Bitcoin Forum

MNW offered to take the scammer tag if he doesn't pay. In my eyes this was one option of paying ones debt for both sides from the start of the bet and should not lead to further actions like the open letters to remove him from certain operations etc.
MNW's posts were to be taken with a grain of salt and the SCAMMER flag now makes that very clear to all new people. Now calm down and carry on.

Yes, I think so. It was pretty shitty of him to do it, and he defaulted on a large bet, and deserves a scammer tag. But, people, feel free to be pissed, but god dammit stop making new threads every 10 minutes about the same thing.

If I had bet against him I would be furious, as I'm a man of my word and would have paid up if I'd lost.

What a piece of shit.

lol why is anyone pissed?

everyone knew he wasn't going to pay up.
no one lost money.
and he got the scammer tag.

probably a lot of people's bets were for 10 times more bitcoin then they actually had, you know just for the off chance that MWN is retarded and did pay out.

I can't believe how many people don't get what he did. Pirateat40's pyramid scheme was a scam to begin with. Whe it defaulted (let me show you my shocked face (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBTpjkPiVyg)), Matthew tried to show you how easy it is to fool you suckers without actually taking any of your money, and yet you still don't get it. Hey scammers! There are still plenty of fish in here!

I think Matthew cares about the scammers tag as much as anyone cares that HE HAS PUT BITCOIN MAGAZINE IN BOOKSTORES!

I bet (heh) that people did lose money.

1. Investor notices the bet thread
2. Investor notices TYGRR-BOND-P is trading at 0.1 BTC
3. Investor buys 1 share
4. Investor bets 1 BTC
5. MNW exposes the "loophole"
6. Investor is forced to sell his share again, at a loss of 0.04 BTC.

Just because MNW didn't gain doesn't mean others didn't lose. If I break your window, neither of us gain. I'd still be an asshole though, especially if there's no recourse you have against me.

Actually, people did lose money. Matthew's bet pushed the price of Pirate debt up. And some people acquired Pirate debt to hedge against the risk that Matthew would win his bet.

Wow. Are their really people willing to acquire pirate debt? That's making a market in empty promises if ever there was.

I firmly believe that Matthew's bet distorted the secondary market in Pirate debt and caused some people to defer selling Pirate debt that would have reduced their losses, some people bought Pirate debt at a much higher price than it was worth (either to hedge against the risk that Matthew would win or because they thought Matthew knew something they didn't), and possibly even allowed Pirate to sell his own debt for longer at higher prices and thereby steal additional funds from the community.

People on this board have white-knighted for every scammy fuck that's come through so I'm not surprised this time is any different.

Would some of the people on the other side of the bet most likely have also reneged on payment? Irrelevant.
Was it pretty obvious that he wasn't going to pay out close to a million dollars? Irrelevant.

It was also obvious that investing with "pirate" would be a VERY risky investment.  That doesn't absolve the perpetrator for scamming people.  You can think the victims are dumb AND also acknowledge that the person that defrauded or deceived them is a piece of shit.

Acting like the bet was some masterstroke of genius and imparted some critical lesson for all involved is laughable.

I didn't invest with pirate and I didn't bet with Matt.  The fact that their deceptions were poorly constructed doesn't stop me from recognizing that they are untrustworthy douche-bag scammers.

Nah just kidding guys, it's totally cool when people break their contracts and promises as long as they are the type of people you should expect that from.

+1

+1

I am calm and I didn't take the bet.  This is about risk management.  The scammer tag alerts others to the risk involved in dealing with Matt.  He has demonstrated his word means absolutely nothing and as such shouldn't be relied upon.

Matt seems to believe that just because people shouldn't trust the word of a Pirate offering 3,400% interest they shouldn't trust the word of anyone.  The reality is all commerce requires some level of trust.  If you send a merchant funds you need to trust they will deliver.  If you deposit funds on an exchange you need to trust they won't walk away with it.  Even if you do all your commerce in persons (i.e. OTC) you need to trust the other party won't simply rob you.

