The pirate ponzi fiasco

[bitlane]

I am sure both you (reeses) and gigavps will have fun flying to Texas to watch Breaking Bad with Pirate and get drunk when this is all said and done.

Just make sure to continue trying to legally advise him, explain the 'context' of his IRC posts and guard his corporate shield !

You better go back and have a look at the recently posted IRC logs. It's clear that you have a hard-on for Trendon.

[BIGMERVE]

Do you have the logs from that chat?

[bitlane]

If you're not going to get entertaining and flamey again, I'm going to have to put you back on ignore so you can keep your numbers up.  

What do you call what I have been doing with you then ?


ps. Although I only quoted a portion of your post, I read it in it's entirety, so feel free to delete it now.

[theymos]

What is the limit?  Zhou Tong stole close to half a million dollars, but you actually took steps to make sure his privacy was protected.

Zhou Tong hasn't been proven to be guilty yet, and the Bitcoinica people have started legal processes to pay back the BTC. If pirateat40 doesn't work toward paying back within a few months, his case will be very clear.

[Vod]

What is the limit?  Zhou Tong stole close to half a million dollars, but you actually took steps to make sure his privacy was protected.

Zhou Tong hasn't been proven to be guilty yet, and the Bitcoinica people have started legal processes to pay back the BTC. If pirateat40 doesn't work toward paying back within a few months, his case will be very clear.

Theymos, Zhou Tong AGREED to the evidence against him, but claimed he was framed.  He never produced any proof of a third party.  That makes him guilty in most world courts - mind you, courts haven't been "paid off".

[imsaguy]

What is the limit?  Zhou Tong stole close to half a million dollars, but you actually took steps to make sure his privacy was protected.

Zhou Tong hasn't been proven to be guilty yet, and the Bitcoinica people have started legal processes to pay back the BTC. If pirateat40 doesn't work toward paying back within a few months, his case will be very clear.

They're both seeming to be scams, but pirate's not been 'proven' to be a scam any more than zhou tong has 'proven' he wasn't the hacker.

[myrkul]

What is the limit?  Zhou Tong stole close to half a million dollars, but you actually took steps to make sure his privacy was protected.

Zhou Tong hasn't been proven to be guilty yet, and the Bitcoinica people have started legal processes to pay back the BTC. If pirateat40 doesn't work toward paying back within a few months, his case will be very clear.

They're both seeming to be scams, but pirate's not been 'proven' to be a scam any more than zhou tong has 'proven' he wasn't the hacker.

That's the difference (bolded, above). If/when Pirate pays back, the possibility of his PMs coming out will go off the table.

[bitlane]

I think that Pirate is simply holding our investments in Trust, so that they can accrue the most interest prior to paying them back to us....so we can enjoy them more.

He is actually doing us a favor and shouldn't be attacked for helping us. Look at how many BTC would be for sale if he paid us back already.

He is simply trying to stabilize the market for us.

[myrkul]

I think that Pirate is simply holding our investments in Trust, so that they can accrue the most interest prior to paying them back to us....so we can enjoy them more.

He is actually doing us a favor and shouldn't be attacked for helping us. Look at how many BTC would be for sale if he paid us back already.

He is simply trying to stabilize the market for us.

+1 Pirate is a hero.

[bitlane]

+1 Pirate is a hero.

Exactly, right ?

Can I honestly blame him for trying to grow my measly existing 2600+ BTC in my BTCST account, into a Million, over time ?

He's a HERO not a SCAMMER.

[HeavyMetal]

This post is sufficient for a court to reject any claims of protections based on USC § 230¹.

The forum isn't based in the US.

Legality aside, decency would suggest you should put a notice on the "private message" page stating that the messages are not private and may be read by moderators. As it stands it gives the impression it is only between the two involved parties.

Not disputing your right to read the messages, but it needs to be clear to people that this is the case when they go to send a message.

[myrkul]

This post is sufficient for a court to reject any claims of protections based on USC § 230¹.

The forum isn't based in the US.

Legality aside, decency would suggest you should put a notice on the "private message" page stating that the messages are not private and may be read by moderators. As it stands it gives the impression it is only between the two involved parties.

Not disputing your right to read the messages, but it needs to be clear to people that this is the case when they go to send a message.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, any electronic communication that isn't encrypted will be read by a 3rd party at some point. Assuming otherwise is like thinking the message on the postcard you sent Grandma is private, too.

[HeavyMetal]

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, any electronic communication that isn't encrypted will be read by a 3rd party at some point. Assuming otherwise is like thinking the message on the postcard you sent Grandma is private, too.

There is a difference between avoiding unauthorized interception of traffic and an ongoing policy of authorized interception. The former you assume to happen, the latter should be very clearly made known.

[myrkul]

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, any electronic communication that isn't encrypted will be read by a 3rd party at some point. Assuming otherwise is like thinking the message on the postcard you sent Grandma is private, too.

There is a difference between avoiding unauthorized interception of traffic and an ongoing policy of authorized interception. The former you assume to happen, the latter should be very clearly made known.

I think I just have a different set of security assumptions than you do.

[bitlane]

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, any electronic communication that isn't encrypted will be read by a 3rd party at some point. Assuming otherwise is like thinking the message on the postcard you sent Grandma is private, too.

There is a difference between avoiding unauthorized interception of traffic and an ongoing policy of authorized interception. The former you assume to happen, the latter should be very clearly made known.

Luckily, being a member is voluntary and no one forces anyone to join and sent PMs.

[BIGMERVE]

+1 Pirate is a hero.

Exactly, right ?

Can I honestly blame him for trying to grow my measly existing 2600+ BTC in my BTCST account, into a Million, over time ?

He's a HERO not a SCAMMER.

All hail Pirate!

[HeavyMetal]

I think I just have a different set of security assumptions than you do.

It is not about security, it is about trust.

Luckily, being a member is voluntary and no one forces anyone to join and sent PMs.

This is true, if I know I am agreeing to this.

[myrkul]

I think I just have a different set of security assumptions than you do.

It is not about security, it is about trust.

Security is about trust. Namely, who to trust. And while you may trust the recipient of your message, you never trust the courier.

[BadBear]

I think I just have a different set of security assumptions than you do.

It is not about security, it is about trust.

Luckily, being a member is voluntary and no one forces anyone to join and sent PMs.

This is true, if I know I am agreeing to this.

Even if you trust theymos, there are 3 other admins, the servers are hosted by Mt Gox, and there's always the possibility of hackers and subpoenas which trust won't save you from. Posting private information (especially if it could incriminate certain people, since we're talking about Pirate that's possible) in plaintext on a forum, pm or not, is asinine. If you value your privacy that much you should take steps to ensure it yourself.

[theymos]

Legality aside, decency would suggest you should put a notice on the "private message" page stating that the messages are not private and may be read by moderators.

They're "personal messages", not "private messages".

I think it's obvious that the administrators of a site will check PMs when necessary, but I added a note to the page.