Discussion about 10,000BTC Bet (Official)

[smoothie]

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.

Theymos isn't to blame. PirateAt500000 is. And all his shills. GigaVPS, Ineedausername, Goat, imsaguy, reeses, the list goes on...

Payb.tc

[1714954150]

1714954150

[1714954150]

1714954150

[1714954150]

1714954150

[1714954150]

1714954150

[SgtSpike]

@gene - it's called personal responsibility.  People lost money on the pirate investment, but that was their own fault for investing in it in the first place.

If I made a bet against you, and I won, would it be wrong of me to keep the money?  People investing in pirate were making a bet that it would be a good investment.  Some pulled out in time and gained money, some did not, and lost.

[gene]

@gene - it's called personal responsibility.  People lost money on the pirate investment, but that was their own fault for investing in it in the first place.

Sure. That's part of it. But blame also lies with those who run scams. It also lies with those who know about the scams and let them go on. It also lies with those who knowingly partake in scams when they understand that they are gaining from others who are being lied to.

If I made a bet against you, and I won, would it be wrong of me to keep the money?  People investing in pirate were making a bet that it would be a good investment.  Some pulled out in time and gained money, some did not, and lost.

But that's not what happened at all. Those who were duped were fools, obviously. But they were not fully informed about the terms of the situation. Theymos was aware of other information (by his own admission) and decided to 1) permit the deceptive situation (again - not like a casino where everyone knows the rules) to continue and 2) actively partake and accept money from those who didn't understand the situation. Those are ill-gotten gains which in the real world are subject to claw-back.

So now Theymos is all about putting scammer labels on people who deserve it. My point is that he isn't applying the same standards to himself. The word for this is hypocrisy. And it needs to be said in big red letters.

I've read your posts and am surprised to see that you refuse to understand the points being made.

[legolouman]

Just because someone offered a PPT doesn't mean they were a scammer. The PPT OP's were taking a risk themselves. They offered a service investing in Pirate for a cut. They didn't run off with your money. Frankly, based on the evidence we have, I don't believe Pirate can even be labeled a scammer. It was part of the contract that he could declare default at any point, rendering the contract null and the money 'gone'. We don't know if he legitimately defaulted or not.

[SgtSpike]

Gene - thanks for the post.  That helps me understand your point of view a lot more, and to a point, I agree.  You argue that it was the responsibility of theymos, and anyone else who knew it was a scam, to call it out as such, and I think that is an appropriate demand.

Here's the thing:  They did.

The only reason I don't quite agree with you wanting to label theymos a scammer is that there were accusations of this being a scam ALL over the forum.  Anyone who spent any sort of time reading about the investment before diving right in should know that the probability of it being a legitimate and sustainable investment was zilch.  If I was in theymos' shoes, I wouldn't have said anything just because everyone else already covered it so thoroughly.

Now, if you know of someone who invested in pirate because of theymos not saying anything when asked directly, you might change my mind further.  Otherwise, I'm still with him that it is each individual's responsibility to do appropriate research and due diligence when making investments.  The information to make a wise decision was out there - it wasn't hidden that this was very likely a scam.

[gene]

Just because someone offered a PPT doesn't mean they were a scammer. The PPT OP's were taking a risk themselves. They offered a service investing in Pirate for a cut. They didn't run off with your money. Frankly, based on the evidence we have, I don't believe Pirate can even be labeled a scammer. It was part of the contract that he could declare default at any point, rendering the contract null and the money 'gone'. We don't know if he legitimately defaulted or not.

And this is the attitude that will undo bitcoin. In your world, there is no accountability. No consequences for reckless "investment" of other people's money. Lying to people about "guarantees" and "insurance?" No problem.

Any reasonable person must conclude that the promised rates were impossible and either must come from fraud or other illicit activity. On this basis alone, pirate, his shills, the PPT operators, and yes, the admins who permitted them to advertise/promote these schemes on the forum are ALL to blame to varying degrees.

