Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett

[Coinoisseur]

Pretty sure JoelKatz is arguing that the mutual idea that bitcoin loans of the sort Patrick was making could be free of significant Pirateat40 risk did create a situation where "the misunderstanding essentially resulted in an agreement that is impossible to carry out."

Yes, and I was pointing out that legal or factual impossibility is a much more narrow concept than that.  The fact that you happen to have run out of money due to mismanagement is not impossibility, but merely difficulty.  Impossibility is something like agreeing to build a house on a barrier island that just got washed away by a hurricane, that is, something outright impossible.

Low risk very high interest pseudononymous loans made using a medium of value impervious to direct clawback looks a lot like trying to build that house on that washed away barrier island.

[MPOE-PR]

Except in that thread Badbear (Moderator) is requesting info...

Yeah. He did the same here, page 3 iirc. A WEEK AGO.

It's what he does.

Low risk very high interest pseudononymous loans made using a medium of value impervious to direct clawback looks a lot like trying to build that house on that washed away barrier island.

So you will never ever ask for a loan. That's entirely your problem.

[Namworld]

Pretty sure JoelKatz is arguing that the mutual idea that bitcoin loans of the sort Patrick was making could be free of significant Pirateat40 risk did create a situation where "the misunderstanding essentially resulted in an agreement that is impossible to carry out."

In a round about way he's referring to all the warnings given in these very forums regarding the dangerous situation created by having such high interest instruments being traded on the wrong-headed presumption that they carried a low default risk.

Yes, but when Patrick claims he accepts deposit and that:
- You can withdraw anytime
- You'll be paid x% interest
- I am slightly or free of pirate debt exposure

People are accepting to lend him funds based on the premise that he'll deliver each of those claims. They are not making a statement that any of those claims are inherently true.

Buyer - I want to make a pirate free exposure deposit.
Seller - I am not exposed to pirate.
Buyer - Perfect, here's the deposit.
Seller - I am actually exposed to pirate and cannot deliver the deposit back. We should share the loss since we both thought I was not exposed. (False)

Buyer - I want a washing machine.
Seller - I have a washing machine in this box.
Buyer - Perfect, here's the deposit.
Seller - Sorry, it seems I actually had a dryer packaged in that box and cannot deliver. Since I already shipped, we should share the lost on that cost since we both believed a washing machine was being sent. (False)

When you accept a claim issued by one side of the contract, you don't claim it to be true or guaranteed. You agree that you WANT that claim executed/delivered in exchange of the funds.

To be a common mistake, the depositor would have had to authoritatively guarantee/tell Patrick that HIS operation was free of pirate exposure and that he was able to repay or led Patrick to believe it was also the case. I have yet to see a depositor make that claim. There is a huge difference between accepting one party's claim and conjointly making the same claim.

[MPOE-PR]

To be a common mistake, the depositor would have had to guarantee/tell Patrick that HIS operation was free of pirate exposure and that he was able to repay. I have yet to see a depositor make that claim.

Indeed. Something tells me this obvious point will just be ignored and we'll hear a repeat of the Stupid Gospel.

[Coinoisseur]

There is a difference between owing someone and being a scammer. As darkmule pointed out it's rare to have all responsibility absolved, and I don't see justification for it in this case. Scammer in this instance would mean Patrick KNEW he had significant Pirate risk while making the declarations that he felt he was diversified.

I do think the forum needs an "In Default" tag.

[MPOE-PR]

There is a difference between owing someone and being a scammer. As darkmule pointed out it's rare to have all responsibility absolved, and I don't see justification for it in this case. Scammer in this instance would mean Patrick KNEW he had significant Pirate risk while making the declarations that he felt he was diversified.

I do think the forum needs an "In Default" tag.

Right, diversionary tactic #1, "lie and repeat and repeat and repeat maybe it drowns everyone" is a dead horse by now. Diversionary tactic #2 failed, mostly because nobody wants to associate themselves with the poisonous actions of Global Scam Exchange shareholder noagendamarket aka bitcoin.me. Moving right along to Diversionary tactic #3, "lying in contracts is not lying, it's just "default", which is not lying."

I wish you luck. And maybe some sense to go with it.

[Namworld]

Ah, but he does not receive a scammer tag for being in debt when there's no bad faith. He would get one because he operated as himself and that it is his personal debt and that himself has personal funds but of course won't reduce his lifestyle significantly to repay his debt. Which would technically make it a scam for refusing to depart with his assets to repay his debt which he claimed he would honor instantly.

