Discussion about 10,000BTC Bet (Official)

[BCB]

I still don't see anywhere where making a bet you can't pay is a crime.

I would bet that he started this thing as a way to pump up the distressed Pirate's debt price while dumping his own share of it. That's maybe the only way his "joke" makes sense.

This clearly isn't about his "bet" it is something more deep-seated in older guard of the bitcoin community.  See MNW's (insincere) apology thread titled "Response"

[1713482567]

1713482567

[1713482567]

1713482567

[1713482567]

1713482567

[bitlane]

I still don't see anywhere where making a bet you can't pay is a crime.

I would bet ........ That's maybe the only way .......

No, unfortunately. His joke does however continue to live on and will do so with comments like I took snippets from above.
'Bets' and 'Speculation'....lol

You have to admit, he at least managed to get a bit of his point across

[conspirosphere.tk]

No, unfortunately. His joke does however continue to live on and will do so with comments like I took snippets from above.
'Bets' and 'Speculation'....lol

You have to admit, he at least managed to get a bit of his point across

Of course I was joking too. (Wanna bet?)

[bitlane]

Of course I was joking too. (Wanna bet?)

Yes, but I SPECULATE that you want to use the funds to hurt bitcoin

[gene]

Matthew committed fraud, plain and simple. While I'm personally only disappointed that I'm not getting 400 BTC, others used this bet as their main method of hedging against Pirate or made other investment decisions based on this bet because they trusted Matthew. Matthew has demonstrated that he is unworthy of anyone's trust.

I guess I was right the first time.

I have no confidence in [Matthew]'s sense of morality, and I will never trade with him.

Theymos, you are a hypocrite of the highest order.

Is this why you took part in pirate's ponzi scheme? Because you thought it would be fun? Did you "earn" any "interest" from it?

It was fun, and still is! I have several bets and other deals related to the final outcome, which I'm excited to see resolved (hopefully in my favor). Ponzi schemes are a much more fun way of gambling than Satoshi's Dice, that's for sure.

I did win some BTC, which is rightfully mine. Pirateat40 is guilty of lying about the rules of the game, but the players are innocent. If a casino rigs a game, you wouldn't blame those players who made a profit (even if they may have guessed that the game was rigged) -- you blame the casino.

I never promoted BS&T, and I posted several times that I thought it was a Ponzi.

You see, your honor, I am just the landlord of the crackhouse. Yes, I fully knew what went on there, but my property served only as a "platform."

If I was only worried about morality instead of legality, that's exactly what I'd say. Nothing wrong with a crackhouse as long as there's no violence. I don't advocate doing drugs (I personally don't consume alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, or illegal drugs), but if people want to buy potentially dangerous drugs, that's their business.

This argument is equivalent to whether I should:
- Ban crackhouses entirely on my property. As a proponent of freedom, I would prefer not to do this.
- Determine which crackhouses may add poisons to drugs and ban them or put signs in front of them. This takes extra work and expertise that I'm not willing to deal with.
- Categorize the crackhouses based on how close to market levels their prices are, which may indicate the safety of the drugs sold there.

Theymos is not fit to be an admin.

[organofcorti]

Theymos, you are a hypocrite of the highest order.

.....

Theymos is not fit to be an admin.

Gene has daddy issues.

[myrkul]

Matthew committed fraud, plain and simple.

you blame the casino.

Where's the hypocrisy?

[greyhawk]

Theymos, you are a hypocrite of the highest order.

.....

Theymos is not fit to be an admin.

Gene has daddy issues.

IMMA CHARGIN MAH LAZER

[muyuu]

promissory estoppel

A promisor—one who makes a promise—makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment—that is, an economic loss—ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.

In other words, He's incurred a debt. Like I said.

LOL. So you think he's going to pay?

[bitlane]

Matthew committed fraud, plain and simple. While I'm personally only disappointed that I'm not getting 400 BTC, others used this bet as their main method of hedging against Pirate or made other investment decisions based on this bet because they trusted Matthew. Matthew has demonstrated that he is unworthy of anyone's trust.

I guess I was right the first time.

I have no confidence in [Matthew]'s sense of morality, and I will never trade with him.

I wouldn't consider self-proclaimed 'second chances' as being hypocrisy....
The 'dirt' in the above quote was something that theymos quoted himself in saying previously, then following up on it, with an updated (albeit, strengthening) conclusion.
This isn't the same as catching him in a lie or a hot/juicy breaking-news-flash.

ps. In before the BANHAMMER makes an appearance.....lol

[myrkul]

promissory estoppel

A promisor—one who makes a promise—makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment—that is, an economic loss—ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.

