Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett

[Namworld]

The doctor's lawyer seems to agree with me about common mistake in contracts because your doctor ended up doing the opposite.

There wasn't a common mistake in that case at all. The doctor represented that he had knowledge that I didn't have that led him to conclude that the insurance would pay for it. I had no way to check his reasoning. The point of that example is to see that you can't stop at the contract -- because my prior agreement with the doctor made me responsible for any costs the insurance wouldn't pay, his false representation (one I had no way to check nor any reason to doubt) damaged me.

This case is totally different -- Patrick substantially explained the reason he reached the conclusion he did, gave all the information needed to verify it, and she agreed with his reasoning even though it was obviously incorrect. The whole point of the discussion was to protect against indirect Pirate exposure and they agreed that if that Patrick had no direct Pirate exposure, that somehow meant there was no indirect exposure.

--------------
Well indeed there is a double argument from Patrick

Patrick says that:

(Situation) - If BS&T defaults,
(Claim) - I can cover your deposit
(Argument for the result) - Because he has enough assets to cover it  (False, were found to not have the value Patrick thought)
   (Sub argument) - Mainly because he is not invested in BS&T

Doctor says that:

(Situation) - If you proceed with the test,
(Claim) - You won't pay for it
(Argument for the result) - Because the insurer will pay for it (False, he did not pay as the doctor thought.)
  (Probable sub argument that he did not disclosed, it does make a difference) - Because I recall this insurer insuring this test

In Patrick case's, YES the depositors should have been VERY wary of the sub argument as it was fully disclosed because it was dubious that his claim is true. But it is not a common mistake because the depositor for Patrick or you with your doctor neither made any claim to the effect that what the other party claimed was factual and a requirement for the contract. They have to make the same claim.

--------------

As I stated, what was agreed upon and claimed by Patrick is that Patrick:
- Accept deposits
- Pay X% on deposit
- Can cover the deposits

The arguments are purely for convincing the other party as to why the party is confident in his claims he promised you and as to why you should proceed with what the party offers you (To make a deposit/To make the test). The arguments brought forward are not contractual clauses required for the contract to be valid. In either case, nor the Doctor or Patrick or you or the depositor say the claim will be executed IF the argument holds to be found true/sufficient to guarantee the promise. Which would then be a contractual clause that it is required if they insisted the claimed would be delivered upon IF another specific scenario holds to be true.

Arguments are purely a convincing mechanisms that even if true, do not guarantee the claim to be executable.

Suppose this:
A borrower wants to loan 20000$ at 14% yearly interest. The lender asks him why he should grant him the loan. The borrower arguments, without making false statements, that:
 - I have a good credit rating. (true)
 - I have a stable job. (true)
 - I have enough assets to cover the loan should problems arise. (true)

The lender answers by "fair enough, works for me, I'll grant you the loan". Yet the arguments do not make the clause that the borrower will repay true.

The borrower default on his debt and insist you share the loss on the premise that there is a common mistake because he did not lie and both expected his arguments to be true which they were and deemed sufficient to grant the loan/contract and that now the loss is irrecoverable, so the loss is to be shared. The borrower keep his current lifestyle and doesn't depart with his non-essential possession to pay his debt just as Patrick did although he said he could cover the deposit.


You would be able to void full responsibility on any contract's clauses if you ever made any argument that was true yet didn't guarantee the clauses because the other party was convinced by those arguments. (The other party never said those arguments were required to be true to execute the contract or were what guaranteed the promise made by the borrower. They merely agree to be convinced by those arguments.)

As you said, Mircea agreed with Patrick's reasoning. A bank might have agreed with the borrowers's reasoning. It does not imply that neither agree that the arguments absolutely makes the claim possible and is 100% correct all the time. Just that they were convinced that the borrowers could reasonably be expected to be able to deliver his claim based on those arguments.

If the borrower gave an extremely ridiculous argument that he could repay because "His dog is brown (True)", you wouldn't have made a common mistake. You would have put yourself in the situation. You would have been incredibly stupid to be convinced by such a statement. But you did not made a common mistake as per contract law. The borrower is fully obligated to repay the loan because that's what he claimed he would do repay it and neither party added a sub-clause that this repayment was directly dependent on "His dog being brown" making "Repayment of the loan" possible.