It's purely technical. As long as he recover funds or repays it out of his pocket over time, I'm fine with it. But he willingly goes against one of his claim which would technically deserve a scammer tag. (It's his personal debt and he does not allow instant withdrawal/full repayment, even if he has personal assets to spare.)

[bitlover]

So what exactly do you need to do around these lands to get a scammer tag? Send a video from the Bahamas while drinking a pina colada with a little umbrella that says "Haha! I scammed you, you gullible idiots"?

I mean, seriously? Do you guys want a signed, notarized meas-culpa, written in blood?

[davout]

So what exactly do you need to do around these lands to get a scammer tag? Send a video from the Bahamas while drinking a pina colada with a little umbrella that says "Haha! I scammed you, you gullible idiots"?

Apparently yes

[Dalkore]

So what exactly do you need to do around these lands to get a scammer tag? Send a video from the Bahamas while drinking a pina colada with a little umbrella that says "Haha! I scammed you, you gullible idiots"?

I mean, seriously? Do you guys want a signed, notarized meas-culpa, written in blood?

Love it when the Jr. members pop up with these comments.   Where do they come from?   

[stochastic]

So what exactly do you need to do around these lands to get a scammer tag? Send a video from the Bahamas while drinking a pina colada with a little umbrella that says "Haha! I scammed you, you gullible idiots"?

I mean, seriously? Do you guys want a signed, notarized meas-culpa, written in blood?

No you just have to be an idiot and make the forum administrators lose bitcoins.  If you are popular and can claim ignorance, then you are free to scam.

[BCB]

my experience here is that mods will gladly apply the scammer tag when it is clear one user defrauded another.

It's not so clear cut when you make a bad investment choices. 

That's your problem.

[Namworld]

The question at hand is that Patrick did not honor some promises he made although he can still reimburse more. The debt for the deposits is his, regardless of what he do with the funds afterward. He did not present it as an investment/co-venture.

He offered to pay people X% interest on funds extended to him. He stopped although he still has personal assets he could pay his debt with.

Patrick did not deliver on his claims, so he's not entitled to the deposits. He's now in debt and yet will not pay personally for his debt.

All deposits should be regarded as loaned funds. Can you provide any evidence that it was clear an investment was being made and that people were not lending him funds on that % he offered on deposits? The way he presented things seems to indicate he was borrowing funds to run his loaning business and offered X% on balances, just like deposits at a bank. That Patrick's investments went bad does not concern the depositor, just as a bank's investments would not. Patrick/the Bank fully own the debt.

The issue is now that he guaranteed withdrawal, still has personal wealth, and willingly refuse to dispose of it to reimburse his personal debt.

[Zeeks]

So what exactly do you need to do around these lands to get a scammer tag? Send a video from the Bahamas while drinking a pina colada with a little umbrella that says "Haha! I scammed you, you gullible idiots"?

I mean, seriously? Do you guys want a signed, notarized meas-culpa, written in blood?

Love it when the Jr. members pop up with these comments.   Where do they come from?   

I can only speak for myself but I found my way to this subforum because of the name on the forum list. "Scams?" I thought, "Better take a look at that especially since I am considering ideas for a site based around visitors using Bitcoins."

Now I have read back many pages of the Scam forum and a great many threads and threads referenced from those threads as well as outside sources. What I have found is a community which seems to almost foster scamming and defaulting because by the time any action is taken (in this case the token "SCAMMER" tag) it is always far too late and the person is gone with all the money they are going to take. Furthermore, whenever it is someone who has been very active in the community is called into question even with an open and shut example of being extremely shady and deserving of the sole punishment around here there is always someone posting nonstop in the thread to muddy things up just like Joel has done in this one. It also has seemingly been a member of the forum staff in the past in an effort to shift any blame away from themselves.

As a whole this has sort of opened my eyes and I am rethinking how I will approach any Bitcoin endeavours. I am now thinking that any site I work on in my spare time ought to live on the backburner until the community surrounding this very technologically interesting currency matures a bit more and is willing to stop being so welcoming to scams, extremely shoddy business ethics and cronyism. After all, there is plenty of that in the offline world and I don't see the need to get invested with Bitcoins just to double dip my exposure to such things.