[JoelKatz]

Gene - thanks for the post.  That helps me understand your point of view a lot more, and to a point, I agree.  You argue that it was the responsibility of theymos, and anyone else who knew it was a scam, to call it out as such, and I think that is an appropriate demand.

Here's the thing:  They did.

The only reason I don't quite agree with you wanting to label theymos a scammer is that there were accusations of this being a scam ALL over the forum.  Anyone who spent any sort of time reading about the investment before diving right in should know that the probability of it being a legitimate and sustainable investment was zilch.  If I was in theymos' shoes, I wouldn't have said anything just because everyone else already covered it so thoroughly.

Now, if you know of someone who invested in pirate because of theymos not saying anything when asked directly, you might change my mind further.  Otherwise, I'm still with him that it is each individual's responsibility to do appropriate research and due diligence when making investments.  The information to make a wise decision was out there - it wasn't hidden that this was very likely a scam.

You do realize that this exact same argument almost equally applies to Pirate, right?

[gene]

Gene - thanks for the post.  That helps me understand your point of view a lot more, and to a point, I agree.  You argue that it was the responsibility of theymos, and anyone else who knew it was a scam, to call it out as such, and I think that is an appropriate demand.

Here's the thing:  They did.

The only reason I don't quite agree with you wanting to label theymos a scammer is that there were accusations of this being a scam ALL over the forum.  Anyone who spent any sort of time reading about the investment before diving right in should know that the probability of it being a legitimate and sustainable investment was zilch.  If I was in theymos' shoes, I wouldn't have said anything just because everyone else already covered it so thoroughly.

Now, if you know of someone who invested in pirate because of theymos not saying anything when asked directly, you might change my mind further.  Otherwise, I'm still with him that it is each individual's responsibility to do appropriate research and due diligence when making investments.  The information to make a wise decision was out there - it wasn't hidden that this was very likely a scam.

By way of his status as forum admin and gatekeeper, Theymos had a special obligation that Micon and all the other whistle-blowers didn't have: he controls the flow of information here (an especially naive group of marks). It makes him more responsible. I don't doubt that many "invested" because Theymos permitted these scams to be promoted here, which amounts to a tacit approval. Again, he is more reponsible than most.

Note that this is independent of Theymos knowingly making money from what he knew was a fraud. He doesn't even deny it.

[SgtSpike]

Gene - thanks for the post.  That helps me understand your point of view a lot more, and to a point, I agree.  You argue that it was the responsibility of theymos, and anyone else who knew it was a scam, to call it out as such, and I think that is an appropriate demand.

Here's the thing:  They did.

The only reason I don't quite agree with you wanting to label theymos a scammer is that there were accusations of this being a scam ALL over the forum.  Anyone who spent any sort of time reading about the investment before diving right in should know that the probability of it being a legitimate and sustainable investment was zilch.  If I was in theymos' shoes, I wouldn't have said anything just because everyone else already covered it so thoroughly.

Now, if you know of someone who invested in pirate because of theymos not saying anything when asked directly, you might change my mind further.  Otherwise, I'm still with him that it is each individual's responsibility to do appropriate research and due diligence when making investments.  The information to make a wise decision was out there - it wasn't hidden that this was very likely a scam.

You do realize that this exact same argument almost equally applies to Pirate, right?

No it doesn't.  He failed to pay out.  The PPT's who promised to pay out only as long as pirate paid out kept their word.  Pirate did not.

[SgtSpike]

Gene - thanks for the post.  That helps me understand your point of view a lot more, and to a point, I agree.  You argue that it was the responsibility of theymos, and anyone else who knew it was a scam, to call it out as such, and I think that is an appropriate demand.

Here's the thing:  They did.

