Vlad "plots" aginst best freind scammer Matthew N. Wright

[Portnoy]

"Note: PM privacy is not guaranteed. Encrypt sensitive messages."

Yes, because if you don't encrypt them, admins can read them.   Nothing to stop you reposting an ecrypted message to you in the clear, is there goat?  Especially your complete lack of personal morals.

Seems the forum policy is that PM are personal messages and not private messages.

Theymos had made it clear they can be posted. I felt it necessary to protect other debt holders who plan to go after Matthews limited assets.

Thank you for confirming for the Nth time to all reasonable people you are an untrustworthy piece of scum, willing to misread and twist words in any way possible post-facto to justify your actions.

+1

Goat is so needing a scammer tag for many reasons now. 

[P_Shep]

Many people do trust me.

Good one!

There should be a poll

[phelix]

To mods: can we have Drama subforum pls? Many ppl are not interested in public dirty laundry washing.

+1 this is a fantastic idea!

[labestiol]

Goat, I've had it..

You are the most consistent slimeball on these forums..  

+1

[the_thing]

Goat, I've had it..

You are the most consistent slimeball on these forums..  

+1

slimeball tag for goat!

[ArticMine]

So what did Vlad do that is wrong?  Matt indicated he had cut including ownership of BitTalk.  Guess that was yet another lie made by Matt. If Vlad uses his defaulted obligations as leverage to boost him from the company before he does anymore damage I don't see a problem with it.

Honestly I am not sure what the problem is?  Matt hasn't repaid the debt because he feels nobody is in a posistion to collect.  Vlad believes he is in a posistion to collect. Selling debt to "stronger hands" happens all the time, everyday, all around the world.   Vlad likely wants Matt far far away from the company he is a part owner.  Can you honestly blame him?  Matt has already done significant damage and if it comes out later that Matt still owns a significant stake that will be another blow to the company.   Obviously depsite his "apology" Matt is looking to play hardball and Vlad see his debt as a method to gain leverage.   It is called "big boy business".


Also Goat  posting PM publicly?  They are called PRIVATE Messages for a reason.  Nobody is saying it is criminal but it is downright scummy.  Your actions indicate you don't care if a conversation is private you are just going to violate that privacy when you feel like it.   Kinda sends a message that nobody should ever do business with you and nobody should ever tell you anything in confidence.

TL/DR:  "snitches get stitches"  j/k

This misses a very critical legal point. Does BitTalk and Vlad have right of offset on Matt's debt? If I were in Vlad's position I would be getting legal advice pronto. Seriously. Otherwise Matt could potentially bankrupt BitTalk over this.

Maybe I'm just a noob at this, but HOW?

IANAL
I am going use Pirateat40 as an example since unlike this case it is fairly straightforward to establish the amount of the damages in court. In Matt's case the first question that comes to mind on the other hand is: Would a court consider a scammer tag on bitcointalk.org liquidated damages in the event of a default? So it is actually a lot worse for Vlad and BitTalk.

So let us say I purchase some Pirateat40 debt at say 5 bitcents on the BTC. I spend another 5 bitcents per BTC on debt collection efforts, get Pirateat40 to settle for say 15 bitcents on the BTC without forcing him into bankruptcy for a cool 100% profit. Sounds great? Not really. Let us say the other Pirateat40 creditors force Pirateat40 into bankruptcy shortly thereafter, and his bankruptcy estate cannot pay them 15 bitcents on the BTC. The bankruptcy estate can then sue me for the 15 bitcents per BTC pre-bankruptcy settlement.

[BTCHero]

So wait I can sell my worthless matthew debt to van for bitcoin magazines.

I have 6 btc owed by matthew, please send me some magazines.

[Akka]

Goat,

let me get this straight.

You make a bet with someone you should know he hasn't the money, at a time when it is absolutely sure you can't loose and all signs pointing to that he won't pay.

And now you are posting private messages of someone who is willing to give you something just out of good intentions and no other reason to do so.

And then you start bitching about this person.

Do you have any sense for social behaviour at all?

Guys like you make me sick.

[adamstgBit]

MNW has a dept?

you cant be saying his dept is the bet he lost.... is it?