As Matt is the editor in chief (and equity stake holder) in the magazine, his actions and lack of ethics reflect badly on the magazine.    Either the other owners condone that sort of unethical behavior, or the other owners lack the risk management to see the liability that Matt represents.  Either way that influences my decision to do business with them.  I am not "angry" or "heated".  It is business.  A large component of business is trusting the people/entities you partner with.   Sometimes it just comes down to a subjective judgement (gut feeling).  Someone looking to buy advertising space in the magazine is taking a risk.  Business is all about calculated risks and Matt's reckless, and irresponsible behavior increases the risk for others looking to engage in commerce with any business he is involved in.

If Matt is removed from the magazine he is still reckless and irresponsible but that risk no longer affects the magazine.  If he remains with the magazine that risk remains with the magazine.  
If the other owners of the magazine decide not to remove Matt well that is their right but there are consequences.  It isn't about punishing Matt, it is risk management.  The magazine is riskier because he is a part of it.

+1

I would point out that it is useful information to look at the persons defending Matt and their arguments.  It provides an insight into their thought processes and a good reason to avoid doing business with them.  Those defending him are saying it is ok to lie, cheat, and break agreements as long as funds don't change hands.  Those aren't the kind of people I would want to be involved in a trade with.

+3

Agreed.

I have every single one of these asshats on ignore right now.  I will not be doing business with people like that.  People are showing their true colors today and for what?  A scammer? lol.

This is absolutely true. Especially the last part. Some people simply seem to have a complete lack of respect for agreements and promises, and their thought processes show not only in their own dealings, but in those of others as well.

But he wasn't targeting people who were fooled by Pitareat40's scam, he was "fooling" people who were warning other fools about risky investment schemes. And by "fooling" I mean telling people to put up money on an almost certain bet without actually risking any of it. If his intention was to show how easy it is to fool people, he failed. I doubt anyone who was calling Pirate a Ponzi would have actually bet anything if there was any actual risk involved.

+1

Yes he did.  He specifically mentioned his bet as a way to hedge for Pirate investors. 

I took Matt's bet for a very small amount, to be honest even when I made the bet I didn't in a million years think he'd pay out.
However, whatever point he was trying to make doesn't absolve him of responsibility entirely, and he can now deal with the fact that he's burned bridges with a huge number of people in this community.

This was despicable. So many pirate "investors" avoided bailing out because they could use Matt to "hedge" their risk.

Sorry, I should've said "initially." At first his whole point was that people screaming Ponzi should shut up or back their claims with money. If that was all who bet, this probably would've turned out OK. But it all went tragic as soon as he allowed others to hedge their losses.

Even before that, it encouraged some people not to sell their Pirate debt at a reduced loss because they believed that Matthew knew something they didn't.

^^^ True

Though in answer to those here saying "you are fools for taking Matthew's bet, and he was just proving how gullible you are" I'm just pointing out that initially it was the not-gullible Team Ponzi that his bet was targeted at, and was supposedly the point of. I'm not sure anyone from the Team Ponzi actually lost anything on this bet (I sure as hell didn't).

+1 This. Majority of those who took the bet were putting their money where there mouth was in accusing BTCST as a scam/ponzi and would not return funds.

If you value money, which is imaginary, over relationships with people, which is the only valuable thing we have, then you will likely always be scammed, tricked, defrauded and fooled.

hey, did Matt ever even say he wasn't paying?

or are we all assuming he wont?

Didn't you read it? He made up some shitty excuse for a technicality.

no i didn't see it i got here  and their was already 10 threads about it

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101751.msg1173889#msg1173889

The sad thing is that it wasn't even a good "technicality".  It was more like something a 10 year old would come up with shortly before the fight devolved into infinity +1 or infinity to infinity.

Agreed
When kids did that to me, I blew their mind with "infinity to the infinity" and talk of Aleph1 (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Aleph-1.html) :P

+1 It wasn't even creative. It's so funny to see him shoot himself in the foot thinking we will all feel it.

huh?

That part

adamstgBit,

He used the example from his OP and falsely interpreted it to mean the terms of the bet were that for each lost wager he would need to pay 20 BTC to the address is his bet (his address)
Pretty lame (and stupidly false) technicality.  