The people who gave Patrick his funds made a risk misjudgement when they got convinced by his arguments. They did not make a common mistake.

--------------

A common mistake requires both parties to make a factual claim to be considered a common mistake. Not one party making a claim and the other accepting the claim or accepting the arguments for that claim as convincing.

I gave an excellent example:
Buyer: I need cherries delivered in Washington. Can you deliver in Washington?
Supplier: Yes, I deliver anywhere in Washington.
Buyer: Perfect. *Pay's right away*
*Supplier imports cherries right away.*
Supplier: I have your cherries ready. What is your address?

Upon which the seller and the buyer realize the supplier is in the state of Washington and can only deliver there, and that the buyer lives in Washington D.C. and that the cherries would be impossible to deliver as planned considering the supplier's means to deliver which do not currently extend outside of the state of Washington.

There is common mistake when both parties made the claim to each other and each parties accepted it from each other, but the claim is not precise enough or is false for both. There is a common claim but also a common mistake as to what that premise making the contract executable means and it renders the contract impossible to execute as a result. There is no such common mistake in Patrick's case.

--------------

I stress again that I am in no way saying the depositors didn't make the mistake of more or less blindly listening to Patrick. I am in no way saying that they didn't put themselves in that situation by lending somewhat carelessly to someone they assumed to be trustable. Because they made that mistake and are now in this situation. This situation would hardly be enforceable in court in any case.

I am not shifting blame away from depositors or that they didn't make bad decisions. I am just stating that common mistake (as per contract law) does not apply and that Patrick is still contractually obliged to cover the deposits in full merely because he promised it. And that he should get a scammer tag until this case is resolved too because he's unwilling to depart with his current non-essential personal assets to cover his debt.

I am not stating that this situation is fair for Patrick or that depositor didn't commit any mistake or that the contract would be enforceable in courts (mostly because I agree with your argument about usury rates which renders the contract somewhat null to start with.) I am simply insisting that according to current laws in most jurisdiction, if the contract had not been invalid, he would fully own the deposits to depositor and common mistake would not be invokable.

[JoelKatz]

In Patrick case's, YES the depositors should have been VERY wary of the sub argument as it was fully disclosed because it was dubious that his claim is true. But it is not a common mistake because the depositor for Patrick or you with your doctor neither made any claim to the effect that what the other party claimed was factual and a requirement for the contract. They have to make the same claim.

They don't have to make the same claim, they just have to both make the same mistake and that mistake has to be such that neither party would have agreed to the contract but for the mistake. In any event, in this specific case, MP did make the same claim. She said, to Patrick, "well that works".

The people who gave Patrick his funds made a risk misjudgement when they got convinced by his arguments. They did not make a common mistake.

If it's precisely the same risk misjudgment Patrick himself made, it's a common mistake.

I am not stating that this situation is fair for Patrick

Why would you knowingly choose an inequitable result when you don't have to? Why not choose a result that's fair for Patrick too? What is forcing you to knowingly be unfair? We're not a court of law (or the contract would be void for a dozen reasons, starting with usury) -- we're a pure system of equity and fairness.

[Namworld]

They made a risk misjudgement in that Patrick's argument were sufficient to reasonably expect him to be able to cover the deposits.

Patrick made a mistake in promising something he could not deliver as promised.

Since when do you include arguments into contract as common mistakes?

Can you contest/support otherwise than this example:

A common mistake requires both parties to make a factual claim to be considered a common mistake. Not one party making a claim and the other accepting the claim or accepting the arguments for that claim as convincing.

I gave an excellent example:
Buyer: I need cherries delivered in Washington. Can you deliver in Washington?
Supplier: Yes, I deliver anywhere in Washington.
Buyer: Perfect. *Pay's right away*
*Supplier imports cherries right away.*
Supplier: I have your cherries ready. What is your address?

Upon which the seller and the buyer realize the supplier is in the state of Washington and can only deliver there, and that the buyer lives in Washington D.C. and that the cherries would be impossible to deliver as planned considering the supplier's means to deliver which do not currently extend outside of the state of Washington.

