So if 1 dude fucks up at a Company you crap on the entire company.. That's not fair....
You should wait and see what happens, he may not be involved with bitcoin Magazine any longer.
Unfortunately Matt used his position at bitcoin magazine to shore up his alleged ability to pay. Many entered into the bet trusting his position with the magazine. Indeed, he is no longer employed with the Magazine http://bitcoinmagazine.net/announcement/. |
|
|
|
That's like saying if Matthew just happened to own Intel stock, you'd stop buying any more computers because he "might" be making money from stock appreciation and dividends. Makes no sense man.
...
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. Point taken. It was a crude analogy admittedly. |
|
|
|
You can't force someone to sell something they own (equity). Not unless it's done at gun point, anyway.
You can't "force" them to resign, either. Hopefully they will work out a deal. Well it looks like he already resigned or was fired. Who knows which until we hear an official announcement. The about-us page listed his position as vacant for a while today and now it's listed as Mihai Alisie. http://bitcoinmagazine.net/about-us-2/ |
|
|
|
Thank goodness that Bitcoin magazine has officially accepted his resignation from all responsibilities. This is the first step to recovery..
Bitcoin Magazine now has my full support..
They were innocent victims and have responded quickly and forcefully.. I applaud their behavior..
AR
Not from me. Not until I know he's no longer making any money from the magazine. I don't care if he lost his fancy title. That's like saying if Matthew just happened to own Intel stock, you'd stop buying any more computers because he "might" be making money from stock appreciation and dividends. Makes no sense man. Matthew is out as Editor in Chief; he's not even on the team ( http://bitcoinmagazine.net/about-us-2/) anymore. He basically committed career-suicide (hope it was worth it for him). Who knows if there is any equity/stock option arrangement over there, but if there is it's not like the magazine can just break their contracts with current or past employees on a whim. Don't blame Bitcoin Magazine who started distancing themselves from Matthew almost immediately after he made the bet. |
|
|
|
Any new irc pirate quotes?
Like, i have ur moneyz and now i want ur hoes, or something like that?
[12:50:01] <@pirateat40> I run off with all the money and enjoying large cocktail drinks with tiny cocktail hats. http://pastebin.com/gFywdjeUMore interesting part of your log is missing. As you can see, The Ass Hat form TX is laughing at you all. What keeps surprising me is that there is no serious plan to take this asshole down and do what ever is needed to do with him (court? or what ever you sick mind comes up with). 400+ pussies? No wonder that scumbags like Trendon Shavers and his "friends" (probably only because of the money) are fucking with BTC community time and again. Stop wasting time on this "blaa blaa blaa" and lets figure out, how to take this fucker down for good and get the BTC back he stole. Do you really let this scumbag, his family and his "friends prance off in to the sunset? With your money? Laughing at us all! Yes, that is exactly what they do and it's what people have done for quite some time when confronted with losing a confidence game. Perhaps it's just human nature that no one wants to deal with the reality of a man they trusted being a con man. Case in point, ever see the Music Man? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Music_Man |
|
|
|
A scammer vs. a dumbass.
He's a dumbass for taking more bets even now. He's a scammer if he doesn't pay out. It's that simple. BTW, There's no way he can win this. I won't accept anything less than 100% of Pirate's original agreement when this bet was made. That includes interest to the hour of payout. So everyone should pile on the bets. And if you're a business partner or future business partner of Matthew's. I'd be watching this closely. Of course he can win it. Although the probability is small and shrinking that everyone will be paid back 100% plus interest to the hour of payout, it is still not zero. Since you are dishing out vocabulary lessons on tags, let me add that suggesting everyone should "pile on the bets" makes you a shill if this bet turns out to be a scam collusion between Matthew and Pirate, despite Matthew's protestations to the contrary. As always, only bet what you can afford to lose. BTW, Matthew is speaking at the Bitcoin conference in London one week after the expiration date on his bet. Will it be a tough crowd? http://www.bitcoin2012.com/speakers |
|
|
|
Personally, I like to think of the whole Pirate Vegas trip to have involved a night where all the main players were up that went something like Glenngary Glen Ross.
