Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett

[AndrewBUD]

Why not just a tainted tag? 3 colors

Something like the Ignore but possibly a little bit more BOLD....



Say I borrow 120 BTC... 2 weeks later I get robbed or my house burns down........ I would be unable to pay right away until my life got back together.. Would that make me a scammer?

[1714307221]

1714307221

[1714307221]

1714307221

[1714307221]

1714307221

[cunicula]

Why not just a tainted tag? 3 colors

Something like the Ignore but possibly a little bit more BOLD....



Say I borrow 120 BTC... 2 weeks later I get robbed or my house burns down........ I would be unable to pay right away until my life got back together.. Would that make me a scammer?

It would make you "in default."

[MPOE-PR]

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.

Yeah yeah, right. Stop trying to present yourself as some sort of thought leader of a process you have - to the best I can determine - absolutely nothing to do with.

A much more intellectually honest approach would be to present your crackpot theories somewhere apart (such as in the Offtopic forum, which pretty much exists for this very purpose) and allow the world to ignore them on their own merits rather than trying to interject yourself in discussions between the adults and trying to piggyback them on actual issues of actual import.

We get it, you feel you're one with the whole, you think everything's the same and all are the same one thing and bla bla bla. It doesn't work in the real world, it's not interesting in the Bitcoin world, it has no merit, no value and no importance. Stop wasting my time with it.

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.

I agree with Joel. To aggressively rail-road him over his opinion in a thread essentially asking for the community to weigh in on a potential scam only discredits the original case.

You are very much mistaken. This thread is not asking of "the community" anything at all. This thread is telling the community a simple fact (ie, that PatrickHarnett is a scammer, and that it's unsafe to take him at his word from now on), is presenting to the community the proof for that fact, and is asking the moderators to enact this fact into the little symbolic representation they use in this particular venue to sum such facts up.

The community is, jointly or severally, perfectly free to ignore the facts. The net results of ignoring the facts are never going to be a "common mistake", they will be their mistake, wholly owned and quite personal, and the results theirs to bear entirely.

The moderators are perfectly free to ignore the facts too. All that'll do is make the symbolic representation a little less relevant.

None of this discussion has any impact whatsoever on whether PatrickHarnett is a scammer or not. That is something you can't vote, either as a "community" or as a congregation of moderators or as anything. Only PatrickHarnett can make himself a scammer. Unfortunately for him, he has done this already.

If you introduce a tag like this, you allow more leeway for people like Patrick.

Again, that PatrickHarnett is in default is not the point of this discussion. PatrickHarnett is a scammer, aka a liar and a thief, not an honest businessman in default. The last thing scammers, aka liars and thieves need around these parts is more leeway.

It is a simple fact that the MPOE's loan to Patrick was imprudent.

Simply stating that makes you an idiot, are you aware? How exactly is loaning to the most respectable (at the time) forum "bank" at rates a degree of magnitude under market "imprudent"? No, never mind, don't answer that. Just get lost.

Say I borrow 120 BTC... 2 weeks later I get robbed or my house burns down........ I would be unable to pay right away until my life got back together.. Would that make me a scammer?

This is not at all what happened here.

What happened here was that PatrickHarnett took some money from some people at fixed rates, looking to make a profit. He made some bets that, contrary to his expectation and contrary to his high regard of himself, turned sour. Instead of manning up to this failure of his, such as for instance by skipping a month's discretionary expenditure in his life, putting that money into BTC and paying out he went the classical Peter Lambert route: played double or nothing with his customer's money (in this case by buying discounted pirate debt with money he represented as not exposed to pirate - also a classic).

All through this he felt no need to kneel before his intellectual superiors, those people more intelligent, more competent and more versed in these matters, present his stupidity which he thought was "a plan", be told it's a stupid idea and not a plan and obediently (as the intellectually inferior are held to do) given up on his stupidity which he thought was a plan. Because oh why don't you know, PatrickHarnett is such a smart financier, even better than Kludge the Bancoclerk, and he can pull off things.

If it had panned out he'd have made 50-500% on the capital, paid 2-3-5% to his investors and counted himself a great businessman. Since it didn't pan out he doesn't want to sell his house and move into a shelter where he belongs, because he figures (correctly) that the forum is full of idiots anyway and who cares about what they think.

This used to work just fine but then Mircea Popescu happened and pretty much that meant the end of this sort of bullshit. You're welcome, and fuck you.

