Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett

[SgtSpike]

Well put Deprived.

I am not sure why JoelKatz believes his arguments are logical, much less even slightly tenable.

[MPOE-PR]

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

This is about money. Let us not mix things, because contrary to what you might think the reason fiat failed is exactly an attempt to mix them.

If you want to show empathy go ahead and donate, help someone, whatever. Do not attempt to ruin the workings of the economy, because in the end that just spells disaster (and for a good discussion on the why and wherefores, even if somewhat remote, see "It's not yours to give" Davy Crockett bit).

And incidentally, we happen to be the only Bitcoin business with an actual, regular CSR program. We've donated to numerous worthy causes, it's all in the monthly P&L statements. You seem to be arguing against the dirt of mud from inside the swamp or something like that.

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.  

The problem here is that I speak of the history as it is and you speak of the mythology as you imagine and interpret it.

In point of fact the historical events are Peter Lambert, Pirate, Meni Rosenfeld (with Bitdaytrade), Kludge, Nefario, the fifty-odd scams perpetrated under the GLBSE umbrella and so on. The cause of those (or, in some cases, the main compounding factor) was exactly this mistaken socialist attitude.

What Satoshi intended or didn't intend is a point of conjecture. I can just as well say he created Bitcoin specifically to nip in the bud even the hope of your attitude ever reaching cultural relevance again. I happen to believe this is exactly true. What difference does it make?

I do believe in Justice, a fair Rule of Law and providing opportunity to all.

This is fine and not something anyone disputes. You further [seem to] believe that "providing opportunity" is something that you are allowed to do by stealing from those who do well to prop those who do poorly. This is certainly unacceptable, and provably what Bitcoin was made to destroy.

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.

So to use your cherries example: someone agreed to sell one truck with 5k lbs of cherries to be delivered at a specified location at a specified time, and someone agreed to buy same. The buyer paid the seller on the spot. At time of delivery, seller informs buyer that a) there's only 4500 lbs of cherries in the truck and b) the truck is "somewhere in Argentina" but will be making it towards the specified location "as best it can".

Well duh.

I am inclined to think augustocrappo is inclined to think something novel and interesting which he'll share with us presently.

[JoelKatz]

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"

My core contention is that both parties are equally at fault for their mistaken belief that Patrick's business model, fully understood by both parties, was fundamentally sound.

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

There's no evidence Patrick ever misrepresented his assets. Both sides knew what they were -- high interest Bitcoin loans to people who swore they weren't borrowing money to loan to Pirate. That was sufficient information to realize there was likely to be huge correlated risk, yet neither party did. Outsiders realized this.

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."

MP didn't believe PH's assertion. MP reached the same conclusion from substantially the same information.

Aug 10 08:10:56 <mircea_popescu>   well that works. i'd like to put 500 bitcoins with you

Patrick's methodology wasn't a secret. Outsiders realized that his belief that there was little correlated risk couldn't be true.

You are saying that Patrick's mistake is that he didn't do the impossible. I am saying Patrick's mistake was that he believed the impossible.

[smoothie]

@OP,

You got fucked.

Micon was warning people of Patrick yet you still invested with him. It's your loss and fault. I'm not even sure why we have a scammer subforum for requesting tags. In all fairness to people who invested requesting a scammer tag be given to another user, you, by DEFAULT, should get a DUMBASS tag on their account.

 

[augustocroppo]

I am inclined to think augustocrappo is inclined to think something novel and interesting which he'll share with us presently.

I am not the self-proclaimed business man which made a deposit without require a signed contract...

That novel is yours and only yours.

By the way, would please a moderator report if a decision was settled? The scammer tag is going to be issued or not?

[repentance]

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?

I'm curious about which jurisdiction you think this contract exists in, because you're sure as shit not going to get an award of punitive/exemplary damages under NZ law.  Nor are you going to get an award for full costs (typically, only about 60-70% of actual costs are covered in a judgement where costs are awarded in Australia and NZ).

I don't agree with Joel's reasoning, but you're dreaming if you think that a NZ court would award you the amount you're trying to claim you're owed.

