- 155px by 68px, png.
256 colors or some other value? Transparent background? If yes, what's color of surface image will be placed on? 256 colors works; white. |
|
|
|
Wow, I'm even worse then I thought.  But maybe you suffer from a heavy misguided taste and decide to take it? Aww poor truck! Looks like it was in a traffic accident! |
|
|
|
|
Oh wow lots of kickass submissions. This will be hard.
|
|
|
|
I am relatively certain the only one who agrees with Joel in this thread is Joel.
If so, that would be a terrible shame. It would mean the Bitcoin community learned almost nothing from the Pirate collapse and is likely doomed to repeat it. When people can make mistakes and harm others with no consequences, markets cannot function. Yeah yeah, right. Stop trying to present yourself as some sort of thought leader of a process you have - to the best I can determine - absolutely nothing to do with. A much more intellectually honest approach would be to present your crackpot theories somewhere apart (such as in the Offtopic forum, which pretty much exists for this very purpose) and allow the world to ignore them on their own merits rather than trying to interject yourself in discussions between the adults and trying to piggyback them on actual issues of actual import. We get it, you feel you're one with the whole, you think everything's the same and all are the same one thing and bla bla bla. It doesn't work in the real world, it's not interesting in the Bitcoin world, it has no merit, no value and no importance. Stop wasting my time with it. I am relatively certain the only one who agrees with Joel in this thread is Joel.
If so, that would be a terrible shame. It would mean the Bitcoin community learned almost nothing from the Pirate collapse and is likely doomed to repeat it. When people can make mistakes and harm others with no consequences, markets cannot function. I agree with Joel. To aggressively rail-road him over his opinion in a thread essentially asking for the community to weigh in on a potential scam only discredits the original case. You are very much mistaken. This thread is not asking of "the community" anything at all. This thread is telling the community a simple fact (ie, that PatrickHarnett is a scammer, and that it's unsafe to take him at his word from now on), is presenting to the community the proof for that fact, and is asking the moderators to enact this fact into the little symbolic representation they use in this particular venue to sum such facts up. The community is, jointly or severally, perfectly free to ignore the facts. The net results of ignoring the facts are never going to be a "common mistake", they will be their mistake, wholly owned and quite personal, and the results theirs to bear entirely. The moderators are perfectly free to ignore the facts too. All that'll do is make the symbolic representation a little less relevant. None of this discussion has any impact whatsoever on whether PatrickHarnett is a scammer or not. That is something you can't vote, either as a "community" or as a congregation of moderators or as anything. Only PatrickHarnett can make himself a scammer. Unfortunately for him, he has done this already. If you introduce a tag like this, you allow more leeway for people like Patrick.
Again, that PatrickHarnett is in default is not the point of this discussion. PatrickHarnett is a scammer, aka a liar and a thief, not an honest businessman in default. The last thing scammers, aka liars and thieves need around these parts is more leeway. It is a simple fact that the MPOE's loan to Patrick was imprudent.
Simply stating that makes you an idiot, are you aware? How exactly is loaning to the most respectable (at the time) forum "bank" at rates a degree of magnitude under market "imprudent"? No, never mind, don't answer that. Just get lost. Say I borrow 120 BTC... 2 weeks later I get robbed or my house burns down........ I would be unable to pay right away until my life got back together.. Would that make me a scammer?
This is not at all what happened here. What happened here was that PatrickHarnett took some money from some people at fixed rates, looking to make a profit. He made some bets that, contrary to his expectation and contrary to his high regard of himself, turned sour. Instead of manning up to this failure of his, such as for instance by skipping a month's discretionary expenditure in his life, putting that money into BTC and paying out he went the classical Peter Lambert route: played double or nothing with his customer's money (in this case by buying discounted pirate debt with money he represented as not exposed to pirate - also a classic). All through this he felt no need to kneel before his intellectual superiors, those people more intelligent, more competent and more versed in these matters, present his stupidity which he thought was "a plan", be told it's a stupid idea and not a plan and obediently (as the intellectually inferior are held to do) given up on his stupidity which he thought was a plan. Because oh why don't you know, PatrickHarnett is such a smart financier, even better than Kludge the Bancoclerk, and he can pull off things. If it had panned out he'd have made 50-500% on the capital, paid 2-3-5% to his investors and counted himself a great businessman. Since it didn't pan out he doesn't want to sell his house and move into a shelter where he belongs, because he figures (correctly) that the forum is full of idiots anyway and who cares about what they think. This used to work just fine but then Mircea Popescu happened and pretty much that meant the end of this sort of bullshit. You're welcome, and fuck you. |
|
|
|
Lol I'm not talented for this. Here is it anyway   But at least it has a leaf  Not bad. Here's a rough idea of what I have in mind, still needs more detail, let me know what you think, I can change the colour scheme if you hate the purple  Lol kinda cute, but the cabin needs some work I think. |
|
|
|
Your bus ship has sailed long, long ago.