If Matt honestly believes he pulled a legit fast one on the betters he should allow it to go to arbitration before http://judge.me .

For the record if you see me taking side with MNW: He did a bet where he put his credibility against a million $ and decided to publicly declare himself not credible. He perfectly made clear what will happen if he doesn't pay which did not involve hiring killers or the police. He's tagged accordingly. Crying and extending the drama is just pointless. The debt is payed according to his deal and he will have to live with the consequences but please don't let these consequences be hundreds of threads.

He never actually fulfilled his commitment in the bet. He claimed to have then got the scammer tag anyway.

Says the guy that started this thread.  Now that's funny.  Here's a suggestion.  Want it to stop?  Lock the fucking thread.

i don't see anywhere him saying hes going to pay 20BTC this is own address

that was an example

someone places a bet like so
and he will pay 20BTC to 13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM if he loses


sounds to me like he was saying he was going to honer his bet!?

adamstgBit,

You are preaching to the choir.  I was just giving you the cliffnotes on Matt's stupid "logic".

He claims the sentence that he will pay 20 BTC to 13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM applies not to the example but to all bets.  So he admits to losing the bet and thus he paid 20 BTC to the address  13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM (which he owns) 122 times (once for each lost bet).  He has stated he has paid per the terms of his bet.  If you think it is dumb and not even logical well join the crowd I am just relaying his explanation.  Per Matt he has lost and paid the bet in full per his "terms".

You just quoted it above.  Both the amount and address.  Don't try to think too hard on it.  He is a lying piece of crap who simply used this after the fact to avoid paying rather than just say "I am not paying".

That's what made it so lame...it was a stretch to make a kindergarten attempt to find a loophole.

Like Vladimir said, bitcoin itself is worth 100 bucks on entertainment value alone.

People don't get your eyes off the real culprit... where are the Bitcoinica's compensation?  Has anyone filed a suit for the Pirate yet?  What's going on?

Matthew likes attention, nothing more than that.

no he didn't
http://blockchain.info/address/13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM

And He never even said that's was what he was doing

He just used that example again, telling everyone if you bet 20 you'll get 20... no?

Here's a helpful graphic for you.

https://i.imgur.com/i1O1n.jpg

You got me there.  I guess he "paid" the 20 BTC once and considered that covered for all bets. It is hard to understand the logic of a mentally disturbed idiot.


Yes he DID.  


and
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101751.msg1173953#msg1173953

and
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101751.msg1173889#msg1173889

For the love of God what is your argument here?  Nobody is defending Matt saying "Yes he won legit by this technicality".  It is Matt's idiotic and flawed logic but it is his "reason" for how/why he has both lost and paid in full (paying 20 BTC to himself).  That is HIS CLAIM not mine.  The fact that he claimed it really isn't in dispute. 


No.  If you still don't get it.  Well I can't help you.  You should probably sober up and try again in a few hours.  

i get it, i was looking for this quote...


lol, ok.

did he actually pay out 20BTC to everyone?

Edit: not that this makes him any less of a scammer...

Good point.

The fact that Matthew is just another untrustworthy person among billions doesn't really concern me much.  It's a bit troublesome though when a portion of the community rallies behind that kind of behavior, time and time again. 

I'll definitely use the information exactly as you described in my future dealings with bitcoin related businesses.

You guys that dont understand it.. its simple..

Its a stupid childish way to think about it..  a 5 year old attempt at a stupid technicality..

He just said he would pay out to his own address.. for each person..  so he would just pay himself 20 coins to his own address for each person entered.... and in some stupid bs play on words he thinks this is funny...

Yes, it's getting kinda lame. If I recall correctly, he did say:


in the header. Dunno about you but I got my money's worth :D . In fact, I got more than 100% of my "investment" back. And no, I didn't promise to 'bet' anything in that Interwebs discussion thread. It kinda concerns me how people started putting in 'bets' (if you can call it that) and the reply-counter shot up like microwave popcorn, and nobody thought to ask for clarification. It would have been this easy:


THAT EASY.
Gambling addicts annoy me. Get help dudes/dudettes.

