Discussion about 10,000BTC Bet (Official)

[BC Systems]

Eureka: Matthew could theoretically pay Pirate to pay everyone out assuming the betters pay up and there is enough bets.

If this is his thinking, then he could possibly be a genius.

[1714282155]

1714282155

[1714282155]

1714282155

[1714282155]

1714282155

[1714282155]

1714282155

[1714282155]

1714282155

[1714282155]

1714282155

[evolve]

Even the slightest hint of a collusion with pirate, and no one will pay, its an unfair bet.

I think Matt may have had every intention of paying at first, but it grew out of hand, and now hes just going to see how high the community will push it...hell end up taking his scammer tags and say it was a lesson to teach us all about being greedy and how easy it is to be scammed. The irony being that no one got scammed, b/c very few expect him to pay.

I could be way off base, but that's what I think is happening here.

[smoothie]

Eureka: Matthew could theoretically pay Pirate to pay everyone out assuming the betters pay up and there is enough bets.

If this is his thinking, then he could possibly be a genius.

Technically that would not be pirate paying everyone out but would be viewed as Matthew paying everyone out. So that wouldn't fly. Pirate has to pay on his own.

[finkleshnorts]

When my original bet was made, I offered Matt to bet with an escrow. More and more I am wishing I demanded it from him.

[BC Systems]

Yes, it would be as fraudulent as him not paying but if he did it well then nobody would be the wiser.

[evolve]

Its already past the point where a 100% payoff would be suspicious, "playing it smart" (or doing it well) isn't in the cards now.

Obviously, Mathew isn't planning on giving away all that money (that's not how the real world works) so he has something up his sleeve.  There is no way he is going to give me @ $20,000 on Sunday. No. Fucking. Way.

 Since he can't logically win (save a miracle, rigged bet, or bullshit technicality) I think its all just a game to him now.

[Minor]

So what is it? Accepted? Rejected? Ignored?

Rejected.

OK, thanks for the closure, but why?

Original bet post said 100 post minimum required, so no newbie bets.

That would be the rational/official explanation, but Matthew has accepted much larger wagers from much newer n00bs than me (my account is almost a year old).
I think my bet was rejected just to contradict Atlas:

Ouch! Just don't know who's gonna get hurt. I will laugh my ass off if Pirate pays at the last minute and all of his haters that bet get fleeced. 

Shhh. You're scaring away the pigeons.

We're not scared away, just being ignored.

I made a wager a few days ago, but you never accepted nor rejected it:

I know the bet is officially closed and I don't have the required number of posts, but hey, stranger things have happened:

Code:

5BTC
1JpstgtL3Guoa9WVjpT7YA3r9QfAaqSyyS
"What's 5BTC compared to the sum total of this bet?"

So what is it? Accepted? Rejected? Ignored?

It's as good as all accepted bets. He's likely not going to pay.

Thanks Atlas, you just cost me (saved me?) 5BTC.
(Bold added just to make my comments stand out of the excessive quoting (sorry).)

[Matthew N. Wright]

When my original bet was made, I offered Matt to bet with an escrow. More and more I am wishing I demanded it from him.

I lol'ed when I read this. We will see many more comments like this tomorrow I'm sure.

Thanks Atlas, you just cost me (saved me?) 5BTC.
(Bold added just to make my comments stand out of the excessive quoting (sorry).)

Your bet was declined because the probability of you being an SA troll was higher than that of being a legitimate user. I have refused numerous bets.

[Minor]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101751.msg1113276#msg1113276

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.

BTCST wasnt a ponzi it just invested in one 

So Matthew has won his bet...
Pay up guys.

[Minor]

Don't think Mathew will payout as promised?
If you truly believe that Mathew is a scam/fuckwit, then this is a no-brainer easy money for you.

Post in this thread how much you're committing and I will double that amount you commit (maximum of 21,000,000BTC in bets allowed in this thread total) if Mathew does not pay out in 3 days as he described in his thread.

To make your bets easier to read, please stick to the following format:
Code:
20BTC
13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM
Optional comment

The above post would be betting 20BTC that he in fact is not going to payout as described. If I lose the bet, you get 20BTC sent to that address. If you lose, you'll need to send 20BTC to my address.

Anyone (including myself) who renigs on their bets will be labeled a scammer on the forums. Theymos will retain the IP addresses of everyone who has committed here and as you are marked a scammer for not paying, you will also be reported to the bitcoin police and tracked. For this reason, it is important that you do not bet more than you can afford to lose. Considering the high probability of fraud from newbie sockpuppets, only established 250+ post users will be allowed to participate, unless they participate through an escrow who will hold their coins. This is up to them to find the escrow although many posters in this thread have agreed to act as such.

The minimum commitment is 0.1BTC. The maximum default bet for normal users is currently 1000000BTC per person. If you would like to wager more, please PM so that I may do a more extensive verification of identity and holdings. Thanks.

Disclaimer: Although I think Mathew is a high risk venture due to a complete lack of sense on his part, I am sorely reminded that the forum needs to be taught a lesson when it comes to crying wolf on things without evidence. It's getting sickening. "SCAM! SCAM! SCAM!". So put your money where your mouth and bet for a better bitcoin forum/community overall.


For the record, the address to remit your funds to if you indeed lose is 13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7kskj

Thank you and good luck!

Edit: have increased the bet I'm willing to take from all bitcoins currently in existence, to all the bitcoins possible to exist at the request of ShadesOfMarble. If this limit is exceeded I'll consider betting bitcoin against people publicly humiliating themselves by making love to a pig on youtube if they lose.

