Are people over-reacting on MNW's bet?

[smoothie]

People on this board have white-knighted for every scammy fuck that's come through so I'm not surprised this time is any different.

...

Nah just kidding guys, it's totally cool when people break their contracts and promises as long as they are the type of people you should expect that from.

I would point out that it is useful information to look at the persons defending Matt and their arguments.  It provides an insight into their thought processes and a good reason to avoid doing business with them.  Those defending him are saying it is ok to lie, cheat, and break agreements as long as funds don't change hands.  Those aren't the kind of people I would want to be involved in a trade with.

For the record if you see me taking side with MNW: He did a bet where he put his credibility against a million $ and decided to publicly declare himself not credible. He perfectly made clear what will happen if he doesn't pay which did not involve hiring killers or the police. He's tagged accordingly. Crying and extending the drama is just pointless. The debt is payed according to his deal and he will have to live with the consequences but please don't let these consequences be hundreds of threads.

He never actually fulfilled his commitment in the bet. He claimed to have then got the scammer tag anyway.

[1714945041]

1714945041

[bitcoiners]

but please don't let these consequences be hundreds of threads.

Says the guy that started this thread.  Now that's funny.  Here's a suggestion.  Want it to stop?  Lock the fucking thread.

[adamstgBit]

adamstgBit,

He used the example from his OP and falsely interpreted it to mean the terms of the bet were that for each lost wager he would need to pay 20 BTC to the address is his bet (his address)
Pretty lame (and stupidly false) technicality.  

If Matt honestly believes he pulled a legit fast one on the betters he should allow it to go to arbitration before http://judge.me .

i don't see anywhere him saying hes going to pay 20BTC this is own address

that was an example

someone places a bet like so

20BTC
13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM
Optional comment

and he will pay 20BTC to 13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM if he loses


sounds to me like he was saying he was going to honer his bet!?

[DeathAndTaxes]

adamstgBit,

You are preaching to the choir.  I was just giving you the cliffnotes on Matt's stupid "logic".

He claims the sentence that he will pay 20 BTC to 13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM applies not to the example but to all bets.  So he admits to losing the bet and thus he paid 20 BTC to the address  13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM (which he owns) 122 times (once for each lost bet).  He has stated he has paid per the terms of his bet.  If you think it is dumb and not even logical well join the crowd I am just relaying his explanation.  Per Matt he has lost and paid the bet in full per his "terms".

i don't see anywhere him saying hes going to pay 20BTC this is own address

You just quoted it above.  Both the amount and address.  Don't try to think too hard on it.  He is a lying piece of crap who simply used this after the fact to avoid paying rather than just say "I am not paying".

[smoothie]

adamstgBit,

He used the example from his OP and falsely interpreted it to mean the terms of the bet were that for each lost wager he would need to pay 20 BTC to the address is his bet (his address)
Pretty lame (and stupidly false) technicality.  

If Matt honestly believes he pulled a legit fast one on the betters he should allow it to go to arbitration before http://judge.me .

i don't see anywhere him saying hes going to pay 20BTC this is own address

that was an example

someone places a bet like so

20BTC
13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM
Optional comment

and he will pay 20BTC to 13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM if he loses


sounds to me like he was saying he was going to honer his bet!?

That's what made it so lame...it was a stretch to make a kindergarten attempt to find a loophole.

[stick_theman]

Like Vladimir said, bitcoin itself is worth 100 bucks on entertainment value alone.

People don't get your eyes off the real culprit... where are the Bitcoinica's compensation?  Has anyone filed a suit for the Pirate yet?  What's going on?

Matthew likes attention, nothing more than that.

[adamstgBit]

adamstgBit,

You are preaching to the choir.  I was just giving you the cliffnotes on Matt's stupid "logic".

He claims the sentence that he will pay 20 BTC to 13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM applies not to the example but to all bets.  So he paid 20 BTC to 13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM  122 times (once for each lost bet) and considered the bet paid.  If you think it is dumb well join the crowd of thousands but he has stated the bet is paid.

no he didn't
http://blockchain.info/address/13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM

And He never even said that's was what he was doing

He just used that example again, telling everyone if you bet 20 you'll get 20... no?

