My response to the community

[Grouver (BtcBalance)]

#7
Why is your Internet Honor/ forum rep worth 10,000btc to you? Or, to clarify, Why wouldn't you cut and run if you lose?..we are talking about a shitload of money on a gamble with strangers.

#7
Why is your Internet Honor/ forum rep worth 10,000btc to you? Or, to clarify, Why wouldn't you cut and run if you lose?..we are talking about a shitload of money on a gamble with strangers.

I have holdings and deep involvement in too many businesses in bitcoin to ever walk away.
I'm long. Uber long. It's about much more than a forum rep, and I've never even attempted to be anonymous. Do the math.

You let me down Matthew.

[1713484528]

1713484528

[1713484528]

1713484528

[1713484528]

1713484528

[makomk]

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.

He's already done that once after being labelled a scammer previously. Anyone who believes him the third time, well...

[bulanula]

TLDR : Time for another sockie account just like Atlas dood ...

[Vandroiy]

Quoting some posts to sum up the analysis others were so kind to make:

I am surprised that you thought it would be a joke even after Theymos and Mage made their bets. I thought it was our lesson, but somehow it became your lesson.

They placed their bets relatively early.  Looking back at Matt's posts I am convinced he created an honest bet to begin with.   The "technicality" he escpaed payment from (in his mind only) is so lame it can only be an afterthought.  He made an honest wager, was sure Pirate would pay and when it became clear he wouldn't rather than face the music he raised the cap racked up another 70K BTC in bets, and came up with his exist strategy.

If you look at his early posts he was selected in who he took bets from, requires some younger members to escrow their portion (why have someone escrow a bet you know you will lose).  That changed roughly 14 days ago when he raised the cap, and started accepted 1,000 BTC bets from Jr members.

I am very curious how you (since you didn't mention it) interpret Matthew's claim that he would accept the label of scammer should he not hold up his end of the bargain?

That he would accept the label of scammer should he not hold up his end of the bargain, that is, that he understands that not holding up his end of the bargain would in fact make him a scammer and justifiably labeled as such by the community. It reads as reinforcing the seriousness of the bet as an enforceable agreement such that violating it would constitute scamming.

I wish it wasn't so, but I do believe that Matthew, at least in the beginning, believed that Pirate was going to pay people back and had he won, would have gleefully accepted any funds paid to him and pursued scammer tags for anyone who didn't pay him back. If he didn't believe this, he faked it *incredibly* well.

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.

The way to confirm this as a joke would be a signed message of a trusted person. The message would confirm the timing of a signed message by Matthew N. Wright that he is not to be paid in case he should win. It seems such a message does not exist.

Ending this with fancy con talk is worse than admitting to be a scammer.

[Duderin0]

In hindsight, I no longer see this bet as being funny and I think it was in horrible taste. The community members who were my friends who are standing up against this are right in doing so I and I have no place in the bitcoin community as I clearly don't take it as seriously as everyone else. I am happy to have learned so much from Bitcoin and I'm glad to have shared in many experiences as well, but I cannot discount the claims that I have some issues with manicism as there is no other explanation for my often irrational behavior. I'll be seriously looking at my life and exiting from the community with my sincerest apologies.

Mihai Alisie will be speaking for the Bitcoin Magazine at the London conference. I am in the process of exiting the company completely equity and all in addition to already having resigned as a director and Editor in Chief, as it seems the right thing to do for the future of the magazine.

Ellet's IP is being handed over to a more capable party and I will be exiting any involvement with it.

DCAO is being dismembered and the existing heads will start another organization a bit more seriously toned.

I will not be involved in any businesses in this community any longer. It is clear my immaturity is hurting the community more than I am helping it, and the position I have been in has only resulted in hurting myself and those around me. I'm glad to see that many people did get my joke, but I ask that they not defend me as even I see now that it was crossing all sorts of lines that should never have been crossed and I have absolutely no excuse for it.

I'm sorry I let so many people down that I never even realized actually cared and I hope I can somehow serve as an example of what not to do so that all of this was not a complete waste.

I will now leave how I came.