[davout]

[JoelKatz]

What happened here was that PatrickHarnett took some money from some people at fixed rates, looking to make a profit. He made some bets that, contrary to his expectation and contrary to his high regard of himself, turned sour. Instead of manning up to this failure of his, such as for instance by skipping a month's discretionary expenditure in his life, putting that money into BTC and paying out he went the classical Peter Lambert route: played double or nothing with his customer's money (in this case by buying discounted pirate debt with money he represented as not exposed to pirate - also a classic).

You need to take a step back and realize that the people who loaned Patrick money made precisely the same mistake Patrick did.

People like Patrick, Hashking, and Pirate will always come along. So long as there are idiots willing to lend money at criminally usurious interest rates on the most ridiculous and implausible business plans, and who then feel they can deny any responsibility when the shit hits the fan (as it *always* will, that's the one certainty) this will keep happening over and over and over.

But keep those insults coming. If you're good at something, don't waste it. (But stop the self-righteousness. You're not very good at that.)

And by the way, I basically agree with you. Patrick hasn't, and likely won't ever, make the lifestyle sacrifices he and his wife need to make in order to pay back their fair share of the losses. So he'll almost certainly deserve a scammer tag at some point, if he doesn't already. If he isn't even on track and committed to paying back 40% in 3 years, which is ridiculously little in a very long time, I'd say he clearly deserves to be branded a scammer.

[augustocroppo]

Deposit was made, as per an agreement. Deposit was not returned, as per the agreement.

Still, you did not provided the evidence required.

Where is the contract that you both signed to a third party verify the legitimacy of your claims?

The legitimacy of the claim is not disputed. Heck, the scammer is not only taking the Nefario route to PR, but moreover the address was listed in his list of depositors that he himself maintained for the entire interval.

You transferred 500 Bitcoins to Patrick and did not require a signed contract to secure or to determine both parties obligations? Is that the way you handle your stock exchange business?

If you think an IRC log represents a legitimate contract, you have completely failed.

How do you expect a third party to trust in your claim if Patrick alleges that your claim was not a mutual agreement? How could a third party be sure that no other agreement was settled between both parties?

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.

I recommend you look at the thread where the user MPOE-PR requests a scammer tag for Theymos. If you compare that thread with this, you will realize that evidence is a concept outside the scope of the user MOE-PR. That and this thread are just claims...

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/claim?q=claim

Definition of claim
verb
1 [reporting verb] state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

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"?

False statement. I never have been "shilling for usagi for months" and I never "discredit as trolls those who were asking valid questions".

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.

A user which is unable to require a signed contract is not businessman...

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

I fully support JoelKatz arguments, which are very reasonable and based on factual data.

[AndrewBUD]

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.

Yeah yeah, right. Stop trying to present yourself as some sort of thought leader of a process you have - to the best I can determine - absolutely nothing to do with.

A much more intellectually honest approach would be to present your crackpot theories somewhere apart (such as in the Offtopic forum, which pretty much exists for this very purpose) and allow the world to ignore them on their own merits rather than trying to interject yourself in discussions between the adults and trying to piggyback them on actual issues of actual import.

We get it, you feel you're one with the whole, you think everything's the same and all are the same one thing and bla bla bla. It doesn't work in the real world, it's not interesting in the Bitcoin world, it has no merit, no value and no importance. Stop wasting my time with it.

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.

I agree with Joel. To aggressively rail-road him over his opinion in a thread essentially asking for the community to weigh in on a potential scam only discredits the original case.

You are very much mistaken. This thread is not asking of "the community" anything at all. This thread is telling the community a simple fact (ie, that PatrickHarnett is a scammer, and that it's unsafe to take him at his word from now on), is presenting to the community the proof for that fact, and is asking the moderators to enact this fact into the little symbolic representation they use in this particular venue to sum such facts up.

The community is, jointly or severally, perfectly free to ignore the facts. The net results of ignoring the facts are never going to be a "common mistake", they will be their mistake, wholly owned and quite personal, and the results theirs to bear entirely.

The moderators are perfectly free to ignore the facts too. All that'll do is make the symbolic representation a little less relevant.

None of this discussion has any impact whatsoever on whether PatrickHarnett is a scammer or not. That is something you can't vote, either as a "community" or as a congregation of moderators or as anything. Only PatrickHarnett can make himself a scammer. Unfortunately for him, he has done this already.

If you introduce a tag like this, you allow more leeway for people like Patrick.

Again, that PatrickHarnett is in default is not the point of this discussion. PatrickHarnett is a scammer, aka a liar and a thief, not an honest businessman in default. The last thing scammers, aka liars and thieves need around these parts is more leeway.

It is a simple fact that the MPOE's loan to Patrick was imprudent.