There is common mistake when both parties made the claim to each other and each parties accepted it from each other, but the claim is not precise enough or is false for both. There is a common claim but also a common mistake as to what that premise making the contract executable means and it renders the contract impossible to execute as a result. There is no such common mistake in Patrick's case.

or this example:

Suppose this:
A borrower wants to loan 20000$ at 14% yearly interest. The lender asks him why he should grant him the loan. The borrower arguments, without making false statements, that:
 - I have a good credit rating. (true)
 - I have a stable job. (true)
 - I have enough assets to cover the loan should problems arise. (true)

The lender answers by "fair enough, works for me, I'll grant you the loan". Yet the arguments do not make the clause that the borrower will repay true.

The borrower default on his debt and insist you share the loss on the premise that there is a common mistake because he did not lie and both expected his arguments to be true which they were and deemed sufficient to grant the loan/contract and that now the loss is irrecoverable, so the loss is to be shared. The borrower keep his current lifestyle and doesn't depart with his non-essential possession to pay his debt just as Patrick did although he said he could cover the deposit.


You would be able to void full responsibility on any contract's clauses if you ever made any argument that was true yet didn't guarantee the clauses because the other party was convinced by those arguments. (The other party never said those arguments were required to be true to execute the contract or were what guaranteed the promise made by the borrower. They merely agree to be convinced by those arguments.)

If the borrower gave an extremely ridiculous argument that he could repay because "His dog is brown (True)", you wouldn't have made a common mistake. You would have put yourself in the situation. You would have been incredibly stupid to be convinced by such a statement. But you did not made a common mistake as per contract law. The borrower is fully obligated to repay the loan because that's what he claimed he would do repay it and neither party added a sub-clause that this repayment was directly dependent on "His dog being brown" making "Repayment of the loan" possible.

[Namworld]

I am not stating that this situation is fair for Patrick

Why would you knowingly choose an inequitable result when you don't have to? Why not choose a result that's fair for Patrick too? What is forcing you to knowingly be unfair? We're not a court of law (or the contract would be void for a dozen reasons, starting with usury) -- we're a pure system of equity and fairness.

Because the unfairness was caused by pirate which rendered the lendees incapable who themselves are responsible for the unfairness through lying to  Patrick, making it impossible for Patrick to repay his debt except through his personal assets. Patrick then renders it unfair for depositors by claiming coverage of the deposit and not reimbursing .

If I take a large business loan for expanding the operation and lose my funds because someone steals it, it is not my fault and it hinders my ability to repay. But since I'm operating as myself, I personally owe that money because I promised it. I cannot try to void part of the loan on behalf I lost the funds.

I strictly promised the bank to repay the business loan. I argued I had a good credit score and a stable business which would make me capable of repaying the loan providing a business plan detailing how I'd use the funds. But when the bank tells me those arguments are accepted to grant the loan, no party ever agrees the repayment promise is directly dependent on the arguments I offered to hold true and being sufficient. My business went down the drain because someone stole my funds putting me in serious debt. Yet I still owe the bank the funds because that's the only promise I made them. The arguments I gave were purely to convince them. Can I keep the assets I have left and default on the loan because those specific funds were stolen by the third party because I gave it to that third party?

The bank makes the mistake of believing the arguments to be sufficient to expect me to repay the loan.
I made the mistake of badly choosing who I'd then pay those funds to and gave them to the wrong individual which commits a financial fraud (accepting payment and not delivering anything in return.) I myself made the mistake that hinders the repayment of the loan, causing loss to the bank.

The mistake is far from being common. The depositor blindly believe Patrick can be expected to deliver based on his arguments. They put themselve in the situation, it was a mistake, but it does not cause the loss of the deposit being irrecoverable, just like you didn't cause the loss of the test's costs by accepting your doctor's claims.

The loss is caused to the depositor when Patrick loaned the funds to wrong person who then didn't pay him back, something over which the depositor had no control. Patrick bears the responsibility of making that mistake.

The mere fact that the depositor not making the mistake of giving Patrick the funds he asked for his business would have not enabled Patrick to make that loss does not make them responsible. Consider this: should a person making the mistake of handling over a knife to some shady individual asking for it to cook would place that personal equally responsible for the death of someone when said individual proceeds to kill somebody, because you enabled that murder? Both made the mistake to entrust something they shouldn't have to someone they did not really know, enabling a loss to someone (Financial to yourself in the first case or of someone else's life in the later). Both giving party made a mistake enabling something to happen by entrusting their property to someone else, which is a far different from the mistake of doing the mishandling creating the loss when you had no control of it.