With cash your word has to be solid.  I think they used to say "his word is as good as his deed"... I did not bet so have nothing to gain.

Think of all the people who were defrauded by Pirate -- possibly for money they could not afford to lose. MNW's bet gave them hope that he had inside knowledge (that a payment would come).  And a hedging strategy.  Why prolong the agony?

Read the thread. Many people asked for that clarity and he assured them all that he would not weasel out based on some technicality or play on words etc.  He outright lied it seems to me. 

right and just to prove what your saying is right

Matthew said this himself

which means he payed himself 20BTC 112 times, and considered that to be fulfilling the bet ( which he didn't even do by the way ).

There is a type of person who desperately wants a path to easy wealth. This person doesn't want to start a business, invent something, or develop a marketable skill - they just want to "invest" in the right thing and have it explode in value so they can cash out. The kind of person I'm talking about is so desperate they have no problem suspending disbelief if somebody comes by telling them what they want to hear regardless of how warning signs are apparent.

Many of these kinds of people are attracted to alternative currencies and precious metals, and wherever they go they attract scammers like chum attracts sharks.

In point of fact, anyone who was planning to work some sort of a scam would probably be demonstrating as much righteous indignation about Matthew's thing (and others) as they could muster so as to develop a good reputation with the potential marks reading the forum.  The people publish unpopular counter-points are probably among the most trustworthy when it comes to their propensity to do the right thing in various kinds of transactions.

That said, I personally trust no-one any more than I have to and always look for other ways to develop confidence, though that's not saying much since I do basically zero economic activity in the network at this time.  Back when I did, however, I was very careful to use 'trust' only minimally.  My rule of thumb is to do even less with Bitcoin than what I would be willing to do with cash...and I've only been parted from the amount of Bitcoin which I completely expected to be.

I paid into so he would get the scammer tag :) will with it I might add.

So, the lesson I learned was that I did not call ENOUGH people scammers.  Not only that, but I have learned that I can be easily scammed by people that appear to be good people and that I should have no trust in them.

Thanks Matthew.

+1  ;D

Of course people are overreacting.

Matthew Wright's prank, and it was a prank, not a fraud or a scam, since it was obviously never intended to make any money or deprive anyone of money, did teach a lesson, although i'm not sure it was the intended message. Things that appear to be good to be true almost always are.

So just as "business" proposals that promise one percent or more per week "guaranteed" (or even .5 percent per week) can easily and very confidently be rejected out of hand as foolhardy at best and outright ponzis in all likelihood, huge bets, proposed by the obvious losing side, can be very confidently dismissed. You will never collect.

The thing that Wright miscalculated was the unintended cruelty of the tack he took. He inadvertently acted like a Nigerian scammer who swoops in after the initial con for the double dip. Some of the same, obviously misguided suckers, who "invested/deposited" with Pirate, looked to this bet as their chance to recoup some or all of their losses (even though anyone who collected 7 percent for a couple of months isn't a net loser). So by teaching his lesson, Matthew extended false hope to some foolish people. It's as if they fell for it all over again.

Fools or not, no one deserves to be the victim of a ponzi scheme.

Wright's troll went too far, certainly, but he didn't commit a fraud, gambling debts are generally unenforceable in courts, and he did send his message. These sanctimonious open letters and calls for his banishment are silly. He's a clever kid who probably needs to re-think his polemical methods.

I apologize for my awkward Englush, I learned mainly by watching hip hoop videos. I work steel compony, Кpивopiжcтaль.

 https://sealswithclubs.eu/seals-team-pro/

And ignored.  Anyone making excuses or apologizing for this asshole will be ignored.  You are supporting a scammer.  Period.  I won't have anything to do with you now or in the future.

I initially held that opinion to some extent, but some here have made some pretty compelling arguments that his initial actions seem to indicate that he started out with some hope of winning the bet.  The strongest of these is that he did some of the bets under escrow and what he lost here seems to be a larger amount of money than one would suspect if he were just trying to pull a prank.

