Discussion about 10,000BTC Bet (Official)

[bittenbob]

I have to say, after seeing how matthew behaves on IRC and the forums I look at Bitcoin magazine differently...

He should just make a sock puppet account if he wants to act so unprofessional.

Im actually embarrassed for the members of that rag. I wonder why no one has reined him in...

Same.

I guess you didn't see Vladimir's post a few pages back. Bitcoin Magazine does not condone nor have any involvement with Matthew's bet.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I have to say, after seeing how matthew behaves on IRC and the forums I look at Bitcoin magazine differently...

He should just make a sock puppet account if he wants to act so unprofessional.

Im actually embarrassed for the members of that rag. I wonder why no one has reined him in...

Same.

I guess you didn't see Vladimir's post a few pages back. Bitcoin Magazine does not condone nor have any involvement with Matthew's bet.

Aye. And shortly after that Mattew changed his avatar slogan from "Editor-in-Chief" to "Crusader of the Internet".

[Hexadecibel]

I have to say, after seeing how matthew behaves on IRC and the forums I look at Bitcoin magazine differently...

He should just make a sock puppet account if he wants to act so unprofessional.

Im actually embarrassed for the members of that rag. I wonder why no one has reined him in...

Same.

I guess you didn't see Vladimir's post a few pages back. Bitcoin Magazine does not condone nor have any involvement with Matthew's bet.

No I saw it. Just as an analogy, my son does not represent our entire family, but that does not mean he can graffiti the school without it reflecting on us.

The fact that the Magazine does not condone the things Matthew does or says in these forums does not change the image he generates, and it is probably costing them magazine sales.
So yes, I am embarrassed for him and the rest of the company.

Aye. And shortly after that Mattew changed his avatar slogan from "Editor-in-Chief" to "Crusader of the Internet".

Ah, I did not catch that. That's a step in the right direction.

[repentance]

Aye. And shortly after that Mattew changed his avatar slogan from "Editor-in-Chief" to "Crusader of the Internet".

I thought Phin was the self-appointed Crusader of the Internet (or Bitcoin, at least).

[Matthew N. Wright]

Aye. And shortly after that Mattew changed his avatar slogan from "Editor-in-Chief" to "Crusader of the Internet".

I thought Phin was the self-appointed Crusader of the Internet (or Bitcoin, at least).

He's been a bit off-the-mark lately.

[The_Duke]

He's been a bit off-the-mark lately.

Seems you understood that right off-the-bet!

[JoelKatz]

But your bet with Matthew will lose you no money if he skips out on paying, you'll still have the money you "risked", just not the amount he promised you.

That's simply not true. If you relied on the bet and suffered a loss due to that reliance, then the bet lost you money.

[bitlane]

Well, if Matthew was a true Gangsta......he would have made the date September 11th and not September 9th.....

Way to miss out on an opportunity for infamy.

[myrkul]

But your bet with Matthew will lose you no money if he skips out on paying, you'll still have the money you "risked", just not the amount he promised you.

That's simply not true. If you relied on the bet and suffered a loss due to that reliance, then the bet lost you money.

I disagree. It's that reliance that lost you money. A bet is a risk. You should never rely on a risk paying off.

[ribuck]

There's plenty of opportunity for surprises between now and September 9th.

Here's one unlikely but not impossible scenario: Suppose Pirate has another similar operation going within another community. He could use funds from there to pay off this operation at the last moment.

[organofcorti]

I think the most likely explanation is that Matthew has a coup d'etat planned for South Korea on 9th September. He'll have enough access to coins to pay off his bets, and enough power to not bother doing so.

[JoelKatz]

I disagree. It's that reliance that lost you money. A bet is a risk. You should never rely on a risk paying off.

The reliance is a direct consequence of the bet. Whether or not you "should" do it is irrelevant. The fact is that many people did do and did it as a direct result of the bet.

[unclescrooge]

I disagree. It's that reliance that lost you money. A bet is a risk. You should never rely on a risk paying off.

The reliance is a direct consequence of the bet. Whether or not you "should" do it is irrelevant. The fact is that many people did do and did it as a direct result of the bet.

No. Everyone is responsible for his own acts.

Matthew never forced anyone to not sell his pirate debt or buy pirate debt to "hedge" the bet.

What you're saying is the road to collectivism, to serfdom, this idea that one can blame others for his own mistakes.

[myrkul]

I disagree. It's that reliance that lost you money. A bet is a risk. You should never rely on a risk paying off.

The reliance is a direct consequence of the bet. Whether or not you "should" do it is irrelevant. The fact is that many people did do and did it as a direct result of the bet.

Again, no. The reliance is a direct consequence of your greed and/or stupidity. Vandroiy's bet is escrowed, with a trusted 3rd party. Matthew's is not. If he defaults and you lose money, that's not his fault. He should get the scammer tag, since that's the terms of the deal, but don't go chasing after him for the money you threw away thinking he would back you up.

Personal responsibility is hard for some people. I get that. Doesn't make trying to blame other people for your bad decisions any more acceptable.