Simply stating that makes you an idiot, are you aware? How exactly is loaning to the most respectable (at the time) forum "bank" at rates a degree of magnitude under market "imprudent"? No, never mind, don't answer that. Just get lost.

Say I borrow 120 BTC... 2 weeks later I get robbed or my house burns down........ I would be unable to pay right away until my life got back together.. Would that make me a scammer?

This is not at all what happened here.

What happened here was that PatrickHarnett took some money from some people at fixed rates, looking to make a profit. He made some bets that, contrary to his expectation and contrary to his high regard of himself, turned sour. Instead of manning up to this failure of his, such as for instance by skipping a month's discretionary expenditure in his life, putting that money into BTC and paying out he went the classical Peter Lambert route: played double or nothing with his customer's money (in this case by buying discounted pirate debt with money he represented as not exposed to pirate - also a classic).

All through this he felt no need to kneel before his intellectual superiors, those people more intelligent, more competent and more versed in these matters, present his stupidity which he thought was "a plan", be told it's a stupid idea and not a plan and obediently (as the intellectually inferior are held to do) given up on his stupidity which he thought was a plan. Because oh why don't you know, PatrickHarnett is such a smart financier, even better than Kludge the Bancoclerk, and he can pull off things.

If it had panned out he'd have made 50-500% on the capital, paid 2-3-5% to his investors and counted himself a great businessman. Since it didn't pan out he doesn't want to sell his house and move into a shelter where he belongs, because he figures (correctly) that the forum is full of idiots anyway and who cares about what they think.

This used to work just fine but then Mircea Popescu happened and pretty much that meant the end of this sort of bullshit. You're welcome, and fuck you.

Yeah, not sure why anyone would of had any faith in Pirate after he had lied so often......... ^ sorry to hear you lost some coins...... 500 btc? would you really want someone to sell there house over 5 grand?....

[cunicula]

Yeah, not sure why anyone would of had any faith in Pirate after he had lied so often......... ^ sorry to hear you lost some coins...... 500 btc? would you really want someone to sell there house over 5 grand?....

Where I am currently living, bankruptcy is publicly announced and divulged in any job application (killing your career forever). For someone in Patrick's profession, bankruptcy results in legally-mandated termination and permanent ineligibly for future employment. The societal attitude, if anything, is that this punishment is much too lenient.

Whether you think Patrick should fork over his house or not depends on cultural values.

[CharlieContent]

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.

So why on earth doesn't Harnett then?

I thought your argument was that Harnett's lenders are equally to blame for any problems they have experienced due to his default because they should have done more due diligence before lending to him.

Surely that would apply in this case too?

In my opinion, a person who borrows a handful of coins and then can't pay them back due to unforeseen circumstances is much more deserving of trust, compassion and leniency than someone who starts up a commercial enterprise that is based on borrowing coins that goes into default based on poor investments

It's Harnett that should be called to account for his lack of due diligence. He was in the business of lending out other people's money for his own profit, and therefore should be held to a higher standard.

[AndrewBUD]

Yeah, not sure why anyone would of had any faith in Pirate after he had lied so often......... ^ sorry to hear you lost some coins...... 500 btc? would you really want someone to sell there house over 5 grand?....

Where I am currently living, bankruptcy is publicly announced and divulged in any job application (killing your career forever). For someone in Patrick's profession, bankruptcy results in legally-mandated termination and permanent ineligibly for future employment. The societal attitude, if anything, is that this punishment is much too lenient.

Whether you think Patrick should fork over his house or not depends on cultural values.

Must depend where you live....

[Dalkore]

@ MPOE-PR - Bottomline, you need to prove the intention of scamming you.   If you calling for a Scammer tag because two parties took "risk" in trusting each other and the debtor made bad choices with an investment, DOES NOT mean it is a scam.  You may not like the decision but at the time you made the deposited the coins, you trusted that person judgement.   Nothing you say, even with insults changes that fact. 

Yes he is in "default" at this time but you continue to claim something much more nefarious.   If you want that to stick, you need to come with more proof and is verifiable in some manner. 


Public Disclosure:  I do not or am not owed any debt to PatrickHarnett.   I have talk to him once offline about a business project I was working on that was un-related to any lenders or securities that are in default.

[SgtSpike]

You transferred 500 Bitcoins to Patrick and did not require a signed contract to secure or to determine both parties obligations? Is that the way you handle your stock exchange business?

If you think an IRC log represents a legitimate contract, you have completely failed.

You need to read up on contract law then.  Anything written can count as a valid contract.  Heck, even a verbal or handshake agreement can be a contract, and enforceable in court.  The only thing that needs to be done is the contract has to be proven.  IRC logs can server that purpose, as can emails, recorded telephone conversations, etc.

