Most of them were simply putting other people's money at risk.  Nothing lost when the ponzi went bankrupt.  I mean it wasn't their money. That applies to all passthrough operators, PPT bond issuers, and lying HYIP "guaranteed" deposit takers.  Always going to be another sucker left holding the bag when it all goes tits up right?

Then request it in the scam accusation page.  I am saying this honestly because I think people don't realize this.  The mods don't go around looking for scams and issuing scam tags.
If you feel you have been scammed you make an accusation in the scam accusation forum, create a thread, post your reasons/evidence, and the PM a mod requesting the tag.
If you (or another victim) doesn't so that no scammer tag will EVER be issued.

Well depending on the legal structure of the company, and clauses in the owner's equity stakes you potentially could.  However that may not be the case here. 
Still it may be possible for the company to convince him to sell.  Convince him the damage his continued relationship will do to the company undermines the value of his equity and he is better off taking the current value and exploring new opportunities.

Hardly it would be like if 1970 Gordon Moore stole $500,000 from you then you might not find it acceptable to continue to do business with Intel just because the board asked for his resignation.  Maybe just maybe the fact that Gordon had a significant equity stake and would stand to gain billions over the coming decades if Intel was successful might cause you to do business with a competitor instead.

The reality is depending on the legal structure of BitTalk Ltd they simply may not have an option to divest an owner but comparing a privately held startup (where the company is held by a dozen or so people) to a major publicly traded corporation is kinda silly.

They did, Matt simply lied and broke his own contract.  Then again you being his sockpuppet would already know that.

If you/Matt really believe that interpretation would stand up to a third party why not agree to arbitration?

1) Matt agrees to arbitration on http://judge.me
2) All bettors who also agree to arbitration escrow their bets.
3) Matt escrows an amount equal to the bettors who escrowed.
4) The escrow agent awards funds based on the outcome of http://judge.me

Matt has no interested in arbitration because no impartial third party could possibly see Matt's tortured interpretation of his contract as legit.  Nobody could, not even Matt/you.

Oh and ignored.  I already ignored your main account Matt so obviously I am going to ignore your sock too.

CrazyBlane what is your assurance these codes weren't purchased with stolen credit cards?  

IF they are Amazon will reverse them, make your account negative, suspend further ordering activity, and send a demand request for the balance until you pay in full.

You do realize it is a trivially simple scam right.

Reflecting bad on the company is one thing.  Making the company legally liable for the fraud of one of its employees is a whole different thing.  The argument is legally bankrupt.  It weakens the rest of the complaint and honestly just comes off as silly. 

Didn't you know? The best way to make someone not exist is to avoid the 10+ threads which already exist and then start a NEW ONE.  Bonus points if you put the name of person who no longer exists in the title.  That will double plus erase them.

The largest takedown of online poker sites and seizure of player deposits EVER occurred under the Obama administration.  The OP claim is silly on face value.  

Good punishment but not really fair to Atlas to be linked to a 80K BTC scammer.

You got me there.  I guess he "paid" the 20 BTC once and considered that covered for all bets. It is hard to understand the logic of a mentally disturbed idiot.


Yes he DID.  


and
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101751.msg1173953#msg1173953

and
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101751.msg1173889#msg1173889

For the love of God what is your argument here?  Nobody is defending Matt saying "Yes he won legit by this technicality".  It is Matt's idiotic and flawed logic but it is his "reason" for how/why he has both lost and paid in full (paying 20 BTC to himself).  That is HIS CLAIM not mine.  The fact that he claimed it really isn't in dispute. 


No.  If you still don't get it.  Well I can't help you.  You should probably sober up and try again in a few hours.  

I had a feeling I should click unignore.  LOLZ.  The intact exif and shoe on the head put it over the top.  Now back on ignore. I can only handle so much ElectricMucus in one day.

Can the OP change the title.  It just looks lame like people are waiting to get paid.  Is anyone still holding out hope that account # 24 will be paid in the next few days?

adamstgBit,

You are preaching to the choir.  I was just giving you the cliffnotes on Matt's stupid "logic".

He claims the sentence that he will pay 20 BTC to 13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM applies not to the example but to all bets.  So he admits to losing the bet and thus he paid 20 BTC to the address  13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM (which he owns) 122 times (once for each lost bet).  He has stated he has paid per the terms of his bet.  If you think it is dumb and not even logical well join the crowd I am just relaying his explanation.  Per Matt he has lost and paid the bet in full per his "terms".

You just quoted it above.  Both the amount and address.  Don't try to think too hard on it.  He is a lying piece of crap who simply used this after the fact to avoid paying rather than just say "I am not paying".

Did you honestly believe it was a promotion run by BitTalk Media?  Really?  Did you make a bet specifically based on this fact?  Did you contact the magazine to determine if it was legit?  Did you attempt to even clarify with Matt after the links were removed? 

Even if this went to court (which it wouldn't) a judge would look at the evidence and try to determine what a "reasonable person" would think.  Based on the event I don't see how a reasonable person would believe that this was an official promotion by the magazine.

Well I am not a mod but it should be done in the scammer accusation forum.  You need to create a new thread, include any evidence in the thread, and request a scammer tag by sending a PM to mod.

Once again SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE A SCAM ACCUSATION AND REQUEST THE TAG.   If the person or persons(s) affected by a scam don't request the tag then no tag will be automatically issued.

adamstgBit,

He used the example from his OP and falsely interpreted it to mean the terms of the bet were that for each lost wager he would need to pay 20 BTC to the address is his bet (his address)
Pretty lame (and stupidly false) technicality.  

If Matt honestly believes he pulled a legit fast one on the betters he should allow it to go to arbitration before http://judge.me .

My understanding is that someone who is scammed needs to ASK for a scammer tag.
Has anyone asked for a scammer tag for Hashking or Nckrazze?  If they did and the tag was denied then you might have a point.

I mean it would be like saying a lawsuit was filed against X but nobody has filed a lawsuit against Y or Z.  OK?  Your point?

Actually it would be very common.  Employees (especially high level employees) are sued by their employers all the time when their actions and words cause damage to the company (reputation, lost sales, canceled ad revenue, etc).  There is nothing to indicate BitTalk is looking to sue Matt but if they did it wouldn't be over "lost BTC" it would be over damages to the company.  Still the OP seems to be combining that with the bet itself and throwing in a bunch of nonsense legal words so it is hard to tell what he is trying to say.