Who do you think Matthew's backer is for the 10k btc bet?

[Matthew N. Wright]

hmmm maybe it is pirate..

He said this in IRC:

"17:45  * pirateat40 must say that he owns 50% of _matthew_'s betting fund"

Post it in context. He was joking because people were trolling about it. I'm not a liar. I've already explained that I have nothing to do with him.

[1714757176]

1714757176

[1714757176]

1714757176

[1714757176]

1714757176

[1714757176]

1714757176

[1714757176]

1714757176

[mp420]

I already made my bet and I'm not having second thoughts about that. Any way this turns out I think the odds are against you, Matt.

But I don't understand your angle at all. Why do you want to make this kind of bet? It absolutely would make sense if you had inside information about Pirate being legit but somehow I don't think that's likely. It's as if you are making the bet and (likely) throwing away your money just to make the statement that you don't like people calling in question other peoples schemes that are very likely fraudulent. Why is this?

What's wrong in pointing out that from very early on, the most likely explanation for how BST works has been a ponzi scheme?

[drakahn]

I already made my bet and I'm not having second thoughts about that. Any way this turns out I think the odds are against you, Matt.

But I don't understand your angle at all. Why do you want to make this kind of bet? It absolutely would make sense if you had inside information about Pirate being legit but somehow I don't think that's likely. It's as if you are making the bet and (likely) throwing away your money just to make the statement that you don't like people calling in question other peoples schemes that are very likely fraudulent. Why is this?

What's wrong in pointing out that from very early on, the most likely explanation for how BST works has been a ponzi scheme?

Because people were not saying "most likely"

[Matthew N. Wright]

I already made my bet and I'm not having second thoughts about that. Any way this turns out I think the odds are against you, Matt.

But I don't understand your angle at all. Why do you want to make this kind of bet? It absolutely would make sense if you had inside information about Pirate being legit but somehow I don't think that's likely. It's as if you are making the bet and (likely) throwing away your money just to make the statement that you don't like people calling in question other peoples schemes that are very likely fraudulent. Why is this?

What's wrong in pointing out that from very early on, the most likely explanation for how BST works has been a ponzi scheme?

Because people were not saying "most likely"

QFT. Lynch mobs, fights, and discommunications from groups I'm in were starting to happen because people were taking sides on the issues when neither side even has proof. Do you know what it's like to work with people who call your friends "Shills" and "scammers" because they made an investment into something? Good god.

[Vladimir]

Do you know what it's like to work with people who call your friends "Shills" and "scammers" because they made an investment into something? Good god.

If your friends behave like shills and scammers this is what you get. Is it coming as surprise at all?

[Matthew N. Wright]

Do you know what it's like to work with people who call your friends "Shills" and "scammers" because they made an investment into something? Good god.

If your friends behave like shills and scammers this is what you get. Is it coming as surprise at all?

Define "behaving like shills"? Investing in pirate?

[drakahn]

Do you know what it's like to work with people who call your friends "Shills" and "scammers" because they made an investment into something? Good god.

If your friends behave like shills and scammers this is what you get. Is it coming as surprise at all?

Define "behaving like shills"? Investing in pirate?

Asking for evidence or being on the site longer than them "I didn't see them join so they must be made up"

[Matthew N. Wright]

Do you know what it's like to work with people who call your friends "Shills" and "scammers" because they made an investment into something? Good god.

If your friends behave like shills and scammers this is what you get. Is it coming as surprise at all?

Define "behaving like shills"? Investing in pirate?

Asking for evidence

Apparently.

[Vladimir]

Do you know what it's like to work with people who call your friends "Shills" and "scammers" because they made an investment into something? Good god.

If your friends behave like shills and scammers this is what you get. Is it coming as surprise at all?

Define "behaving like shills"? Investing in pirate?

.. and promoting his op at every opportunity without disclosing own interest. Or do you define this as being a paragon of virtue?

[Matthew N. Wright]

Do you know what it's like to work with people who call your friends "Shills" and "scammers" because they made an investment into something? Good god.

If your friends behave like shills and scammers this is what you get. Is it coming as surprise at all?

Define "behaving like shills"? Investing in pirate?

.. and promoting his op at every opportunity without disclosing own interest. Or do you define this as being a paragon of virtue?

Pics or it didn't happen lol

[Vladimir]

Do you know what it's like to work with people who call your friends "Shills" and "scammers" because they made an investment into something? Good god.

If your friends behave like shills and scammers this is what you get. Is it coming as surprise at all?

Define "behaving like shills"? Investing in pirate?

.. and promoting his op at every opportunity without disclosing own interest. Or do you define this as being a paragon of virtue?

Pics or it didn't happen lol

I am not saying something happened, I thought we are having a theoretical ethical discussion here. lol

Edit: Ethics? On this forum? Nahh forget about it...

