument about "investing" in pirate, that "investors" (actually lenders) are only hurting themselves, but it's not true. Someone always gets burned in ponzi, a lot of times the lender themselves but also anyone that came after them. All victims are lenders, yes. But not all Lenders are victims (early entry, early exit) So while in general I agree with your position in this case you are missing a crucial element.

Matthew, when I talk to investors I make it extremely transparent to them what it is exactly we do and how, how much it costs and what are our expectations of revenue and that there are risks involved etc and I answer all questions and I do not promise any return in immediately foreseeable future. And yes I will show potential investors our books if needed (subject to some conditions), there is nothing wrong with that. Moreover, we do not accept any investments from anyone who is not either a high net worth individual or a sophisticated investor and who ought to understand exactly what they are doing when they invest in unlisted shares of a private limited company.

Moreover, you completely ignored the first part of relevant sentence "once Occam's razor strongly suggests that some investment is a ponzi scheme...". Are you suggesting that Bitcoin Magazine looks like a duck? I'd say then that you bring up lame duck arguments.

The tone of the community is an issue, indeed. Gullibility and naivety of majority of posting population here is astonishing. Complete lack of basic understanding of how to present a coherent or sound argument and inability to recognise trivial logical fallacies are incredible as well.

P.S. Matthew, say "unkle".

Its hard to tell fanatical religious extremists that God might not exist simply because there is no way to prove otherwise. Matthew is seemingly running a campaign against fanaticism.

We know where extreme beliefs lead to in human history. Protip: it doesnt end well.

Ironically, I could be called a fanatic by running the campaign herp derp

This is exactly why I just posted a condition in Matthew's gambling thread. If Pirate and Matt are colluding to run a giant shell game on the user base, we will refuse the demands that we be the ones to suffer from such an elaborate con.

I also want people monitoring all exchanges between Matt, Pirate and any 3rd parties that could be on board.

Good call! Monitor away random SA troll! And keep those conspiracy theories coming!

I would hope his anus.  My anus backs me everywhere I go.  Without it, I'd only be a dick.

So Matt who did you get the cassius coins from that your going to be using to pay out the bet with?? ;)

Can you confirm that you have that much BTC?  Sign an address with 10k in it?

Backing up your wallet doesn't harm another person's business btw.

If what was said on forums about pirate started to hurt his business, he could have done many number of things to prove otherwise. When asking for millions of dollars from lenders this is a basic duty. But yet pirate refused all options. Locked his thread. Started his own IRC channel where he could control the discussion. Every one of his actions from the beginning followed classic ponzi behavior. It was not unreasonable for people to continue to warn others. What do you think of the other people that were encouraging deposits very aggressively? Surely you didn't miss the massive spam fest trying to drown out the naysayers. That behavior is so much more damaging than what you are complaining about.

How much harm do you think pirate will have done to the community if he does abscond? The damage will be much much worse than if he was legit and "trolls" really did kill his business. And again he have many options to silence the trolls but did not.

Micon explained this to you on his show. If I tried to make the claim Bitcoin Magazine was a scam people would just think I am an idiot. Actually some people were claiming that in some other thread, but it quickly and naturally devolved from scam to just being late on issues. And most rationale people would understand any new business is going to have growing pains and unexpected delays. It's pretty common for print issues and you guys have been doing great all things considered. Any forum is going to have massive trolls, you can't do anything to fix that (even betting). You can't let that crap get to you.

This makes sense more or less, but doesn't exactly cover the reasoning I had. What you say is correct, but there are other arguments, including the "walks like a duck" fallacy, benefit of the doubt, discerning between educating about and crusading against investments, etc. let's talk about this more when the bet is over as it will probably help to understand more irregardless of outcome. I'll mull it over what you said though (and actually I -did- miss the part where Pirate and investors were being aggressive. Before I made the bet, I was only seeing the opposite. Do you have any threads as examples?)

attempt to discredit by mocking, imsaguy was the most childish of the bunch, he did that all over the forums, I don't want to keep looking for all the threads he shit in since July at least.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91661.msg1024343#msg1024343 (keep scrolling)

BurtW takes on the tactic. Posts that he knows what pirates business model is. Starts bet in gambling forums to instill confidence in potential marks.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822.msg1005868#msg1005868
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91252.msg1065371#msg1065371
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97094.msg1069337#msg1069337


Goat did same spamming "ponzi" everywhere mocking people. He posts too much for me to find them now, most of it was mid-late july. and Stuff like this

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91252.msg1064948#msg1064948

Matthew.  I doubt that you have 10,000 BTC.  Can you please post an address signed message here proving that you do?

Nah, you can't just go ahead and compare this situation to religion.
In religion there are no clear signs that anything special exists beyond fantasy and makebelief and projection of fears and uncertainty.
But in this case all the arrows point to a scam of some sort, not nessesarily a ponzi, but still the nubers don't add up.
In fact, it's a bit like evolution. You can't see it happening, but there are corners of information that all define this big structure. It's just that the lights are off and we can't clearly see what kind of scam this is.
But it either is a scam or is made to look like a scam (which is a scam in intself).
Anyway, this is how it looks.

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, we've come full circle. Even when it's not a scam, it's a scam!

The slow transition from funny to sad.

And since Tradehill bought my site and went bust I don't have anymore funding!

If hes going to have a backer, he is going to have a backer. In that case, doesn't that mean Matthew's bet is more reliable? In that case not only can you hold him responsible should he lose, but you can also hold his backer, who if there is one, will probably turn out to be a recognized name, as they are holding 10K BTC.

Why I'm posting? I don't know, I'm pretty bored. I'm not invested in pirate, I'm not invested in Matthew, and I haven't taken anyone's bet, because at this point, its all just a craps shoot. Some people believe in pirate, some don't. Some are blissfully optimistic because they don't want to realize that they MAY have lost their money, and some are just pessimistic looking for an I told you so situation. Instead of constantly discussing whether some secret bitcoin conspiracy is going on, can't we just wait until pirate is out of time, or Matthew had won/lost his bet, and find out for sure?

Haha you must be new here.

Or is it?....

SaltySpitoon
Posts:    541
Position:    Hero Member
Date Registered:    August 17, 2011, 10:01:01 PM

I don't see how trying to figure out who is backing you, if anyone, or if pirate is going to pay or not will change the outcome of the situation.

Count the empty popcorn containers resulting...

-MarkM-

Maybe the person Matthew made the bet with is a friend of his.  Maybe a business partner.  Maybe neither party stands to "lose" anything at all.  What would he have to gain?  Publicity.

Like others have said, it strains credulity that anyone would make such a bet.  

I don't know.  It's fascinating to watch all this unfold though.

Whelp I was wrong..

No backer, just BS.  :-[