[MPOE-PR]

Ah, but he does not receive a scammer tag for being in debt when there's no bad faith. He would get one because he operated as himself and that it is his personal debt and that himself has personal funds but of course won't reduce his lifestyle significantly to repay his debt. Which would technically make it a scam for refusing to depart with his assets to repay his debt which he claimed he would honor instantly.

It's purely technical. As long as he recover funds or repays it out of his pocket over time, I'm fine with it. But he willingly goes against one of his claim which would technically deserve a scammer tag. (It's his personal debt and he does not allow instant withdrawal/full repayment, even if he has personal assets to spare.)

"Technical"...well, everything's technical, what else is there, religious? No ty.

The guy lied to get money. Once he got the money he disappeared. What more is there?

[MPOE-PR]

I can only speak for myself but I found my way to this subforum because of the name on the forum list. "Scams?" I thought, "Better take a look at that especially since I am considering ideas for a site based around visitors using Bitcoins."

Now I have read back many pages of the Scam forum and a great many threads and threads referenced from those threads as well as outside sources. What I have found is a community which seems to almost foster scamming and defaulting because by the time any action is taken (in this case the token "SCAMMER" tag) it is always far too late and the person is gone with all the money they are going to take. Furthermore, whenever it is someone who has been very active in the community is called into question even with an open and shut example of being extremely shady and deserving of the sole punishment around here there is always someone posting nonstop in the thread to muddy things up just like Joel has done in this one. It also has seemingly been a member of the forum staff in the past in an effort to shift any blame away from themselves.

As a whole this has sort of opened my eyes and I am rethinking how I will approach any Bitcoin endeavours. I am now thinking that any site I work on in my spare time ought to live on the backburner until the community surrounding this very technologically interesting currency matures a bit more and is willing to stop being so welcoming to scams, extremely shoddy business ethics and cronyism. After all, there is plenty of that in the offline world and I don't see the need to get invested with Bitcoins just to double dip my exposure to such things.

There's people with deep pockets and there's real business going on in BTC land. You just have to sift through all the crap.

[Coinoisseur]

Zeeks, I'm not sure how you could read more than a few posts in Scam Accusations without noticing how the scammed have often taken no measures to protect their investments. Would you hand $500 cash to a guy at Starbucks in a trench coat and a Guy Fawkes mask because he promises to mail you $600? If you do and you never get the $600 then yes that person was a scammer but it's not the fault of Starbucks for letting the guy into their establishment. "Hey Starbucks you should ban trenchcoats and guy fawkes masks!" Ok, they do. But you lose $500 the next week from a guy in a hawaiian shirt and not sure if real Magnum P.I. mustache...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121119.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124195.0

[Namworld]

Zeeks, I'm not sure how you could read more than a few posts in Scam Accusations without noticing how the scammed have often taken no measures to protect their investments. Would you hand $500 cash to a guy at Starbucks in a trench coat and a Guy Fawkes mask because he promises to mail you $600? If you do and you never get the $600 then yes that person was a scammer but it's not the fault of Starbucks for letting the guy into their establishment. "Hey Starbucks you should ban trenchcoats and guy fawkes masks!" Ok, they do. But you lose $500 the next week from a guy in a hawaiian shirt and not sure if real Magnum P.I. mustache...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121119.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124195.0

No, but they (the forum) should ban the one who went away with the money. Not people being similar to that person...

[Coinoisseur]

I am now thinking that any site I work on in my spare time ought to live on the backburner until the community surrounding this very technologically interesting currency matures a bit more and is willing to stop being so welcoming to scams, extremely shoddy business ethics and cronyism. After all, there is plenty of that in the offline world and I don't see the need to get invested with Bitcoins just to double dip my exposure to such things.

Was referring to this. ^

I definitely think this particular scammer request is a lot more grey than the Kraken Fund one. Might as well give all the PPT operators scammer tags, even those that were very clear they take no responsibility from the get go. Their defaults are just as opaque as Patrick's. Given there is currently not a "Debtor" or "In Default" tag it probably is for the best to slap a scarlet scammer on it all.

Edit: Also he seems to be dodging answering any questions in regards to his various dealings. Something else he shares with other questionable operators.

[repentance]

So what exactly do you need to do around these lands to get a scammer tag? Send a video from the Bahamas while drinking a pina colada with a little umbrella that says "Haha! I scammed you, you gullible idiots"?

Pretty much.