Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett

[greyhawk]

IF augostocroppo would do an analysis of MOE-PR's posts as he has with CharlieContent he would probably identify similar attributes.  Members trolling these board for their own humor and amusement while really adding nothing to any meaningful conversation.

So the owner of Bitcoins only really existing stock exchange is a "troll" now?

And the user that was shilling for usagi for months and egging her/him/it on with trying to discredit as trolls those who were asking valid questions; that user is now a valuable "analyzer of posts"?

Good to know. I'll update my files accordingly.

*opens documentation to replace "unlikely scam target" with "troll" as well as "likely fraudster" with "honest businessman" and vice versa *

[1715549561]

1715549561

[1715549561]

1715549561

[1715549561]

1715549561

[BCB]

greyhawk

I don't understand you post.  If you are vouching for MOE-PR.  The please do so.  Looks like this guys could use some friends around here.  I have no idea who he is or what his business is, but based on his posts I would put money with Zouh Tong  and Bitfloor before I'd allow this knucklehead to have one satoshi of my BTC.


Thanks

[greyhawk]

greyhawk

I don't understand you post.  If you are vouching for MOE-PR.  The please do so.  Looks like this guys could use some friends around here.  I have no idea who he is or what his business is

Basically he runs this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/MPEx

He's also one of very very few people here who actually behaves like a businessman, instead of just imitating being a business man like most cargo cult followers here.

An assholish, ruthless, opportunistic businessman, I'll give you that, sure, but that IS in huge parts what is needed to BE a businessman.

I think people just don't like him because he also runs an image board, where Romanian escorts and other "erotic service partners" advertise their services.

[MPOE-PR]

exorors

Yes,  I would have to agree.  Unfortunately there seems to be three things going on in this thread.  

MPOE-PR is trolling/rabble rousing as he is wont to do around these boards.  Why?  Your guess is as good as mine.

Joel is having a very detailed debate about contract law.

And Patrick Harnett is maintaining his dignity by not bothering to respond.

IF augostocroppo would do an analysis of MOE-PR's posts as he has with CharlieContent he would probably identify similar attributes.  Members trolling these board for their own humor and amusement while really adding nothing to any meaningful conversation.

Who are you again?

Point to something you actually did. Absent that, point to at least a few smart things you said to counterbalance all the plain idiotic things you said one could point to.

Being able to create a forum name does not automatically make you someone.

greyhawk

I don't understand you post.  If you are vouching for MOE-PR.  The please do so.  Looks like this guys could use some friends around here.  I have no idea who he is or what his business is

Basically he runs this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/MPEx

He's also one of very very few people here who actually behaves like a businessman, instead of just imitating being a business man like most cargo cult followers here.

An assholish, ruthless, opportunistic businessman, I'll give you that, sure, but that IS in huge parts what is needed to BE a businessman.

I think people just don't like him because he also runs an image board, where Romanian escorts and other "erotic service partners" advertise their services.

You know, I actually am a girl.

[BCB]

greyhawk

I don't understand you post.  If you are vouching for MOE-PR.  The please do so.  Looks like this guys could use some friends around here.  I have no idea who he is or what his business is

Basically he runs this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/MPEx

He's also one of very very few people here who actually behaves like a businessman, instead of just imitating being a business man like most cargo cult followers here.

An assholish, ruthless, opportunistic businessman, I'll give you that, sure, but that IS in huge parts what is needed to BE a businessman.

I think people just don't like him because he also runs an image board, where Romanian escorts and other "erotic service partners" advertise their services.

I didn't know about his escort service.  Nothing wrong with that.  I'll have to check that out.
[snip]assholish, ruthless, opportunistic businessman[/snip] is fine to, but maybe he should to hire someone to be a little more pleasant to be the face of  his business.  He is certainly not winning any friends and influencing people with him many abrasive and agressive posts all over these boards.  But then again maybe he's not interested in growing his business.  

Anyway good to know.  Thanks.

[Shadow383]

Has there been a shift in applying the scammer tag? In the past, as long as the "offender" was in regular communication and working to pay back his debt, he didn't get tagged. Now, it seems that issuing the tag happens immediately and is removed after repayment. Also, doesn't the term "scam" imply malicious intent? Something which cannot be easily proven here.

It seems like Kraken may have started out with good intentions, but it was likely also used to buy worthless ponzi debt from the main "starfish" scheme. At least, that's what makes the most sense...

[MPOE-PR]

Has there been a shift in applying the scammer tag? In the past, as long as the "offender" was in regular communication and working to pay back his debt, he didn't get tagged. Now, it seems that issuing the tag happens immediately and is removed after repayment. Also, doesn't the term "scam" imply malicious intent? Something which cannot be easily proven here.