[MPOE-PR]

Patrick's methodology wasn't a secret. Outsiders realized that his belief that there was little correlated risk couldn't be true.

Outsiders to Bitcoin in general - such as yourself - make all sorts of basically stupid but otherwise wild claims. The fact that they make them rends them no particular validity.

The "that works" in that quote works as follows:

PH: Hi, I would like to paint your house for a fee.
MP: Are you able to paint houses without doing them damage? Specifically, set them on fire?
PH: That doesn't matter because if I damage your house to any degree I will pay for it, up to the extent of the house's full value.
MP: That works, go ahead.

"That works" means that the respondent offered something substantially different from what was sought that is considered nevertheless to satisfy the original point. In this case, MP's concerns about PH's loans were put at ease by PH's universal and unconditional undertaking to repay (personally) in any event.

This is what "the business model wasn't part of the agreement" quote of mine before means: it was not, because what had originally started as a discussion of that was averted by Patrick's reply.

I'm curious about which jurisdiction you think this contract exists in, because you're sure as shit not going to get an award of punitive/exemplary damages under NZ law.  Nor are you going to get an award for full costs (typically, only about 60-70% of actual costs are covered in a judgement where costs are awarded in Australia and NZ).

I don't agree with Joel's reasoning, but you're dreaming if you think that a NZ court would award you the amount you're trying to claim you're owed.

Our position is that this contract exists in BTC world. We're obviously (all of us) still working out how BTC world contracts work. The demand is obviously nonsense, nobody has the authority to award damages in BTC world, so the point is factually moot.

However, since JoelKatz's delusions reached the point of setting numeric percentages (randomly 40%, later randomly 50%, all this of course fully backed by the imaginary legions of "everyone" surrounding him in his mind) I figured it can't hurt anything to set a counterclaim, as an example. It's not to be taken out of the context of talking to that lunatic, and it's not intended as anything else than illustrative for that context.

[Chang Hum]

There seems to be a whole lot of meaningless blabla going on in this thread when action (or not) is needed I think somebody should set fire to Patrick's house or just leave it and let him payback like he's agreed as you handed over a non reversible digital currency to a foreigner in the first place.

[repentance]

Our position is that this contract exists in BTC world. We're obviously (all of us) still working out how BTC world contracts work. The demand is obviously nonsense, nobody has the authority to award damages in BTC world, so the point is factually moot.

To the extent that they would not be enforceable in whole or in part in the real world, Bitcoin contracts pretty much exist only by mutual consent.  I know that everyone likes to take the "Wild West, different rules, blah, blah, blah" line but I think that doing so not only leads to absurd over-valuations, it also encourages total paralysis when shit goes wrong and to some extent it discourages realistic recovery arrangements.

I think that Patrick's real world occupation and his experience in the energy derivatives market created a perception that he was or should have been aware of the strong possibility of correlated risk to a far greater extent than the other PPT operators.  I think that people made the assumption that "Patrick knows what he's doing" in large part because of his extensive experience in high risk markets where correlated risk has caused spectacular collapse in the past (Enron anyone?).

[JoelKatz]

Patrick's methodology wasn't a secret. Outsiders realized that his belief that there was little correlated risk couldn't be true.

Outsiders to Bitcoin in general - such as yourself - make all sorts of basically stupid but otherwise wild claims. The fact that they make them rends them no particular validity.

It's clear that you are absolutely determined not to learn anything from this fiasco. I hope others are not so stubborn. Your complaint is that Patrick did not do the impossible and you fail to take any responsibility for failing to realize that this is what you were expecting him to do.

[MPOE-PR]

It's clear that you are absolutely determined not to learn anything from this fiasco. I hope others are not so stubborn. Your complaint is that Patrick did not do the impossible and you fail to take any responsibility for failing to realize that this is what you were expecting him to do.

Should those "others" happen to include you, please learn the pecking order. You don't come to tell me what's what.

[Chang Hum]

OK i'll do it $2000 dollars!! (bitcoin only)

[SgtSpike]

Patrick's methodology wasn't a secret. Outsiders realized that his belief that there was little correlated risk couldn't be true.

