My response to the community

[dissipate]

I don't see why Matthew should have to leave or exit or whatever. His reputation is now well established, rightfully labeled, and he will be treated accordingly on this forum. So if he stays, time will pass, people will calm down, forget, or forgive, and he'll just have to rebuild his rep from scratch.

There will be no rebuilding his reputation until he pays the coins he owes. There is no probability of that happening, so he is fucked for life as far as I'm concerned. And I really hope any potential business partner or employer he engages with in the future finds these forums and finds out about his scam.

[1714035707]

1714035707

[1714035707]

1714035707

[1714035707]

1714035707

[1714035707]

1714035707

[tvbcof]

You'll operate under a new account and remain secretly involved in your businesses.

I had you pegged for Atlas on the very first post of yours I happened across.  This one lend support to that supposition in my mind.

[iCEBREAKER]

He was seeking easy money, not to improve society. Nor was he joking. Didn't look like a joke, didn't sound like a joke. Looks like a scam, was a scam. Not a joke.

Matt's "bet" was obviously a 100% trollish prank.  Only those with a compulsive gambling problem would want to believe it was somehow (herr durp, maybe pirate is seekretly backing him???!!!1?) legitimate.   

Just as with pirate, people were warned, repeatedly and loudly, not to take him seriously.  But they didn't listen.

[Atlas]

He was seeking easy money, not to improve society. Nor was he joking. Didn't look like a joke, didn't sound like a joke. Looks like a scam, was a scam. Not a joke.

Matt's "bet" was obviously a 100% trollish prank.  Only those with a compulsive gambling problem would want to believe it was somehow (herr durp, maybe pirate is seekretly backing him???!!!1?) legitimate.   

Just as with pirate, people were warned, repeatedly and loudly, not to take him seriously.  But they didn't listen.

The bet started at a limit of 10k BTC or $110,000. That was a bit extravagant but modest enough for Bitcoins that could of been acquired months ago at a cheaper price. The bet was somewhat reasonable in the beginning. Trust in his gentleman's agreement was reasonable. It was only when he went beyond this limit that the bet came into question.

I will say that the larger betters should of insisted on escrow.

[bbit]

To bad MNW seemed like a stellar addition to the community for so many months and not going to lie the apology did feel real I got choked up a tad.

With that aside you are now being sent to the trash bin of Bitcoin History. There is long list of people who came before you Bruce Wagner aka Tom Williams and handful of companies deserving the same fate you'll be now listed under.

A bitcoin purgatory if I may say so. Never to show your face around here again till you provide provable evidence that you sought help and got help.  We all have our flaws you've found yours.

All trolls have their day you've found yours and may you be at peace with it.

-bbit

[bitcoinBull]

He was seeking easy money, not to improve society. Nor was he joking. Didn't look like a joke, didn't sound like a joke. Looks like a scam, was a scam. Not a joke.

Matt's "bet" was obviously a 100% trollish prank.  Only those with a compulsive gambling problem would want to believe it was somehow (herr durp, maybe pirate is seekretly backing him???!!!1?) legitimate.   

Just as with pirate, people were warned, repeatedly and loudly, not to take him seriously.  But they didn't listen.

Are you the same guy who was accusing "team ponzi" of not understanding "investment liquidity" and spreading "pirate FUD"?

Do you understand anything about investing? 

Has it never occurred to you that money 'tied up' in investments is not perfectly liquid, and that fact is part of why you get paid for the use of your cash?

Throwing a public tantrum because you were not instantly gratified is ridiculous.  And thus, you are being ridiculed.

You aren't the leader of Team Ponzi, but amplifying their FUD makes you a fellow traveler.

After a tiny 3 hour delay, you made yet another Pirate FUD thread about how awful it was that your ass wasn't being kissed fast enough.

If so, I must admit that you sure are a fast learner.

Matthew, you magnificent troll.  I salute you!

Anyone want to bet me that MNW won't pay out on his bet about his bet about the pony scheme?

I'm sure he's good for it!