When you accepted your doctor's claim, you enabled the loss by proceeding with the test which would have been impossible otherwise. But you did not cause it, the doctor did by promising you would not pay and then the insurer not paying as he expected, so he paid for the test since he promised you would not pay for it. I could argue you are just as responsible as Patrick's depositor who did not do due diligence in investigating before proceeding. Had you had investigated and called your insurer, you would have known the test was not covered and the doctor would not have to bear the loss.

The first makes a mistake which enables the situation to happen. The person who made the promise the other would incur no financial loss makes the actual mistakes which cause his own loss, regardless if he was mistaken on his external parties on which he base his promises (such as the doctor) or if those parties outright scammed him like for Patrick. The mistake is not a common one.

The only common decision is accepting the contract. Patrick's contract was a bad contract. He made lending mistake which caused him to lose the deposits. The contract in itself (That Patrick would be able to cover deposits and pay X%) did not cause the loss. The depositor should have known better than accept such a poor proposition placing himself in the situation. But ultimately Patrick's mishandling of the funds is the mistake which made the promise he offered impossible to hold and created that loss. Not that both entered the agreement and transaction which enabled the loss. The depositor made a mistake in accepting a bad offer but I currently remain with the conviction it is a different mistake that is not common.

I would have ZERO problem with that if Patrick came forward trying to find a compromise or offering to slowly refund deposits personally or attempted to at least try to renegotiate anything and showing he cannot current repay the debt. In which case I would call it a default on his debt because of inability to repay. But so far he remains silent and has done nothing to resolve the situation or shown his willingness to depart with any wealth to cover his debt. Hence why I believe he should be considered as a scammer until his debt is repaid or renegotiated or that he paid as much as he could possibly pay.

[JoelKatz]

The bank makes the mistake of believing the arguments to be sufficient to expect me to repay the loan.
I made the mistake of badly choosing who I'd then pay those funds to and gave them to the wrong individual which commits a financial fraud (accepting payment and not delivering anything in return.) I myself made the mistake that hinders the repayment of the loan, causing loss to the bank.

I agree. This is not common mistake. This is the bank making one mistake and the borrower making a different mistake.

The mistake is far from being common. The depositor blindly believe Patrick can be expected to deliver based on his arguments. They put themselve in the situation, it was a mistake, but it does not cause the loss of the deposit being irrecoverable, just like you didn't cause the loss of the test's costs by accepting your doctor's claims.

If this mistake didn't cause the loss of the deposit, what do you think did?!

The loss is caused to the depositor when Patrick loaned the funds to wrong person who then didn't pay him back, something over which the depositor had no control. Patrick bears the responsibility of making that mistake.

Patrick didn't loan funds "to the wrong person". Patrick followed his business model. Patrick didn't do anything his investors didn't ask him to do.

There was no other question Patrick could have asked, no other investigation he could have done, no magic word he could have said, no wand he could have waved. If we could learn at least one thing from this fiasco, it's that high returns always come with high risks. The odds that you will be the one person who finds the exception to this tried and true rule are vanishingly small, and thus, it is axiomatically true. His investors recklessly and foolishly accepted that his business model was sensible and said so to him, a statement he is as entitled to rely on as they are to rely on any statements *he* makes.

The mere fact that the depositor not making the mistake of giving Patrick the funds he asked for his business would have not enabled Patrick to make that loss does not make them responsible.

I agree, that's why I never argued that. The fact that they made precisely the same mistake he did, where that mistake was directly the cause of the loss, and that neither party would have entered into the contract but for the mistake makes them partly responsible. (And, in the specific case of MP, specifically agreed with the mistake.)

Consider this: should a person making the mistake of handling over a knife to some shady individual asking for it to cook would place that personal equally responsible for the death of someone when said individual proceeds to kill somebody, because you enabled that murder? Both made the mistake to entrust something they shouldn't have to someone they did not really know, enabling a loss to someone (Financial to yourself in the first case or of someone else's life in the later). Both giving party made a mistake enabling something to happen by entrusting their property to someone else, which is a far different from the mistake of doing the mishandling creating the loss when you had no control of it.