[556j]

When you are asking for loans like pirate was. It is your duty to prove what the funds are being used for. Not the other way around. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The very nature of a (successful) ponzi is that there isn't any evidence, otherwise it would never succeed. When things are so likely to be true, we have to accept them as truths at some point. Gravity for example, prove it, or it's not real. Using your logical that is a sound statement. Give me a fucking break.

[Vladimir]

When you are asking for loans like pirate was. It is your duty to prove what the funds are being used for. Not the other way around. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The very nature of a (successful) ponzi is that there isn't any evidence, otherwise it would never succeed. When things are so likely to be true, we have to accept them as truths at some point. Gravity for example, prove it, or it's not real. Using your logical that is a sound statement. Give me a fucking break.

I cannot agree more. Some people are just incapable of thinking logically (and no it is not an ad hominem attack) and just cannot grasp the above simple truth.

It is obvious that burden of proof is on suspected ponzi operator once occam's razor sez so. Some people just unable to see the difference between various standard of proofs and who burden of proof is on in various situations.

Treating an obvious ponzi allegation as murder trial with beyond any reasonable doubt proof demanded from potential investors is simply insane (or naive maybe).

However, this is offtopic in this thread probably.

Edit:
google "Ad Ignorantiam", This is a logical fallacy that ponzi operators typically use. They demand their opponents to prove non-existance of a underlying business model.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

... in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

.. and some miracle business model delivering 3000%+ APR.

some simply cannot get it how it is different from "presumption of innocence" concept.

[Matthew N. Wright]

When you are asking for loans like pirate was. It is your duty to prove what the funds are being used for. Not the other way around. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The very nature of a (successful) ponzi is that there isn't any evidence, otherwise it would never succeed. When things are so likely to be true, we have to accept them as truths at some point. Gravity for example, prove it, or it's not real. Using your logical that is a sound statement. Give me a fucking break.

I don't know who you're talking to, but I never said we should invest in pirate. In fact, I've -only- ever said he's extremely high risk, would never recommend it, and absolute hate companies lacking any transparency whatsoever. That said, just because we don't know what's happening doesn't mean it is a scam with 100% certainty, and accusations should be made accordingly. Asking questions, presenting theories, advising others, it's all extremely important as a community. Know what's not important? Segregation, lynch mobbing, harassment, overly aggressive and abusive behavior, etc. When people learn how to talk, other people will know how to listen.

[556j]

Where is "proof" anyone said it was 100% certain it was a scam though? I mean there's a few nuts on both sides. One of the biggest ones put his money on the line way before your bet. People like Vlad post a lot but I haven't seen him say he's certain without a doubt pirate is a ponzi, just that it is highly likely. Maybe I missed some posts though.

You are attacking a lot of people that just had/have good intentions. The people defending pirate the most had a direct financial benefit of continuing deposits, while the people claiming ponzi had nothing to gain. And you really think it's acceptable to attack these people?

BS&T was toxic to bitcoin. People offering lower returns had a much harder time getting investments. It's looking more and more likely that a lot of people will be out a lot of cash. I wonder if there will be any suicides if pirate defaults? MMM had at least 50 (admittedly much much larger scheme).

See if the people on "Team Ponzi" were wrong the consequences are MUCH lower than if the other side was wrong. And if it really hurt pirate so bad as to destroy his livelihood he could have disclosed at least some of the business model. With third party, signed NDA, audit. Of course never happened.

It's just ridiculous to act as if those people were out of line. Especially as it's looking more and more likely they were RIGHT.

[Matthew N. Wright]

You are attacking a lot of people that just had/have good intentions.

I'm not attacking anyone. You're confusing me with the other forum trolls. I am working alone.

The people defending pirate the most had a direct financial benefit of continuing deposits, while the people claiming ponzi had nothing to gain.

That's what they say about bitcoiners in the real financial world. Bitcoin must be a scam.

And you really think it's acceptable to attack these people?

Who is attacking? I'm equalizing. I didn't -go after- anyone, they came to me.

BS&T was toxic to bitcoin.

See what I mean? This kind of talk has got to stop.

People offering lower returns had a much harder time getting investments.

Poor babies. Free market sucks doesn't it? Maybe we should regulate it heavily.

I wonder if there will be any suicides if pirate defaults? MMM had at least 50 (admittedly much much larger scheme).

That's ridiculous. Now you're telling me that it's fine for people to be abusive to others because if they're abusively trolling, harassing and stalking people who invest their money as they see fit, they might save a life? Nonsense.

See if the people on "Team Ponzi" were wrong the consequences are MUCH lower than if the other side was wrong. And if it really hurt pirate so bad as to destroy his livelihood he could have disclosed at least some of the business model. With third party, signed NDA, audit. Of course never happened.