If the escrow assertions are proven, it does seem to me that in Matthew's twisted mind he had some initial plans which shifted as the situation on the ground evolved.

I do wonder if in Matthew's position as the editor of that magazine he ever had any contact with Pirateat40 and thus may have thought he had some info that most people did not?

Coглaceн, нo Maт тoжe пoтpaтил oчeнь мнoгo дpyгиx людeй вpeмeни. Mы вce oжидaли кaк oн выкpyтитcя, дyмaя чтo бyдeт  чтo тo кpyтo, xитpo, или xoтя бы зaбaвнo, a oкaзaлocь кaкaя тa дypaтcкaя шyткa кoтopyю тoлькo oн пoнял. Этo кaк бyдтo oн вcex пpиглacил нa гpaндиoзный caлют, вce пoмeняли плaны чтo бы пpиexaть и пocмoтpeть, a кoгдa пpиexaли, тoлькo yвидeли кaк oн бyтылкy c мoлoтoвcким кoктeлeм бpocaeт в вepx. Дaжe кoгдa этa бyтылкa в кoнцe yпaлa eмy нa гoлoвy, тo и тo нe oчeнь интepecнo :(

ya me too, at first i was like its just a prank, but then you realize that he would of taken all the money form everyone if he won and given a scammer tag to all the people that didn't pay....

He said on the forum and in an interview that he never had any contact with Pirateat40. He wanted everyone to STFU and stop acting like a bunch of trolls, and winning this bet was going to do that.  Ironic isn't it :P

Escrowed bets were lost, correct? So he just gave money away in those cases, since there is nothing that he could have known about Pirate that would make his bet a winner, ever.

So they say.  I didn't run the (purported) escrow so I cannot know for sure.


Not in escrow is working as designed.  If it is, the money is taken which is quite different from 'giving it.'


This is probably true, but it is certainly possible that Matthew might have thought he knew something.  One interesting thing about the Pirate is that he seemed to have the same power that that old guy in the star wars movie had to influence the thought patterns of the weak minded.

It would also have been a shrewd move on Pirateat40's part to go ahead and pay some escrows for Matthew to get his scam/prank rocking as a diversion.  That's a long-shot hypothesis however and I don't put much stock in it (though things seem to have played out that way and some people did get burnt by the influence it had on the bond discounts...unbelievably to me...)  A contra-argument to this hypothesis is that there would be little reason why Pirateat40 would give a flying fuck about the bond discounts, attention, or much else associated with his Ponzi.  It was all wrapped up weeks ago from his perspective.

That about sums it up.

https://i.imgur.com/GkdoS.png

Why is it that on these forums everytime gets scammed, stolen, or anything related tons of people are saying "ha he should not have trusted XXX or YYY, so it is obviously his fault if he lost his monies"

Come on. Thats like saying to a rape victim that she should not dress so sexy / go out alone / etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

As long as this logic and impunity goes on bitcoin will only be a children playground.

For a 1 million scam "in real life" matthew could have been sent in jail for the 5 next years or so.

And to me sorry but it is obvious that he would have taken as much as possible in the case he would have won the bet.

Ever reported minor theft of goods or USD? Yeah, nothing usually happens with that either. People get away with stealing millions in USD all the time, as well. However with USD and other currencies there is lots of normal business going on so people don't dwell on that stuff too much. They just transform into jokes "Pulling a Maddof" or "Too big to fail".

So how about the reaction to all this stuff is to start passing those electronic coins around for more regular activities and tone down the big bets and investing in blackboxes? How about not being repulsed by reasonable fees or interest rates instead of blissfully accepting that miniscule fees and unbelievable interest rates are an expected reward for being in the Bitcoin club? Perhaps ask reasonable questions and think over the responses given? I'm just throwing out some ideas here.

There was nothing inadvertent or unintended about it. He knew that his bet was being used by BS&T "investors" in order to hedge their likely losses and not only continued to accept their bets but actually advertised it to them for that specific purpose.