No, they made completely different mistakes.

When you accepted your doctor's claim, you enabled the loss by proceeding with the test which would have been impossible otherwise. But you did not cause it, the doctor did by promising you would not pay and then the insurer not paying as he expected, so he paid for the test since he promised you would not pay for it. I could argue you are just as responsible as Patrick's depositor who did not do due diligence in investigating before proceeding. Had you had investigated and called your insurer, you would have known the test was not covered and the doctor would not have to bear the loss.

Right, but I reasonably relied on a factual claim by my doctor which turned out to be false. The factual claim Patrick made was true.

The first makes a mistake which enables the situation to happen. The person who made the promise the other would incur no financial loss makes the actual mistakes which cause his own loss, regardless if he was mistaken on his external parties on which he base his promises (such as the doctor) or if those parties outright scammed him like for Patrick.

Patrick didn't make any kind of promise that wasn't perfectly valid. If you say "X because Y", you are promising Y, not X. Patrick said "X because Y", and Y was correct. However, X did not follow from Y. You can't promise that a conclusion follows from a premise.

And in this case, MP was better situated than PH to catch the mistake in reasoning. MP was specifically looking for indirect Pirate risk, PH was not.

[gabbynot]

Has this debate actually gone on for 20 pages...whether or not to subject someone the unbearable penalty of a "scammer" tag on this teeny corner of the internet?

[rjbtc]

^^^

I lost track, wasn't it about someone getting hit with a cherry truck and going to the doctor but it wasn't covered by insurance so somehow it's the cherry grower's fault for not being in the D.C. area? 

I say give the truck driver a scammer tag.

[Dalkore]

DEBATE IS OVER.   LETS ALL MOVE ON.  

Neither side is going to concede, that much is clear.   

[Namworld]

The bank makes the mistake of believing the arguments to be sufficient to expect me to repay the loan.
I made the mistake of badly choosing who I'd then pay those funds to and gave them to the wrong individual which commits a financial fraud (accepting payment and not delivering anything in return.) I myself made the mistake that hinders the repayment of the loan, causing loss to the bank.

I agree. This is not common mistake. This is the bank making one mistake and the borrower making a different mistake.

The mistake is far from being common. The depositor blindly believe Patrick can be expected to deliver based on his arguments. They put themselve in the situation, it was a mistake, but it does not cause the loss of the deposit being irrecoverable, just like you didn't cause the loss of the test's costs by accepting your doctor's claims.

If this mistake didn't cause the loss of the deposit, what do you think did?!

And as such, Patrick's depositors make the same uncommon mistake as this example in believing his argument to be sufficient to expect him to be able to repay the loan. Not that these arguments were requirements/truths or that the repayment of the deposits were 100% dependent on those arguments. That the borrower spends the money as he said he would or that his arguments were truths does not free the debtor of his debt if a problem occurs.

The loss is caused to the depositor when Patrick loaned the funds to wrong person who then didn't pay him back, something over which the depositor had no control. Patrick bears the responsibility of making that mistake.

Patrick didn't loan funds "to the wrong person". Patrick followed his business model. Patrick didn't do anything his investors didn't ask him to do.

There was no other question Patrick could have asked, no other investigation he could have done, no magic work he could have said, no wand he could have waved. If we could learn at least one thing from this fiasco, it's that high returns always come with high risks. The odds that you will be the one person who finds the exception to this tried and true rule are vanishingly small, and thus, it is axiomatically true.

Yes, I certainly hope people expected there was high risk at extending funds for such high rate. Yes they probably should learn from it. Yes, it could have been foreseen, although you cannot possibly argue that everyone was assured of that. If the person learns from the mistake, good for him/her. High returns, high risks of loss. But that it was risky certainly does not frees Patrick to fill his promised claim: I will honor withdrawals instantly and pay you X% on deposits.