It seems like Kraken may have started out with good intentions, but it was likely also used to buy worthless ponzi debt from the main "starfish" scheme. At least, that's what makes the most sense...

Starting to sound more and more like Usagi.

[JoelKatz]

Has there been a shift in applying the scammer tag? In the past, as long as the "offender" was in regular communication and working to pay back his debt, he didn't get tagged. Now, it seems that issuing the tag happens immediately and is removed after repayment. Also, doesn't the term "scam" imply malicious intent? Something which cannot be easily proven here.

It seems like Kraken may have started out with good intentions, but it was likely also used to buy worthless ponzi debt from the main "starfish" scheme. At least, that's what makes the most sense...

That was my concern when it first started. It seemed to me like Patrick knew he had a lot of worthless debt owed to him and a lot of legitimate debt that he owed to others. I feared that his plan with Kraken was to have it buy all his worthless debt and give him the cash to pay people off. But the strange thing is, he *guaranteed* Kraken -- explicitly, after knowing the issues with the debt it was holding, with his eyes fully open. I can't see how that makes sense unless he was planning to run it as a Ponzi, using the initial funds to pay off previous investors in his other funds so preserve his reputation. There seemed, at least to me, to be no plausible way it could ever return principle, much less make a profit, and thus the guarantee of the principle from his personal funds makes it seem like the only plausible business model was 100% scam.

If there's another explanation, I can't think of it.

[JoelKatz]

You are saying that people made a mistake, the same mistake he made. That seems to be true, yes and I don't think anyone disputes that. However, he is the one who owes money and is in default over it, unable to pay it back as he agreed to.

Right. So the next question is who is responsible for this situation and how to hold them accountable. Patrick is certainly one of those people, but he's not the only one.

1) Patrick's business suffered an $X loss.

2) Why did Patrick's business suffer an $X loss? Because two people made a mistake for which they can be held accountable.

3) Patrick is one of the people who made that mistake, thus he's responsible for some portion of that loss.

4) The people who loaned Patrick money also made that same mistake and thus they're responsible for some portion of that loss.

I'll give you a real world example of this same principle. A few years ago, a doctor examining my daughter noticed that her pediatrician had noted a heart murmur in her records but that he didn't hear it. The physician felt that she might have grown out of it, but the only way to be sure was to run a test. He assured me my insurance would cover the test. We had the test, and my insurance didn't cover it.

I refused to pay. The physician argued that I had signed a contract saying that I was responsible for any amounts my insurance wouldn't pay. He argued that our contract clearly stated that I was responsible for any amounts my insurance wouldn't cover. I agreed with him, but then pointed out that because I was responsible for any amounts my insurance wouldn't pay, his mistake in assuring me that my insurance would cover the costs damaged me. And he was responsible to me for the loss his mistake caused me, a loss that (because both are between me and him) offsets my responsibility to pay him for the test. He actually checked with his lawyer (I think more because he was curious than anything) and he agreed.

It's substantially the same thing here. It's precisely because Patrick promised to pay that money back that the mistake made by those who loaned him money caused Patrick damages for which they are responsible. Because both mistakes are between the same two people, the losses one party's mistake caused the other offset the losses the other party's mistake caused.

Irresponsible lending is just as much a problem as irresponsible borrowing. We wouldn't have had the Pirate fiasco if not for irresponsible lenders.

[MPOE-PR]

You are saying that people made a mistake, the same mistake he made. That seems to be true, yes and I don't think anyone disputes that. However, he is the one who owes money and is in default over it, unable to pay it back as he agreed to.

Right. So the next question is who is responsible for this situation and how to hold them accountable. Patrick is certainly one of those people, but he's not the only one.

1) Patrick's business suffered an $X loss.

2) Why did Patrick's business suffer an $X loss? Because two people made a mistake for which they can be held accountable.

3) Patrick is one of the people who made that mistake, thus he's responsible for some portion of that loss.

4) The people who loaned Patrick money also made that same mistake and thus they're responsible for some portion of that loss.

I'll give you a real world example of this same principle. A few years ago, a doctor examining my daughter noticed that her pediatrician had noted a heart murmur in her records but that he didn't hear it. The physician felt that she might have grown out of it, but the only way to be sure was to run a test. He assured me my insurance would cover the test. We had the test, and my insurance didn't cover it.

I refused to pay. The physician argued that I had signed a contract saying that I was responsible for any amounts my insurance wouldn't pay. He argued that our contract clearly stated that I was responsible for any amounts my insurance wouldn't cover. I agreed with him, but then pointed out that because I was responsible for any amounts my insurance wouldn't pay, his mistake in assuring me that my insurance would cover the costs damaged me. And he was responsible to me for the loss his mistake caused me, a loss that (because both are between me and him) offsets my responsibility to pay him for the test. He actually checked with his lawyer (I think more because he was curious than anything) and he agreed.

