I'm giving 100% ROI away to anyone who thinks pirate is a fraud

[TheKoziTwo]

10BTC
12QwJRirBBdYqc5WWjyCvUuiHmJMLSrHxv

[1714142299]

1714142299

[1714142299]

1714142299

[1714142299]

1714142299

[1714142299]

1714142299

[1714142299]

1714142299

[elux]

Bet closing in < 10 min, and a wild pirate has appeared in #btcst. Dun dun dun!

[Namworld]

Post in this thread how much you're committing and I will double that amount you commit (maximum of 10,000BTC in bets allowed in this thread total) if Pirate does not pay out in 3 weeks as he described in his thread.

You need to make an important clarification:

Who wins In the event that 10%, 50% or 90% of the full amount owed by BS&T is refunded?

Bump. I want in, but this NEEDS to be clarified.

This is difficult to clarify, but I'll do my best in good faith:

If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% without agreement to investors, -that- is fraud and a failure to pay back. I would obviously lose the bet.
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% but the investors agreed to it, -that- is the agreement and therefor he has paid it back. I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and pays back 100%, I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and does not pay anything anything back, I would lose the bet.


I'm trying my best to be smart about my clarifications, but if you need any more clarification, please ask and give examples so I can better explain. This is all on good faith of course, I don't want to get into legal arguments "But you said if he paid back on 12oclock and that was EST not KST" and other bullshit. This is about whether he is a scammer/ponzi or not, not about whether you can cheat the system for a cheap profit.

The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.

If he pays partial, even if investors agree, he has NOT paid as described in his thread and you lose the bet. Not only are the coins not returned in full, there was no interest paid.

That has been his statement ever since he closed BS&T and should be your requirement for winning the bet.

[bitcoinBull]

I already see the case where he pays back e.g. 90% but only *some* of the investors "agreed to it". So pirate still broke his agreement with *some* investors. who wins then?

[VelvetLeaf]

Bet closing in < 10 min, and a wild pirate has appeared in #btcst. Dun dun dun!

Coincidence ? Yes

[Rassah]

ONLY because I like spreadsheets:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgLArulDe_AldDJkRFByZ0hUWk9GUHlCTWpHNWFQQlE

So far, 5231.89114457BTC ($52,057 USD)says that pirateat40 was running a scam

[FreeMoney]

I already see the case where he pays back e.g. 90% but only *some* of the investors "agreed to it". So pirate still broke his agreement with *some* investors. who wins then?

We win.

[The00Dustin]

I thought I would respond to this post as a disinterested party:

that definitely needs clarifying...

if he offers 40% and the offer is accepted.. the bet is won?...

i am under the assumption.. all obligations must be paid in full

or was it this post:

i didn't read the whole thread

maybe I should read the whole thread

nah, assumptions are better than reading

See, I actually read this thread out of curiosity.  I don 't feel like searching for it, bet MNW made a post in this thread about some percent payout greater than 40 clearly being a default and any agreement not being made under duress.  I believe he used an example of someone offering to take less in order to get their coins sooner.  In that example, I believe he also pointed out that there were countless things that could happen and that's why this isn't tied to specific examples.

Regardless, as to the assumption made: if you owe Bob x BTC, and Bob forgives any portion of that debt while you are willing and able to pay it, you don't owe Bob x BTC any more and you didn't default (your obligation becomes what he didn't forgive or 0 if he forgave it all).

Edit: Formatted for clarity, additional point added.

[notme]

ONLY because I like spreadsheets:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgLArulDe_AldDJkRFByZ0hUWk9GUHlCTWpHNWFQQlE

So far, 5231.89114457BTC ($52,057 USD)says that pirateat40 was running a scam

Just to be clear, my bet does not indicate I believe pirateat40 was running a scam, just that I appreciate MNW taking a stand and will gladly give him a portion of my funds once they are returned.

[Namworld]

But the bet is not about if Pirate defaults, but about if he will pay AS STATED in his thread: Full coins + Interests.

If people settle for less, Pirate has not defaulted, but he did not pay with interests as stated in his thread and odds are he already knew for some time he wouldn't have the money to refund everyone, which would still make it a fraud.

[nazgulnarsil]

Consider this: if it turns out that Matt is colluding with pirate would being labelled a scammer by these guys actually hold any weight?  