Apology seems legit, he posted this just before posting his apology thread:

https://i.imgur.com/DlYPT.jpg

ROFL. I'm putting this on facebook.

[BadBear]

Yeah his response to me a little over 12 hours before this thread was posted was:
 

What a fucking clown. Good job dicking over pirate debt holders even more by allowing them to "hedge" with a fraudulent bet you never intended to pay. Good job on teaching those guys a lesson  .  

Oh come now. Theymos allows ponzi schemes on the forum, then gets miffed when people don't read the bet their agreeing to in my thread? The double standard is twice as hilarious as the "scammer" tag. I'll wear it with pride. Remember, remember, the 9th of September. (And to everyone who dared to say that people were "stupid" and "ruining bitcoin" by investing into Pirate, you may now eat your socks for complaining about losing this bet)

I believe this one is a more accurate portrayal of how Matthew feels about the situation, not this half assed apology.

[mobodick]

Quoting some posts to sum up the analysis others were so kind to make:

I am surprised that you thought it would be a joke even after Theymos and Mage made their bets. I thought it was our lesson, but somehow it became your lesson.

They placed their bets relatively early.  Looking back at Matt's posts I am convinced he created an honest bet to begin with.   The "technicality" he escpaed payment from (in his mind only) is so lame it can only be an afterthought.  He made an honest wager, was sure Pirate would pay and when it became clear he wouldn't rather than face the music he raised the cap racked up another 70K BTC in bets, and came up with his exist strategy.

If you look at his early posts he was selected in who he took bets from, requires some younger members to escrow their portion (why have someone escrow a bet you know you will lose).  That changed roughly 14 days ago when he raised the cap, and started accepted 1,000 BTC bets from Jr members.

I am very curious how you (since you didn't mention it) interpret Matthew's claim that he would accept the label of scammer should he not hold up his end of the bargain?

That he would accept the label of scammer should he not hold up his end of the bargain, that is, that he understands that not holding up his end of the bargain would in fact make him a scammer and justifiably labeled as such by the community. It reads as reinforcing the seriousness of the bet as an enforceable agreement such that violating it would constitute scamming.

I wish it wasn't so, but I do believe that Matthew, at least in the beginning, believed that Pirate was going to pay people back and had he won, would have gleefully accepted any funds paid to him and pursued scammer tags for anyone who didn't pay him back. If he didn't believe this, he faked it *incredibly* well.

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.

The way to confirm this as a joke would be a signed message of a trusted person. The message would confirm the timing of a signed message by Matthew N. Wright that he is not to be paid in case he should win. It seems such a message does not exist.

Ending this with fancy con talk is worse than admitting to be a scammer.

You mean a trusted person like Mathew.. or Pirate... right? Right?

[Raoul Duke]

Yeah his response to me a little over 12 hours before this thread was posted was:
 

What a fucking clown. Good job dicking over pirate debt holders even more by allowing them to "hedge" with a fraudulent bet you never intended to pay. Good job on teaching those guys a lesson  .  

Oh come now. Theymos allows ponzi schemes on the forum, then gets miffed when people don't read the bet their agreeing to in my thread? The double standard is twice as hilarious as the "scammer" tag. I'll wear it with pride. Remember, remember, the 9th of September. (And to everyone who dared to say that people were "stupid" and "ruining bitcoin" by investing into Pirate, you may now eat your socks for complaining about losing this bet)

I believe this one is a more accurate portrayal of how Matthew feels about the situation, not this half assed apology.

Then he should've used that argument without even trying to use a lame excuse.
My 9 year old son is more mature than Matthew...

[Realpra]

I'm sorry for you, I hope that the Bitcoin community will grow up the next years.
You have asked too much to some brains.

Nothing is wrong with btc community, just the damn scammers.

[mobodick]

I'm sorry for you, I hope that the Bitcoin community will grow up the next years.
You have asked too much to some brains.

Nothing is wrong with btc community, just the damn scammers.

Scammers are integral to bitcoin community.

[DeathAndTaxes]

He obviously means a trusted THIRD PARTY.