[SimonL]

In Australia there was a show called "The Chasers War on Everything". They considered nothing taboo in the pursuit of laughs. They minimised and belittled to a horrifying extent children with cancer (look it up if you're morbidly curious) as a form of humour. Suffice to say almost no-one  "got" their humour, among other instances. Their show was subsequently cancelled and almost universally derided. In the very best context your activity equates to their situation.

At worst? You've used your real identity to fraudulently and ineptly place a bet you were in full control of yet never limited. Seriously, you in your OP stated you were trying to make a point, was a bet of 1000BTC too little? You stated you would lock the thread when too many bets were placed yet kept "accepting" them? You, in full realisation of your role as an editor of Bitcoin magazine dragged Bitcoin Magazine in regardless just for the "lulz".

Then, to really undermine your situation, you reneg on the "bet" and act like a five year old after the fact. This is 4chan shit (no, no, I shouldn't be that low, this is /b!.).

Before this, you acted like a decent person, I liked you, hell, even admired you for putting yourself out there and contributing in real substantial ways to the Bitcoin community. But seriously, this either shows a complete lack of character, or a complete lack of sound judgement. Either way you completely undermined your own image in this community, and you did it of you own volition.

As I see it you have five options

1. Go back to /b. never to return, forever known as a pariah, but likely forgotten.
2. Make good on the bet and suffer the stigma of trying to reneg. (yes this is an option still)
3. Reneg and leave gracefully, knowing you will be a pariah.
4. Reneg, not leave and be a pariah.
5. Reneg, apologise but forever be a pariah.

Please choose one of these and at least stop drawing attention to yourself. I'm tired of the childishness and would prefer news of substance in this forum.

[Testit]

sounds like MNW must be the guy in betsafe commercial. "It was just a stupid bet"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uygVheqZm9c&feature=relmfu

[iCEBREAKER]

Are you the same guy who was accusing "team ponzi" of not understanding "investment liquidity" and spreading "pirate FUD"?

Congratulations on answering your own question, and in the affirmative to boot.  I haven't seen an ad hominem strawman get tackled like that since the 1984 Superbowl!

But all that has nothing to do with the fact that Matt's "bet" was obviously a 100% trollish prank and people were saying so all along, only to be ignored by the gambling addicts.

[mobodick]

I for one was shocked to find a known internet troll chose not to pay nearly $1m in bets to strangers on the internet. There were no early warning signs you could have picked up on to make a risk assessment of the situation.

Real people have lost money on this because after originally losing money on a ponzi scheme they hedged against it by betting with a known troll stranger on the internet. These people are not immature like Matthew, they just know a good deal when they see one!

Well, you see, you'd need to hang around longer than 2 weeks on this forum to start seeing the signs..

[conspirosphere.tk]

Are you the same guy who was accusing "team ponzi" of not understanding "investment liquidity" and spreading "pirate FUD"?

Good find! Bravo!

[the_thing]

Then, to really undermine your situation, you reneg on the "bet" and act like a five year old after the fact. This is 4chan shit (no, no, I shouldn't be that low, this is /b!.).

As a /b/tard, I beg to differ.
This wasn't even a remotely good troll. I'd give it a 3/10, just because it caused huge amounts of butthurt. Without the butthurt, it wouldn't even be rated.

Also, it's not /b! or /b. It's /b/

[bitprotection]

I say there be a day of Boycott on  MWN by everyone taking a moment and hitting "ignore" on his profile.  This will force him to come in as a sock poppet but it will also help us know nobody is listening to him.

[dayfall]

My response to you, Matthew:

  Any honest and reasonable person would realize that they might need to provide proof that they would not have collected on the joke if they won.  This is especially true considering you were talking to a bunch of people that claimed Pirateat40 was a scammer.  So, either you are not honest and hence can not prove your intention was never to scam.  (In fact this proof should have been given the moment you stopped taking bets)  Or you are not reasonable and it never occurred to you that people might not take you at your word.  (Not to mention the other harm you little "joke" caused)

  I don't believe the second option.  You aren't that dumb.  Therefore, I can only conclude you did intend to collect if you had won.  You are too proud of you literal wording; I think you would have demanded payment to teach us a lesson.

  I would have payed because I am honest.  You may pay if you are honest.

  Apology rejected.