The only reason I don't quite agree with you wanting to label theymos a scammer is that there were accusations of this being a scam ALL over the forum.  Anyone who spent any sort of time reading about the investment before diving right in should know that the probability of it being a legitimate and sustainable investment was zilch.  If I was in theymos' shoes, I wouldn't have said anything just because everyone else already covered it so thoroughly.

Now, if you know of someone who invested in pirate because of theymos not saying anything when asked directly, you might change my mind further.  Otherwise, I'm still with him that it is each individual's responsibility to do appropriate research and due diligence when making investments.  The information to make a wise decision was out there - it wasn't hidden that this was very likely a scam.

By way of his status as forum admin and gatekeeper, Theymos had a special obligation that Micon and all the other whistle-blowers didn't have: he controls the flow of information here. It makes him more responsible. I don't doubt that many invested because Theymos permitted these scams to be promoted here, which amounts to a tacit approval. Again, he is more reponsible than most.

I disagree.  Again, it is each person's personal responsibility to research the things they are investing in.

It's like saying that if I ran a forum about mushrooms, and failed to notify you about which ones were poisonous, and you ate a poisonous mushroom and died, it would be my fault.

[myrkul]

Gene - thanks for the post.  That helps me understand your point of view a lot more, and to a point, I agree.  You argue that it was the responsibility of theymos, and anyone else who knew it was a scam, to call it out as such, and I think that is an appropriate demand.

Here's the thing:  They did.

The only reason I don't quite agree with you wanting to label theymos a scammer is that there were accusations of this being a scam ALL over the forum.  Anyone who spent any sort of time reading about the investment before diving right in should know that the probability of it being a legitimate and sustainable investment was zilch.  If I was in theymos' shoes, I wouldn't have said anything just because everyone else already covered it so thoroughly.

Now, if you know of someone who invested in pirate because of theymos not saying anything when asked directly, you might change my mind further.  Otherwise, I'm still with him that it is each individual's responsibility to do appropriate research and due diligence when making investments.  The information to make a wise decision was out there - it wasn't hidden that this was very likely a scam.

You do realize that this exact same argument almost equally applies to Pirate, right?

No it doesn't.  He failed to pay out.  The PPT's who promised to pay out only as long as pirate paid out kept their word.  Pirate did not.

And, I believe, those that had insured bonds, that paid if pirate did not pay out, paid those, as well. The PPTs did the right thing. Some were fooled right along with the rest of you, some were not, but they all stuck to their contracts and did as they agreed to.

[gene]

Gene - thanks for the post.  That helps me understand your point of view a lot more, and to a point, I agree.  You argue that it was the responsibility of theymos, and anyone else who knew it was a scam, to call it out as such, and I think that is an appropriate demand.

Here's the thing:  They did.

The only reason I don't quite agree with you wanting to label theymos a scammer is that there were accusations of this being a scam ALL over the forum.  Anyone who spent any sort of time reading about the investment before diving right in should know that the probability of it being a legitimate and sustainable investment was zilch.  If I was in theymos' shoes, I wouldn't have said anything just because everyone else already covered it so thoroughly.

Now, if you know of someone who invested in pirate because of theymos not saying anything when asked directly, you might change my mind further.  Otherwise, I'm still with him that it is each individual's responsibility to do appropriate research and due diligence when making investments.  The information to make a wise decision was out there - it wasn't hidden that this was very likely a scam.

By way of his status as forum admin and gatekeeper, Theymos had a special obligation that Micon and all the other whistle-blowers didn't have: he controls the flow of information here. It makes him more responsible. I don't doubt that many invested because Theymos permitted these scams to be promoted here, which amounts to a tacit approval. Again, he is more reponsible than most.

I disagree.  Again, it is each person's personal responsibility to research the things they are investing in.

Aside from going against centuries of common law, this is insane. By that logic, there is nothing wrong with what Matthew did because it was up to bettors to have the same skewed concept of the English language as him. By that logic, I can set up a boobie trap to shoot someone in the face as they open a door and watch their head blow off -- only to say that they should bear the burden of inspecting each door they wish to open.