(Or you bus has left the depot)
trainwreck of a thread nervous breakdown
(or your nervous breakdown)
Sounds legit, especially given that the Internet not being like a truck and reasoning not being like a bus, you gotta keep going.
(not sure what to make of that?)
FTFY A well. We all make mistakes. |
|
|
|
This is getting more ridiculous by the day. Where the fuck does your stupid little poor man's anecdote figure into this? The point is that reasoning is not like a bus. You can't choose your stop and get off. You have to keep going. Did Patrick express doubt as to his ability to repay and MP assured Patrick that Patrick will be able to repay just fine? No. In fact, Patrick expressed an erroneous lack of doubt. That is a mistake Patrick made and for which he should be held accountable. But other people who made the same mistake and jointly caused the same losses should also be held accountable. Damages caused to someone by lending them money? Was it like, poisonous or something? Are you off your meds or somesuch? You can recast any complex argument to make it seem invalid by showing its conclusion can't follow from just one of its premises. The damage was caused by the particular way money was loaned. The money wasn't poisonous, but the usurious loan was. It forced a business model that both parties should have known could not have worked. The collapse is jointly the fault of a mistake made by both parties -- both parties making the same mistake. Other than that, you are trying to paint as "irresponsible lender" a lender who is in fact the paragon of responsibility in BTC lending. Again: at the time PatrickHarnett got 500 btc at 1% the market rate was 7%. The market was horrifically broken. Measuring the sensibility of this loan against that market is silly. It's time to look at these things objectively now. There was no realistic way this loan could have made sense for either party, and both parties should have realized that. Irresponsible forum posting, especially when it purposefully and repeatedly misrepresents fiction as fact and idiocy as sense is quickly becoming the top and only contribution you're making to this community, such as it is. Not much of a problem, but just in case you care. You're much better at insulting people than you are at responding to the arguments they make. Did the loan harm Patrick? Was the loan based on a mistake on the part of both parties? Absolutely no forcing involved. Absolutely no "common mistake" involved. Market is always more "objectively" than Joel Insanikatz. Your bus has sailed long, long ago. Patrick harmed Patrick, much like Joel is harming Joel. But carry on, by all means, after all in six months' time when I'll be quoting this trainwreck of a nervous breakdown against any attempt on your part to represent yourself as sane or even vaguely intelligent you'll probably be explaining how it was our common mistake, ie you were being an idiot and I was making fun of you, and so I caused you harm and so we should be jointly held responsible for you being an idiot. Sounds legit, especially given that the Internet not being like a truck and reasoning not being like a bus, you gotta keep going. |
|
|
|
You are saying that people made a mistake, the same mistake he made. That seems to be true, yes and I don't think anyone disputes that. However, he is the one who owes money and is in default over it, unable to pay it back as he agreed to. Right. So the next question is who is responsible for this situation and how to hold them accountable. Patrick is certainly one of those people, but he's not the only one. 1) Patrick's business suffered an $X loss. 2) Why did Patrick's business suffer an $X loss? Because two people made a mistake for which they can be held accountable. 3) Patrick is one of the people who made that mistake, thus he's responsible for some portion of that loss. 4) The people who loaned Patrick money also made that same mistake and thus they're responsible for some portion of that loss. I'll give you a real world example of this same principle. A few years ago, a doctor examining my daughter noticed that her pediatrician had noted a heart murmur in her records but that he didn't hear it. The physician felt that she might have grown out of it, but the only way to be sure was to run a test. He assured me my insurance would cover the test. We had the test, and my insurance didn't cover it. I refused to pay. The physician argued that I had signed a contract saying that I was responsible for any amounts my insurance wouldn't pay. He argued that our contract clearly stated that I was responsible for any amounts my insurance wouldn't cover. I agreed with him, but then pointed out that because I was responsible for any amounts my insurance wouldn't pay, his mistake in assuring me that my insurance would cover the costs damaged me. And he was responsible to me for the loss his mistake caused me, a loss that (because both are between me and him) offsets my responsibility to pay him for the test. He actually checked with his lawyer (I think more because he was curious than anything) and he agreed. It's substantially the same thing here. It's precisely because Patrick promised to pay that money back that the mistake made by those who loaned him money caused Patrick damages for which they are responsible. Because both mistakes are between the same two people, the losses one party's mistake caused the other offset the losses the other party's mistake caused. Irresponsible lending is just as much a problem as irresponsible borrowing. We wouldn't have had the Pirate fiasco if not for irresponsible lenders. This is getting more ridiculous by the day. Where the fuck does your stupid little poor man's anecdote figure into this? Did Patrick express doubt as to his ability to repay and MP assured Patrick that Patrick will be able to repay just fine? Damages caused to someone by lending them money? Was it like, poisonous or something? Are you off your meds or somesuch? Other than that, you are trying to paint as "irresponsible lender" a lender who is in fact the paragon of responsibility in BTC lending. Again: at the time PatrickHarnett got 500 btc at 1% the market rate was 7%. Irresponsible forum posting, especially when it purposefully and repeatedly misrepresents fiction as fact and idiocy as sense is quickly becoming the top and only contribution you're making to this community, such as it is. Not much of a problem, but just in case you care. |
|
|
|
Well...you have to be able to see the cherries!
