One question remains though Joel... if the PPT's deserve a scammer tag for aiding people in participating in the ponzi, wouldn't everyone who participated in the ponzi also deserve the scammer tag, since they "stole" funds "illegitimately" from other investors?

I enjoy having you here Josh. 

Ok, this is the first time I have heard you say that you don't consider the PPT's to be scamming their depositors.  This was the argument I was trying to dispel the whole time, so I am glad we agree.

I disagree.  Again, it is each person's personal responsibility to research the things they are investing in.

It's like saying that if I ran a forum about mushrooms, and failed to notify you about which ones were poisonous, and you ate a poisonous mushroom and died, it would be my fault.

No it doesn't.  He failed to pay out.  The PPT's who promised to pay out only as long as pirate paid out kept their word.  Pirate did not.

Gene - thanks for the post.  That helps me understand your point of view a lot more, and to a point, I agree.  You argue that it was the responsibility of theymos, and anyone else who knew it was a scam, to call it out as such, and I think that is an appropriate demand.

Here's the thing:  They did.

The only reason I don't quite agree with you wanting to label theymos a scammer is that there were accusations of this being a scam ALL over the forum.  Anyone who spent any sort of time reading about the investment before diving right in should know that the probability of it being a legitimate and sustainable investment was zilch.  If I was in theymos' shoes, I wouldn't have said anything just because everyone else already covered it so thoroughly.

Now, if you know of someone who invested in pirate because of theymos not saying anything when asked directly, you might change my mind further.  Otherwise, I'm still with him that it is each individual's responsibility to do appropriate research and due diligence when making investments.  The information to make a wise decision was out there - it wasn't hidden that this was very likely a scam.

Fair enough LazyOtto, I'll take you at your word that some sort of announcement was made in the past and deleted/redacted.  Hopefully BFL_Josh will jump in and clear things up once and for all.

I guess here is the meat of what we disagree upon.  I don't agree that participating in a ponzi makes you a scammer.  And pirate is only a scammer in my book because he didn't admit it was a ponzi up front.  If he had admitted it was a ponzi from day 1, then I wouldn't see any reason to give him a scammer tag.

Open ponzis are illegal only because the law says they are.  I don't see participation in a ponzi as any different than other forms of gambling.

One definition of gambling:
2: to stake something on a contingency : take a chance

@gene - it's called personal responsibility.  People lost money on the pirate investment, but that was their own fault for investing in it in the first place.

If I made a bet against you, and I won, would it be wrong of me to keep the money?  People investing in pirate were making a bet that it would be a good investment.  Some pulled out in time and gained money, some did not, and lost.

Ok, let's turn the situation around then.  Let's assume you are right, and EVERYONE knew this was 100% a scam and a ponzi.

Then why do the pass through operators get their reputation dinged again?  For servicing the people who wanted to gamble their money on the scam?  Uhh, not in my book!  They held up their end of the bargain, which was to pay out as long as pirate was paying out.

And I don't see how "knowingly participating in a Ponzi scheme" makes someone a scammer.  There are plenty of openly-ponzi "investments" or "services" or whatever you want to call them on this forum.  Are you saying that every one of those operators should also receive a scammer tag?

To me, the scammer tag is a result of someone not holding up to their word or contract.  Pirate should receive it, since he promised to pay out, and did not.  The insured PPT's that didn't pay out should receive it, since they promised to insure their deposits, and haven't paid them out.  The uninsured PPT's should not receive it, because they did what they said they would do.  They didn't scam anyone.

Now, certainly, I'm not saying that participation in a Ponzi scheme is legal, or morally "good", but I fail to see the connection between that and the scammer tag.  As long as the PPT's were up front about what they were investing in and upheld the terms of the agreement they stated, they did not scam anyone.

Where was it stated that the Jalepeno would require a power plug?  Everything I have seen from BFL has said that it will not.

Also, an FPGA?  You're kidding, right?

They wouldn't go with USB 3.0.  That would alienate 95% (NOTE: statistic made up) of the population from using them.

I must've missed this announcement.  Where did BFL state that it will have a power plug?  The most recent message about the Jalepeno was yesterday from Josh, and he said that it would be powered by USB.

Heck, just start with a guarantee that still makes you money with the numbers you are seeing now, then raise it up later on.  I'd still play even with just a 2 BTC guarantee, and you've had plenty enough players to cover that amount from what I've seen!

It would be even better if it was done in the old-school mortal kombat style, with hit point bars at the top of the screen and all.  Each time your opponent delivers a statement, the spectators can vote it up if they think it is a strong argument.  More votes = a bigger hit.  Too few votes = a-swing-and-a-miss, plus the opponent heals a little.  First one to 0 HP loses. 

BitInstant already stated that balances would be converted to USD and held in USD at the time of loading.  I was really hoping the balances would be held in BTC and only converted when used, but alas, no such luck!

He may be there, but he won't be representing the magazine.

Ok, HOW did that happen?

blockchain.info does not use a transaction fee by default.  I'd recommend setting it up to use a transaction fee (I have no idea how) if you really want to withdraw your funds quickly.

Remember, blockchain.info doesn't actually hold any of your coins.  YOU hold them, and you're just using blockchain.info as your interface for using them.

Ok, I see your point of view.  But, I see two differences:
1)  The scam wasn't known as a scam for certain.  You KNOW that a hitman is going to kill someone in your example - you don't KNOW that people are going to lose their money in a scam until it happens in the case of pirate.  Sure, there was a strong likelihood, but it still wasn't certain.
2)  I see risky investments as a form of gambling.  If people want to gamble their monies away, or give it to a homeless guy on the street, or light it all on fire, it really doesn't make a bit of difference to me.  And I would even help them do it if they wanted and I had some incentive.  Therefore, I don't feel as though the people who invested in Pirate were wronged.  They knew the risks of investing up front, and they chose to invest anyway.  I wouldn't say they got what they deserved, but at the very least, they understood the risk they were taking by investing in the scheme.  That is far different from someone who unknowingly has a hit placed on them.

Do you also think casinos are in the wrong for letting people lose money?  And banks that let people withdraw their money to spend at casinos?

20,000 BTC for a dollar?  Sounds like a bad deal IMO.

I didn't watch the video (can't right now), but hasn't that always been the case?  Or where did the idea of looting dead bodies in video games come from?