Who is this  Mathew you are talking about?

[smoothie]

When my original bet was made, I offered Matt to bet with an escrow. More and more I am wishing I demanded it from him.

I lol'ed when I read this. We will see many more comments like this tomorrow I'm sure.

Why would there be more comments like this if you do pay? I can't imagine there being more comments like this IF you won.

[Matthew N. Wright]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101751.msg1113276#msg1113276

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.

BTCST wasnt a ponzi it just invested in one 

So Matthew has won his bet...
Pay up guys.

ROFL.

When my original bet was made, I offered Matt to bet with an escrow. More and more I am wishing I demanded it from him.

I lol'ed when I read this. We will see many more comments like this tomorrow I'm sure.

Why would there be more comments like this if you do pay? I can't imagine there being more comments like this IF you won.

I am talking about right before the bet ends. People will suddenly realize how stupid they are.

[smoothie]

I am talking about right before the bet ends. People will suddenly realize how stupid they are.

Not sure what you are talking about.

They as in the bets?

or

They as in their request for escrow?

[finkleshnorts]

I just have no idea what's going on here anymore. Give me an address when Pirate pays everyone back.

[Minor]

What about you both answer ?

+1.  Something smells rotten in Denmark...

That would be their cheese, don't worry about it.
(Sorry, I need to get to 100 posts in a hurry.  )

BTW, la bestiole, you French?

[JoelKatz]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101751.msg1113276#msg1113276

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.

BTCST wasnt a ponzi it just invested in one  

So Matthew has won his bet...
Pay up guys.

Ponzi feeders are themselves Ponzi schemes. But in any event, it doesn't matter since the bet is not just over whether Pirate is a Ponzi but over whether Pirate will pay back as he said he would after his first default. In context, it's clear that even if Pirate intended to pay back, a failure to actually pay back would make Matthew lose the bet. It's clearest from this: "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."

It's entirely possible that Pirate was actually feeding a larger Ponzi scheme that paid a higher interest rate, such as Zeek. The timing is right for Zeek, I think.

[Chang Hum]

One thing I have noticed is that even if this bet is not paid out, there is a large list of people in the community and BTC address connected to their names. Also an amount of bitcoins willing to bet so an indication of the amount of BTC they have. The same information Pirate was wanting.

Hmm...



I do hope that Matthew will pay out tomorrow as he claims he will but if it was just a trick to make personal information public  


Yes this is pure speculation on the why, but the list is public...

tomorrow?
i thought monday?

i would lol hard if pirateat40 uses this list as an indication who has how much in btcst.
ok - its a list forum name - bitcoin address. nothing more

whats your reasoning?

Matthew said he was doing this to make a point. I just wonder if its do not trust crazy guys on the forum. (This is assuming matthew does not pay out)

If Matthew does pay out, then I'm way wrong.

Also I'm in a different time zone than you, hehe.


Edit:  Just saw this posted on IRC

<_matthew_> The fact that there were this many people willing to do a bet without escrow shows you how ignorant and greedy this community can get

[/b]

[Minor]

Is matthew still taking bet increases?  Closed out several client accounts today.  Can transfer to BTC on request though the xfer would take a few days since it isn't on gox already.

1750 BTC

1EzdZBu6DJUqScXFbRYbTXPqTcXNAUKAxc

People who aren't willing to roll the dice should stop trolling.  You just look like idiots.  Put at least some skin in the game if you want to mouth off.  it doesn't matter if it's $5 or $5000.

Accepted

Matthew, please inform the Powers that Be when you are finished taking bets, so that final payouts for BTCST can be arranged and completed prior to your deadline.

~DonShrents

SHH. I SAID PM ME ONLY.

What will happen if Matthew's Server gets hacked and all his bitcoins stolen ?

BAM!

Well, since this community if not only famous for insane speculation, but also for convicting people before an offense has actually occurred, it's probably best that we get started on tracking down the eventual scammer/hacker who will be responsible for the theft of Matthew's bitcoins.

~DonShrents

Hint: Atlas took them

A conversation with one's own sock-puppet if I ever saw one.
And not even a very interesting one.
C'mon Matt, you can do better than that.

OK, I will shut up now. No need to ignore me.

[smoothie]

One thing I have noticed is that even if this bet is not paid out, there is a large list of people in the community and BTC address connected to their names. Also an amount of bitcoins willing to bet so an indication of the amount of BTC they have. The same information Pirate was wanting.

Hmm...



I do hope that Matthew will pay out tomorrow as he claims he will but if it was just a trick to make personal information public  


Yes this is pure speculation on the why, but the list is public...

tomorrow?
i thought monday?

i would lol hard if pirateat40 uses this list as an indication who has how much in btcst.
ok - its a list forum name - bitcoin address. nothing more

whats your reasoning?

Matthew said he was doing this to make a point. I just wonder if its do not trust crazy guys on the forum. (This is assuming matthew does not pay out)

If Matthew does pay out, then I'm way wrong.

Also I'm in a different time zone than you, hehe.


Edit:  Just saw this posted on IRC

<_matthew_> The fact that there were this many people willing to do a bet without escrow shows you how ignorant and greedy this community can get

Matthew is a part of this "community" too as he didnt request escrow either. So I'm not sure what his point is if he is trying to point out a certain fact about a group of people HE himself is a part of in terms of his own actions.

[finkleshnorts]

Edit:  Just saw this posted on IRC

<_matthew_> The fact that there were this many people willing to do a bet without escrow shows you how ignorant and greedy this community can get

That's his point? That we trusted him to not be a dick? Shame on us! Somebody escrow my damn coins already.