He has shed off his mortal coil and is now part of a greater plane of existance beyond our meager human comprehension.
Which has excellent internet access, apparently, as he's online right now. Last Active: Today at 13:13:56 |
|
|
|
<snip>
Matthew was a bit like the Energiser bunny on amphetamines at times. While he had some level of involvement in a lot of projects, he was often impulsive and his responses weren't always measured. His energy could be very scattered and divided at times and he's not the only high profile person in this community of whom that's true. Visibility and "busy-ness" are not the same as effectiveness. Matthew certainly had a "big" reputation, but it wasn't necessarily a primarily positive one.
I can easily fall into this camp (see text in bold above), but I'll blame running a RL viable enterprise that provides the necessary livelihood for my family. Full disclosure, in case the above included me in quoted statement.Excellent post! ~Bruno K~ I was thinking more of people like JRO, to be honest. |
|
|
|
|
After all of the threads on here regarding the dangers of using eBay/PayPal for trading Bitcoin, why on earth did you ignore those dangers?
You're violating eBay/PayPal's ToS and the scammers know that - they know that you're going to lose in any dispute related to BTC (and that your accounts may well be frozen into the bargain).
Stop trying to game the eBay/PayPal system in the first place and you're not going to have to worry about scammers who intentionally target people violating eBay/PayPal rules.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanation guys. It is an interesting story, specially of we the newbies, to learn to don't trust anyone. Where can I find more threads about this? Is this guy mental? I did get the point when some people said "he isn't a common scammer". If he stole many bitcoins just "for fun", I think he became rich anyway. It's a very funny joke to the scammer, sure.  and a sad story to the victims. I lost 286 USD to a scammer and I am totally hopeless.  You're misunderstanding what happened. Matthew didn't take anyone's money. He made a bet which he didn't honour - he didn't "become rich" because of that bet. I'm so glad Bitcoin is run by math and not by human beings because otherwise we'd be completely screwed by now as the scammed people would all be out protesting and the scammer would receive a bailout so he could conduct his scam again and trick people into giving money. bitmarket.eu did steal user funds and people are proposing a bail-out. Bail-outs have been proposed for failed Bitcoin businesses more than once - the relatively small number of Bitcoin services makes the community reluctant to let any of them die a natural death. I don't know why construct a big reputation to just throw away in the rubbish bin... Matthew was a bit like the Energiser bunny on amphetamines at times. While he had some level of involvement in a lot of projects, he was often impulsive and his responses weren't always measured. His energy could be very scattered and divided at times and he's not the only high profile person in this community of whom that's true. Visibility and "busy-ness" are not the same as effectiveness. Matthew certainly had a "big" reputation, but it wasn't necessarily a primarily positive one. |
|
|
|
That's what the images Josh posted today suggest. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe we should do a "Bitcoin Business Death Pool" and predict which Bitcoin services aren't going to survive 2013. I regret not doing that for 2012.
|
|
|
|
So you're actually complaining that I said I was looking into it and that I am providing regular updates. Nice.
No, I'm suggesting that if you have the time and energy to start new threads and compose novel length posts then you certainly have the time and energy to establish whether those claims have been paid (it should take less than the four hours you claim to have spent on formulating a response to a single point raised by BCB). I believe that when you said the other day you were very, very tired and all you wanted to do was finish winding down your companies, you were telling the truth. The problem arises when you claim on the one hand to be very, very tired and finding the winding down process overwhelming and then you put what time and energy you do have elsewhere - like starting a thread in the hope of defining scammer in a way which couldn't possibly include you and then starting yet another thread when the first one doesn't turn out like you hoped. You asked for help the other day and you got it. It's unlikely that BTC-TC would have let you list without people lobbying on your behalf (or perhaps more accurately, on behalf of your users) behind the scenes. You said that was all you wanted, but it didn't stay all you wanted for very long. You then wanted to list SILVER and seem quite put out at that proposal being rejected, apparently not comprehending why nobody wants anything to do with a new asset of yours while the previous ones are still an unresolved clusterfuck. https://btct.co/security/BMF (click on contract and prospectus tab) For whatever reason, you decided now would be a good time to seek vindication. You keep saying you're too tired to deal with all this shit and yet you started a thread which dragged it all up again just when your assets had been listed on BTC-TC and there was a slight glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. And now you don't like the outcome of that extremely ill-advised action so you're taking a discussion you initiated to a venue you control. Can you truly not understand that it's your own impulsive and erratic behaviour which makes people distrust you more than any scammer accusations ever could? For what it's worth, I think the 10 year trust you're proposing in the other thread is a mistake which disadvantages you. Neither you nor your users want to be tied to each other for the next 10 years and it's an unreasonable length of time to expect you to keep trying to recover funds. I believe you should re-evaluate the length of time the trust will exist. |
|
|
|
He went off the deep end. It happens in bitcoin.