Consider this: should a person making the mistake of handling over a knife to some shady individual asking for it to cook would place that personal equally responsible for the death of someone when said individual proceeds to kill somebody, because you enabled that murder? Both made the mistake to entrust something they shouldn't have to someone they did not really know, enabling a loss to someone (Financial to yourself in the first case or of someone else's life in the later). Both giving party made a mistake enabling something to happen by entrusting their property to someone else, which is a far different from the mistake of doing the mishandling creating the loss when you had no control of it.

No, they made completely different mistakes.

Your statement that "This is false" is void of any valid argument. Please elaborate. Although I must agree it's probably not the best example I could have made to point my case.

When you accepted your doctor's claim, you enabled the loss by proceeding with the test which would have been impossible otherwise. But you did not cause it, the doctor did by promising you would not pay and then the insurer not paying as he expected, so he paid for the test since he promised you would not pay for it. I could argue you are just as responsible as Patrick's depositor who did not do due diligence in investigating before proceeding. Had you had investigated and called your insurer, you would have known the test was not covered and the doctor would not have to bear the loss.

Right, but I reasonably relied on a factual claim by my doctor which turned out to be false. The factual claim Patrick made was true.

I stress again that the arguments are NOT part of the contract just as you have agreed in the above example about the bank.

The doctor factual and contractual claim he made is a promise:
- (Factual) That you will not pay.
- (Argument) because the insurer pays for it. (false)
When his argument proved insufficient to make, he ended up paying because he had to honor is promise of the factual claim the you will not pay.

Patrick similarly made the promise that:
- (Factual) I can cover your deposit (He also made the other promise to pay X% interest)
- (Argument) because I have sufficient assets which are not invested in BS&T. (true)
When that argument proved insufficient to make his factual promise to held true, he still owes to fulfill that contractual claim.

The same way you agreed about the borrower of a bank that:
- (Factual) I can repay the loan
- (Argument) because I have a good credit rating. (true)
- (Argument) because I have a stable job. (true)
- (Argument) because I have enough assets to cover the loan should problems arise. (true)
Even if his arguments are true and the bank granted the loan, he did not make the same mistake as the bank. His arguments do not make the factual promise true and he has to respect what he promised.

In all these case the two parties make the same different mistake. One makes the factual promise and bring arguments (which can be factual (true) or not) that this promise is realizable, the other accept their arguments as sufficient to expect that promise to be achievable. The arguments were never part of the contract as exceptions to the factual claim or reasons not to honor it. When you make a promise, you have to fulfill it or otherwise fulfill it has much as you possibly can, regardless of personal consequences or whatever arguments you brought up to convince the other party to trust you.

Patrick knows what he promised, knows who he owes this promise to and provided no evidence he fulfilled his promise as much as it could possibly fulfill it. As far as I know he has personal asset left an he his willingly not departing with them. So he's not fulfilling his promise as much as he could have. You also agreed that the person accepting the contract is not at at cause for the loss for merely enabling it to occur because he accepted the contract. By accepting the contract of sending Patrick funds, they enabled the people (the lendees) who caused Patrick's losses to cause them. Not the depositors. Patrick is neither willingly causing that loss to himself, but he did create the loss to depositor by making the promise he could cover their deposits when it ended up he could not. The depositors lost funds because they lended them on Patrick's promise that he could cover them and pay X% fixed interest.

[Namworld]

Has this debate actually gone on for 20 pages...whether or not to subject someone the unbearable penalty of a "scammer" tag on this teeny corner of the internet?

It is actually a quite interesting debate about common mistake in contract law, accountability and general arguments for moral opinions of how things should be accounted for. Not so much about the scammer tag which Patrick will almost certainly receive for another case. The thread seems to be mostly dead other than this debate.

JoelKatz, perhaps you would agree to pursue this debate outside of this forum? It seems we're taking quite some space for something no one else seems to care about.

[MPOE-PR]

This is cute, Dave Hollis aka noagendamarket aka bitcoin.me somehow managed to change his forum name to Bitcoin Oz. I wasn't aware the forum allowed people to change their name in order to evade their shady past. Is a donation of merit involved?

^^^

I lost track, wasn't it about someone getting hit with a cherry truck and going to the doctor but it wasn't covered by insurance so somehow it's the cherry grower's fault for not being in the D.C. area? 

I say give the truck driver a scammer tag.

