You are telling me that you know beyond a reasonable doubt those funds went to an address owned and controlled by OGNasty?
NO! Just saying they didn't go to the addresses all the interest/withdraw funds went during the time period. Every other payment has been documented - from mid April - August 1. Pirate ponzi goes under mid August, Og collects a couple payments from Pirate mid August. He tells his investors he got robbed instead of paying paying them the funds pirate payed him. Not sure how much simpler I can make this. |
|
|
|
....
I think the main difference is that Pete is an openly gay man, married to another man. Hillary is an openly straight woman, married to a man.
Naw... He's just not the Chosen One. You and all your Dem friends are getting signals from the fat guys in the back room as usual. Subtle signals, about who you should choose. Just obey, don't question. Or question, but within the allowed confines. What should I question? Pete is openly gay, or Hillary is not openly gay. That's what we're talking about right? No, that is what you are talking about. It amazes me how bigoted people trying to virtue signal are. They run around wagging their fingers at everyone when they are the biggest racist/sexists/homphphobe/etc in the room. I suppose it is an effective technique to distract from that fact. Tecshare, Do you consider me, or anyone else who has posted in this thread, more of a bigot than David Duke. |
|
|
|
|
I owe eddie a signed message confirming BTC.01 on Trump not getting reelected with same terms as suchmoons bet.
Just saying.
|
|
|
|
....
I think the main difference is that Pete is an openly gay man, married to another man. Hillary is an openly straight woman, married to a man.
Naw... He's just not the Chosen One. You and all your Dem friends are getting signals from the fat guys in the back room as usual. Subtle signals, about who you should choose. Just obey, don't question. Or question, but within the allowed confines. What should I question? Pete is openly gay, or Hillary is not openly gay. That's what we're talking about right? |
|
|
|
A lot of people will at a conscious level think, "I'm tolerant, I'd definitely vote for a gay president," but subconsciously they'll be a little uncomfortable with it, and if they're not sure who to vote for, this'll tip the scales. This subconscious effect is best captured in neighbor polling, where "your neighbors" IMO ends up being a proxy for "your community's collective subconscious": That gap grew even wider when voters were asked whether they thought their neighbors were ready for a gay president. About a quarter of respondents answered affirmatively, while 46 percent said their neighbors were either definitely or probably not ready for a gay president. Pluralities of both Democrats and Republicans, as well as independents, all said they did not believe that their neighbors were ready for a gay president. This might bode poorly for him in a general election, though I doubt that a lot of people are wavering on whether to vote for Trump or not -- most people either love him or hate him --, and the LGBT thing is an effect which pushes most people only slightly. Also, any negative effect will be counterbalanced to some extent by some LGBT people being actively driven to vote for him. .... If all that was true, how did Hillary run at all? By avoiding this delicate issue? She filed with the FEC? Well that does solve the riddle. Is 'how did she even run at all' something people are saying? I'm usually pretty good at keeping up with right wing conspiracy theories but haven't heard this one. Or are you just implying the lesbian tabloid rumors should've stopped her from getting the nomination. Hillary has long been known to have such interests and it did seem to be an issue in her presidency attempt. Maybe it's one of those things that will only be an issue if it's a Repub candidate. Or if it's the "wrong" Demo candidate, and of course Buttigieg is the "wrong candidate." I think the main difference is that Pete is an openly gay man, married to another man. Hillary is an openly straight woman, married to a man. |
|
|
|
Twitchy I have read the transcripts and looked through your blockchain links..
