Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett

[davout]

I am inclined to assume that MPOE-PR is a minion acting in behalf of Mircea Popescu.

I am inclined to believe you are a fucking genius.

[MPOE-PR]

I am inclined to assume that MPOE-PR is a minion acting in behalf of Mircea Popescu.

I am inclined to believe you are a fucking genius.

I am reclined with laughter.

[JoelKatz]

I am inclined to assume that MPOE-PR is a minion acting in behalf of Mircea Popescu.

If not, she's even more delusional than I thought.

[Dalkore]

Yeah that's a whole lot of crazy if you ask me...

You really expect someone breaching a contract to get away with paying less than what they owed by contract? In what alternate universe is this ever the case?

With the amount outstanding if you are correct (BTC20K), I would not take such a hardline stance on your settlement of this debt.   I would be for sure, flexible on interest owed and just good judgement on the principle. 

You did take risk in investing in "his" investment strategy and investing in "him" as that principle for your BTC.  Maybe we just have different ideology on capital, investment and risk, I accept that.   But please believe, I am quite read on this subject, I am mean the old way of doing things, which I think was a much more fair and proper system (pre-1913).  I think keeping good communication with him and giving him time to dispatch his debt to you will serve your interest more that berating him on here as hard as you have.


Does anyone have a explanation on why his Guarantee did not meet his non-pirate exposed liabilities?   I assumed it is from deadbeat borrowers. 

[JoelKatz]

Does anyone have a explanation on why his Guarantee did not meet his non-pirate exposed liabilities?   I assumed it is from deadbeat borrowers.  

He claims that a lot of people borrowed from him to invest in Pirate, despite having sworn otherwise. When Pirate defaulted, they were unwilling to dip into their personal finances to settle a debt that likely wouldn't be enforceable in any court of law. There is no way to verify this, but it is precisely what lots of people warned would happen. It's also possible Patrick significantly exaggerated the extent to which this happened and walked off with a bunch of money. We don't know.

[Deprived]

Both parties agreed that Patrick's loan portfolio was significantly free from correlated risk. Patrick concluded, based on that agreed fact, that he would have enough equity in his portfolio to cover a Pirate default. However, Patrick's loan portfolio was not significantly free from correlated risk, and thus he didn't have enough equity in his portfolio to cover a Pirate default. The parties never discussed what would happen if the portfolio had significant correlated risk -- it was something neither party considered.

For example:

A: My house is 1,200 square feet.
B: I'll paint it for $2,500.
A: Deal.
-
If the house isn't 1,200 square feet, A is responsible.

B: I measured your house, it's 1,200 square feet. I can paint it for $2,500.
A: Deal.
-
If the house isn't 1,200 square feet, B is responsible.

A: My house is 1,200 square feet.
B: I know, I measured it. I can paint it for $2,500.
A: Agreed.
-
Common mistake. If the house isn't 1,200 square feet, A and B are jointly responsible.

This is like the last case. Both parties, with sufficient information to realize otherwise, concluded that the loan portfolio was free from correlated risk. Patrick's agreement was based on that shared mistaken conclusion.

This is where you're consistently getting yourself confused.  From everything I've seen in this thread MP didb't measure the house but took PH's word for it.  Nowhere have I seen any evidence (or even suggestion) that PH gave MP a list of all his deposits so that they could be verified as Pirate risk-free.  PH made an assertion which MP accepted - nothing more than that.

The basis of a common mistake is common knowledge.  In your house example that's access to the house to measure it (what if the house owner offers the builder access but the builder declines and says they'll take the home-owner's word for it?).  In this instance no such access existed - there was no public list of PH's deposits and no access to such was offered.

