Letter of concern to the board of BitTalk Media Inc. (MNW 80K Fraud)

[elux]

I will make a statement regarding this matter on behalf of Bitcoin Magazine and it's publisher Bittalk Media Ltd.

However, please do allow me some time to consult all the affected stakeholders. It might take a few days.

Public draft of a letter of concern to the board of BitTalk Media Inc.:

Code:

Dear Vladimir,

By this time you are undoubtably aware of the damage caused
to BitTalk Media Ltd, and Bitcoin Magazine in particular, stemming from 
the recent public actions of chief editor Matthew N. Wright, and the liability represented thereby. 

I hereby request that the board of BitTalk Media Ltd. immediately remove Matthew N. Wright from any position he might have
with BitTalk Media Ltd, Bitcoin Magazine, and affiliated organizations, and that this action is made public as soon as possible. 

This in the interest of minimizing the loss of business, advertising revenue and irrecoverable damage to the image of the
business, that will otherwise be incurred from any lack of timely, appropriate action on part of the board of BitTalk Media.

Best regards,
-elux,

[List of signatories.]

Anyone want to join me in signing this thing?

Comments, suggestions for improvements are also much appreciated. (IANAL)

[1715031991]

1715031991

[1715031991]

1715031991

[fcmatt]

Anyone who took matthew's bet as serious, even from the first few seconds he posted it, should really
consider looking in the mirror and wonder who was the bigger idiot.

[klaus]

[trentzb]

damage damage?

[elux]

damage damage?

Fixed. Thanks. 

[bigasic]

Why not take his bet serious? Hes the (or was) the Editor-in-chief for Bitcoin magazine. He was a moderator here on the forums, He was highly respected. Now, if someone just signed up and wanted to bet like that no-one would bet him without escrow. I bet him thinking that he was not a scammer (when his bets got over 10k that was a clear sign of him scamming and thats when I stopped taking him seriously.)

So, go ahead, call me a fool. I actually took someone on their word and reputation.

Boy, was I an idiot, never again. Before I make a bet, or make any kind of future financial deal is going to be held in escrow (lets hope that the escrow doesn't screw me) and I will never ever take another risk in life. No matter what, 99 percent of what we do revolves around trust. That is called life.

[fcmatt]

Anyone who took matthew's bet as serious, even from the first few seconds he posted it, should really
consider looking in the mirror and wonder who was the bigger idiot.

Doesn't change the fact that Matthew is a scammer and a criminal.

Criminal? Pfft. Maybe in your fantasy world.

Vlad is smart enough to decide what he wants to do on his own.
If bitcoin can be "damaged" in any way by a fake bet it is already doomed to fail then.

[kibblesnbits]

So, go ahead, call me a fool. I actually took someone on their word and reputation.

I thought he was going to pay out.  Depending on when you entered the bitcoin game, if you were active when it started, you could easily cover this bet.  Wasn't there someone that had 50k BTC for a pizza a few years back?  I believed MNW had been around for awhile and was able to cover his bet.

[Serith]

I don't think OP has a good judgement on the matter.

TL;DR: There is three possible reasons why Matthew organized The Bet , and only the least probable one will earn money for someone betting against him.

• Matthew is hardcore and rich gambler who is willing to bet maximum of 10k BTC in favor of low probability event, his risk vs profit evaluation isn't rational.
• He knows something about pirate40 that we don't, e.g. Matthew conspired with pirate40 or it's the same person.
• Matthew has no intention to honor the bet in case he lose.

Just because you can't think of reasons doesn't mean there aren't any.

Here's just on more out of the several I can think of:

• Huge media attention mentioning Matthew Neal Wright and Bitcoin Magazine coming up.

Massively cheaper than placing actual paid advertisement with BBC, Wired, Slashdot, Forbes, The New Yorker, etc, etc, etc, all at once.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

damage damage?

Fixed. Thanks.

and with with.

...position he might have
with with BitTalk Media Ltd...

[smoothie]

Anyone who took matthew's bet as serious, even from the first few seconds he posted it, should really
consider looking in the mirror and wonder who was the bigger idiot.

HMMM (looks in mirror)

(sees still has dignity, respect, and reputation and haven't lost any bitcoins)

Yeah I think I came out better in this ordeal compared to Matthew.