[BadBear]

Here's a helpful graphic for you.

[DeathAndTaxes]

no he didn't
http://blockchain.info/address/13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM

You got me there.  I guess he "paid" the 20 BTC once and considered that covered for all bets. It is hard to understand the logic of a mentally disturbed idiot.

And He never even said that's was what he was doing

Yes he DID.  

I already paid 20 BTC for each entry as described in the bet thread. I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

and
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101751.msg1173953#msg1173953

and
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101751.msg1173889#msg1173889

For the love of God what is your argument here?  Nobody is defending Matt saying "Yes he won legit by this technicality".  It is Matt's idiotic and flawed logic but it is his "reason" for how/why he has both lost and paid in full (paying 20 BTC to himself).  That is HIS CLAIM not mine.  The fact that he claimed it really isn't in dispute. 

He just used that example again, telling everyone if you bet 20 you'll get 20... no?

No.  If you still don't get it.  Well I can't help you.  You should probably sober up and try again in a few hours.  

[adamstgBit]

no he didn't
http://blockchain.info/address/13dSK4663Ts7j2PwHS1eUVjycKLBwx7PJM

You got me there.  I guess he paid it once for the entire bet not once per inidivudal bet.

And He never even said that's was what he was doing

Yes he DID.  For the love of God what is your argument here?  Nobody is defending Matt saying "Yes he won legit by this technicality".  Matt claims to have lost the bet and paid.  That is HIS CLAIM not mine.

He just used that example again, telling everyone if you bet 20 you'll get 20... no?

No.  If you still don't get it.  Well I can't help you.  You should probably sober up and try again in a few hours.  

i get it, i was looking for this quote...

You did not pay the bet, you are a scammer

According to which law? I paid already. Please see earlier posts. Thanks!

Right as we all were betting just numbers and not actual bitcoins.

Nice try.

I already paid 20 BTC for each entry as described in the bet thread. I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

lol, ok.

did he actually pay out 20BTC to everyone?

Edit: not that this makes him any less of a scammer...

[amencon]

People on this board have white-knighted for every scammy fuck that's come through so I'm not surprised this time is any different.

...

Nah just kidding guys, it's totally cool when people break their contracts and promises as long as they are the type of people you should expect that from.

I would point out that it is useful information to look at the persons defending Matt and their arguments.  It provides an insight into their thought processes and a good reason to avoid doing business with them.  Those defending him are saying it is ok to lie, cheat, and break agreements as long as funds don't change hands.  Those aren't the kind of people I would want to be involved in a trade with.

Good point.

The fact that Matthew is just another untrustworthy person among billions doesn't really concern me much.  It's a bit troublesome though when a portion of the community rallies behind that kind of behavior, time and time again. 

I'll definitely use the information exactly as you described in my future dealings with bitcoin related businesses.

[teflone]

You guys that dont understand it.. its simple..

Its a stupid childish way to think about it..  a 5 year old attempt at a stupid technicality..

He just said he would pay out to his own address.. for each person..  so he would just pay himself 20 coins to his own address for each person entered.... and in some stupid bs play on words he thinks this is funny...

[blablahblah]

Are people over-reacting on MNW's bet?

Yes, it's getting kinda lame. If I recall correctly, he did say:

I'm giving 100% ROI...

in the header. Dunno about you but I got my money's worth . In fact, I got more than 100% of my "investment" back. And no, I didn't promise to 'bet' anything in that Interwebs discussion thread. It kinda concerns me how people started putting in 'bets' (if you can call it that) and the reply-counter shot up like microwave popcorn, and nobody thought to ask for clarification. It would have been this easy:

So let me get this straight. If the naval gazer defaults, you're going to send the amount of money that I specify to the address that I specify? And if he doesn't default, I have to pay you said amount?

THAT EASY.
Gambling addicts annoy me. Get help dudes/dudettes.

[thezerg]

Are people over-reacting on MNW's bet?

Yes, it's getting kinda lame. If I recall correctly, he did say:

I'm giving 100% ROI...

in the header. Dunno about you but I got my money's worth . In fact, I got more than 100% of my "investment" back. And no, I didn't promise to 'bet' anything in that Interwebs discussion thread. It kinda concerns me how people started putting in 'bets' (if you can call it that) and the reply-counter shot up like microwave popcorn, and nobody thought to ask for clarification. It would have been this easy:

So let me get this straight. If the naval gazer defaults, you're going to send the amount of money that I specify to the address that I specify? And if he doesn't default, I have to pay you said amount?