The consequences of idiots throwing money into idiotic things are not my concern. My concern is that this community needed equalizing on the attitude. Even in our closed 60+ member incubator organization, people were being attacked heavily for even having stock in Pirate. This shit is more ridiculous than you realize. If I want to throw $20 away, it's none of your business. If I put $20 in Pirate (which I did not btw because I think it's risky and ridiculously nontransparent), are you going to follow me on every thread and tell me that I'm a scammer and a shill? Maybe not you, but do you realize that's what the lynch mob here was doing?

It's just ridiculous to act as if those people were out of line.

Please read my above statements then and maybe you'll see it differently. When the community has grown and learned to stop wasting money on stupid garbage (GLBSE? Seriously? There is absolute nothing legitimate about it. Why do we even bother trusting anything that comes from it? Nothing is legal, not a single success from it), I'll take your argument more seriously. In the meantime, we both agree that there are lots of idiots wasting money, but the difference is, not there's less idiots barking and annoying everyone. Seems better all around if you ask me.

[Vladimir]

Where is "proof" anyone said it was 100% certain it was a scam though? I mean there's a few nuts on both sides. One of the biggest ones put his money on the line way before your bet. People like Vlad post a lot but I haven't seen him say he's certain without a doubt pirate is a ponzi, just that it is highly likely. Maybe I missed some posts though.

You are attacking a lot of people that just had/have good intentions. The people defending pirate the most had a direct financial benefit of continuing deposits, while the people claiming ponzi had nothing to gain. And you really think it's acceptable to attack these people?

BS&T was toxic to bitcoin. People offering lower returns had a much harder time getting investments. It's looking more and more likely that a lot of people will be out a lot of cash. I wonder if there will be any suicides if pirate defaults? MMM had at least 50 (admittedly much much larger scheme).

See if the people on "Team Ponzi" were wrong the consequences are MUCH lower than if the other side was wrong. And if it really hurt pirate so bad as to destroy his livelihood he could have disclosed at least some of the business model. With third party, signed NDA, audit. Of course never happened.

It's just ridiculous to act as if those people were out of line. Especially as it's looking more and more likely they were RIGHT.

Again cannot agree more with you. And thank you for supporting my position.

BTW I was very careful to not ever say that I have 100% proof that pirate is running a ponzi. Even if I said something to that effect at some point (doubtful, well... maybe in a private conversation) it would be just a mistake and omission of qualifiers with expectation that it is obvious in context anyway.

Ad Ignorantiam, as in my edited above post I have explained, is the crux of the problem and logical fallacy that is being used to attack valid arguments.

My position is that once Occam's razor strongly suggests that some investment is a ponzi scheme, the burden of proof is on alleged ponzi operator to prove otherwise. And again demands to prove a negative (i.e. non existence of a viable biz model) is just a logical fallacy known as Ad Ignorantiam

Until a proof presented that there is/was a viable business model generating 3000%+ per year profits exists and is the source of all the "dividends", logically, any reasonable observer should have assumed that it indeed was a ponzi. As simple as that.

[Matthew N. Wright]

My position is that once Occam's razor strongly suggests that some investment is a ponzi scheme, the burden of proof is on alleged ponzi operator to prove otherwise. And again demands to prove a negative (i.e. non existence of a viable biz model) is just a logical fallacy known as Ad Ignorantiam

So any business that operates now has to show you their books and operating procedures as soon as you question them? Okay, what if someone questions the Bitcoin Magazine. Are we going to show everyone all of our financial documents to prove we're not a sham? Who's business is it?

"Oh but matthew, we're not forcing anyone to invest in us!"

True! And neither is anyone else. Message to the community: Please be vocal, be less -abusive- about your voice and everyone will be happy. Harassment of people is unacceptable. If you try to tell them that you believe something is a ponzi, and they don't listen, let them lose their money. This is bitcoin, not USD. We have some freedoms. When you're leaving people alone to do what they want with their money, stop shouting at them from across the street "Shills!". This entire issue of mine is the -tone- of the community, not the concern.

[Draino]

That said, just because we don't know what's happening doesn't mean it is a scam with 100% certainty, and accusations should be made accordingly.

,
Ok, so if we find out this was a ponzi with 100% certainty, do you think all the FUD being spread was unwarranted?

Considering it hit all the red flags (which is the only way to detect a ponzi, and as far as I know there are no examples of legit businesses hitting them like that) and considering what's at stake?


Do you also scold people who passionately warn others to encrypt their wallets, backup private keys, and maintain control of their own BTC?

I mean, you don't know for sure they're going to get hacked or have a hard drive crash, after all.

[hannesnaude]

BS&T was toxic to bitcoin.

See what I mean? This kind of talk has got to stop.

It's his opinion, he is entitled to it. If you can't  tell that from the context, then you must have really bad reading comprehension.

Restated:
I think it's his opinion. I think that if you can't  tell that from the context, then you must have really bad reading comprehension.

Disclaimer :
I cannot prove that 556j meant the statement "BS&T was toxic to bitcoin." as an expression of his opinion and not a statement of fact. But I am of the opinion that he did so. I am also of the opinion that BS&T was a ponzi.