Outsiders to Bitcoin in general - such as yourself - make all sorts of basically stupid but otherwise wild claims. The fact that they make them rends them no particular validity.

It's clear that you are absolutely determined not to learn anything from this fiasco. I hope others are not so stubborn. Your complaint is that Patrick did not do the impossible and you fail to take any responsibility for failing to realize that this is what you were expecting him to do.

It doesn't matter whether it was impossible to fully determine the risk - what matters is that Patrick is responsible for shouldering the risk because nothing in writing stated otherwise.  And because Patrick did not fully disclose all of the information that would have made the extent of the risk "common" knowledge, it cannot fall under the "common mistake" rules that you keep coming back to.

[MPOE-PR]

It doesn't matter whether it was impossible to fully determine the risk - what matters is that Patrick is responsible for shouldering the risk because nothing in writing stated otherwise.  And because Patrick did not fully disclose all of the information that would have made the extent of the risk "common" knowledge, it cannot fall under the "common mistake" rules that you keep coming back to.

I find it particularly telling that he repeats ceaselessly that 1% a week is "the impossible" but completely ignored the obvious point that the MPBOR is twice that atm.

This is much like saying that paying half the LIBOR is "the impossible" in fiat. BS.

[SgtSpike]

It doesn't matter whether it was impossible to fully determine the risk - what matters is that Patrick is responsible for shouldering the risk because nothing in writing stated otherwise.  And because Patrick did not fully disclose all of the information that would have made the extent of the risk "common" knowledge, it cannot fall under the "common mistake" rules that you keep coming back to.

I find it particularly telling that he repeats ceaselessly that 1% a week is "the impossible" but completely ignored the obvious point that the MPBOR is twice that atm.

This is much like saying that paying half the LIBOR is "the impossible" in fiat. BS.

Agreed.

I mean, heck, payday lenders charge upwards of 900% APR on a one week loan.  Which, broken down to a week, equates to what, 2.5% weekly interest rate or so?

1% interest per week doesn't make it obvious that it was part of a pirate passthrough scheme.  It wasn't obvious then, and it's not obvious now (as proven by MPBOR).

[JoelKatz]

It doesn't matter whether it was impossible to fully determine the risk - what matters is that Patrick is responsible for shouldering the risk because nothing in writing stated otherwise.  And because Patrick did not fully disclose all of the information that would have made the extent of the risk "common" knowledge, it cannot fall under the "common mistake" rules that you keep coming back to.

I find it particularly telling that he repeats ceaselessly that 1% a week is "the impossible" but completely ignored the obvious point that the MPBOR is twice that atm.

This is much like saying that paying half the LIBOR is "the impossible" in fiat. BS.

Was Patrick's business model sound or not, in your view? Why do you think his business collapsed?

I mean, heck, payday lenders charge upwards of 900% APR on a one week loan.  Which, broken down to a week, equates to what, 2.5% weekly interest rate or so?

They take huge risks, and they know it. And they have the force of law to go after people who don't pay them.

[Dalkore]

@ MPOE-PR - Ok, I agree with you on a few points.


1.  Yes this is about money

2.  No, we should not steal from others to give opportunity to others, but on the other hand, we do not live in a bubble so you do owe something back to the system that created your opportunity to prosper

3.  Able people should be making able decisions.



Question:  What I don't understand then is this, did you think this was truly a "risk-free" asset?  You were not depositing your BTC for safe keeping with him.  You knew that he was doing "something" with your BTC to generate profits to pay the advertised interest rate.   You didn't know what he was doing with it, but you knew it had risk.      What do you feel was the risk you were taking on to capture these profits?  What I don't understand is why your taking such a hardline stance and not working with him to get paid back?  Getting him a scammer tag will affect his reputation and may impact his ability to collect on the debts he is owed.   It seem counter-productive for someone who wants to get paid back unless you have another motive in mind when you made such a large deposit?  

[SgtSpike]

It doesn't matter whether it was impossible to fully determine the risk - what matters is that Patrick is responsible for shouldering the risk because nothing in writing stated otherwise.  And because Patrick did not fully disclose all of the information that would have made the extent of the risk "common" knowledge, it cannot fall under the "common mistake" rules that you keep coming back to.