It just showed how immature the bitcoin finance is, in the real world, there will be CDS sold to hedge the risk for MNW's default

And of course at the end someone has to pay big either way, so it ends up with a sovereign default which is solved by 0 interest policy and QE, but in bitcoin's case no one is taking the final risk

Actually people should grow up and learn to avoid scams. The "rape thing" is ridicolous, no one is being "raped" here.

Almost all scammed ppl fall for scams cause they are GREED and expected to hurr durr become rich 7% week hurr durr, matthew will give me 10.000 btc if i make 1 post in the thread hurr durr.

Um, the people who took on the stupid risks, such as investing into HYIPs, or selling CDS for something as flaky and unpredictable as Matthew's bet, would be the ones "taking the final risk." 0 interest policy and QE means the risk is disbursed among the entire nation's population, either through inflation, or through higher taxes later on. Why should everyone have to pay for the risks they didn't take, just because some numbskulls decided to gamble with their money or sell overly risky CDS products?

*ignored*

Twat's that you say?  I cunt hear you.

I don't think people are overreacting to MNW idiot stunt. I think people are under-reacting to Pirate, and all the PPT scammers.

FYPFY.  Making an agreement for a wager and backing out isn't a stunt.  If you think so trying doing that in a casino.  Try losing a bet and just grabbing your chips and leaving.  Better yet try doing it in some underground poker game.

Actually, that's relatively easy to do. Try doing it twice.

Your point is self-refuting.  This anonymous online BBS is *not* "a casino."  This anonymous online BBS is *not* "some underground poker game."

All you humorless haters aren't going to do anything except whine; you're certainly not any kind of virtual casino security bouncer thug or mob enforcer.   ::)

So take your threatening internet tough guy BS and stuff it, cupcake.  ;)

How much of your money did MNW steal, exactly?  How much did pirate steal?

Its just a silly bet guys.... no harm done, since no money was stolen or spent. So get over it :)

I didn't make a wager.  I didn't say I was doing anything.  Matt got scammer tag, his rep ruined, and he lost his job over it.  Nothing more is going to happen.
I was just pointing out that making a wager and then taking it back after losing is generally not considered a "stunt" anywhere.  It is fraud.
Still the debt is uncollectable, Matt has no intent on paying, and likely can't pay even if he wanted to.  So it is over.

This post-bet experience has been enlightening.  When I see people like you who defend it or minimize it, well it provides some insight into the way YOU think, your value systems, and you likelihood to walk away from an agreement.  An agreement is an agreement and should be honored.  You obviously disagree and look for ways for it to be "ok" to break your word.  That is your choice, I just don't feel doing business with someone who's word means nothing is good risk management.  I also notice the orange Ignore is accurately colored so (click).  


See that is just dumb.  

If I ask you to make a logo and agree to pay 5 BTC and then walk away after you finish is it "no harm"?

Likewise our company allows depositors to lock rates for up to 72 hours.  Obviously this can expose us to currency risk so we have a non-funding penalty (which we rarely need to enforce).
If a client locks a rate, doesn't deposit, and refuses to pay the penalty we will inform the community they are a scammer.

Your "no harm" comment makes me think you feel it is ok to make and break agreements as long as you don't directly steal from someone. I have to disagree.  If you agree to terms and then don't honor them and don't offer compensation then you are a scammer.  That simple.  People shouldn't make agreements they can't or won't honor.

None and none.  Got any other strawman arguments?

Matt's actions weren't a stunt.  How much I did or did not lose is irrelevant.

Did u bet with him?

Not honoring a bet might be not a gentleman's choice but thats all..... Did anyone actually think that he pays out 10K BTC or 100K$?

Dit someone loose interest on the amount they bet with him?

The thin i leaned from MNWs bet is, not to bet with him.... and that this community it throwing scammer tags at everyone atm. While the real scammers get away with it ....

Wouldn't that be nice?

Unfortunately you are asking far too much of our board mates.  

They are such silly ponies, if you tell them to get over it, they'll rant and rave and put you on ignore for having the temerity to disagree with them.

And then you have the wannabe casino-enforcers like Death&Taxes.  He had no skin in the game, but still insists on butting in and sitting in judgement of all who aren't having a cow over a well-timed, poignant prank.