Fair enough. That's all I ask that anyone interested in the situation does. |
|
|
|
A lot of people will at a conscious level think, "I'm tolerant, I'd definitely vote for a gay president," but subconsciously they'll be a little uncomfortable with it, and if they're not sure who to vote for, this'll tip the scales. This subconscious effect is best captured in neighbor polling, where "your neighbors" IMO ends up being a proxy for "your community's collective subconscious": That gap grew even wider when voters were asked whether they thought their neighbors were ready for a gay president. About a quarter of respondents answered affirmatively, while 46 percent said their neighbors were either definitely or probably not ready for a gay president. Pluralities of both Democrats and Republicans, as well as independents, all said they did not believe that their neighbors were ready for a gay president. This might bode poorly for him in a general election, though I doubt that a lot of people are wavering on whether to vote for Trump or not -- most people either love him or hate him --, and the LGBT thing is an effect which pushes most people only slightly. Also, any negative effect will be counterbalanced to some extent by some LGBT people being actively driven to vote for him. .... If all that was true, how did Hillary run at all? By avoiding this delicate issue? She filed with the FEC? Well that does solve the riddle. Is 'how did she even run at all' something people are saying? I'm usually pretty good at keeping up with right wing conspiracy theories but haven't heard this one. Or are you just implying the lesbian tabloid rumors should've stopped her from getting the nomination. |
|
|
|
Why do I have to beg for proof of anything?
Even a mere lie and no proof?
Ya'll are making me frustrated..
You don't. I've posted links to every piece of evidence I've found, including evidence that has proven my own previous theories wrong. Just look at it and come to your own conclusion based on the evidence instead of begging for people to explain it to you or walk you through how to find it. It's all in this thread and you don't need to take my word, or reputation, or anyone elses into consideration. I will save you a bit of trouble though, If you're looking for proof that the chances that Og didn't steal any money is 0.00001% or greater, or if evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he only stole BTC165 doesn't matter because it was only worth ~$1700, or if you don't think evidence that shows it was likely that he stole much more but there is some doubt, or if you don't think Ogs history of profiting off giant scams without risk by collecting other people money is relevant ,then don't bother - you definitely won't find it. |
|
|
|
1. You do not know the owner of the output address of the "missing" funds.
2. There are no victims seeking redress or making accusations of theft.
3. EVEN IF you are right the amounts are so small as to not really make any sense for a very trusted member to trash his reputation over. Such an account could easily sell for well over the amount allegedly stolen, therefore it makes no sense for some one to do this for monetary gains when they simply could have just sold the account and associated signatures for a much higher return.
Are any of these three points incorrect? Please explain in detail if you think so. You never responded to these points. I wonder why. How long will you continue to avoid addressing these points? He can't respond to these points because they are all true, and it totally undermines the speculative narrative he is desperately trying to push. As you can see he is already laying the groundwork for shifting to another accusation to push once again clearly demonstrating this is about targeting the man OGNasty, not exposing any wrong doing. Should I assume from now on that when you ignore my direct questions it's because you know I'm right? 1 true, bitcoin is fungible, you can't actually track individual bitcoin unless the transaction includes the entire balance. There are clues though. He's made ~6,500 transactions over the past ~8.5 years. More than 60% of his darknet(silk road) and gambling(satoshi Dice) related transactions occurred between June and August of 2011. 2 I've explained to you at least 3 times already. 3 If he thought there was a very low chance of getting caught then it does make sense. Even if he could sell the account for $1700, it would basically be giving a green light for someone to use the account to scam. Steal the money and hope you don't get caught so you can convince more people to invest in future ponzis (like BFL). |
|
|
|
^^^ The plot thickens...
The moon is still an object, a holographic one with a location, it has length, width and height. The atmospheric plane that contains the plasma used to display the moon is a gaseous fluid, a liquid crystal.
Why did god make a holographic moon? |
|
|
|
When was Mr. Nasty appointed a treasurer on this forum ? before or after this ponzi passthrough?