In other words, He's incurred a debt. Like I said.

LOL. So you think he's going to pay?

Hmm. I doubt it. But it would be nice. It remains to be seen.

[bg002h]

Matt is invited to come on DonkDown radio on Wed. to discuss this matter.

I feel a follow-up interview to his first one is needed at this point.

Can't wait to hear it.

[sadpandatech]

I still don't see anywhere where making a bet you can't pay is a crime. It's stupid, I won't dispute that, and Matt deserves every bit of the backlash he's getting, but it's not criminal.

In real life promissory estoppel is criminal. You cannot promise something you can't provide and then appeal the contract to be void. I know many of us here including me advocate a lesser regulated justice but stuff like this is just naive.

Ahh. That's what I was looking for. Thanks, I'll look into it.

promissory estoppel

A promisor—one who makes a promise—makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment—that is, an economic loss—ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.

In other words, He's incurred a debt. Like I said.

Promissory Estoppel is made to apply to contracts that convey a debt to one party from another. I do not believe this portion, "A substantial detriment—that is, an economic loss—ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance," applies to this particular contract..(thinking about debating that part makes my head hurt) but I do not believe it was intended to apply outside of of some very specific guidlines of a promise which leads to a provable debt. While s335 of the Gambling ACT 2005 makes a bet enforceable under 'contract law', there has to first be established a binding contract. IANAL so can't attest to what jurisdiction may even make such distinction with this particular bet. But my limited knowledge leads me to believe that the particular bet in question would be merely a 'social agreement'. I.E., not enforceable.

Either way, my post is not to be taken as if to be a meaning of my position or lack there of in this matter. I've always enjoyed the finer(read mind numbingly boring) points of law research.

[muyuu]

I'm looking forward to see you in London, Matthew.

Me too! I'll be happy to sign anything you want too.

Still coming? I know you're not the speaker and everything but I guess you already had your flight and conference tickets, right?

[Shadow383]

I'm looking forward to see you in London, Matthew.

Me too! I'll be happy to sign anything you want too.

Still coming? I know you're not the speaker and everything but I guess you already had your flight and conference tickets, right?

Hell, the thing's sponsored by the intersango crew, they might as well invite Trendon and the guy who ran Mybitcoin and they'd have all the scammers...

[muyuu]

I'm looking forward to see you in London, Matthew.

Me too! I'll be happy to sign anything you want too.

Still coming? I know you're not the speaker and everything but I guess you already had your flight and conference tickets, right?

Hell, the thing's sponsored by the intersango crew, they might as well invite Trendon and the guy who ran Mybitcoin and they'd have all the scammers...

The Intersango crew are sound, show some r.e.s.p.e.c.t.

Now seriously, I don't think they're scammers but they were reckless/negligent in the Bitcoinica case which is just as bad in practice. I actually use Intersango.

[SgtSpike]

Matthew committed fraud, plain and simple. While I'm personally only disappointed that I'm not getting 400 BTC, others used this bet as their main method of hedging against Pirate or made other investment decisions based on this bet because they trusted Matthew. Matthew has demonstrated that he is unworthy of anyone's trust.

I guess I was right the first time.

I have no confidence in [Matthew]'s sense of morality, and I will never trade with him.

Theymos, you are a hypocrite of the highest order.

Is this why you took part in pirate's ponzi scheme? Because you thought it would be fun? Did you "earn" any "interest" from it?

It was fun, and still is! I have several bets and other deals related to the final outcome, which I'm excited to see resolved (hopefully in my favor). Ponzi schemes are a much more fun way of gambling than Satoshi's Dice, that's for sure.

I did win some BTC, which is rightfully mine. Pirateat40 is guilty of lying about the rules of the game, but the players are innocent. If a casino rigs a game, you wouldn't blame those players who made a profit (even if they may have guessed that the game was rigged) -- you blame the casino.

I never promoted BS&T, and I posted several times that I thought it was a Ponzi.

You see, your honor, I am just the landlord of the crackhouse. Yes, I fully knew what went on there, but my property served only as a "platform."

If I was only worried about morality instead of legality, that's exactly what I'd say. Nothing wrong with a crackhouse as long as there's no violence. I don't advocate doing drugs (I personally don't consume alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, or illegal drugs), but if people want to buy potentially dangerous drugs, that's their business.