For Matt could have written up a letter explaining the prank and how even if he won he would not under any circumstances expect the losers to pay or seek any consequences for them, dated it,  then digitally signed it.  He could then have a trusted third party (say Gavin) digitally sign it as a notary.  Even better would to then take a hash of the final double signed document and put that hash in the OP.

While it would still be a scumbag thing to do, it would make it a provable prank.   I am convinced Matt for whatever deluded reason (likely thinking emotially) thought Pirate would repay.  He bet 10K BTC with the intent to collect (and teach all those naysayers a lesson).  Over the intervening weeks it became obvious Pirate wouldn't pay and after the fact Matt removed the cap, and started accepting unescrowed bets from noobs for hundreds and even thousands of BTC in an attempt to run the bet up into insane amounts as cover that it was all a joke.  His "technicality" is so beyond weak (10 year old thinking) that for someone as creative as Matt it comes off as a weak after the fact play.  He couldn't change the terms so he had to look for something to hang his "joke" on.

Obviously that theory can never be proven (baring a confession from Matt) but had he created a digitally signed document he could have proved his intent.  One would think Matt who used provable lottery in the past would have considered making a letter to provide him cover when the "joke" exploded.  He didn't because at the time of the bet it wasn't a joke.

The worst part is he tried to take the coward liar (yes Matt you are a liar) way out.  Had he just said "Fuck you all, you aren't seeing a cent.  See the danger of betting/investing with an unknown counterparty" I would have at least had a little respect for him.   He simply didn't even have the guts to do that.   

[DeathAndTaxes]

I'm sorry for you, I hope that the Bitcoin community will grow up the next years.
You have asked too much to some brains.

Nothing is wrong with btc community, just the damn scammers.

Scammers are integral to bitcoin community.  the human race.

FYPFY.

[makomk]

He obviously means a trusted THIRD PARTY.

For Matt could have written up a letter explaining the prank and how even if he won he would not under any circumstances expect the losers to pay or seek any consequences for them, dated it,  then digitally signed it.  He could then have a trusted third party (say Gavin) digitally sign it as a notary.  Even better would to then take a hash of the final double signed document and put that hash in the OP.

That would have required the trusted third party to know that Matthew wasn't going to pay out and collude with him in concealing that fact from all the BS&T investors who were using his bet to hedge their potential losses. I'm honestly not sure whether anyone willing to do that could be called trustworthy.

[mobodick]

I'm sorry for you, I hope that the Bitcoin community will grow up the next years.
You have asked too much to some brains.

Nothing is wrong with btc community, just the damn scammers.

Scammers are integral to bitcoin community.  the human race.

FYPFY.

Scams usually happen only under certain social conditions.
So altho a lot of people have the potential for scamming they will only take the risk if their social bond with the other side is not strong but strong enough for the other side to trust them.
And in the bitcoin community these conditions are flourishing.

[MrTeal]

He obviously means a trusted THIRD PARTY.

For Matt could have written up a letter explaining the prank and how even if he won he would not under any circumstances expect the losers to pay or seek any consequences for them, dated it,  then digitally signed it.  He could then have a trusted third party (say Gavin) digitally sign it as a notary.  Even better would to then take a hash of the final double signed document and put that hash in the OP.

That would have required the trusted third party to know that Matthew wasn't going to pay out and collude with him in concealing that fact from all the BS&T investors who were using his bet to hedge their potential losses. I'm honestly not sure whether anyone willing to do that could be called trustworthy.

Why? He could sign it and send it to the 3rd party to sign, then post it. There's no need for the 3rd party to know the contents of the message until the 9th.

[DeathAndTaxes]

He obviously means a trusted THIRD PARTY.

For Matt could have written up a letter explaining the prank and how even if he won he would not under any circumstances expect the losers to pay or seek any consequences for them, dated it,  then digitally signed it.  He could then have a trusted third party (say Gavin) digitally sign it as a notary.  Even better would to then take a hash of the final double signed document and put that hash in the OP.

That would have required the trusted third party to know that Matthew wasn't going to pay out and collude with him in concealing that fact from all the BS&T investors who were using his bet to hedge their potential losses. I'm honestly not sure whether anyone willing to do that could be called trustworthy.