[Puppet]

Goat, I've had it..

You are the most consistent slimeball on these forums..  

+10

Many people do trust me

Will the sockpuppet that still trusts goat please stand up?

[Coinoisseur]

"Note: PM privacy is not guaranteed. Encrypt sensitive messages."

Seems the forum policy is that PM are personal messages and not private messages.

"Haha, you trusted me, you idiot!"

You have just validated every bad thing everyone has ever said about you.

Well, from the PM's he posted it's not quite like that in Goats case. Ask for agreement on confidentiality THEN send the confidential information in a separate message afterwards.

The following is how to create an agreement:

    Alice: "I'd like to keep this confidential, is this OK with you?"

    Bob: "Yes"

    *Conversation ensues*

The following is how to create a silly situation:

   Alice: "I'd like to keep this confidential. I've just taken advantage of Carol, she's such a sucker"

   *Possible Drama in the making*

[stick_theman]

I don't get this thread?  Attention seeking or else? wtf?

Also, correct your punctuation and spelling on the thread topic.

Goat, if you really want some well-deserved recognition, bring Pirate to justice & stop wasting time.

[DeathAndTaxes]

So what did Vlad do that is wrong?  Matt indicated he had cut including ownership of BitTalk.  Guess that was yet another lie made by Matt. If Vlad uses his defaulted obligations as leverage to boost him from the company before he does anymore damage I don't see a problem with it.

Honestly I am not sure what the problem is?  Matt hasn't repaid the debt because he feels nobody is in a posistion to collect.  Vlad believes he is in a posistion to collect. Selling debt to "stronger hands" happens all the time, everyday, all around the world.   Vlad likely wants Matt far far away from the company he is a part owner.  Can you honestly blame him?  Matt has already done significant damage and if it comes out later that Matt still owns a significant stake that will be another blow to the company.   Obviously depsite his "apology" Matt is looking to play hardball and Vlad see his debt as a method to gain leverage.   It is called "big boy business".


Also Goat  posting PM publicly?  They are called PRIVATE Messages for a reason.  Nobody is saying it is criminal but it is downright scummy.  Your actions indicate you don't care if a conversation is private you are just going to violate that privacy when you feel like it.   Kinda sends a message that nobody should ever do business with you and nobody should ever tell you anything in confidence.

TL/DR:  "snitches get stitches"  j/k

This misses a very critical legal point. Does BitTalk and Vlad have right of offset on Matt's debt? If I were in Vlad's position I would be getting legal advice pronto. Seriously. Otherwise Matt could potentially bankrupt BitTalk over this.

Maybe I'm just a noob at this, but HOW?

IANAL
I am going use Pirateat40 as an example since unlike this case it is fairly straightforward to establish the amount of the damages in court. In Matt's case the first question that comes to mind on the other hand is: Would a court consider a scammer tag on bitcointalk.org liquidated damages in the event of a default? So it is actually a lot worse for Vlad and BitTalk.

So let us say I purchase some Pirateat40 debt at say 5 bitcents on the BTC. I spend another 5 bitcents per BTC on debt collection efforts, get Pirateat40 to settle for say 15 bitcents on the BTC without forcing him into bankruptcy for a cool 100% profit. Sounds great? Not really. Let us say the other Pirateat40 creditors force Pirateat40 into bankruptcy shortly thereafter, and his bankruptcy estate cannot pay them 15 bitcents on the BTC. The bankruptcy estate can then sue me for the 15 bitcents per BTC pre-bankruptcy settlement.

In theory but i don't see how you think it could bankrupt BitTalk.  BitTalk has no liability regardless. At most it could cause a personal loss to Vlad but even that is unlikely.  For those who are interested the concept is called voided debt.  First (at least in the US) only payments made 90 days prior to a bankruptcy petition can be voided.  


Lets say hypothetically Vlad buys up 40K BTC of Matts debt (the risk to the company is lower the more of the debt he owns).  He buys Matt's share of BitTalk for 40K of debt.  Note BitTalk the legal entity isn't a creditor or debtor in the situation.  The sale (if any) would be between Matt & Vlad.  Now hypothetically Matt files bankruptcy in the next 90 days.  Technically other creditors in the bankruptcy could move to void the payment (of equity) between Matt & Vlad.  