If your argument then mutates into "well MP didn't ask for access so it's still MP's fault" then you move into the area of sheer lunacy.  Imagine the following conversation with your bank:

Bank: Sorry, we can't return any of your deposits as we made some bad investments.
JK: But you told me my money was safe with you!
Bank: Well if you'd looked at our books you'd have seen it wasn't safe.
JK: But you never showed me your books!
Bank: You didn't ask to see them.
JK: If I'd asked would you have showed me them?
Bank: No.
JK: So why don't you owe me the money?
Bank: You didn't ask for the books - so it was a "common mistake" as we both assumed (or, in our case, asserted) that your money was safe with us.  Sorry - but we'll give you a little bit if/when we can, however we aren't in default as you're as much to blame as us.

That appears to be what you're arguing.

PH had access to significantly more relevant information than MP (details of his deposits).  No offer to share that information was made.  PH made an assertion about that information (that the deposits were pirate-free) which MP accepted, being unable to verify it.  Without (substantially) equal information there can't be a common mistake - and details of the deposits was, by far, the most important information in making that assessment here.

Let's take your argument to the extremes of ridiculousness - why has pirate got a scammer tag?  After all, it was obvious it was going to go bust.  So isn't that a "common mistake" between pirate and his investors - as they all knew (or should have known) that it wasn't going to end well?

There's some irony in the fact that you seem to have come here to defend PH yet, by your argument, are actually making the worst case against him.  MP''s (or MPOE-PR - same person as far as I'm concerned) case is that PH had the credibility and repuation to deserver having his word taken on something as basic as how he'd invested the funds under his control.  You, on the other hand, appear to be arguing that his reputation was so bad back then (forget now) that anyone who believed an assertion he made about how his funds were deployed deserved blame for being naive enough to take him seriously and enter into a contract with him.  To be crystal clear, your argument only holds water IF it was common knowledge and readily apparent that PH was unfit to give accurate representations about how the funds he managed were deployed (e.g. he was KNOWN not to do proper diligence).  Is that actually your argument?  More to the point is it PH's?  Is he actually going to post saying "Look - sorry but you should have known I didn't have a clue what I was doing and shouldn't have taken my word on anything, so you're as much to blame as me."?

Not sure why all the crap about written/verbal contracts arose (not from you JK).  The form of a contract only matters if its content is disputed.  All of the citations from various wikis etc are only of relevance when there's an argument over what was agreed - there appears to be no such difference here.

Unless PH disputes the terms of the contract (or claims it's in some way invalid -e.g. by JK's argument of incompetence) it's hard to see any option but to consider that he owes the obligations under it and is in default.  Whether that deserves a scammer tag is a seperate issue - there appears little consistency in how these are given out and he didn't offend a moderator so likely he's safe from that.  From my perspective I'd like to see scammer tags given to anyone who defaults on an obligation (whether through malice or misfortune) with the tag removable where it was just misfortune after repayment in full or an agreed settlement.  I accpet that the tag should likely be renamed were that to be the case -or split into two (Scammer and Defaulter maybe?).

[JoelKatz]

Let's take your argument to the extremes of ridiculousness - why has pirate got a scammer tag?  After all, it was obvious it was going to go bust.  So isn't that a "common mistake" between pirate and his investors - as they all knew (or should have known) that it wasn't going to end well?

Because Pirate committed fraud and his customers did not. Otherwise, you would be absolutely right and the blame, and hence the damages, should split between Pirate and his customers.

In this case, both parties had sufficient knowledge to conclude that Patrick had significant Pirate exposure. Total outsiders reached this same conclusion. It was obvious. And there's no evidence of greater fault on either side.

Your other examples are inapplicable. This contract was predicated on a mutual agreement to something that was false due to equal fault on both sides. None of your examples have that characteristic.

[Deprived]

Let's take your argument to the extremes of ridiculousness - why has pirate got a scammer tag?  After all, it was obvious it was going to go bust.  So isn't that a "common mistake" between pirate and his investors - as they all knew (or should have known) that it wasn't going to end well?

Because Pirate committed fraud and his customers did not. Otherwise, you would be absolutely right and the blame, and hence the damages, should split between Pirate and his customers.

In this case, both parties had sufficient knowledge to conclude that Patrick had significant Pirate exposure. And there's no evidence of greater fault on either side.

