I can see how someone could easily get Gamma Malinvestment Fund and BitconMax mixed up. 

Giving bitcoins to either one resulted in a total loss.   

This was working fine last week.

Today I started a torrent and it got stuck at 21%.

My two other torrents don't even start (yes I already paid).

And I can't add new ones because it won't process the magnet link, giving me the same payment request regardless of file size.

To top it off, InstaWallet won't send less than .01 bitcoin!

ZOMF FAKE PHOTO IS FAKE.  OCL drivers talk to the device level bridge chip, not to the two individual 7970 component subsytems. 

Have you tried CloudFlare?  I first heard about it from the Bitclocker pool.

Yes, by all means let's expand the definition of scammer until it includes everyone who ever did anything wrong.   

Why should words have meaningful, fixed definitions when our emotional need to express condemnation by any means available is so strong?   

On the other hand, maybe everyone who advocates a scammer label for things not involving actual scams should themselves be labeled as a scammer...   

It should be super easy to find a mercenary in Cape Town.  That's like the number one occupation there. 

Maybe one even accepts bitcoins?!?

They might all be busy repressing the Marxist rabble though.  The natives are restless ATM.   

CGMiner must also interface with the grinder and automatically send shares to bitcoincoffee when it runs low on beans.

It should also maintain your ASIC mug warmer at the utmost tastiest temperature for your particular favorite varietal/roast.

*demands BFG send Con more hardware for development*

Yes, good.  That's exactly what I wanted: payb.tc to take himself out of the loop entirely.  But instead of becoming more transparent, he insists on becoming opaque and functioning as a smokescreen for pirate.  Conveniently for him, it also keeps everyone from finding out whether or not he is the recipient of ill-gotten gains.

The other depositors shouldn't have any say in what is a matter between payb.tc, pirate, and myself.  This isn't a class-action suit, shareholder meeting, jury, or negotiating committee.


Thank you, that is an excellent thought experiment and helps clarify exactly where/why our opinions differ.

To answer your apposite questions:


Providing that information disintermediates payb.tc, dissolving BitcoinMax as a crucial first step in the post-default wind-down.  Just as the Madoff feeder funds were eliminated prior to the consequent clawback/settlement phases.

Pirate (acting in the capacity of his own trustee of assets) needs to see how much each account has received to avoid sending anyone ill-gotten gains.  His lawyer insists on this!

Besides, Pirate should be paying me directly for several reasons.  1. to avoid the third party risk of payb.tc withholding funds (for whatever reason).  2.  so I may negotiate a settlement.  3.  so I may take action against him without his using the PPT as a shield or dodge.


Prior to default, that *would* defraud you of that right.  But, after the default the contractual obligations no longer apply.  That's why it's called a "default," that's what "default" means.  Your contractual right to that first payment died with the default.  It's gone and it's never coming back.     Now a different set of rules applies. 



Again, the contractually guaranteed rights to payments on the collective deposits you speak of are...


...not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This PPT is no more! It has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace!  'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!  He's f*ckin' snuffed it!..... THIS IS AN EX-PPT!!

The operator doesn't need to go along with anything once the default is announced, except for what is necessary to dissolve the PPT and allow the trustee and depositors to continue the processes of clawback and settlement.

"Unilateral?"  All changes to PPT are/were unilateral, as pirate is the sole known principal of BS&T.  Operators were never in a position to jointly make bilateral changes.  Sure they negotiated some rate changes, but the decisions to change the rate and what rates to offer were exclusively pirate's.  Otherwise, the feeder funds would have been called PPPTs (Pirate Partnership Pass Though).

When payb.tc, faced with the choice of taking or leaving pirate's final change in terms, decided to not comply he ceased to be a PPT operator, thus becoming liable for repayments and culpable for any wrongdoing.

I'm not exactly sure how to judge what you mean by "reasonable change in the terms."  As there are arguments both for and against pirate's request for account info, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  And given the unique nature of the post-default wind-down situation, that request seems reasonable enough.

