Pirate wants to settle with individuals for less. Don't let him do it.

[DeathAndTaxes]

You could argue the accounts were automatically closed when he defaulted. If he pays 100% up until the default that would be hard to call Matthews bet lost.

Well you can argue anything doesn't mean it is logical.  Try this.  Call your bank up and tell them you want to close your mortgage.  You will pay it off eventually but since it is closed you want the interest reduced to zero. 

The idea that someone can borrow money at x% then not repay it upon demand and then choose to pay a different interest (or none) doesn't even pass the chuckle test.

Pirate has default and will never pay according to the terms of his contract.  Matt simply can not win the bet.  The only thing which is unknown is will he payout or not (I bet not).

[DeathAndTaxes]

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to.

Proof?  Also how exactly would Goat BLOCK other people from contacting Pirate even if Goat wanted to.  Does he have complete control over the internet and all other methods of communication?

[JoelKatz]

You could argue the accounts were automatically closed when he defaulted. If he pays 100% up until the default that would be hard to call Matthews bet lost.

Well you can argue anything doesn't mean it is logical.  Try this.  Call your bank up and tell them you want to close your mortgage.  You will pay it off eventually but since it is closed you want the interest reduced to zero.  

The idea that someone can borrow money at x% then not repay it upon demand and then choose to pay a different interest (or none) doesn't even pass the chuckle test.

Pirate has default and will never pay according to the terms of his contract.  Matt simply can not win the bet.  The only thing which is unknown is will he payout or not (I bet not).

I'm not sure which side to take here, but maybe this will help clarify the issue: Matthew offered his bet after Pirate had already defaulted. Only an additional, subsequent default can cause Matthew to lose his bet. If the loss of additional interest was part of the original default, it cannot cause Matthew to lose his bet unless Pirate agreed to pay it back as part of the terms Matthew bet Pirate would stick to.

[ErebusBat]

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to.

Proof?  Also how exactly would Goat BLOCK other people from contacting Pirate even if Goat wanted to.  Does he have complete control over the internet and all other methods of communication?

Yes, yes I do! 

The truth comes out... Goat is..... AL GORE!

(Damnit Bruno... where were you on that one?)

[SysRun]

You could argue the accounts were automatically closed when he defaulted. If he pays 100% up until the default that would be hard to call Matthews bet lost.

Well you can argue anything doesn't mean it is logical.  Try this.  Call your bank up and tell them you want to close your mortgage.  You will pay it off eventually but since it is closed you want the interest reduced to zero.  

The idea that someone can borrow money at x% then not repay it upon demand and then choose to pay a different interest (or none) doesn't even pass the chuckle test.

Pirate has default and will never pay according to the terms of his contract.  Matt simply can not win the bet.  The only thing which is unknown is will he payout or not (I bet not).

I'm not sure which side to take here, but maybe this will help clarify the issue: Matthew offered his bet after Pirate had already defaulted. Only an additional, subsequent default can cause Matthew to lose his bet. If the loss of additional interest was part of the original default, it cannot cause Matthew to lose his bet unless Pirate agreed to pay it back as part of the terms Matthew bet Pirate would stick to.

Matthew offered his bet before pirate contractually defaulted. He continued taking bets after the contractual default despite already losing the bet. Check into it.

[imsaguy]

You could argue the accounts were automatically closed when he defaulted. If he pays 100% up until the default that would be hard to call Matthews bet lost.

Well you can argue anything doesn't mean it is logical.  Try this.  Call your bank up and tell them you want to close your mortgage.  You will pay it off eventually but since it is closed you want the interest reduced to zero.  

The idea that someone can borrow money at x% then not repay it upon demand and then choose to pay a different interest (or none) doesn't even pass the chuckle test.

Pirate has default and will never pay according to the terms of his contract.  Matt simply can not win the bet.  The only thing which is unknown is will he payout or not (I bet not).

I'm not sure which side to take here, but maybe this will help clarify the issue: Matthew offered his bet after Pirate had already defaulted. Only an additional, subsequent default can cause Matthew to lose his bet. If the loss of additional interest was part of the original default, it cannot cause Matthew to lose his bet unless Pirate agreed to pay it back as part of the terms Matthew bet Pirate would stick to.

Matthew offered his bet before pirate contractually defaulted. He continued taking bets after the contractual default despite already losing the bet. Check into it.

Each bet is its own bet.  Perhaps they share the same terms, but they were all entered into separately.

[SysRun]

... despite already losing the bets

are you checking into it?

[JoelKatz]

Matthew offered his bet before pirate contractually defaulted. He continued taking bets after the contractual default despite already losing the bet. Check into it.

Pirate defaulted as soon as he didn't process a withdrawal on time. Matthew's bet was offered in response to Pirate's response to his failure to pay. Any defaults prior to or implied by Pirate's agreement wouldn't cause Matthew to lose the bet.

"Post in this thread how much you're committing and I will double that amount you commit (maximum of 10,000BTC in bets allowed in this thread total) if Pirate does not pay out in 3 weeks as he described in his thread."

I can't quite figure out which thread that's referring to. Anyone have a link?

This will probably all become academic anyway once Matthew's deadline passes. I have a feeling we won't need to do any lawyerly parsing of ambiguous terms to figure out who won.

[P4man]

Joel, he was referring pirate BTCST thread here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822.0

When will I get my coins?
Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred.  I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.

Since then, and since Matthew posted his bet thread, Pirate announced interest will no longer accrue. There is no way Matthew can win his bet.

[JoelKatz]

Joel, he was referring pirate BTCST thread here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822.0

When will I get my coins?
Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred.  I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.

Since then, and since Matthew posted his bet thread, Pirate announced interest will no longer accrue. There is no way Matthew can win his bet.

Thanks for the link. I think you're right.

This is what Pirate said that preceded Matthew's bet:

"Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred.  I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent."

So if he is to pay "as agreed" above, for anyone who doesn't agree to any other terms in place of those above, he must pay all coins plus interest earned up until the hour he makes payment. There is no mention there of any additional terms or conditions, so any such additional conditions would not be "as agreed" unless people choose to accept them.

[bg002h]

You could argue the accounts were automatically closed when he defaulted. If he pays 100% up until the default that would be hard to call Matthews bet lost.

Well you can argue anything doesn't mean it is logical.  Try this.  Call your bank up and tell them you want to close your mortgage.  You will pay it off eventually but since it is closed you want the interest reduced to zero. 

The idea that someone can borrow money at x% then not repay it upon demand and then choose to pay a different interest (or none) doesn't even pass the chuckle test.

Pirate has default and will never pay according to the terms of his contract.  Matt simply can not win the bet.  The only thing which is unknown is will he payout or not (I bet not).

Pirate said he is in default. Matthew can win the bet if pirate's statement is false and he does pay all his lenders with interest up to the hour it was sent on or before September 9th.

[EskimoBob]

PPT issuers do not know who their bond holders are in GLBSE.
If I recall, PPT or any other security issuer can not get that information from GLBE even if they wanted to, unless Nefario has made some changes to GLBSE and made this information available.