A lot. |
|
|
|
What is TL;DR ?
Too long; didn't read. |
|
|
|
1) how much they're actually going to pay real shareholders, 2) whether any devices will be for sale to the general public, 3) whether shareholders can buy devices above their shareholdings, 4) whether they're going to use customer money to expand their mining operation in contravention of their original business plan, 5) whether shareholders are going to see any money from the sale of mining devices.
I haven't seen any hard numbers or descriptions of anything yet.
And yet you bought shares without knowing the answers to those questions... |
|
|
|
|
Must be a very long breakfast usagi is having. I'm waiting with bated breath for the next instalment of his response to BCB (who I actually thought was being a bit rough on him right up until usagi started sperging out again).
|
|
|
|
BTC-MINING (300 shares)
Namjies has been contacted and has accepted our claim of 300 shares. We have given him a liquidation address.
We don't know if we have been paid yet but will check up on the status of this in a couple weeks. BTC-BOND (4799 shares)
Namjies has received and accepted our claim. We have given him a payout address but do not know if he has paid us yet. We will look into it. There also seem to be quite a few asset issuers you haven't bothered contacting yet. It is your job to be on top of the claims process and to be aware of what payments you've already received. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133168.0You seem to forget that this latest drama was spawned by you making a thread in which you tried to control the discussion and force everyone else to accept your definition of scammer. This thread hasn't gone the way you hoped so you've started another. You do this every single time the drama surrounding your business activities is dying down. A few days ago you were going to wind down your companies and leave forever. A few days ago you were content to have your assets listed on BTC-TC with restrictions so you could wind down. Now you want to list new assets and despite having whined endlessly about the difficulty of dealing with this community apparently you want to continue doing business with this community. Why you expect people to trust someone who is so erratic is totally beyond me. But keep right on sperging. It's not going to change a single person's opinion in your favour but at least it's free entertainment and maybe your meltdowns will go viral and you'll get all the attention you crave so badly. |
|
|
|
need more threads
I'm sure usagi will provide. He's on another sperg-roll. |
|
|
|
Oh shit, this escalated very quickly. BCB was very pro-Usagi just this morning.
Wow.
It's very hard to remain pro-usagi once he starts sperging about being a victim and trying to control the dialogue. His erratic and contradictory statements don't exactly enhance his credibility, either (nor does the fact that he's created the impression that he's personally desperate for money right now). |
|
|
|
|
Mods, can we have a moratorium on new usagi threads (either about or by) please?
|
|
|
|
words
Quoting this one so there's still a copy whenever usagi next has a deletion spree. Am I reading that right - did BMF pay for usagi's VIP donation to the forum? Also the "don't know if we've been paid yet" comments in respect of claims filed is a bit concerning (the constant use of "we" is both pretentious and annoying as fuck). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133168.0mods, can you lock this thread seeing usagi's now started yet another "people are lying" thread? |
|
|
|
It is just very sad that you guys don't see the corruption and issues, that could lead to the down fall of bitcoins in the next two years. There are a ton of things which could lead to the downfall of Bitcoin in the next two years and Bitcoin Foundation has no control over most of them because the free market will operate in its own best short-term interests. If anything, it is the role of BF to ensure that the protocol and the network continue to exist in some basic form when the market brings undesirable outcomes upon itself. First and foremost, the protocol and the network have to survive until all 21 million coins have been mined - that's a formidable challenge on its own. I do believe that the term of the initial board should be shortened. They're effectively a steering committee and as such should be looking to replace themselves with a board elected by the membership at large sooner rather than later. Of course they should be able to nominate for election to the board by the general membership. |
|
|
|
It's my policy to usually enforce local rules. See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=31782.0I think that being able to ban someone from a thread is generally a good thing. Someone might be damaging a thread in ways that moderators don't normally react to. If you don't like the local rule, you can start a new thread. Also, banning someone from posting in a topic should be a red flag to potential traders. This makes it easier to identify potentially dangerous traders. I'm somewhat confused. johnniewalker's statement implies that AfricanHunter will be blocked from responding to any future posts of johnniewalker's. If you're saying that you've advised johnniewalker that he can start a topic with a local rule excluding AfricanHunter and you'll enforce that rule, that's one thing. If you're going to exclude AfricanHunter from ever posting in any johnniewalker topic and somehow prevent him from responding to posts from johnniewalker in threads which were started by neither of them, that's another thing entirely. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