I find it particularly telling that he repeats ceaselessly that 1% a week is "the impossible" but completely ignored the obvious point that the MPBOR is twice that atm.

This is much like saying that paying half the LIBOR is "the impossible" in fiat. BS.

Was Patrick's business model sound or not, in your view? Why do you think his business collapsed?

I mean, heck, payday lenders charge upwards of 900% APR on a one week loan.  Which, broken down to a week, equates to what, 2.5% weekly interest rate or so?

They take huge risks, and they know it. And they have the force of law to go after people who don't pay them.

Well yeah.  That's why they charge a high interest rate.  No one is disputing that high interest rates generally correlate with risky investments.  What people are disputing is your insistence that a relatively high interest rate made it obvious that the funds Patrick invested in were investing in Pirate.  That is simply not true.  If I would have looked at a 1% weekly payout investment prior to the whole pirate debacle, I might have suspected that it was invested in Pirate, but it would have not been at all "obvious" as you claim.

Perhaps you are simply more insightful than the rest of us.  But just because something is obvious to you and a handful of other outspoken forum members does not make it obvious to everyone, nor does it make it "common knowledge" of any sort.

[MPOE-PR]

you do owe something back to the system that created your opportunity to prosper

Yes. Miner fees.

What do you feel was the risk you were taking on to capture these profits?

You are aware I'm just the spokesperson, right?

What I don't understand is why your taking such a hardline stance and not working with him to get paid back?  

Matter of policy. As explained afore, negotiating with scammers makes no sense.

such a large deposit?  

According to PatrickHarnett himself, it was by no means a large deposit at all, let alone such a large one.

[Deprived]

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

There's no evidence Patrick ever misrepresented his assets. Both sides knew what they were -- high interest Bitcoin loans to people who swore they weren't borrowing money to loan to Pirate. That was sufficient information to realize there was likely to be huge correlated risk, yet neither party did. Outsiders realized this

You really just don't get it, do you?

1.  MP didn't know who PH's customers were.
2.  Those customers swore they weren't invested in pirate to PH, not to MP - more accurately, MP took PH's word that they'd said such - as MP COULD NOT verify that due to 1.
3.  PH had responsibility to assess the credibility of his customers' claims not to be invested in pirate because a) They were his customers,  b) MP couldn't due to 1.

If you accept the above then the following is each party's degree of knowledge:

PH had either been told (or not told) by his customers that they weren't invested in pirate.
PH either did or did not do due diligence on those customers.

MP knew that PH claimed he was satisfied that his customers weren't invested in pirate.

MP's knowledge about the specific investments was limited to ONLY what PH divulged.  There's no equality of information there.

Your argument then gos back to its default state which is:

"Everyone knew PH was invested indirectly in pirate"
"PH didn't know he was invested in pirate"
"MP didn't know PH was invested in pirate"

It's blatantly obvious that the first of those three statements directly contradicts the last two.  That lots of others also invested in PH also disproves your key assertion (that it was common knowledge PH was at risk to pirate exposure) - as noone who wanted pirate exposure would have invested at 1% per week.

Not only is your argument logically inconsistent ("everyone knew X",  "Except the people who had the most interest in knowing X", "And specifically except the only person who COULD know X"), it's also totally irrelevant anyway.  At no stage has PH claimed he should be released from his obligations because "everyone who invested must have known I was exposed to pirate so should take a massive haircut if they ever get paid back as their ignorance trumps my incompetence.".

Seems to me like PH made some errors of judgment, was unable to fulfil his commitments, still accepts he has those commitments but is unable/unwilling to resolve them in any sort of timely manner.  As such there's no point him posting here - as he isn't disputing any of MP's facts or what he owes.  If policy was consistent then I'd actually expect him to get a tag about same time after default as nefario did (both broke an off-forum agreement - more clearly tbh in PH's case).  Both have reasons outside their own control why they believed they had no choice but to break existing agreements.  Both, arguably, should have known that risk existed (in PH's case by properly doing due diligence on how his customers were using their loans).  Luckily for PH I don't think any of his victims are mods - so he's probably safe.