So what evidence did MP have to draw that conclusion when PH asserted the opposite?  What information was there about PH which meant any reasonable person would have concluded he was lieing or mistaken?  I was under the impression he had a fairly good reputation - what am I missing?  Didn't he do credit-ratings - suggesting he went far beyond normal due-diligence?

Looking back after the facts and concluding "well it should have been obvious..." isn't much evidence of anything.  Is it really your assertion that ANY investment paying 1% per week (or whatever he was offering) back then MUST have been invested in pirate?  Was there NO alternative?  Was PH's reputation SO bad that he deserved NO credit for doing due diligence?

If you're going to assert that something was common knowledge (in this case that it was common knowledge that PH was invested directly or indirectly in pirate) then:

1.  You should prove it.
2.  How come PH didn't know?  If he didn't know how can you reasonably assume MP must have?  Or are you saying he DID know?

You see, point 2 is the key one.  PH had MORE information than MP (deposit details).  If PH couldn't draw that conclusion it logically can't make sense to assert that someone in MP's position MUST have known it.  The alternate, that PH DID know (and MP should have) would be an automatic scammer tag - as then PH would have misrepresented himself when making the contract.  You can't have it both ways - that PH didn't know but MP must have known.   So which is it?

[JoelKatz]

So what evidence did MP have to draw that conclusion when PH asserted the opposite?

The business model, the interest rate, and the existence of Pirate. That was all that was necessary.

What information was there about PH which meant any reasonable person would have concluded he was lieing or mistaken?  I was under the impression he had a fairly good reputation - what am I missing?  Didn't he do credit-ratings - suggesting he went far beyond normal due-diligence?

The business model was fundamentally broken. The only people who will borrow money at such absurdly high rates are those that are taking, or are, absurdly high risks. The existence of Pirate and the greater interest rate he was paying is sufficient information to conclude that people would borrow from Patrick to loan to Pirate and lie about it. The lack of enforceability in any court of law is sufficient to conclude that if the things people did with the loans went bad, they wouldn't be willing to take their own money to cover the losses. (As Patrick appears to be unwilling to do.)

Looking back after the facts and concluding "well it should have been obvious..." isn't much evidence of anything.  Is it really your assertion that ANY investment paying 1% per week (or whatever he was offering) back then MUST have been invested in pirate?  Was there NO alternative?  Was PH's reputation SO bad that he deserved NO credit for doing due diligence?

Yes. It's has nothing to do with PH's reputation. It has nothing to do with what he did or didn't do. It has to do with the simple fact that he was saying "X follows from A, B, and C" when it simply did not follow.

If you're going to assert that something was common knowledge (in this case that it was common knowledge that PH was invested directly or indirectly in pirate) then:

1.  You should prove it.

Search the forums. You'll see lots of people saying this. It is obvious. It was obvious.

2.  How come PH didn't know?  If he didn't know how can you reasonably assume MP must have?  Or are you saying he DID know?

I am saying that he, like all the people who loaned money to him or Pirate, had objectively unreasonable beliefs. They were deluded.

[You see, point 2 is the key one.  PH had MORE information than MP (deposit details).  If PH couldn't draw that conclusion it logically can't make sense to assert that someone in MP's position MUST have known it.  The alternate, that PH DID know (and MP should have) would be an automatic scammer tag - as then PH would have misrepresented himself when making the contract.  You can't have it both ways - that PH didn't know but MP must have known.   So which is it?

They both should have known. Neither knew.

They both drew the same incorrect conclusion. So did everyone who loaned money to Pirate. This was a case of common mistake from equal fault.

Why are you so resistant to holding people accountable for mistakes that cause harm?

[MPOE-PR]

With the amount outstanding if you are correct (BTC20K), I would not take such a hardline stance on your settlement of this debt.   I would be for sure, flexible on interest owed and just good judgement on the principle. 