Why? He could sign it and send it to the 3rd party to sign, then post it. There's no need for the 3rd party to know the contents of the message until the 9th.

Exactly.  The trusted party would simply be acting as a notary of sorts "Yes Matt delivered this digitally signed (possibly encrypted) doc to me on xx/xx/xx".  

[BitcoinNational]

Bitcoin is Money.

And the inner circles of the Bitcoin community is in The Business of Money.  A very serious business.

In any business Trust is the most important factor.  This scoundrel burnt all his creditabilty to prove what? Thou shall not Trust anyone?

The Bitcoin community has demostrated great integrity and ablility to enforce the social code of Trust.

This liar was dealt with immediate justice.  This is a victory that underscores the integrity of the Bitcoin community to maintain principles.  
Thank you M.N. Wright and the league of Scammers for your lessons.

The Lesson / The Law :: If you enter into a pledge by oath of public promise ... you will honor it.

That is the bedrock of this network of Trust.  

[FreeMoney]

He obviously means a trusted THIRD PARTY.

For Matt could have written up a letter explaining the prank and how even if he won he would not under any circumstances expect the losers to pay or seek any consequences for them, dated it,  then digitally signed it.  He could then have a trusted third party (say Gavin) digitally sign it as a notary.  Even better would to then take a hash of the final double signed document and put that hash in the OP.

That would have required the trusted third party to know that Matthew wasn't going to pay out and collude with him in concealing that fact from all the BS&T investors who were using his bet to hedge their potential losses. I'm honestly not sure whether anyone willing to do that could be called trustworthy.

Why? He could sign it and send it to the 3rd party to sign, then post it. There's no need for the 3rd party to know the contents of the message until the 9th.

Exactly.  The trusted party would simply be acting as a notary of sorts "Yes Matt delivered this digitally signed (possibly encrypted) doc to me on xx/xx/xx".  

Doesn't someone need to know it so that it can be revealed even if he wins and doesn't want it revealed?

And what is the pretense for withholding info at all "here's a message that may or may not say I'm totally kidding". I mean in the future now mostly.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Well I don't want to spend too much time on this since a) it didn't happen, and b) Matt is a scammy fuck who wouldn't have done it anyways.

Simple version
1) I write a message with my intent and digitally sign it. I then encrypt it and provide it to a trusted person to act as a notary.
2) Trusted person appends date time information and digitally signs the encrypted message.
3) Either me or the trusted persons publicly posts a copy of the double signed & encrypted message.
3) I include in my bet that I automatically lose unless I reveal the secret message at the end of the bet.

There are lots of ways to make a claim/statement provably true after the fact.  That shouldn't be construed as "the only and definitive way".  Lots of options.  Matt chose none.  IMHO (and due to a lot of other factors) it was because Matt made a legit bet and simply walked out on it.  Nothing more.  Just a scamming fuck.

[tvbcof]

Bitcoin is Money.

And the inner circles of the Bitcoin community is in The Business of Money.  A very serious business.

In any business Trust is the most important factor.  This scoundrel burnt all his creditabilty to prove what? Thou shall not Trust anyone?

The Bitcoin community has demostrated great integrity and ablility to enforce the social code of Trust.

This liar was dealt with immediate justice.  This is a victory that underscores the integrity of the Bitcoin community to maintain principles.  
Thank you M.N. Wright and the league of Scammers for your lessons.

The Lesson / The Law :: If you enter into a pledge by oath of public promise ... you will honor it.

That is the bedrock of this network of Trust.  

On a bullshit scale with 10 being total bullshit, I would say that several of the above lines score a 9.5 and the remaining ones a perfect 10.

I also happen to disagree about 'trust'.  Ideally 'trust' is completely absent in order to make a transaction work smoothly.  That is, the expected things happen with mechanical precision and no possibility for error.  Obviously that is not practical in most situations, but the closer transactions can approach this goal the better.

I'm getting the sense that some people on this forum are trying just a wee bit to hard to cultivate a persona of wholesomeness.  If I were involved in the economic activity at this point I'd be being wary of some of them.  As it is, I'll be following their exploits with interest.