"Only one thing counts in this life... Get them to sign on the line that is dotted!" "A guy don't walk on the lot lest he wants to buy... they're sitting out there waiting to give you their money. Are you gonna take it? Are you man enough to take it?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCf46yHIzSo |
|
|
|
I moved my db to a new drive and did a symbolic link and at first it worked then I stopped the bitcoind then started it again and it failed with... ubuntu@cs3:~/.bitcoin$ bitcoin server starting
************************
EXCEPTION: 11DbException
Db::open: Invalid argument
bitcoin in AppInit()
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'DbException'
what(): Db::open: Invalid argument
Not sure whats going on. I hit this exact same error running on an instance of Ubuntu 12.04. I then checked the debug.log file created in the .bitcoin/ directory and found: LoadBlockIndex(): hashBestChain=00000000000001b38e93 height=197280
Verifying last 2500 blocks at level 1
ERROR: CheckBlock() : block timestamp too far in the future
LoadBlockIndex() : *** found bad block at 197280, hash=00000000000001b38e93f02be1f00ae3f39c4ab32dfb989154d38cfce2b29a4a
ERROR: CheckBlock() : block timestamp too far in the future
LoadBlockIndex() : *** found bad block at 197279, hash=0000000000000088246a0a90732f7fca77d0b0087c1997a91311e70a54b33da8
ERROR: CheckBlock() : block timestamp too far in the future
This further led me to discover that my server time was far off the correct time (by several hours!). So I then explicitly set the time via "date -s". Example: sudo date -s "Tue Sep 4 22:37:51" Rerunning the bitcoin server after doing that worked great (fixed the problem!). |
|
|
|
Disbursing funds to some customers and not others would be a criminal act under those.
I believe a court order (injunction) should be filed to help ensure the exchange operator proceeds as prescribed by law.
Bitcoins were stolen, not cash. That cash is not Bitfloors to distribute to other customers. It's mine. You assume that Bitfloor is under the same regulations as a brokerage requiring segregation of customer funds. I don't believe that is the case here, and even if it was, that is of little protection as we have seen recently with supposedly segregated funds in the MF Global and PFGBest collapses. In this case I suppose it will come down to whether the Bankruptcy Judge finds that the Bitcoins stolen at the time were of value too (and must be replaced at their market value in USD) or not. |
|
|
|
Bitfloor is a helluva lot cheaper and more convenient than the clip joints being called exchanges out there.
I wonder why... Are you saying that paying a 5% fee will ensure security? ... as in pay 5% now or 100% later?  |
|
|
|
Working on Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS 1P9c2VvkuoRFphUZZu4HwHzHAzAiUat2e2  |
|
|
|
What you're saying here is that any venture that has it much riskier than average should never be expected to payout? No, just that you should never risk what you're not prepared to lose, and if you lose it, accept the fact that you lost it, by taking a bad risk. You're still considering risk a binary concept. It's not. Would you say the same statement about a venture with low risk? You need to define the risk you refer to in terms of the probability it will not pay. Then you can estimate how much to invest. Risk may be a sliding scale, but results are binary. Either the risk pays off, or it doesn't. And until it does, you have to act as though it will not. Any other course is inviting disaster. How do you decide how much to invest in any given scheme then? Standard risk/reward calculation. But I never risk more than I can afford to lose. I understand that I am taking a risk, and I may not be able to recoup it. I don't assume that anything I "have coming" will actually come. A pessimist is never disappointed. Yes, never invest more than you are willing to lose. That's not pessimism, that's realism! |
|
|
|
i dont know about pirate but i dont think matthew would allow his name
to be used in fashion to help pirate scam more .........
Well, that's the beauty of it. If the bet is properly bankrolled, Matt pays out, and his name doesn't take any hit, other than "Hehe, remember that time Matt bet that Pirate wasn't a Ponzi? What a goof." ... and if you believe that's what will happen, I have a bet for you! http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=588 |
|
|
|
We already got Bitcourt & Bitpolice.
Soon we need Bitgovernment to help Bitcoin
I will gladly be the dictator of bitcoin for a small fee. Which I can reinvest for you so when you retire I will pay out to you on a monthly basis. I will call it... Social Security... the other other ponzi scheme.  |
|
|
|
September announcement: bitcoin client now taking .89% of all transactions for pirate relief fund.
litecoin here we come Actually, go ahead and try that. Set up a few bitcoin mining nodes with the source code change you are suggesting (rejecting all transactions that don't contain a 0.89% transaction fee) and watch the rest of the Bitcoin network route right around you. More for the rest of us... LULZ. PS, backed with 150 TH BFL ASIC  Well if you are financing that much THash mining capacity you would be monopolizing all/most block rewards anyway. Still that might not be enough and you'd need the 0.89% fee or greater just to pay for it. Good luck with that wet dream! :-P |
|
|
|
September announcement: bitcoin client now taking .89% of all transactions for pirate relief fund.
litecoin here we come Actually, go ahead and try that. Set up a few bitcoin mining nodes with the source code change you are suggesting (rejecting all transactions that don't contain a 0.89% transaction fee) and watch the rest of the Bitcoin network route right around you. More for the rest of us... LULZ. |
|
|
|
Exactly... costly in terms of reputation for all involved. Would you trust anyone who gave pirateat40 a rating > 1?
Guilt by association.
I wouldn't go THAT far. The current influx of new ratings clearly show a timeline, so I fail to see how IF he was trustworthy in May, that you could hold it against a user in August. Good point, but the ratings can be updated at any time and those who give high ratings are usually pretty good about updating theirs in light of new information. Another classic example of a long time "good fella" who went bad: http://www.bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=FooDSt4mP&sign=ANY&type=RECV |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