The only thing an official signed contract does is makes it easier to enforce, especially when it comes to the nitty-gritty details.  But from what was said in IRC, this is easily an enforceable contract in which Patrick promised to pay back interest on a loan, and has failed to do so.

Unless Patrick repays the loan, he absolutely SHOULD be called a scammer.  He has an obligation to pay, because he said he would.

[augustocroppo]

You need to read up on contract law then.  Anything written can count as a valid contract.  Heck, even a verbal or handshake agreement can be a contract, and enforceable in court.  The only thing that needs to be done is the contract has to be proven.  IRC logs can server that purpose, as can emails, recorded telephone conversations, etc.

The only thing an official signed contract does is makes it easier to enforce, especially when it comes to the nitty-gritty details.  But from what was said in IRC, this is easily an enforceable contract in which Patrick promised to pay back interest on a loan, and has failed to do so.

Unless Patrick repays the loan, he absolutely SHOULD be called a scammer.  He has an obligation to pay, because he said he would.

http://common.laws.com/contract-law

The most important feature of contract law is that one party must make an offer for an agreement that the other party accepts. When the agreement is made tangible through a signature, the agreement takes the form of a legally-binding document.

http://signaturecapture.com/laws.htm

For an electronically signed document to be enforceable in court, it must meet the requirements for legal contracts in addition to the electronic signature guidelines specified in the appropriate laws (e.g. UETA, ESIGN, etc.). According to ESIGN, an electronic signature is "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record." In contract law, signatures serve the following general purposes:

Evidence: authenticates agreement by identifying the signer with a mark attributable to the signer that itself is capable of authentication

Ceremony: act of signing calls attention to the legal significance of the act, preventing ‘inconsiderate engagements’

Approval: express approval or authorization per terms of agreement

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/writing-and-signature-requirements-for-a-valid-contract.html

Handwritten, stamped, engraved, electronic pen, and photocopied signatures are all generally adequate to validate a contract unless the circumstances of the contract indicate otherwise.  Some states indicate a simple mark or “x” is sufficient as a signature, but if this is an issue in a case, courts will look at all the facts to determine whether both parties intended to enter into the contract.  Electronic and email signatures are now valid, but the exact requirements of electronic signatures vary from state to state.

http://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-formalities.html

The following discussion is based on complying with the formalities required by s 126 of the Instruments Act 1958 (Vic). The easiest way to comply with the formalities requirements in this provision is simply to enter into a written contract signed by both parties. This is not, however, essential. It is sufficient if there is a memorandum or note of the agreement (this might, for example, be as informal as a diary note or letter) and it is only necessary for the party against whom action is being brought to have signed it. The note or memorandum must, however, contain all the material terms (eg, identity, subject matter, consideration).

[SgtSpike]

Cool - I can play that game too.

Believe it or not, the old-fashioned "handshake" began as a means for two people to assure one another that neither was carrying a weapon. Over the years, this simple gesture has evolved into a contractual symbol—or a guarantee—for an oral agreement. But in an era of phone-book sized contracts, fine print and legal battles, does time-honored handshake deal still carry any weight?

The answer is yes—as long as you can prove it in court.

http://www.legalzoom.com/business-law/contract-law/oral-contracts-do-they-carry

If an e-mail or chain of e-mails clearly states an offer for entering into a deal with all of the material terms and the other side responds by e-mail accepting the terms, then there's a good chance that a valid contract has been formed — even though no signatures have been exchanged. So be careful. If all you intend is to negotiate the issues leading to a formal written and signed contract accepted by both parties, make sure you say that in your e-mails.

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/contracts-agreements/2378-1.html#ixzz2BfGZbzPE

Generally, oral or verbal contracts are indeed legally enforceable, but there's a fundamental problem: how do you prove what was agreed upon? That's why written contracts are far more useful, because everything's down in, well, black and white.
Read more at http://www.askdavetaylor.com/are_verbal_contracts_legally_enforceable.html#giafXjivC7k2GBuK.99

http://www.askdavetaylor.com/are_verbal_contracts_legally_enforceable.html

I rest my case.

[AndrewBUD]

Well if all you can do is go to court... Then go blow 10 grand to recover 5......



Seems like you should put this effort in to working something out with Patrick vs. crying about it in the forums....

[MPOE-PR]

@ MPOE-PR - Bottomline, you need to prove the intention of scamming you.   If you calling for a Scammer tag because two parties took "risk" in trusting each other and the debtor made bad choices with an investment, DOES NOT mean it is a scam.  You may not like the decision but at the time you made the deposited the coins, you trusted that person judgement.   Nothing you say, even with insults changes that fact. 