Payb.tc's decision to refuse further cooperation harmed BitcoinMax customers by giving pirate an easy way to avoid repayment, via the scapegoat of operator noncompliance.

His/your interpretation is abusive because it absolves pirate of any obligation to BitcoinMax depositors, and absolves payb.tc of responsibility by blaming pirate.  The buck has to stop somewhere; they can't just form an endless loop of blame by pointing fingers at each other!


^^^This double-bind is not an acceptable resolution for us depositors.   

Ha-ha, very funny.  Clipse won't be laughing when the Bitcoin Police (TM) catch up with him!

Not believing in psychic powers, I don't like getting into mind-reading and divining payb.tc's motives.  I'm sure you appreciate that as a fellow skeptic/critical thinker.   

I don't know payb.tc personally so am in no position to judge his character.  I can only evaluate his public statements, decisions, and actions.

All that matters to me is whether or not he benefited from the scam(s?), regardless of his level of knowledge regarding BS&T operators or intentions towards BitcoinMax depositors. 

Although you state your case well I feel mine is a cleaner, more objective standard of judgement than messy emotional dissections and appeals to naivete/ignorance/greed/forgiveness/etc.

I understand completely the POV that payb.tc did exactly what a PPT operator was supposed to, passing the profits and then passing the default through to us.

But what brings that notion down are his post-default actions.  Instead of ceasing PPT operations and disintermediating himself, payb.tc insists on 1) being payed in full, as if no default occurred, and 2) keeping account info secret and not (no longer) complying with pirates' terms.

I see compliance with pirates' terms as the main obligation of any PPT operator.  Refusing to comply leaves payb.tc holding for bag for depositor compensation, and not meeting that obligation (which he insisted on taking on despite many requests that he not do so) makes him a scammer.

Until the account info is released, we don't know whether payb.tc was a victim or beneficiary of pirate's scam.  Hiding the info reeks of guilt, IMO.

I see it the other way round:

The argument is that Pirate paid payb.tc to scam BitcoinMax depositers, for the benefit of BS&T.

Additional suspicion is created by the fact that payb.tc refuses to release the BitcoinMax records which would show exactly how much he was, or was not, paid by Pirate.

That gives the appearance of having something (ill-gotten gains) to hide.

Clipse was operating a pool that was merged (sans user consent) with a Pirate Pass Though fund.  That alone is sufficient to warrant the scammer label.

When questioned Clipse both denied and confirmed this was true, throwing up a smokescreen of confusing, prickish verbage as usual.

Upon pirate's default, Clipse doubled-down and resolved to cover his losses by borrowing other people's shares at the absurd rate of 130%.

Of course that didn't work out and now we have another little melodrama to enjoy.

Anyone who sent shares to an obvious scam run by a humorless jerk like Clipse deserves this valuable (and thus expensive) lesson.

Clipse: from Hero to Zero.  Now playing at the BTCForum Theater.

Because payb.tc insists that he, not pirate, owes us bitcoins.

Since payb.tc refuses to disintermediate himself, responsibility for BitcoinMax losses is entirely his problem.

Regardless of his intransigence, it's ridiculous for a (former) ponzi feeder fund operator to insist on having control over the wind down and clawback phases.

Too many conflicts of interest (in both senses of the word "interest") and ignores the victims' needs for transparency, oversight, and simplicity.

Herp?!?  OMG it's been forever.  How the hell are you?  Did you recover from that nasty thing we caught in Panama City?

I'll invest all my Bitcoins in your new project.  It couldn't do any worse than BitcoinMax and the Gamma Fund, so what the Hell...

In a free market, all money is equal.

The obsession with "clean" laundered money is unique to the gang of BIS thugs.

That's why they hate fungible monetary assets like gold and silver, unless they own it of course.

Thanks for the update.  I knew (hoped) there was a reason for me not yet posting the "AAAAAND IT'S.... GONE" meme here.

Knowing per-worker shares is useful for comparing configurations and detecting laggards.

Why no stratum on port80?  All the others are working great!  Thanks MM!

That's easy, just point your quantum ASIC to BonusPool and watch the retroactive losses compound backwards in imaginary time.