Knowledge and ability to prevent fraud and injury is definitely a factor when determining culpability.

It's like saying that if I ran a forum about mushrooms, and failed to notify you about which ones were poisonous, and you ate a poisonous mushroom and died, it would be my fault.

So you're saying that this is a forum about scams? It isn't.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Just because someone offered a PPT doesn't mean they were a scammer. The PPT OP's were taking a risk themselves. They offered a service investing in Pirate for a cut. They didn't run off with your money. Frankly, based on the evidence we have, I don't believe Pirate can even be labeled a scammer. It was part of the contract that he could declare default at any point, rendering the contract null and the money 'gone'. We don't know if he legitimately defaulted or not.

Well he iterated over and over that it wasn't a ponzi.  If it indeed was a ponzi that is enough fraud IMHO to be considered a scam.  Now we may never know for sure but given it acted like a ponzi, broke like a ponzi, the money is gone like a ponzi, and just happen to coincide with the dates of a massive national ponzi collapsing I think the burden  of proof if on him to show it wasn't a ponzi.

[SgtSpike]

Gene - thanks for the post.  That helps me understand your point of view a lot more, and to a point, I agree.  You argue that it was the responsibility of theymos, and anyone else who knew it was a scam, to call it out as such, and I think that is an appropriate demand.

Here's the thing:  They did.

The only reason I don't quite agree with you wanting to label theymos a scammer is that there were accusations of this being a scam ALL over the forum.  Anyone who spent any sort of time reading about the investment before diving right in should know that the probability of it being a legitimate and sustainable investment was zilch.  If I was in theymos' shoes, I wouldn't have said anything just because everyone else already covered it so thoroughly.

Now, if you know of someone who invested in pirate because of theymos not saying anything when asked directly, you might change my mind further.  Otherwise, I'm still with him that it is each individual's responsibility to do appropriate research and due diligence when making investments.  The information to make a wise decision was out there - it wasn't hidden that this was very likely a scam.

By way of his status as forum admin and gatekeeper, Theymos had a special obligation that Micon and all the other whistle-blowers didn't have: he controls the flow of information here. It makes him more responsible. I don't doubt that many invested because Theymos permitted these scams to be promoted here, which amounts to a tacit approval. Again, he is more reponsible than most.

I disagree.  Again, it is each person's personal responsibility to research the things they are investing in.

Aside from going against centuries of common law, this is insane. By that logic, there is nothing wrong with what Matthew did because it was up to bettors to have the same skewed concept of the English language as him. By that logic, I can set up a boobie trap to shoot someone in the face as they open a door and watch their head blow off -- only to say that they should bear the burden of inspecting each door they wish to open.

Knowledge and ability to prevent fraud and injury is definitely a factor when determining culpability.

It's like saying that if I ran a forum about mushrooms, and failed to notify you about which ones were poisonous, and you ate a poisonous mushroom and died, it would be my fault.

So you're saying that this is a forum about scams? It isn't.

Oh, I am sorry - I didn't realize we were handing out scammer tags based on whether people would be indicted under common law.  I thought it was based on whether one person scammed another.

And no, it's a forum about Bitcoin.

[SgtSpike]

Just because someone offered a PPT doesn't mean they were a scammer. The PPT OP's were taking a risk themselves. They offered a service investing in Pirate for a cut. They didn't run off with your money. Frankly, based on the evidence we have, I don't believe Pirate can even be labeled a scammer. It was part of the contract that he could declare default at any point, rendering the contract null and the money 'gone'. We don't know if he legitimately defaulted or not.

Well he iterated over and over that it wasn't a ponzi.  If it indeed was a ponzi that is enough fraud IMHO to be considered a scam.  Now we may never know for sure but given it acted like a ponzi, broke like a ponzi, the money is gone like a ponzi, and just happen to coincide with the dates of a massive national ponzi collapsing I think the burden  of proof if on him to show it wasn't a ponzi.