Yes he is in "default" at this time but you continue to claim something much more nefarious.   If you want that to stick, you need to come with more proof and is verifiable in some manner. 


Public Disclosure:  I do not or am not owed any debt to PatrickHarnett.   I have talk to him once offline about a business project I was working on that was un-related to any lenders or securities that are in default.

Right, all I have is circumstantial evidence. That happens to be all we'll ever have, in this case and in absolutely any other. Not like someone's going to uncover PatrickHarnett's signed confession.

For the record, there's still people who believe pirate was a stand-up guy and "it wasn't proven he was a scammer". And there's some brainies chipping in to buy Nefario flowers.

What can I tell you....

You need to read up on contract law then.  Anything written can count as a valid contract.  Heck, even a verbal or handshake agreement can be a contract, and enforceable in court.  The only thing that needs to be done is the contract has to be proven.  IRC logs can server that purpose, as can emails, recorded telephone conversations, etc.

In fact it has been long established legal practice (where "long" means > 100 years) in both civil and common law that any exchange which shows agreement between businessmen of the sort they would normally employ in the usual course of their trade is sufficient and binding as a contract. These aren't retail investors dealing here.

Yeah, not sure why anyone would of had any faith in Pirate after he had lied so often......... ^ sorry to hear you lost some coins...... 500 btc? would you really want someone to sell there house over 5 grand?....

You're aware the guy ran off with about 20k btc right?

[AndrewBUD]

WhO? Spongebob or pirate?

[Zeeks]

I have been looking through a lot of old threads, being newish myself here. I had read the forums a bit while I read the technicals about Bitcoin before actually signing up though.

Seems like PatrickHarnett gets some special consideration among all those called into question, a few others have too. Seems like there is some sort of inner circle action going on here...

Is it because he has been around and operating for so long? It seems like there is a long history with this community continuing to trust someone even as others cast founded suspicions and doubts upon them and their actions. As the many suspicious things pile up until they ultimately disappear from the community with a large wallet of Bitcoins and then all the people who had defended them before lament that they never saw it coming and how surprising it was.

This appears to be fairly self destructive. Or at least, a self-perpetuating atmosphere of scamming even if those in question did not set out to scam anyone in the first place since as the issues pile up it becomes better to just grab everything and run as there is never any penalty for it other than a very late "scammer tag" on this forum. They probably just come back under a new name to start a new business too because why not? No one ever finds out they are a dangerous business partner until it's too late.

[SgtSpike]

I have been looking through a lot of old threads, being newish myself here. I had read the forums a bit while I read the technicals about Bitcoin before actually signing up though.

Seems like PatrickHarnett gets some special consideration among all those called into question, a few others have too. Seems like there is some sort of inner circle action going on here...

Is it because he has been around and operating for so long? It seems like there is a long history with this community continuing to trust someone even as others cast founded suspicions and doubts upon them and their actions. As the many suspicious things pile up until they ultimately disappear from the community with a large wallet of Bitcoins and then all the people who had defended them before lament that they never saw it coming and how surprising it was.

This appears to be fairly self destructive. Or at least, a self-perpetuating atmosphere of scamming even if those in question did not set out to scam anyone in the first place since as the issues pile up it becomes better to just grab everything and run as there is never any penalty for it other than a very late "scammer tag" on this forum. They probably just come back under a new name to start a new business too because why not? No one ever finds out they are a dangerous business partner until it's too late.

I think it's because it's black and white for some people, while white and black for others, which makes for a heated, lengthy thread topic.  Nothing special about Patrick - the situation he is in is just special.

[MPOE-PR]

Seems like you should put this effort in to working something out with Patrick vs. crying about it in the forums....

I don't understand the logic of "let's negotiate with the scammer". What's the value proposition, does it go something like

He only keeps part of what he stole from me in exchange for being able to steal from a lot more people in the future. Win-win!!11

What sense does that make?!

I think it's because it's black and white for some people, while white and black for others, which makes for a heated, lengthy thread topic.  Nothing special about Patrick - the situation he is in is just special.

No, I fully agree with Zeeks. There's a little sewing circle, Nitwits United or something like that. The benefits of social media.

For the record, he hasn't been operating for "so long". He has just been slimy, that specific sort of "bro"-ness that has the respective nitwits all enamored. Pirate did the exact same thing. In fact, pretty much all the people that fucked "the community" in the ass with a piece of raw pine did exactly the same thing. Buddy-buddy pays for scammers.