I would point out this is a legal longshot and probably not one worth worrying over. One Matt is almost certainly not filing for bankruptcy over this.  No bankruptcy no risk of voided payment.  Two it is very unlikely the courts would see an online gambling debt made by pseudonyms involving a virtual currency on an unregulated forum as a valid creditor in the bankruptcy.  If they don't then they other bettors have no method to petition the payment be voided.

Even if those things happen (and if I was Vlad I would like my odds) the company has no liability this is just a sale of equity between one shareholder and another.  The company neither gains nor loses in that transaction. 

Given the limited loss even if the grossly unrealistic worst case scenario (and honestly I am not recommend anyone hold on to their debt thinking this will happen because it won't) I don't really see there being much of a realistic risk for Vlad.

[makomk]

It seems to me that Vlad is only trying to reduce the impact of MNW's scam. Nothing wrong with that in my eyes.

It seems to me that Vlad is trying to reduce the impact of MNW's scam on MNW and perhaps on Bitcoin Magazine.

[MoPac]

Ask for agreement on confidentiality THEN send the confidential information in a separate message afterwards.

The following is how to create an agreement:

    Alice: "I'd like to keep this confidential, is this OK with you?"

    Bob: "Yes"

    *Conversation ensues*

The following is how to create a silly situation:

   Alice: "I'd like to keep this confidential. I've just taken advantage of Carol, she's such a sucker"

   *Possible Drama in the making*

This.

[Bjork]

Jesus if all the admins/VIPs/whatevers are going to fuck around as badly as the newbies... wtf are we to do?

A good rule of thumb is to assume anyone with a "VIP" is a scammer

[ArticMine]

So what did Vlad do that is wrong?  Matt indicated he had cut including ownership of BitTalk.  Guess that was yet another lie made by Matt. If Vlad uses his defaulted obligations as leverage to boost him from the company before he does anymore damage I don't see a problem with it.

Honestly I am not sure what the problem is?  Matt hasn't repaid the debt because he feels nobody is in a posistion to collect.  Vlad believes he is in a posistion to collect. Selling debt to "stronger hands" happens all the time, everyday, all around the world.   Vlad likely wants Matt far far away from the company he is a part owner.  Can you honestly blame him?  Matt has already done significant damage and if it comes out later that Matt still owns a significant stake that will be another blow to the company.   Obviously depsite his "apology" Matt is looking to play hardball and Vlad see his debt as a method to gain leverage.   It is called "big boy business".


Also Goat  posting PM publicly?  They are called PRIVATE Messages for a reason.  Nobody is saying it is criminal but it is downright scummy.  Your actions indicate you don't care if a conversation is private you are just going to violate that privacy when you feel like it.   Kinda sends a message that nobody should ever do business with you and nobody should ever tell you anything in confidence.

TL/DR:  "snitches get stitches"  j/k

This misses a very critical legal point. Does BitTalk and Vlad have right of offset on Matt's debt? If I were in Vlad's position I would be getting legal advice pronto. Seriously. Otherwise Matt could potentially bankrupt BitTalk over this.

Maybe I'm just a noob at this, but HOW?

IANAL
I am going use Pirateat40 as an example since unlike this case it is fairly straightforward to establish the amount of the damages in court. In Matt's case the first question that comes to mind on the other hand is: Would a court consider a scammer tag on bitcointalk.org liquidated damages in the event of a default? So it is actually a lot worse for Vlad and BitTalk.

So let us say I purchase some Pirateat40 debt at say 5 bitcents on the BTC. I spend another 5 bitcents per BTC on debt collection efforts, get Pirateat40 to settle for say 15 bitcents on the BTC without forcing him into bankruptcy for a cool 100% profit. Sounds great? Not really. Let us say the other Pirateat40 creditors force Pirateat40 into bankruptcy shortly thereafter, and his bankruptcy estate cannot pay them 15 bitcents on the BTC. The bankruptcy estate can then sue me for the 15 bitcents per BTC pre-bankruptcy settlement.