Is this any better?  Or maybe  Or maybe  Yes. Now remove the other two obstructions and it will be even better still. |
|
|
|
22:12.09 ( kakobrekla ) too bad i cant draw to save my life With that being said, here is my take on it nevertheless.  Colors are based on a non-random persons avatar. Well...you have to be able to see the cherries! |
|
|
|
NO, the case is different.. I've received the 90% email and shortly after that the coins.. so no new emails in inbox or spam/trash/space folder from GLBSE.
Cant believe that I, and so many other people trustet such a moron with so much of our money. Lesson learned. that's my motto "Funny" how he doesn't care to give us any updates. Last we heard from this jackass was 24 oct.. Would it hurt to give at least a single statement a day? I tried sending him desperate emails how fucked I am without that money, guess what, didn't even care to say "i'm sorry".. Has anyone paid this idiot a visit yet? Obviously he is " maintaining his dignity". Is there any ETA on when nefario will have an asset claim system? This is turning out to be worst-case scenario.
Yes. The ETA will be disclosed soon. |
|
|
|
Yes, except that I can still double-spend my losing bets to cancel them. In that case I don't care that it also double-spends my payout, since my payout is smaller than my bet. I've never seen any statement from SDICE about how or even whether they have any way of preventing such an attack.
Interesting. I'm still learning about how the system works really. The bitcoin network or satoshi dice? The entire chain-of-payments thing. I guess you could say that = Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
He is injecting fake events and quotes, but we are doing 2 things to fix that now
There are a number of Bitcoin-related services experiencing atypical DDoS attacks in the past few weeks and these seem to be increasing in number. It's like it has gone far beyond simple griefing and / or theft as the motive. It's like there is a fatwa against Bitcoin. . |
|
|
|
Pretty much the same deal as last time, except we want a truck carrying a pair of iconic cherries. (Iconic in this context means something immediately and indubitably recognizable as such. Leaf optional.) Specs: - 155px by 68px, png. - cartoonish style (think of the children!). - strong colors. As always we are looking for ORIGINAL ARTWORK ONLY. Amaze me. |
|
|
|
Has there been a shift in applying the scammer tag? In the past, as long as the "offender" was in regular communication and working to pay back his debt, he didn't get tagged. Now, it seems that issuing the tag happens immediately and is removed after repayment. Also, doesn't the term "scam" imply malicious intent? Something which cannot be easily proven here.
It seems like Kraken may have started out with good intentions, but it was likely also used to buy worthless ponzi debt from the main "starfish" scheme. At least, that's what makes the most sense... Starting to sound more and more like Usagi. |
|
|
|
Yes, except that I can still double-spend my losing bets to cancel them. In that case I don't care that it also double-spends my payout, since my payout is smaller than my bet. I've never seen any statement from SDICE about how or even whether they have any way of preventing such an attack.
Interesting. I'm still learning about how the system works really. |
|
|
|
I guess everyone needs better PR. Everyone except MPEx, of course.
Nice plug  Girl's gotta eat. |
|
|
|
|
I honestly can see both ends of this story.
On one hand, what do you practically want from (for example) bitinstant? Should they not do anything? Should they try things in secret and only announce it after the fact? What's the sense and what's the point of that announcement then, and what exactly is the problem with them saying hey, we're working on X, which would be great? Oh, that X sometimes has the pesky habit of not panning out? Well... wtf.
Sure, people are optimistic about bitcoin. Guess what, if they were pessimistic they wouldn't be involved (barring a few, and I quote, "assholish, ruthless, opportunistic businessmen", the sort of nuts who will stick with something to the bitter end on general principle). Sure, people sometimes announce things which won't work in the end, but in fairness it's half the time or more because assholes such as banks welch out of deals after the fact just because they can.
On the other hand, I can see the frustration, sure. Not just part of a consumer culture or an entitlement culture, but in general, I can see it.
I guess everyone needs better PR. Everyone except MPEx, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