[bitcoinBull]

Are you the same guy who was accusing "team ponzi" of not understanding "investment liquidity" and spreading "pirate FUD"?

Congratulations on answering your own question, and in the affirmative to boot.  I haven't seen an ad hominem strawman get tackled like that since the 1984 Superbowl!

But all that has nothing to do with the fact that Matt's "bet" was obviously a 100% trollish prank and people were saying so all along, only to be ignored by the gambling addicts.

OK. So first you defended pirate and now you're defending MNW. ad hominem reasoning is only a fallacy if its irrelevant to the issue. and its only a strawman if i misrepresent your position.

I only quoted you to see if I could establish a pattern. Since you provide no reasoning that met's bet was "obviously a 100% trollish prank", there's no logic to argue with.

[Yolocoin]

Are you the same guy who was accusing "team ponzi" of not understanding "investment liquidity" and spreading "pirate FUD"?

Congratulations on answering your own question, and in the affirmative to boot.  I haven't seen an ad hominem strawman get tackled like that since the 1984 Superbowl!

But all that has nothing to do with the fact that Matt's "bet" was obviously a 100% trollish prank and people were saying so all along, only to be ignored by the gambling addicts.

OK. So first you defended pirate and now you're defending MNW. ad hominem reasoning is only a fallacy if its irrelevant to the issue. and its only a strawman if i misrepresent your position.

I only quoted you to see if I could establish a pattern. Since you provide no reasoning that met's bet was "obviously a 100% trollish prank", there's no logic to argue with.

If I read his posts correctly (with heavy sarcasm) then I don't believe he's defending MNW or pirate.  Rather he's openly mocking the gullibility of the people who invested or bet.

[Dansker]

And nothing of value was lost.

[iCEBREAKER]

Are you the same guy who was accusing "team ponzi" of not understanding "investment liquidity" and spreading "pirate FUD"?

Congratulations on answering your own question, and in the affirmative to boot.  I haven't seen an ad hominem strawman get tackled like that since the 1984 Superbowl!

But all that has nothing to do with the fact that Matt's "bet" was obviously a 100% trollish prank and people were saying so all along, only to be ignored by the gambling addicts.

OK. So first you defended pirate and now you're defending MNW. ad hominem reasoning is only a fallacy if its irrelevant to the issue. and its only a strawman if i misrepresent your position.

I only quoted you to see if I could establish a pattern. Since you provide no reasoning that met's bet was "obviously a 100% trollish prank", there's no logic to argue with.

If I read his posts correctly (with heavy sarcasm) then I don't believe he's defending MNW or pirate.  Rather he's openly mocking the gullibility of the people who invested or bet.

You are correct Yolocoin!  It's nice to see some people are capable of replacing the batteries in their sarcasm detectors in a timely fashion.

Christ bitcoinBull, do I have to spell it out for you?  I mean, even more than it was already spelled out several times during the course of Matt's bet's drama?

Clues for the Clueless Volume XXII
1) Matt is a minor and can't legally sign a contract
2) Matt had not visible means of repayment
3) Matt is a jocular, arguably immature fellow who likes to make his points via escalation
4) NO ESCROW (yes I am screaming that)

Need I go on?

[Rassah]

I don't see why Matthew should have to leave or exit or whatever. His reputation is now well established, rightfully labeled, and he will be treated accordingly on this forum. So if he stays, time will pass, people will calm down, forget, or forgive, and he'll just have to rebuild his rep from scratch.

And yet all the pirate pass-thoroughs have suckers lining up to fellate the real thieves in vain attempts that somehow they'll be first in line to receive the zero bitcoins that will eventually get paid out.

And Matthew was one of them, re. original intent of his bet. THAT'S why I have a problem with it.
Also, don't let someone off the hook for punching you in the face just because there are murderers in the Congo.

[Yolocoin]

Clues for the Clueless Volume XXII
1) Matt is a minor and can't legally sign a contract
2) Matt had not visible means of repayment
3) Matt is a jocular, arguably immature fellow who likes to make his points via escalation
4) NO ESCROW (yes I am screaming that)

Need I go on?

As I recall he's a legal adult by any international standard.  I'd say "manchild" is an apt description.  The rest of your list is completely true and on-point.