He has lost respect, trust, and reputation on a large scale in this community.

So he is the BIGGER IDIOT.

But thanks for asking 

[BadBear]

He has lost respect, trust, and reputation on a large scale in this community.

Yes, definitely. He's on my list of untrustworthy people now. Not many people make it to that list, he's the third now - and I've been involved with bitcoin since mid-2010 when they were 6 cents each.

Agreed, I don't trust many people but there's very few people I actively distrust, and he's top of that list now.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I also propose that you take the appropriate steps to seek legal recourse in restoring the material or immaterial damages inflicted
on BitTalk Media Inc. and Bitcoin Magazine resulting from the 79000 BTC fraud perpetrated by Matthew N. Wright

This sentence makes no sense.  I mean the words don't mean what you think they do.  My guess is you have some meaning and are trying to use legalese and as a result are saying nonsense.
Why not say what you want to say in plain English.   what are these "steps to seek legal recourse"?  what "material or immaterial damages"?

Also if you are implying  BitTalk Media Inc has any liability for one of the actions of its employees outside the scope of their duties well you are completely wrong. It is difficult to tell because the incorrect jumbled use of legal terms but you seem to be incorrectly implying that BitTalk Media has some liability.  Matt never made any link to the company and Vlad did post that this had nothing to do with the magazine.  Shortly after Matt removed any links to the magazine in his sig and avatar (likely at the urging of the company).  

While I hope BitTalk Media realizes that Matt is a liability using a bunch of legalese and implying any direct financial liability isn't useful.  It actually undermines the other points.  Kinda like an upset customers complaining and then ending the letter with a threat of suing you for a billion trillion dollars in pain & suffering.  It just makes the complaint go from something realistic to laughable.

[finkleshnorts]

I think he wants them to sue Matthew.

Which is also kind of silly.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I think he wants them to sue Matthew.

Which is also kind of silly.

Yeah if Matt's contract as either an owner or employee has a morality clause the company may have grounds to sue but that would be for any damages incurred by the magazine (canceled ads, lost subscriptions, PR costs to undo the bad press, etc) not the amount Matt didn't pay.  More commonly it would be used as leverage to divest him of ownership (we are suing you but we can settle out of court if you agree to sell your stake).  Those damages would be a separate issue from the 79,000 BTC Matt didn't pay so like I said the sentence is confusing and honestly doesn't really make any sense.

[smoothie]

I think he wants them to sue Matthew.

Which is also kind of silly.

LOL yeah that would be interesting. Let me sue you for my bet with you about digital monopoly monies that is created on the internets...

hehe

[DeathAndTaxes]

I think he wants them to sue Matthew.

Which is also kind of silly.

LOL yeah that would be interesting. Let me sue you for my bet with you about digital monopoly monies that is created on the internets...

hehe

Actually it would be very common.  Employees (especially high level employees) are sued by their employers all the time when their actions and words cause damage to the company (reputation, lost sales, canceled ad revenue, etc).  There is nothing to indicate BitTalk is looking to sue Matt but if they did it wouldn't be over "lost BTC" it would be over damages to the company.  Still the OP seems to be combining that with the bet itself and throwing in a bunch of nonsense legal words so it is hard to tell what he is trying to say.

[trentzb]

damage damage?

Fixed. Thanks.

and with with.

...position he might have
with with BitTalk Media Ltd...

I am thinking that a legal assistant/proofreader/contract writing service might be something to make available to the community...hmm. I'm on it.

[bitcoiners]

Matt never made any link to the company and Vlad did post that this had nothing to do with the magazine.  Shortly after Matt removed any links to the magazine in his sig and avatar (likely at the urging of the company).  

Oh yes he did.  On his spreadsheet he had pics of each one of Bitcoin Magazine's issues and links to subscribe.  They were of course removed but it made it look like the company was involved in the bet while they were up.

[smoothie]

Matt never made any link to the company and Vlad did post that this had nothing to do with the magazine.  Shortly after Matt removed any links to the magazine in his sig and avatar (likely at the urging of the company).  

Oh yes he did.  On his spreadsheet he had pics of each one of Bitcoin Magazine's issues and links to subscribe.  They were of course removed but it made it look like the company was involved in the bet while they were up.

Yup I saw it. Not sure what he was trying to do there...

free advertising for the magazine?

So fail...