I wonder in reality has sunk in for Matt. He put his rep and $100K on the line for a complete douche ponzi scammer.
But but but... He didn't say he wouldn't pay. If we just wait, he might be able to pay in a couple weeks, right? As I recall, the bet was that Pirate would payout as he had promised. A post-default payout is completely different from what he promised and vastly inferior to it. There might be some wiggle room there that will require a close reading of the terms of the bet and the post referenced in it. (For the record, this ambiguity is one of the main reasons I didn't take Matthew's bet. Well, that and the whole thing about not betting money you can't afford to lose.) And the fact that he still hasn't proven he even has the money... |
|
|
|
One more point: did Matthew actually put any money on the table?
No. He has stated he will payout if he loses but hasn't escrowed any of the 10K BTC he wagered. He hasn't even proven he controls enough coins to pay out, despite being asked to multiple times. |
|
|
|
|
Date Paid: 27 August 2012
Order Number: 6341
Trade-In (Y/N): N
Qty SC Jalapeno: 1
Qty SC Single: -
Qty SC Mini Rig: -
|
|
|
|
|
If I were to buy shares, could my shares be diluted at a later time?
|
|
|
|
Here's a 2BTC bounty for anyone who can explain from start to finish how to sign a message from a bitcoin address in electrum. The following assumptions should be made before answering: - This is the first time I've used Electrum desktop client
- The message needing to be signed is multi-lined
- I must use Electrum, nothing else
Were you planning on signing 10k anytime soon? |
|
|
|
That seems to run counter to my knowledge of it, but that may have more to do with the fact that this judge, a pioneer in defamation laws making something written a potential slander when it was always considered libel before, is in the UK. Littleshop and I are in the US. |
|
|
|
Well, first, I'm pretty sure "slander" isn't a crime.
Second, the word you're looking for is libel.
IANAL and depends on jurisdiction obviously. But there is case law suggesting that posts on forums like this are more likely to be slander than libel and that one cannot libel against an anonymous or even semi-anonymous forum nick. I'd like to know more about these cases. |
|
|
|
|
Elux, before it was a dot, it said "don't fuck with us" rotated upside down.
|
|
|
|
Again, the word you're looking for is libel. Second, falsehood isn't the standard you'd have to meet. You'd need to prove at least negligence, and possibly recklessness on the part of OP. And to extract damages, you may need to prove that the man in the picture suffered somehow. |
|
|
|
This is nonsense.
People should think a lot harder before posting private information.
This is not private information. Pirate posted that Dropbox link on a public forum. The individual in question maintains a blog about himself. I do not see how simply reproducing that material might offend privacy as you appear to imply. As always on the internet, you are the sole responsible for what you put on the web; the web doesn't force you. Posting of the mere information about Greg itself might not be a crime but the entire post seems like clear slander. He does not say that they are related, he says one is the other. Unless that is true, it is slander. IANAL Almost certain what you're saying isn't true. Why?? What part? Well, first, I'm pretty sure "slander" isn't a crime. Second, the word you're looking for is libel. Third, a suit for defamation would require OP to be negligent in his publication, or knowing that it is a false statement (doubtful). I think negligence may be provable, depending on the care OP took in his research. In short, there are several hurdles to leap. And if one is going to say, "OP is a slanderer," does one not subject himself to the same cause of action for defamation of which he accuses OP? |
|
|
|
This is nonsense.
People should think a lot harder before posting private information.
This is not private information. Pirate posted that Dropbox link on a public forum. The individual in question maintains a blog about himself. I do not see how simply reproducing that material might offend privacy as you appear to imply. As always on the internet, you are the sole responsible for what you put on the web; the web doesn't force you. Posting of the mere information about Greg itself might not be a crime but the entire post seems like clear slander. He does not say that they are related, he says one is the other. Unless that is true, it is slander. IANAL Almost certain what you're saying isn't true. |
|
|
|
This is nonsense.