It's substantially the same thing here. It's precisely because Patrick promised to pay that money back that the mistake made by those who loaned him money caused Patrick damages for which they are responsible. Because both mistakes are between the same two people, the losses one party's mistake caused the other offset the losses the other party's mistake caused.

Irresponsible lending is just as much a problem as irresponsible borrowing. We wouldn't have had the Pirate fiasco if not for irresponsible lenders.

This is getting more ridiculous by the day. Where the fuck does your stupid little poor man's anecdote figure into this? Did Patrick express doubt as to his ability to repay and MP assured Patrick that Patrick will be able to repay just fine? Damages caused to someone by lending them money? Was it like, poisonous or something? Are you off your meds or somesuch?

Other than that, you are trying to paint as "irresponsible lender" a lender who is in fact the paragon of responsibility in BTC lending. Again: at the time PatrickHarnett got 500 btc at 1% the market rate was 7%.

Irresponsible forum posting, especially when it purposefully and repeatedly misrepresents fiction as fact and idiocy as sense is quickly becoming the top and only contribution you're making to this community, such as it is. Not much of a problem, but just in case you care.

[JoelKatz]

This is getting more ridiculous by the day. Where the fuck does your stupid little poor man's anecdote figure into this?

The point is that reasoning is not like a bus. You can't choose your stop and get off. You have to keep going.

Did Patrick express doubt as to his ability to repay and MP assured Patrick that Patrick will be able to repay just fine?

No. In fact, Patrick expressed an erroneous lack of doubt. That is a mistake Patrick made and for which he should be held accountable. But other people who made the same mistake and jointly caused the same losses should also be held accountable.

Damages caused to someone by lending them money? Was it like, poisonous or something? Are you off your meds or somesuch?

You can recast any complex argument to make it seem invalid by showing its conclusion can't follow from just one of its premises. The damage was caused by the particular way money was loaned. The money wasn't poisonous, but the usurious loan was. It forced a business model that both parties should have known could not have worked. The collapse is jointly the fault of a mistake made by both parties -- both parties making the same mistake.

Other than that, you are trying to paint as "irresponsible lender" a lender who is in fact the paragon of responsibility in BTC lending. Again: at the time PatrickHarnett got 500 btc at 1% the market rate was 7%.

The market was horrifically broken. Measuring the sensibility of this loan against that market is silly. It's time to look at these things objectively now. There was no realistic way this loan could have made sense for either party, and both parties should have realized that.

Irresponsible forum posting, especially when it purposefully and repeatedly misrepresents fiction as fact and idiocy as sense is quickly becoming the top and only contribution you're making to this community, such as it is. Not much of a problem, but just in case you care.

You're much better at insulting people than you are at responding to the arguments they make.

Did the loan harm Patrick? Was the loan based on a mistake on the part of both parties?

[MPOE-PR]

This is getting more ridiculous by the day. Where the fuck does your stupid little poor man's anecdote figure into this?

The point is that reasoning is not like a bus. You can't choose your stop and get off. You have to keep going.

Did Patrick express doubt as to his ability to repay and MP assured Patrick that Patrick will be able to repay just fine?

No. In fact, Patrick expressed an erroneous lack of doubt. That is a mistake Patrick made and for which he should be held accountable. But other people who made the same mistake and jointly caused the same losses should also be held accountable.

Damages caused to someone by lending them money? Was it like, poisonous or something? Are you off your meds or somesuch?

You can recast any complex argument to make it seem invalid by showing its conclusion can't follow from just one of its premises. The damage was caused by the particular way money was loaned. The money wasn't poisonous, but the usurious loan was. It forced a business model that both parties should have known could not have worked. The collapse is jointly the fault of a mistake made by both parties -- both parties making the same mistake.

Other than that, you are trying to paint as "irresponsible lender" a lender who is in fact the paragon of responsibility in BTC lending. Again: at the time PatrickHarnett got 500 btc at 1% the market rate was 7%.

The market was horrifically broken. Measuring the sensibility of this loan against that market is silly. It's time to look at these things objectively now. There was no realistic way this loan could have made sense for either party, and both parties should have realized that.

Irresponsible forum posting, especially when it purposefully and repeatedly misrepresents fiction as fact and idiocy as sense is quickly becoming the top and only contribution you're making to this community, such as it is. Not much of a problem, but just in case you care.

You're much better at insulting people than you are at responding to the arguments they make.

Did the loan harm Patrick? Was the loan based on a mistake on the part of both parties?