In theory but i don't see how you think it could bankrupt BitTalk.  BitTalk has no liability regardless. At most it could cause a personal loss to Vlad but even that is unlikely.  For those who are interested the concept is called voided debt.  First (at least in the US) only payments made 90 days prior to a bankruptcy petition can be voided.  


Lets say hypothetically Vlad buys up 40K BTC of Matts debt (the risk to the company is lower the more of the debt he owns).  He buys Matt's share of BitTalk for 40K of debt.  Note BitTalk the legal entity isn't a creditor or debtor in the situation.  The sale (if any) would be between Matt & Vlad.  Now hypothetically Matt files bankruptcy in the next 90 days.  Technically other creditors in the bankruptcy could move to void the payment (of equity) between Matt & Vlad.  


I would point out this is a legal longshot and probably not one worth worrying over. One Matt is almost certainly not filing for bankruptcy over this.  No bankruptcy no risk of voided payment.  Two it is very unlikely the courts would see an online gambling debt made by pseudonyms involving a virtual currency on an unregulated forum as a valid creditor in the bankruptcy.  If they don't then they other bettors have no method to petition the payment be voided.

Even if those things happen (and if I was Vlad I would like my odds) the company has no liability this is just a sale of equity between one shareholder and another.  The company neither gains nor loses in that transaction.  

Given the limited loss even if the grossly unrealistic worst case scenario (and honestly I am not recommend anyone hold on to their debt thinking this will happen because it won't) I don't really see there being much of a realistic risk for Vlad.

Will buy Matthew's debt. How much would you want for it?

It seems I might be in position to collect. I do not want to pay much for it (there are a few people who offering me hes debt for free), maybe will pay some very symbolic amount.

I could however promise you a percentage of whatever I might be able to collect. And I can promise that Matthew will be very very unhappy once he finds out about this debt assignment.

I dont know what to think. What is your offer for five k?

First of all, please keep it all strictly confidential if you could.

I must mention that I am negotiating on behalf of Bitcoin Magazine (Bittalk Media Ltd).

What to offer? .... Hmmm... It is a bit unorthodox and hugely ironic... I will offer for it 12 issue subscription to Bitcoin Magazine, starting with #2.

Bold on the Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย quote my emphasis. It is Bittalk Media Ltd, who is liable here. What we are talking about here is a corporation turning over some of its shares held in trust for one of its shareholders in exchange for some very questionable liabilities of the shareholder, without a right of offset, with multiple international jurisdictions involved and where the shareholder in question is at risk of bankruptcy! Talk about a legal hornets' nest. The legal fees to clean up this mess alone can easily bankrupt many a business start up.

[Akka]

Bold on the Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย quote my emphasis. It is Bittalk Media Ltd, who is liable here. What we are talking about here is a corporation turning over some of its shares held in trust for one of its shareholders in exchange for some very questionable liabilities of the shareholder, without a right of offset, with multiple international jurisdictions involved and where the shareholder in question is at risk of bankruptcy! Talk about a legal hornets' nest. The legal fees to clean up this mess alone can easily bankrupt many a business start up.

No there will be no legal consequences. Bets from private persons to private persons are not accountable. There is no single case where any curt has seized someone's property due to a bet.

On a betting office you make a contract or buy a batch. That's a different thing.

[ArticMine]

No there will be no legal consequences. Bets from private persons to private persons are not accountable. There is no single case where any curt has seized someone's property due to a bet.

On a betting office you make a contract or buy a batch. That's a different thing.

I actually tend to agree that any liabilities arising from this bet are very likely worthless. It is what is been proposed in exchange for these "liabilities" that can lead to very serious and complex legal problems.

[DeathAndTaxes]

No there will be no legal consequences. Bets from private persons to private persons are not accountable. There is no single case where any curt has seized someone's property due to a bet.

On a betting office you make a contract or buy a batch. That's a different thing.

I actually tend to agree that any liabilities arising from this bet are very likely worthless. It is what is been proposed in exchange for these "liabilities" that can lead to very serious and complex legal problems.

Well both can't be true.   Matt can sell his equity for a fart in a bag if he wants to. 
So either there is a liability recognized by the court(s) or no legal problem will rise from it.