People should think a lot harder before posting private information.
This is not private information. Pirate posted that Dropbox link on a public forum. The individual in question maintains a blog about himself. I do not see how simply reproducing that material might offend privacy as you appear to imply. As always on the internet, you are the sole responsible for what you put on the web; the web doesn't force you. OP may well be correct. It's the fact that a conclusion was drawn at all that people will find offensive, especially when you're talking about attaching an identity to the potential theft of what looks like may be about $5 million. |
|
|
|
This is nonsense.
People should think a lot harder before posting private information.
Agreed. Basically a casual link, they know each other. Nothing else can be assumed from this. Maybe people should start taking bets... |
|
|
|
Less talk, more action. Who here thinks I can't prove I have the funds? Free money!
I really don't give a shit if you have the money or not, you just run your mouth endlessly. Well actually Matthew is backing up his words with action - with money. He hasn't proved that he has it. He's backed up his bet with no action whatsoever, other than proclaiming that he'll prove his ability to pay "when the time is right" and he hasn't proven his willingness to pay by going through an escrow. His end of the bet strains credulity; the individual ends betting 10 or 20 BTC at a time don't. Or am I missing something? |
|
|
|
When it's time, it will be obvious. Not before, and not because people bother me about it.
I'm just waiting for you to say you'll delay payouts to those who bet and bother you. "I'll make sure you're at the end of the line..." you'll say. It will be a show indeed. A familiar one... But still a good show. |
|
|
|
Why don't you simply post some address with zero BTC on it and send 10K to it?
Because that would be giving trolls what they want -for free-. I don't work for free. EDIT: I misread what your point was. I actually -will- be doing exactly that, but only after there is enough money to be made from loudmouthed suckers who are so sure I don't have it. That doesn't really prove it's your address. You can in theory just pick an address with 10k in it. He'd have to pick an address with 0 and then just hope it later accumulates 10k if it isn't his. It isn't the best way to prove it, but it works. |
|
|
|
Protip - That's part of the reason they're not betting.
Uhh. Betting is closed silly. The full amount has already been bet. OK then. That's part of the reason they didn't bet when they could. Also, did you forget about my other question? You said you could prove you have the funds. You're silence regarding whether or not you will is telling.... |
|
|
|
|
"I can prove I have the funds, as I've said numerous times, it takes effort to move the funds where I want them just to prove"
How much time?
"it is only -non-betters who seem worried"
Protip - That's part of the reason they're not betting.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't care a whole lot... but I do care a little bit about this pirate thing because I think it affects the $ I can sell my BTC for. So this pirate mess begins and out comes this wacky 10k BTC bet.
Ordinarily, when you make a bet with someone... both parties show their money. That isn't how this 10k BTC bet works though.
Little new users make their bets. 10 BTC here, 20 BTC there. And before you know it, 1000 people have little bets that they will pay out if they lose. Further, if asked, most of them would show their ability to pay by signing an address.
But not Matthew. He flatly refuses. So there are various ways this will play out.
Matthew wins the bet and the little guys pay him.
Matthew loses the bet and he pays. Great... That still wouldn't answer why he is unable to show NOW that he has 10,000 BTC.
Matthew loses the bet and doesn't pay. This means he was either unwilling or unable to pay. The unwilling part is always an unknown unless you're dealing with an escrow. The winning party is often at risk of the losing party refusing to pay, but this is one of the few times the potential winners are at risk of the losing party being UNABLE to pay. Whether he is unwilling or unable doesn't change the press after he defaults.
"Large Crypto-currency better defaults... Once again proof you can't trust Bitcoin or the people associated with it..."
It hurts the community a little and it's totally unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Why don't you simply post some address with zero BTC on it and send 10K to it?
There are two possibilities... 1 - He made a $100,000 bet and is unwilling to prove his ability to pay because he thinks it's funny. 2 - He doesn't have it and he keeps making more bets because he thinks it's funny. Which seems more likely to you? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