Matt's bet is predicated on his reputation in the bitcoin community.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Consider this: if it turns out that Matt is colluding with pirate would being labelled a scammer by these guys actually hold any weight?  
Matt's bet is predicated on his reputation in the bitcoin community.

And consider this: do all the bettors here value their rep more than their bets?

Theoretically it could be all a matrix of scams and bluffs. Maybe what we call reality is just that.

[Le Happy Merchant]

Just to be clear, my bet does not indicate I believe pirateat40 was running a scam

+1

I just have a compulsive nature and I like having round numbers in my accounts. If I lose here, I will probably either blow or win my way to a whole number on satoshidice.

[totaleclipseofthebank]

Consider this: if it turns out that Matt is colluding with pirate would being labelled a scammer by these guys actually hold any weight?  
Matt's bet is predicated on his reputation in the bitcoin community.

And consider this: do all the bettors here value their rep more than their bets?

Theoretically it could be all a matrix of scams and bluffs. Maybe what we call reality is just that.

Username makes post.

[nazgulnarsil]

It doesn't really matter.  Pirate won't be repaying bitlane.  This is a 100% default for at least 1 investor.

[The00Dustin]

But the bet is not about if Pirate defaults, but about if he will pay AS STATED in his thread: Full coins + Interests.

If people settle for less, Pirate has not defaulted, but he did not pay with interests as stated in his thread and odds are he already knew for some time he wouldn't have the money to refund everyone, which would still make it a fraud.

Actually without re-readig the OP, based on the topic title and large amounts of discussion in the thread, it is about whether or not Pirate is a fraudster (with more than one person who has no clue what a ponzi scheme is or has a strong desire to do nothing but troll).  If someone tells pirate he doesn't have to pay them back, he didn't fraud, and you can't prove he didn't have the funds to pay them back.

As for fraud and / or defaulting, I can't comment on bitlane, because I know nothing about it.

I can say that these arguments look like the arguments of people trying to weasel out of a bet they are afraid they might actually lose more than they look like confusion.  You shouldn't be posting that you'll bet if you don't fully understand the bet, period.

I can also say that most of the (non-bitlane-related) comments seem moot anyway based on the info thread, it appears to me that Pirate isn't letting people get their funds early by paying him or anything else, so he may be paying as stated in spite of lucrative offers.

EDIT: to remove additional pointless bitlane comment

[evolve]

I think you guys are going to get burned by the ambiguous wording of this bet. Namworld already pointed out (as have I in other threads) the caveat that allows matt to win the bet, even if pirate doesn't pay in full...

Be careful guys....I dont think there is a chance in hell that pirate pays in full, but the way Matt has worded this bet, he still has a good chance of winning. Don't let greed cloud your judgment.

[Namworld]

No, the thing is Matthew made it clear that the bet was about if Pirate would pay as stated in his thread, and Pirate states that he will send back the funds with full interests.

My bet is made under those two statements. I have no problem honoring it if Pirate pays in full with interest.

This is not about confusion, it's about two VERY CLEAR statements:

Post in this thread how much you're committing and I will double that amount you commit (maximum of 10,000BTC in bets allowed in this thread total) if Pirate does not pay out in 3 weeks as he described in his thread.

The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.

A partial payment is not as Pirate described in his thread and there is no ambiguity about those two statements.

[Gyrsur]

No, the thing is Matthew made it clear that the bet was about if Pirate would pay as stated in his thread, and Pirate states that he will send back the funds with full interests.

My bet is made under those two statements. I have no problem honoring it if Pirate pays in full with interest.

This is not about confusion, it's about two VERY CLEAR statements:

Post in this thread how much you're committing and I will double that amount you commit (maximum of 10,000BTC in bets allowed in this thread total) if Pirate does not pay out in 3 weeks as he described in his thread.

The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.

A partial payment is not as Pirate described in his thread and there is no ambiguity about those two statements.

witnessed

[RoloTonyBrownTown]

No, the thing is Matthew made it clear that the bet was about if Pirate would pay as stated in his thread, and Pirate states that he will send back the funds with full interests.

My bet is made under those two statements. I have no problem honoring it if Pirate pays in full with interest.

.

Then you should have read Matt's rules before betting with Matt in Matt's thread.  Too late now, you're in.