You did take risk in investing in "his" investment strategy and investing in "him" as that principle for your BTC.  Maybe we just have different ideology on capital, investment and risk, I accept that.   But please believe, I am quite read on this subject, I am mean the old way of doing things, which I think was a much more fair and proper system (pre-1913).  I think keeping good communication with him and giving him time to dispatch his debt to you will serve your interest more that berating him on here as hard as you have.


Does anyone have a explanation on why his Guarantee did not meet his non-pirate exposed liabilities?   I assumed it is from deadbeat borrowers. 

Yes, this would be an ideological divide. Our position is firmly that contracts must be executed entirely as they are, and that no claim can be diminished post default, but only increased (and preferably significantly).

This may yield a higher rate of people who run off from their obligations, but on the long term it has the positive effect of limiting the total BTC lost to incompetence/malfeasance by excluding the incompetent and the malfeasant from the marketplace.

Your alternative point of view may seem reasonable, but this is only if you subscribe to a socialist view of the world (ie, we are all equal, we must all find a way to live together, we're not individuals but parts of a collective etc). These notions are not tenable on the Internet. We are not at all interested in helping the floundering, we are interested in cutting off the floundering as soon as practically possible so as to prevent them from bringing their disease upon others. A world of ten poor people is of no interest, a world of four rich people (even if their riches come at the expense of excluding six others) is what we're building.

The history of BTC world, short as it may be, seems to wholly support our position. In fact, all the failures so far can be traced to people instinctively (and, I dare say, uninformedly) taking a stance similar to yours.

[JoelKatz]

Our position is firmly that contracts must be executed entirely as they are, and that no claim can be diminished post default, but only increased (and preferably significantly).

That's an incoherent position for cases where the contract was based on a shared false belief.

Two people both believe that there are 1,500 pounds of cherries in a truck. They agree to exchange the 1,500 pounds of cherries in the truck for $5,000. It turns out, through equal fault, that they were mistaken and there are only 1,200 pounds of cherries in the truck. How can the contract be executed entirely as it is? Does the seller have to put 300 pounds more cherries in the truck? Or does the buyer have to take 1,200 pounds of cherries even though he agreed to take 1,500? Or what?

If a contract is based on a shared false belief, without which neither party would have entered into the contract, it's not possible to execute the contract as it is.

[MPOE-PR]

The business model, the interest rate, and the existence of Pirate. That was all that was necessary.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but MPBOR is at 9% a month atm, which comes to something like 2% a week.

[kakobrekla]

Two people both believe that there are 1,500 pounds of cherries in a truck. They agree to exchange the 1,500 pounds of cherries in the truck for $5,000. It turns out, through equal fault, that they were mistaken and there are only 1,200 pounds of cherries in the truck.

Aug 10 08:10:17 <patrickharnett>   in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that

In the event there is less than 1500 pounds of cherries on the truck, I have more than enough cherries to cover that, but if I don't - I will take your money?

[MPOE-PR]

Two people both believe that there are 1,500 pounds of cherries in a truck. They agree to exchange the 1,500 pounds of cherries in the truck for $5,000. It turns out, through equal fault, that they were mistaken and there are only 1,200 pounds of cherries in the truck.

Aug 10 08:10:17 <patrickharnett>   in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that

In the event there is less than 1500 pounds of cherries on the truck, I have more than enough cherries to cover that, but if I don't - I will take your money?

You don't understand, it's a common mistake. Why are you so resistant to lunacy?

[JoelKatz]

Two people both believe that there are 1,500 pounds of cherries in a truck. They agree to exchange the 1,500 pounds of cherries in the truck for $5,000. It turns out, through equal fault, that they were mistaken and there are only 1,200 pounds of cherries in the truck.

Aug 10 08:10:17 <patrickharnett>   in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that

In the event there is less than 1500 pounds of cherries on the truck, I have more than enough cherries to cover that, but if I don't - I will take your money?

No. If it turns out there aren't 1,500 pounds of cherries on the truck, then some equitable way has to be found to split the damages among the parties. If the money hasn't already changed hands and the cherries are still intact, it might make sense to just void the contract. But if some of the cherries have already been consumed or the parties have taken irreversible actions relying on the contract, then the harm done by the common mistake has to be divided fairly between the parties.