Absolutely no forcing involved. Absolutely no "common mistake" involved. Market is always more "objectively" than Joel Insanikatz. Your bus has sailed long, long ago.

Patrick harmed Patrick, much like Joel is harming Joel. But carry on, by all means, after all in six months' time when I'll be quoting this trainwreck of a nervous breakdown against any attempt on your part to represent yourself as sane or even vaguely intelligent you'll probably be explaining how it was our common mistake, ie you were being an idiot and I was making fun of you, and so I caused you harm and so we should be jointly held responsible for you being an idiot.

Sounds legit, especially given that the Internet not being like a truck and reasoning not being like a bus, you gotta keep going.

[SgtSpike]

I am relatively certain the only one who agrees with Joel in this thread is Joel.

[BCB]

 Your bus ship has sailed long, long ago.

(Or you bus has left the depot)

trainwreck of a thread nervous breakdown

(or your nervous breakdown)

Sounds legit, especially given that the Internet not being like a truck and reasoning not being like a bus, you gotta keep going.
(not sure what to make of that?)

FTFY

[JoelKatz]

Market is always more "objectively" than Joel Insanikatz.

You can usually get the best measurements of something's value or cost from a healthy market. But the lending market at that time was completely infected by such widespread fraud that it was basically meaningless.

If you had a situation where a person could sell a car but keep the car and no law or government would do anything to stop them, the market might show a price of $500 for a car. In that unusual situation, the market is not real, and the $500 price is not a measurement of the value of the car.

The Bitcoin lending market was a market of that type. People could borrow money and avoid paying it back with substantially no consequences. As a result, interest rates got bid up to ludicrous levels by borrowers who had no intention of ever paying people back. Those interest rates were not a sensible measure of any price or value, it was just a broken market.

Broken markets really can happen, just not usually for very long. As soon as people understand the particular breakage, it likely will never happen the same way again. The real estate market got inflated this same way. The securitization of mortgages lead to a broken market where the lenders had no incentive to make sure the mortgages were solid. This caused buyers to overvalue them. As a result, the market gave values for homes and mortgages that were nonsensical. Now that people realize this problem, it is self-fixing. Nobody will buy or value securitized mortgages ever again (or at least, significant numbers of people won't) without making sure the value is based on the actual strength of the mortgages.

With luck, this same problem will never happen in the Bitcoin lending market again. But the first step is recognizing the problem and those who caused it taking responsibility. You should strongly consider whether you really want to continue to oppose that process. I'm still presuming you are acting in good faith, but it's getting harder and harder. Perhaps you are profiting from the widespread fraud and theft?

[MPOE-PR]

 Your bus ship has sailed long, long ago.

(Or you bus has left the depot)

trainwreck of a thread nervous breakdown

(or your nervous breakdown)

Sounds legit, especially given that the Internet not being like a truck and reasoning not being like a bus, you gotta keep going.
(not sure what to make of that?)

FTFY

A well. We all make mistakes.

[ldrgn]

I am relatively certain the only one who agrees with Joel in this thread is Joel.

Good thing this isn't a popularity contest.  I don't agree with Joel either but you've made a terrible and worthless post.  The goal here is to get to the truth and not stroke each other's egos.

[JoelKatz]

I am relatively certain the only one who agrees with Joel in this thread is Joel.

If so, that would be a terrible shame. It would mean the Bitcoin community learned almost nothing from the Pirate collapse and is likely doomed to repeat it. When people can make mistakes and harm others with no consequences, markets cannot function.

[cunicula]

It seems like the best way to make everyone happy here is to introduce more tags.

If there were an "in default" tag, we could all agree that Patrick deserves this tag. Unlike the term scammer, there is no question of blame here. It is a simple fact.
If you introduce a tag like this, you allow more leeway for people like Patrick. The "in default" tag might not satisfy MPOE, but it would probably satisfy almost everyone else.

If one tag seems unjust, there could also be an "imprudent lender" tag. There is no question of blame here. It is a simple fact that the MPOE's loan to Patrick was imprudent.

Readers could draw there own conclusions about which tag is more meaningful.

Joel, would you support the use of those tags?

[JoelKatz]

Joel, would you support the use of those tags?

That just seems kind of ugly to me. But I do agree that the current system has at least one major problem -- the term "scammer" strongly connotes intentional fraud. But I think we all agree that a person who borrows some Bitcoins fully intending to pay them back but then can't pay them back (say they lost their job) deserves a scammer tag. The point is not to pass judgment or act like a court but to provide some kind of useful indication of who you cannot trust to keep agreements.

Honestly, I'd say getting rid of the scammer tag would be preferable to a plethora of tags. A broken trust indicator may be worse than none at all.