The pirate speaks

[muyuu]

I almost feel bad about having principles and not taking advantage of all these idiots. This guy is playing the Ponzi scam book line by line. This is so easy it's insane.

Go ahead try it.  I think you will fail.  It's not easy.  In fact it looks like it was difficult.  If pirateat40 was running a ponzi I don't think his return on effort was all that much.  And his return gets worse as time passes.

Classic Ponzi schemes have a negative return on effort.

• Bernie Madoff worked for full time for 20 years on his business and recovered nothing.  His son killed himself and he got a 150 year prison sentence.
• Charles Ponzi work full time on his business for 2 years and recovered nothing.  He spent 14 years in prision and was then deported to Italy.  He died in poverty.

It was easy for them as well, but they had to face very concrete charges. They dealt in person, they were very well known and easy to find.

Pirate has to deal mostly with internet warriors who won't do anything at all.

I don't do it for the same reason I don't rob grannies or little children regardless how easy it might be: having a minimum of decency.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I almost feel bad about having principles and not taking advantage of all these idiots. This guy is playing the Ponzi scam book line by line. This is so easy it's insane.

Go ahead try it.  I think you will fail.  It's not easy.  In fact it looks like it was difficult.  If pirateat40 was running a ponzi I don't think his return on effort was all that much.  And his return gets worse as time passes.

Classic Ponzi schemes have a negative return on effort.

• Bernie Madoff worked for full time for 20 years on his business and recovered nothing.  His son killed himself and he got a 150 year prison sentence.
• Charles Ponzi work full time on his business for 2 years and recovered nothing.  He spent 14 years in prision and was then deported to Italy.  He died in poverty.

It was easy for them as well, but they had to face very concrete charges. They dealt in person, they were very well known and easy to find.

Pirate has to deal mostly with internet warriors who won't do anything at all.

I don't do it for the same reason I don't rob grannies or little children regardless how easy it might be: having a minimum of decency.

The internet is great for psycopaths.

[repentance]

Oh man, can you imagine explaining this to a jury?  Even pro se, pirate could tear it apart.

I'd be very wary of any lawyer who planned on taking this to trial unless they first established that pirate has sufficient assets to satisfy both any judgement being sought and any award of costs.  No-one's going to take this on contingency, so the plaintiffs would have to front all of the costs of any legal action and hope to hell that they prevail in court and that they're able to enforce any judgement in their favour.  A judgement that can't be enforced is just an expensive piece of paper.

[Raoul Duke]

Ooh!  Yes, that is a contract.  It's even signed!  Yes, gpg/pgp signing counts in the US.

No, it doesn't.  Non-repudiation based on PGP or other asymmetric key signatures has not been tested in US courts.

What a better time to test it then now?

Oh man, can you imagine explaining this to a jury?  Even pro se, pirate could tear it apart.

I'm starting to think you're nothing more than a wuss...
Grow some balls, dude.

[exahash]

Ooh!  Yes, that is a contract.  It's even signed!  Yes, gpg/pgp signing counts in the US.

No, it doesn't.  Non-repudiation based on PGP or other asymmetric key signatures has not been tested in US courts.

What a better time to test it then now?

Oh man, can you imagine explaining this to a jury?  Even pro se, pirate could tear it apart.

I'm starting to think you're nothing more than a wuss...
Grow some balls, dude.

At a minimum, he's not very good at playing Internet Lawyer.

Yes, it counts as a contract, and digital signatures count as signatures.  Google the ESign act and UETA.  Here, I did it for you:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_signature#Enforceability_of_electronic_signatures

[dancingnancy]

Didn't have time to read this whole mess.  Sounds plenty interesting, though.  At this point, I think contact needs to be made again towards his father to find out where Trendon is.  I didn't have a dime with this guy and I want to punch him in his vag.

[exahash]

Did you read that link you posted?

Do you know how the US legal system works?  Case law?  Legal precedent?

The answer to your questions is Yes.

Troll on reeses.