This is exactly how the scammers win: they gang together, drown legitimate discourse and well...Meni Ronsenfeld avoids all responsibility for the scam he pushed. He makes an "unofficial claim thread" and a "vanity thread" where he mentions nothing of his scammy past, he's scott free.

This guy runs off with what looks like 10-20k btc, has his buddies here busily filling in the pages with meaningless crap, theymos states he doesn't read the proof but knows the scammer is an ok bro, he's scott free.

Same story with Nefario, same story all around.

The good news for anyone other than the scammer circlejerk (lucratively supported by people such as theymos) is that this stuff is never going away.

I will hold it against you, all of you, until the end of time.

I suck cocks

There was no debate. Overwhelming proof that PatrickHarnett is a scammer was presented. Some shills tried to derail the discussion, and are still trying. Theymos stated his support for this scammer.

[Namworld]

The first makes a mistake which enables the situation to happen. The person who made the promise the other would incur no financial loss makes the actual mistakes which cause his own loss, regardless if he was mistaken on his external parties on which he base his promises (such as the doctor) or if those parties outright scammed him like for Patrick.

Patrick didn't make any kind of promise that wasn't perfectly valid. If you say "X because Y", you are promising Y, not X. Patrick said "X because Y", and Y was correct. However, X did not follow from Y. You can't promise that a conclusion follows from a premise.

And in this case, MP was better situated than PH to catch the mistake in reasoning. MP was specifically looking for indirect Pirate risk, PH was not.

X was never promised because Y. Otherwise by arguing that you can repay the loan (X) because you have a stable job (Y), you're not making to your bank the promise to repay the loan, you're strictly making the promise to the bank of having a stable job, not that you will repay the loan.

You agreed that in the case of the lendee stating he could repay a loan because he had a stable business or assets, the bank is not at common fault for considering his arguments sufficient.

The party does not accept that X is true because Y is true. The bank doesn't loan on the promise to repay the loan (X) because the argument he has a stable job (Y) inherently makes X (the actual promise) to be true. He just agrees that the Ys argued are sufficient to expect the other to honor his promise. When he states X because Y, he never strictly promised that he had a stable job to the bank. He's trying to provide reasons for the bank to believe him when he says he can repay the loan (X) which is what he actually promises. Both party cannot foresee the future events that would make the promise (X) an absolute truth that will be executed.

The Ys can be factual, but are strictly provided as arguments to convince the promise X can be honored. They are not provided as premises that can guarantee the conclusion (that the promise X can be held true.) Ys are there to convince that the promise X can potentially be true. Not that Y being true automatically cause X to be true. The parties are not attempting to establish logical truths which are impossible. Both party cannot foresee the future events that would make the promise (X) an absolute truth that will be executed before the party promising it executes or sees it becoming a fact as he promised, rendering it a truth through the direct realization of that promise.

I will repay the loan(X) only if I repay the loan (X). The deposit pay X% and can be instantly withdrawn (X) only if the deposit pay X% and can be instantly withdrawn (X). No arguments can prove those Xs to be absolutely true other than X becoming an accomplished fact. I don't see how you can assume that someone should not accept any arguments Y until such arguments proves without a doubt the conclusion the promise X will be executed because that is simply impossible. As such, no arguments can be contractual. By stating "because", he his arguing why he possibly can execute the promise. He cannot prove his promise will happen with any argument. Had he used the word "if", he would have made a conditional promise that he would honor his promise IF and only IF another event holds to be true.

By making a promise (X), you establish that it will be executed because it will be executed. Any arguments (Y)s are strictly there to point toward the fact you possibly can make (X) be a truth as you promised and for convincing the other party in that matter.

[Bitcoin Oz]

This is cute, Dave Hollis aka noagendamarket aka bitcoin.me somehow managed to change his forum name to Bitcoin Oz. I wasn't aware the forum allowed people to change their name in order to evade their shady past. Is a donation of merit involved?
 

Nothing shady about it and I made a thread announcing it when it happened. Anyone can message Theymos and get their name changed, and I havent ripped anyone off personally only become liable because I sent some asshole bitcoins for a site he stole.