THAT EASY.
Gambling addicts annoy me. Get help dudes/dudettes.

With cash your word has to be solid.  I think they used to say "his word is as good as his deed"... I did not bet so have nothing to gain.

Think of all the people who were defrauded by Pirate -- possibly for money they could not afford to lose. MNW's bet gave them hope that he had inside knowledge (that a payment would come).  And a hedging strategy.  Why prolong the agony?

[Portnoy]

Are people over-reacting on MNW's bet?

Yes, it's getting kinda lame. If I recall correctly, he did say:

I'm giving 100% ROI...

in the header. Dunno about you but I got my money's worth . In fact, I got more than 100% of my "investment" back. And no, I didn't promise to 'bet' anything in that Interwebs discussion thread. It kinda concerns me how people started putting in 'bets' (if you can call it that) and the reply-counter shot up like microwave popcorn, and nobody thought to ask for clarification. It would have been this easy:

So let me get this straight. If the naval gazer defaults, you're going to send the amount of money that I specify to the address that I specify? And if he doesn't default, I have to pay you said amount?

THAT EASY.
Gambling addicts annoy me. Get help dudes/dudettes.

Read the thread. Many people asked for that clarity and he assured them all that he would not weasel out based on some technicality or play on words etc.  He outright lied it seems to me. 

[adamstgBit]

You guys that dont understand it.. its simple..

Its a stupid childish way to think about it..  a 5 year old attempt at a stupid technicality..

He just said he would pay out to his own address.. for each person..  so he would just pay himself 20 coins to his own address for each person entered.... and in some stupid bs play on words he thinks this is funny...

right and just to prove what your saying is right

Matthew said this himself

I already paid 20 BTC for each entry as described in the bet thread. I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

which means he payed himself 20BTC 112 times, and considered that to be fulfilling the bet ( which he didn't even do by the way ).

[justusranvier]

It's a bit troublesome though when a portion of the community rallies behind that kind of behavior, time and time again.

There is a type of person who desperately wants a path to easy wealth. This person doesn't want to start a business, invent something, or develop a marketable skill - they just want to "invest" in the right thing and have it explode in value so they can cash out. The kind of person I'm talking about is so desperate they have no problem suspending disbelief if somebody comes by telling them what they want to hear regardless of how warning signs are apparent.

Many of these kinds of people are attracted to alternative currencies and precious metals, and wherever they go they attract scammers like chum attracts sharks.

[tvbcof]

People on this board have white-knighted for every scammy fuck that's come through so I'm not surprised this time is any different.

...

Nah just kidding guys, it's totally cool when people break their contracts and promises as long as they are the type of people you should expect that from.

I would point out that it is useful information to look at the persons defending Matt and their arguments.  It provides an insight into their thought processes and a good reason to avoid doing business with them.  Those defending him are saying it is ok to lie, cheat, and break agreements as long as funds don't change hands.  Those aren't the kind of people I would want to be involved in a trade with.

In point of fact, anyone who was planning to work some sort of a scam would probably be demonstrating as much righteous indignation about Matthew's thing (and others) as they could muster so as to develop a good reputation with the potential marks reading the forum.  The people publish unpopular counter-points are probably among the most trustworthy when it comes to their propensity to do the right thing in various kinds of transactions.

That said, I personally trust no-one any more than I have to and always look for other ways to develop confidence, though that's not saying much since I do basically zero economic activity in the network at this time.  Back when I did, however, I was very careful to use 'trust' only minimally.  My rule of thumb is to do even less with Bitcoin than what I would be willing to do with cash...and I've only been parted from the amount of Bitcoin which I completely expected to be.

[bbit]

I paid into so he would get the scammer tag will with it I might add.

[dayfall]

So, the lesson I learned was that I did not call ENOUGH people scammers.  Not only that, but I have learned that I can be easily scammed by people that appear to be good people and that I should have no trust in them.

Thanks Matthew.