[Bitcoin Oz]

The gpg contract would be a good one to take to a  grand jury who have special investigatory powers. They can decide if its a criminal matter.

[reeses]

Did you read that link you posted?

Do you know how the US legal system works?  Case law?  Legal precedent?

The answer to your questions is Yes.

Troll on reeses.

You do realize those laws make these¹ legal digital signatures, right?  So your answer of "yes" means that you are intentionally misleading.  If you know, you know if it has not been tested in court, then when it does finally become material in a court case, you're going to watch the EFF jump in to appeal it as far as they can, hopefully to SCOTUS.

So, I'm going with you lying when you say,"Yes."  Liars go to the ignore bin.  Nice attempt at a troll and a troll-block by the troll accusation, liar.

1. Love, /reeses/ or /s/ reeses.

[reeses]

The gpg contract would be a good one to take to a  grand jury who have special investigatory powers. They can decide if its a criminal matter.

That's the problem.  It has to go to a jury.  Grand juries basically say,"Yeah, there's enough here to indict," but as the joke goes, they're filled with morons who couldn't get out of jury duty.

If you get a good judge, he can clarify the issues for the jury, but you'll have expert witnesses on both sides arguing over what is actually a minor issue.

Honestly, PGP signing a digital message isn't needed to pass the "reasonable" test.  In this day and age, if someone sent you an email from their address with the equivalent of a contract, it'll do.  Especially if there is corroborating evidence (other emails from the same source, etc.)

If it's one email that was never replied to or discussed, or the person shares a computer with their housemates, then the defendant has a good chance of claiming that they were not the person who sent that email.  However, with a number of emails over a long period of time, this assertive defense is more difficult to maintain.

Remember, there is rarely such a thing as "proof".  There's "evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt".  We like Occam's razor here, so this is an appropriate place where we would apply it.  "Your honor, someone hacked into this computer account for a period of six months and, unknown to my client, used it to send emails to nefarious ends."  As I said, it might work for one email, but if there is an exchange (especially if anything is left in the inbox) then it is reasonable to conclude that the legitimate owner of the account sent the emails, or was at least aware of them.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Reese it has been tested in court.  I found 38 notable court cases in the US related to the enforcement of "digital signatures" since 2005.  The actual number is probably significantly higher, the legal search tool I have access to has limited coverage.

Also under US law your signature above wouldn't be considered a digital signature in any of the 50 states.  It would be an "electronic signature".  Please cite a link that shows the EFF is opposed to the enforcement of digital signatures.

[reeses]

Reese it has been tested in court.  I found 38 notable court cases in the US related to the enforcement of "digital signatures" since 2005.  The actual number is probably significantly higher, the legal search tool I have access to has limited coverage.

Also under US law your signature above wouldn't be considered a digital signature in any of the 50 states.  It would be an "electronic signature".  Please cite a link that shows the EFF is opposed to the enforcement of digital signatures.

I invite you to cite these 38 notable cases that refer to cryptographic signatures.

[reeses]

Would love to see Pirate explain how he was hacked and did not know about ponzi and or scam for a year...

Pirate or non-Pirate (I won't get into whatever is going on there), a person would have a serious problem attempting to claim that they were not the originator of the email, because perjury is just another pain in the ass to deal with later.

It might work if you can use a Jedi Mind Trick to create a cloud of confusion and doubt over a few emails or forum posts with IP addresses in the headers.

However, honestly, if all you have is a couple emails, it's unlikely that it will even go to trial.  You would need to show financial transactions, a pattern of fraud, and the usual criminal evidentiary support of motive, opportunity, and intent.

Individual emails, and especially any PGP signing, are really quite immaterial.  If the case does in fact hinge on the emails, the prosecutor will either continue to investigate (if he or she believes there is a case), offer a plea, or refuse to litigate.

[zaj]

just hope he starts paying out so we can all forget about this huge mess and go on with our lives.

[wachtwoord]

just hope he starts paying out so we can all forget about this huge mess and go on with our lives.

+1

[Blind]

just hope he starts paying out

He will only pay if you make him to, don't count on good will.