This argument is equivalent to whether I should:
- Ban crackhouses entirely on my property. As a proponent of freedom, I would prefer not to do this.
- Determine which crackhouses may add poisons to drugs and ban them or put signs in front of them. This takes extra work and expertise that I'm not willing to deal with.
- Categorize the crackhouses based on how close to market levels their prices are, which may indicate the safety of the drugs sold there.

Theymos is not fit to be an admin.

I have no clue why you think any of this makes Theymos a hypocrite or unfit to be an admin.

[smoothie]

Matt is invited to come on DonkDown radio on Wed. to discuss this matter.

I feel a follow-up interview to his first one is needed at this point.

I hope you play him some clips of the other show.

+1 This...make him eat his own words. Play clips from the last show.

[gene]

Matthew committed fraud, plain and simple. While I'm personally only disappointed that I'm not getting 400 BTC, others used this bet as their main method of hedging against Pirate or made other investment decisions based on this bet because they trusted Matthew. Matthew has demonstrated that he is unworthy of anyone's trust.

I guess I was right the first time.

I have no confidence in [Matthew]'s sense of morality, and I will never trade with him.

Theymos, you are a hypocrite of the highest order.

Is this why you took part in pirate's ponzi scheme? Because you thought it would be fun? Did you "earn" any "interest" from it?

It was fun, and still is! I have several bets and other deals related to the final outcome, which I'm excited to see resolved (hopefully in my favor). Ponzi schemes are a much more fun way of gambling than Satoshi's Dice, that's for sure.

I did win some BTC, which is rightfully mine. Pirateat40 is guilty of lying about the rules of the game, but the players are innocent. If a casino rigs a game, you wouldn't blame those players who made a profit (even if they may have guessed that the game was rigged) -- you blame the casino.

I never promoted BS&T, and I posted several times that I thought it was a Ponzi.

You see, your honor, I am just the landlord of the crackhouse. Yes, I fully knew what went on there, but my property served only as a "platform."

If I was only worried about morality instead of legality, that's exactly what I'd say. Nothing wrong with a crackhouse as long as there's no violence. I don't advocate doing drugs (I personally don't consume alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, or illegal drugs), but if people want to buy potentially dangerous drugs, that's their business.

This argument is equivalent to whether I should:
- Ban crackhouses entirely on my property. As a proponent of freedom, I would prefer not to do this.
- Determine which crackhouses may add poisons to drugs and ban them or put signs in front of them. This takes extra work and expertise that I'm not willing to deal with.
- Categorize the crackhouses based on how close to market levels their prices are, which may indicate the safety of the drugs sold there.

Theymos is not fit to be an admin.

I have no clue why you think any of this makes Theymos a hypocrite or unfit to be an admin.

I'll just repeat what I have written before:

Apparently nobody bothered to actually read and understand the thrust of what Theymos wrote.

In his response, Theymos admits to taking part in what he strongly suspected was a ponzi scheme where others were being actively misled about the nature of the scheme. Theymos also proudly asserts that he did gain from this "fun" scam at the expense of others who were misled. He seems to think that the profits are "rightfully" his, despite him knowing that the coins were coming from people who believed the lies. By his own admission, he has demonstrated intent to defraud misinformed investors as a knowing participant in a ponzi scheme. This is not profit. These are ill-gotten gains, and he knew it.

"Investors" can only claim innocence if they were truly unaware that it was a ponzi scheme. Theymos can't claim to be innocent; he strongly suspected it was a ponzi scheme (again, by his own admission) and participated, despite this knowledge.

He then goes on give some flimsy excuse for why he not only tolerates but also encourages all manner of questionable and outright fraudulent activity on this board.

He now correctly calls out several scammers, but he can't see how his own actions facilitated what happened. He only took action when he was screwed out of a bet. He also can't (or won't) admit that his gains from pirate are ill-gotten.

Theymos played a huge role in all that has transpired, and most are just fine with it and the associated bad press for bitcoin. I doubt Gavin or Satoshi would have let this happen. In fact, Gavin has wisely dissociated himself from the forums.

[smoothie]

Theymos, you are a hypocrite of the highest order.

.....

Theymos is not fit to be an admin.

Gene has daddy issues.

IMMA CHARGIN MAH LAZER

LOUD NOISES!!!! ALL I HEAR IS .....AAAAAAAHHH!!