That's what I'm suggesting should happen here. Both parties made the same mistake which directly led to the harm and had the mistake not been made by both parties the contract wouldn't have existed,  so the harm should be divided fairly between the parties. I'm not proposing any specific division as fair, but 50/50 would be my default presumption. (Actually, if Patrick expected to get a greater share of the profits than those he borrowed from, it might be just to make him bear a greater share of the losses.)

[MPOE-PR]

No. If it turns out there aren't 1,500 pounds of cherries on the truck, then some equitable way has to be found to split the damages among the parties. If the money hasn't already changed hands and the cherries are still intact, it might make sense to just void the contract. But if some of the cherries have already been consumed or the parties have taken irreversible actions relying on the contract, then the harm done by the common mistake has to be divided fairly between the parties.

That's what I'm suggesting should happen here. Both parties made the same mistake which directly led to the harm, so the harm should be divided fairly between the parties. I'm not proposing any specific division as fair, but 50/50 would be my default presumption.

So basically you want to owe us half of the 1842.2613195 BTC, is that it?

[JoelKatz]

So basically you want to owe us half of the 1842.2613195 BTC, is that it?

I would never suggest taking the outputs of your delusions as the inputs of any process attempting to produce a fair result. GIGO and all that.

[MPOE-PR]

I would never suggest taking the outputs of your delusions as the inputs of any process attempting to produce a fair result. GIGO and all that.

Fascinating, because that's exactly the situation you find yourself in.

[Dalkore]

With the amount outstanding if you are correct (BTC20K), I would not take such a hardline stance on your settlement of this debt.   I would be for sure, flexible on interest owed and just good judgement on the principle. 

You did take risk in investing in "his" investment strategy and investing in "him" as that principle for your BTC.  Maybe we just have different ideology on capital, investment and risk, I accept that.   But please believe, I am quite read on this subject, I am mean the old way of doing things, which I think was a much more fair and proper system (pre-1913).  I think keeping good communication with him and giving him time to dispatch his debt to you will serve your interest more that berating him on here as hard as you have.


Does anyone have a explanation on why his Guarantee did not meet his non-pirate exposed liabilities?   I assumed it is from deadbeat borrowers. 

Yes, this would be an ideological divide. Our position is firmly that contracts must be executed entirely as they are, and that no claim can be diminished post default, but only increased (and preferably significantly).

This may yield a higher rate of people who run off from their obligations, but on the long term it has the positive effect of limiting the total BTC lost to incompetence/malfeasance by excluding the incompetent and the malfeasant from the marketplace.

Your alternative point of view may seem reasonable, but this is only if you subscribe to a socialist view of the world (ie, we are all equal, we must all find a way to live together, we're not individuals but parts of a collective etc). These notions are not tenable on the Internet. We are not at all interested in helping the floundering, we are interested in cutting off the floundering as soon as practically possible so as to prevent them from bringing their disease upon others. A world of ten poor people is of no interest, a world of four rich people (even if their riches come at the expense of excluding six others) is what we're building.

The history of BTC world, short as it may be, seems to wholly support our position. In fact, all the failures so far can be traced to people instinctively (and, I dare say, uninformedly) taking a stance similar to yours.

We are all social creatures,  in certain ways I am individualistic /deterministic and other ways I am more socialistic (ie: towards my family, friends and allies).   With the view that people that are floundering are a disease and people who do not flounder are preferred, I don't think you want to actual interact in a world where people in the mindset dominate.   Most people's "floundering" come from environments and systems they had no hand in making that have impaired them with reduce opportunity to operate.  

You should have more empathy towards that kind of human suffering unless you do not have the ability to show empathy.  

You speak of the history of Bitcoin, you may want to re-read this history.   As far as I can see, Satoshi made Bitcoin as an Alternative to our current monetary system that actually mirrors your " world of ten poor people is of no interest, a world of four rich people (even if their riches come at the expense of excluding six others) is what we're building." comment.  I care and respect for anyone who truly reciprocates that care and respect back.  That doesn't mean I think we are all equal, we all have different talents and traits.   I do believe in Justice, a fair Rule of Law and providing opportunity to all.