Pretty sure it was about 7 months later. Any of his investors posted that they weren't settled yet? No. They received their July interest payments at the beginning of August, just like May June and July. News broke that the ponzi was collapsing in the middle of August. Sept 1 OG posted that pirate had defaulted and paid out the insurance fund he had put aside in case is was a scam. (total of BTC65) They likely just assumed that since it was well known that the ponzi had collapsed, Og hadn't received anything from pirate after August 1. He did though. so BTC144 - BTC65 = BTC79 and at that time that's not much though. The reserve fund was established in April and used to convince more people to invest. It was increased a little every couple weeks until July, when it hit BTC65 So that's an excess of BTC79 unaccounted for since he paid out reserves ( BTC65) to his clients. All in all during that time, it's not a big sum hence why OG's clients didn't make any accusations against him. Reckon everyone was satisfied. Not taking any sides, just stating what i feel from this fiasco. End of the day, money is still money and Theymos won't have trusted him with the forum funds if he isn't trustworthy. My 2 cents. I don't think the reserve funds should be considered out of pocket. They were seperate, funded by interest payments Og received from his investors deposits and announced every couple weeks when he added a bit more to them. They were clearly used to convince people to invest more and for longer. Og was not entitled to them, the investors were. In total the 4 investors received the BTC65 in lieu of their ~ BTC950 deposits that were stolen by either Og or Pirate. If you think they should be deducted from the total missing though, it was ~$980. If you don't deduct them from the funds owed it's ~$1700. There's also pretty strong evidence pocketed an additional ~ BTC950 (~$11k), but that happened before August 1 interest/withdraw payments so they are more difficult to prove. Also worth considering - had it come out he did anything shady with the pirate passthrough, it's unikely he would've been able to convince people to loan him a bunch of money for Butterfly Labs hardware (another massive scam that had plenty of red flags), and even if they did, they would've been less likely to accept 5,000 'nasty fan seats' (which sure look just like a ponzi scheme) that were created just to pay off the BFL loans. |
|
|
|
When was Mr. Nasty appointed a treasurer on this forum ? before or after this ponzi passthrough?
Pretty sure it was about 7 months later. Any of his investors posted that they weren't settled yet? No. They received their July interest payments at the beginning of August, just like May June and July. News broke that the ponzi was collapsing in the middle of August. Sept 1 OG posted that pirate had defaulted and paid out the insurance fund he had put aside in case is was a scam. (total of BTC65) They likely just assumed that since it was well known that the ponzi had collapsed, Og hadn't received anything from pirate after August 1. He did though. so BTC144 - BTC65 = BTC79 and at that time that's not much though. The reserve fund was established in April and used to convince more people to invest. It was increased a little every couple weeks until July, when it hit BTC65 RESERVE FUND:
A Reserve Fund has been established to provide depositors with insurance against loss of deposits. In the event of a Bitcoin Savings & Trust failure, the Reserve Fund will be paid out to depositors, proportionately to their deposits held as listed on this thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75843.msg846783#msg846783 |
|
|
|
When was Mr. Nasty appointed a treasurer on this forum ? before or after this ponzi passthrough?
Pretty sure it was about 7 months later. Any of his investors posted that they weren't settled yet? No. They received their July interest payments at the beginning of August, just like May June and July. News broke that the ponzi was collapsing in the middle of August. Sept 1 OG posted that pirate had defaulted and paid out the insurance fund he had put aside in case is was a scam. (total of BTC65) They likely just assumed that since it was well known that the ponzi had collapsed, Og hadn't received anything from pirate after August 1. He did though. |
|
|
|
When was Mr. Nasty appointed a treasurer on this forum ? before or after this ponzi passthrough?
Pretty sure it was about 7 months later. |
|
|
|
If you wake up in the morning and your yard is wet, but you didn't see it rain, would you consider it just speculation that it rained because someone could have come and sprayed your yard with water while you were sleeping? No. The wet yard proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it rained.