[JoelKatz]

I disagree. It's that reliance that lost you money. A bet is a risk. You should never rely on a risk paying off.

The reliance is a direct consequence of the bet. Whether or not you "should" do it is irrelevant. The fact is that many people did do and did it as a direct result of the bet.

No. Everyone is responsible for his own acts.

Matthew never forced anyone to not sell his pirate debt or buy pirate debt to "hedge" the bet.

What you're saying is the road to collectivism, to serfdom, this idea that one can blame others for his own mistakes.

That is complete insanity.

Say I own a catering service. I contract with a shrimp supplier to provide me 150 pounds of shrimp on a particular date at a particular price. Are you saying I shouldn't rely on the supplier to provide me that shrimp? What should I do? Should I also buy 150 pounds of shrimp at the grocery store in case the shrimp supplier doesn't deliver the shrimp?

If the supplier just chooses not to provide me with the shrimp and I wind up being unable to do the catering job, are you saying that's my own fault for relying on the shrimp supplier and that I'm responsible for my own acts?

The whole reason we make agreements with other people is so that we can rely on them! That's the benefit we obtain and that's what we're paying for.

I'm not talking about blaming others for one's own mistakes. I'm talking about blaming people for not doing what they promised to do and the damages proximately caused by us relying on them to do what they promised to do.

Personal responsibility is hard for some people. I get that. Doesn't make trying to blame other people for your bad decisions any more acceptable.

When the "bad decision" was trusting someone else to keep their word, you absolutely should blame the other person.

(Not that I think it matters. I would be quite literally stunned if Matthew defaults.)

[organofcorti]

But your bet with Matthew will lose you no money if he skips out on paying, you'll still have the money you "risked", just not the amount he promised you.

That's simply not true. If you relied on the bet and suffered a loss due to that reliance, then the bet lost you money.

I disagree. It's that reliance that lost you money. A bet is a risk. You should never rely on a risk paying off.

Not much point in risk analysis then.

What you're saying here is that any venture that has it much riskier than average should never be expected to payout? Then to you investments are binary:either risk free, or infinitely risky.

You can define a risk by how much belief you have in it paying off. Believing a risk will never pay off would mean you wouldn't invest in that venture.

[myrkul]

I disagree. It's that reliance that lost you money. A bet is a risk. You should never rely on a risk paying off.

The reliance is a direct consequence of the bet. Whether or not you "should" do it is irrelevant. The fact is that many people did do and did it as a direct result of the bet.

No. Everyone is responsible for his own acts.

Matthew never forced anyone to not sell his pirate debt or buy pirate debt to "hedge" the bet.

What you're saying is the road to collectivism, to serfdom, this idea that one can blame others for his own mistakes.

That is complete insanity.

Say I own a catering service. I contract with a shrimp supplier to provide me 150 pounds of shrimp on a particular date at a particular price. Are you saying I shouldn't rely on the supplier to provide me that shrimp? What should I do? Should I also buy 150 pounds of shrimp at the grocery store in case the shrimp supplier doesn't deliver the shrimp?

Ahh... You said the magic word. Let's compare these bets, shall we?

Matt's: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101751.msg1113117#msg1113117

Vandroiy's: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91661.msg1013589#msg1013589

Notice anything different about them?

[unclescrooge]

I disagree. It's that reliance that lost you money. A bet is a risk. You should never rely on a risk paying off.

The reliance is a direct consequence of the bet. Whether or not you "should" do it is irrelevant. The fact is that many people did do and did it as a direct result of the bet.

No. Everyone is responsible for his own acts.

Matthew never forced anyone to not sell his pirate debt or buy pirate debt to "hedge" the bet.

What you're saying is the road to collectivism, to serfdom, this idea that one can blame others for his own mistakes.

That is complete insanity.

Say I own a catering service. I contract with a shrimp supplier to provide me 150 pounds of shrimp on a particular date at a particular price. Are you saying I shouldn't rely on the supplier to provide me that shrimp? What should I do? Should I also buy 150 pounds of shrimp at the grocery store in case the shrimp supplier doesn't deliver the shrimp?

If the supplier just chooses not to provide me with the shrimp and I wind up being unable to do the catering job, are you saying that's my own fault for relying on the shrimp supplier and that I'm responsible for my own acts?

The whole reason we make agreements with other people is so that we can rely on them! That's the benefit we obtain and that's what we're paying for.

I'm not talking about blaming others for one's own mistakes. I'm talking about blaming people for not doing what they promised to do and the damages proximately caused by us relying on them to do what they promised to do.

Personal responsibility is hard for some people. I get that. Doesn't make trying to blame other people for your bad decisions any more acceptable.

When the "bad decision" was trusting someone else to keep their word, you absolutely should blame the other person.

(Not that I think it matters. I would be quite literally stunned if Matthew defaults.)

Actually you're right, when I think of it, trust is the essence of capitalism. I trust my employer to pay my check, or i'll be in the forest hunting already.
But still, you can blame someone for not keeping his word, but not consequences  of your own acts, regardless of the reason you made them.

You have to draw a line, adn I think the line is your own act.

[myrkul]

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.

[organofcorti]

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.