From your comments to be honest, you sound jaded, cynical and domineering (no disrespect, just follow-up on your opinion of me).

Thoughts on my comments other that my personal evaluation of your character visa-vie the internet, lol?  

[Deprived]

Two people both believe that there are 1,500 pounds of cherries in a truck. They agree to exchange the 1,500 pounds of cherries in the truck for $5,000. It turns out, through equal fault, that they were mistaken and there are only 1,200 pounds of cherries in the truck.

Aug 10 08:10:17 <patrickharnett>   in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that

In the event there is less than 1500 pounds of cherries on the truck, I have more than enough cherries to cover that, but if I don't - I will take your money?

No. If it turns out there aren't 1,500 pounds of cherries on the truck, then some equitable way has to be found to split the damages among the parties. If the money hasn't already changed hands and the cherries are still intact, it might make sense to just void the contract. But if some of the cherries have already been consumed or the parties have taken irreversible actions relying on the contract, then the harm done by the common mistake has to be divided fairly between the parties.

That's what I'm suggesting should happen here. Both parties made the same mistake which directly led to the harm and had the mistake not been made by both parties the contract wouldn't have existed,  so the harm should be divided fairly between the parties. I'm not proposing any specific division as fair, but 50/50 would be my default presumption. (Actually, if Patrick expected to get a greater share of the profits than those he borrowed from, it might be just to make him bear a greater share of the losses.)

You're repeating the same fallacy again and again.  The two cases aren't remotely similar.

In the cherries case either:

1.  Both parties can (or have) verify the contents of the truck (e.g. they're standing by it) - both equally at fault,
2.  Neither party can (or have) verify the contents of the truck (truck in neither of their possession) - contract void.

In this case PH, as you specifically pointed out, PH's assertion was:

"in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that"

Only PH can verify what his assets are - MP can't.

Going back to the cherry case, that makes the actual analogy:

PH: I have a truck with 1500 pounds of cherries on to sell you.
MP: Are there really 1500 pounds of cherries on it?
PH: Yes.
MP: OK I'll buy the truck.

Some months Later.

PH: About that truck ...  The truck's bust and turns out it had 5 pounds of bananas in it not any cherries.  So you can't have the money you paid me back as you should have known I couldn't possibly have any cherries.

At no stage was MP shown the truck - but made the deal assuming PH acted in good faith and knew what in his truck.  The above is YOUR argument, not one PH himself has made btw.

Now you're arguing that everyone knew PH only grew bananas so anyone who tried to buy cherries off him is as much at fault as he was for trying to sell them and for not looking inside his own truck that noone else had access to.

The saddest thing about your little argument is that PH himself seems to accept that he owes the funds - and hence that the error was his.  Not once does he appear to argue that his own incompetence (by YOUR definition - as he apparently couldnt reach a conclusion that you believe everyone else with less information could reach) negates the debt he owes or alters the fact that he's in default.

And no - both parties did NOT make the same mistake.  PH's mistake was not properly evaluating his OWN investments to ensure they were pirate-free - compounded by asserting that to obtain new business.  MP's mistake was believing PH's assertion.  If someone portrays themselves as competent in an area (in this case, assessing the viability of loans) then subsequent evidence that they weren't as competent as they liked to think doesn't remove from them their contractual obligations just because "well, everyone should have known he was wrong."

You can't have a common mistake where only one party is in a position to ascertain the relevant facts and the second party relies on an assertion from the first party.  Your example very carefully avoids the issue of who has possession of the truck/cherries and whether either/both parties have looked into it.  Written more clearly your example would clarify that PH owned the truck and asserted that he had verified its contents.  Moreover his "in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that" is analogous to a claim of "even if the truck is empty I have enough cherries to give you yours anyway."

It's a terrible analogy backing up an even worse argument.