I think you're using phrases that you shouldn't be. Here I sit on the jury, my yard was wet this morning from the phenomenon known as "morning dew". It did not rain yet my yard is wet. I now reasonably doubt your whole case. When you're making accusations such as the ones in this thread/topic you better come harder than that. Ok bad analogy lol. Replace with snow. The fact alone that a scenario exists where it did not snow does not make it impossible to come to a reasonable and reliable conclusion that it snowed. The question should be how likely it is that the scenario of it not snowing happened. This logic is used in court rooms every day. Judges sometimes use a similar analogy to explain the concept to jurors. In Ogs case, I suggest taking into consideration all evidence (blockchain, forum archives, pirates court documents, Ogs actions) and then coming to a conclusion of how likely it is you think he stole the BTC144 rather than just dismissing the whole thing because a scenario exists where he didn't steal the money. I believe the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he stole the BTC144. I also think it's worth noting that the evidence shows it is likely he stole much more. The only burden I have is to be honest. |
|
|
|
Twitchy clearly stated he has NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED WRONG DOING. IT is merely speculation.
 It's not merely speculation. There's a shitload of evidence. What I stated was that the evidence "proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he pocketed BTC144" If scammers were only labeled such when it was proven that it would be impossible for them not to have scammed....nobody would ever be labeled a scammer. Could you take the default trust list drama to another thread please? But you are SPECULATING he did not pay it back via another account right?? I mean, we're just going in circles at this point. Speculation implies there is no firm evidence. It's not merely speculation. There's a shitload of evidence. When you take it all into consideration, it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he pocketed BTC145 If you wake up in the morning and your yard is wet, but you didn't see it rain, would you consider it just speculation that it rained because someone could have come and sprayed your yard with water while you were sleeping? No. The wet yard proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it rained. |
|
|
|
only worth $1,800 at the time
So you want me to find him a scammer, because you cannot trace the blockchain evidence of $1,800 at the time worth of BTC past a dead end, but he just returned 500 BTC @ $7,500 = $3,750,000 +BCH forks and +++ and he is a scammer? Come on man. These loaded questions are part of the reason this thread is going to shit. If you care, just look at the evidence and come to your own conclusion - then try to prove yourself wrong before you try to prove anyone else wrong. If all you've gathered from this thread is that I "cannot trace the blockchain evidence of $1,800 at the time worth of BTC past a dead end" then I don't know what to tell you. If you don't care that he stole it because of the value, or that he didn't steal a lot more from theymos, then don't bother. (btw, I was wrong, it was only worth $1700 - bad math) |
|
|
|
You're killing me man. Just read the thread please
It is getting getting exceedingly difficult to read all of this thread.. Passing my give a fuck levels.. tl;dr please 144 BTC @ <$10? Get to it if you want me to change my mind to "OG is a scammer".. There's evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he stole BTC144. There's evidence that he stole ~ BTC1,000 , but not enough to classify as beyond a reasonable doubt. When pirate sent him the funds he stole BTC1 = ~$11.80 If you think one of the most trusted users on the site deserves a pass because the bitcoin he stole was only worth $1,700 at the time , and you want to dismiss the other evidence that is was possibly much more, then you should give him a pass. |
|
|
|
Kind of seems like you are admitting that your conclusions rely on speculation. I would love to hear you explain how the fact that your accusation relies on speculation is not addressing the central issue of burden of proof, which by definition relying on speculation you have not met.
Speculation happens when no compelling facts are considered, which is not the case here. You've been given the resources to educate yourself on the evidence of what happened but are unwilling, unable, or you did educate yourself but can't refute anything I have claimed, so you just call everything 'speculation'. This is what it actually looks like when someone makes false assumptions just to attack someone: I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway.
~snip~
All of your claims rely heavily on speculation, assumptions, and perfect hindsight.
If you're capable, just put a little effort into looking into the facts. Maybe you'll find something I missed and then the next time you insult me it will feel even better than normal. If you're not capable, then please stop making statements as you did consider the evidence. Way too much personality happening in this thread now..
You you, He He, This user, That user, etc. etc. We are all guilty of it so don't try denying it..
Let's get to the facts of this matter so we can get it over and done with eh?
So we are down to 144 unaccounted for BTC now?
Worth what? Like $1,000 at the time?
You're killing me man. Just read the thread please, I'm starting to feel like a broken record. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834153.msg53339211#msg53339211 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