If a PPT insisted that it wasn't a ponzi when he full well knew it was very likely one, then I'd hand him the scammer tag in a heartbeat.

[JoelKatz]

No it doesn't.  He failed to pay out.  The PPT's who promised to pay out only as long as pirate paid out kept their word.  Pirate did not.

Did Pirate ever make an unconditional promise to pay out or claim that there was no risk associated with investing in him? The scam wasn't that he failed to pay out, the scam was that the transfers were fraudulent and the funds weren't invested as promised. Had he failed to pay out because of a legitimate investment loss, he wouldn't have been scamming at all. Risk is fine. Scamming is not. Pirate is not a scammer because he exposed his investors to risk. He's a scammer because all the transfers were fraudulent and the claimed profits didn't exist.

[organofcorti]

No it doesn't.  He failed to pay out.  The PPT's who promised to pay out only as long as pirate paid out kept their word.  Pirate did not.

Did Pirate ever make an unconditional promise to pay out or claim that there was no risk associated with investing in him? The scam wasn't that he failed to pay out, the scam was that the transfers were fraudulent and the funds weren't invested as promised. Had he failed to pay out because of a legitimate investment loss, he wouldn't have been scamming at all. Risk is fine. Scamming is not. Pirate is not a scammer because he exposed his investors to risk. He's a scammer because all the transfers were fraudulent and the claimed profits didn't exist.

Did you mean legitimate investment loss or legitimate investment loss? If he was a passthrough to Zeek and didn't know it was a Ponzi (a longshot, I know), then wouldn't that be a legitimate investment?

[JoelKatz]

No it doesn't.  He failed to pay out.  The PPT's who promised to pay out only as long as pirate paid out kept their word.  Pirate did not.

Did Pirate ever make an unconditional promise to pay out or claim that there was no risk associated with investing in him? The scam wasn't that he failed to pay out, the scam was that the transfers were fraudulent and the funds weren't invested as promised. Had he failed to pay out because of a legitimate investment loss, he wouldn't have been scamming at all. Risk is fine. Scamming is not. Pirate is not a scammer because he exposed his investors to risk. He's a scammer because all the transfers were fraudulent and the claimed profits didn't exist.

Did you mean legitimate investment loss or legitimate investment loss? If he was a passthrough to Zeek and didn't know it was a Ponzi (a longshot, I know), then wouldn't that be a legitimate investment?

It's "legitimate investment loss". Had Pirate been operating a passthrough to Zeek and there was no evidence he knew it was a Ponzi scheme, IMO he wouldn't be much more culpable than PPT operators and his investors. And I think that's one reason why the community is going to have to start holding people accountable all the way down the line to the individual investor.

[SgtSpike]

No it doesn't.  He failed to pay out.  The PPT's who promised to pay out only as long as pirate paid out kept their word.  Pirate did not.

Did Pirate ever make an unconditional promise to pay out or claim that there was no risk associated with investing in him? The scam wasn't that he failed to pay out, the scam was that the transfers were fraudulent and the funds weren't invested as promised. Had he failed to pay out because of a legitimate investment loss, he wouldn't have been scamming at all. Risk is fine. Scamming is not. Pirate is not a scammer because he exposed his investors to risk. He's a scammer because all the transfers were fraudulent and the claimed profits didn't exist.

Ok, I highlighted the important part.  It's still the case that pirate didn't do what he said he would do, but the PPT operators did do what they said they would do.  Or, if they didn't, then they should be labeled scammers just like pirate.  I'm not sure I subscribe to the idea that just because they thought pirate would eventually stop paying out, they are scammers for being involved.  I DO subscribe to the idea that whenever someone doesn't hold to their word, they should be labeled as a scammer.

If I said, "I'll steal any coins that you send to me at this address," then am I a scammer?

[fcmatt]

Matthew do us a solid and lock this thread. Many karmas if u do.