So far I've only seen two scammer tags thrown out, one for pirateat40, the other for Matthew. Who else is a part of this "everyone?"

PPT operators are requested to get one  for example.

Also Zhou, and Intersango are due, same with the "not really a PPT" investments that turned around and invested in Pirate (hashking, nckrazze).  Heck, even Bruce Wagner still hasn't received a scammer tag.

It does seem to me that it would be a service to the community if there were a tag which indicated:

  "Cost people significant money due to negligence (or possibly worse.)"

That way it would be a no-brainier to pin useful tags on people like the three Intersango bozos among many others.  And do so in a timely enough manner to warn other community members.

I had one of the largest bets with Matthew, and I repeatedly said he'd never pay.

 I'm kinda surprised at how everyone reacted...I mean, it was the most likely outcome right? Is anyone THAT shocked?  Really?

That said, he deserves the scammer tag (as it was a condition of his bet) everything else is just icing on the cake.

Yes, the scammer thing is excessively binary, not enough shades of gray...perhaps the forum needs an ebay-type system with various ratings for users, that other users can vote on: ethical, trustworthy, troll, insightful, etc.  Combine that with the ability to filter out anyone with, say, a "troll rating" > 2 stars, or filter the lending forum by "ethical" < 4 stars.  As it stands, the current algorithmic mapping of high post counts to laudatory adjectives like "hero" is particularly misleading to someone reading the forum for the first time.


Aside from the moral issue, I think part of the strong reaction has to do with the pathetic and unimaginative excuse he used to renege on the bet.  It's as though he couldn't even be bothered to at least come up with something remotely clever or plausible.  When you've been lied to, and the lie is flimsy and obvious, it's much more annoying than if the lie is sophisticated and took some effort to construct.  His attitude implied: not only have I lied to you, but I also think you're all so stupid that you'll believe a ridiculous reinterpretation of the original bet.

/agree

A good way to do this would be to allow a user to link their bitcoin talk account with their #bitcoin-otc rating and have their score displayed in place of the adjectives

Thank you all for your votes! I was really surprised by the result.

For limited values of "good". Isn't pirateat40 still one of the highest-rated users on #bitcoin-otc?

Down to 15 5 now (Thanks for the reminder BTW).
Regarding OTC, it's a bit cumbersome to use, so people don't bother. I'm surprised people who thought he was running a shady business didn't rate him accordingly. Plus, I guess in the end, you would still need to trust your own intuition (great score, but refusing to explain too-good-to-be-true business? Stay away). I'm confident that, as with everything that has happened in Bitcoinland, things will break and lessons will be learned (such as OTC being useful, but not the final say any more, which is fine)

I don't know about others, but I'm not reacting much at all. I thought from the beginning that Matthew's bet was extremely stupid since he had no chance to win. I would have made a bet at almost any payout ratio about Pirate not paying out, and since he offered 1:1 I had my doubts about him paying.

But I don't think I made a fool of myself by betting, since it was totally zero risk for me. And I made my bet before he lifted the original 10k ceiling (and I didn't increase it afterward - didn't bother to because at that point I'd lost just about all confidence in Matthew paying). The only cost to me was the time to write the message where I made the bet. I guess I valued my 3 minutes (to check which of my addresses had a suitable amount of BTC in it and post the message) lower than the EV of the bet's outcome to me at that point of time.

However, if someone actually bought heavily into bitcoin only to participate in betting against Matthew, I guess I can understand if they're pissed off, since they'd have taken actual risks (regarding changes in the exchange rate etc.).

True. There's also a risk of getting a negative rating in retaliation. Not sure how to deal with that.
We do have private credit rating agencies. I fully expect we'll have something similar for Bitcoin.

No.

I sensed this technicality early on and was thinking about using it myself in the unlikely case I would lose. I concluded the wording of the bet does not allow this as a "honorable" alternative to paying, and I decided to not bet at all.

I am very sure any outside arbitration would agree with me. Even MNW seems to agree, or he wouldn't have needed to pay the 20BTC himself. Stop grasping straws.