[wachtwoord]

This is cute, Dave Hollis aka noagendamarket aka bitcoin.me somehow managed to change his forum name to Bitcoin Oz. I wasn't aware the forum allowed people to change their name in order to evade their shady past. Is a donation of merit involved?
 

Nothing shady about it and I made a thread announcing it when it happened. Anyone can message Theymos and get their name changed, and I havent ripped anyone off personally only become liable because I sent some asshole bitcoins for a site he stole.

Wow that is bad. I really don't like that that is possible.

[MPOE-PR]

Celebrating two weeks since this thread was posted, three weeks or something since the last mockery masquerading as a "payment" (less than weekly interest owed) and about the same since the scammer disappeared.

[Benatar]

If people invested money with Patrick, then unless he can return 100% of the principal as well as any interest promised while his business was operational, then he should be labeled either a scammer or incompetent.

[JoelKatz]

If people invested money with Patrick, then unless he can return 100% of the principal as well as any interest promised while his business was operational, then he should be labeled either a scammer or incompetent.

I agree. Post Kraken, a scammer. Pre Kraken, incompetent.

As I said before, it's this simple:

1) There's no way to enforce these loans in any court of law. That means if people have any reason not to repay, they won't repay. Many people won't sacrifice their real-world lifestyle and bank accounts to repay a bitcoin loan that can't be enforced anyway. Walking away is just too easy.

2) Borrowing from Patrick to invest in Pirate seemed like too good a deal, especially since people knew they could just default on Patrick without consequences. No method would prevent this, short of actually tracking what each person did with the bitcoins, which nobody would agree to and everyone knew Patrick wasn't going to do.

Not realizing this makes Patrick incompetent. However, it is important to remember that this should have been equally obvious to those who loaned Patrick money. So they too are incompetent, and their incompetence harmed Patrick just as Patrick's incompetence harmed them.

[cunicula]

Post Kraken, a scammer. Pre Kraken, incompetent.

You are suggesting he had a change of character? Doesn't it seem more likely that you just misjudged his character?

[Namworld]

Except I simply believe the mistake is not common and Patrick still owes the deposits for promising it with no conditional clause to execute said promise.

Patrick to depositor:
 - (X) You can withdraw anytime.
   - (Y) Because I can cover it.
     - (Y2) Because I make non BS&T loans to people.

Is the same as

Lendee to bank
 - (X) I will repay the loan.
   - (Y) Because I can pay for it.
     - (Y2) Because I have a business providing income.

The persons extending funds do not accept the arguments to directly prove that X can be made true because X can only be true once it becomes realized. (X) is fulfilled only if (X) is fulfilled. Any argument you can make can point toward that (X) will be fullfilled but cannot prove (X) will be fulfilled. They never accept to take any risk related to the arguments or that they can actually lead to X. Just the the borrower has made its case and we'll extend the fund.

Yes, I agree 100% with the rest of what you've just said however, including non-enforceability of those contract (Not because the contract was not legal but because you can hardly provide proof you entered that agreement. Patrick paid 5% per month or 60% per year which would have been the limit before breaching usury legislation, at least in my case.) That they didn't sign the contract and insufficient investigation is the mistake the depositors made when deciding to extend deposits to Patrick. They'd have a hard time proving it but it is still a verbal contract. You can call them whatever you want for putting themselves in that situation.

But Patrick's mistake is promising what he could not end up delivering and binding himself into the promise of repaying deposits without any conditional clause to protect him. Had he not created such a contractual offer and advertised it and exploited his business as he did, he would not have incurred the loss. Patrick created his loss when he willingly took responsibility for that potential loss by making a promise to repay his debt anytime. The lendee will still owe his debt even if he told the lender he wanted to use his loan for his business that does Y. It concerns not the lender that the lendee lose the deposit in his business other than it hinders the repayment of his funded he loaned to Patrick.

Had Patrick stated he would pay back deposits anytime IF not too many lendees defaulted, I'd input the full blame on lendees for the loss of funds and blamed Patrick and the Depositor conjointly for getting themselves conjointly into accepting the risk of lendees defaulting. But the depositor never accepted that.

[MPOE-PR]

If people invested money with Patrick, then unless he can return 100% of the principal as well as any interest promised while his business was operational, then he should be labeled either a scammer or incompetent.

Exactly.