Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett

[fbastage]

agree.  all this wrangling about precedents and narrow legal interpretations in such-and-such jurisdiction (the whole 'common mistake' discussion) is irrelevant to THIS community.  In simple terms, he didn't hold his end of the bargain.  Done.

[Benatar]

Also, on why the interest needs to be paid as well to consider the debt fully paid and not just the principal, beyond the obvious "honor the contract as stated" thing: Time is money, and investments made in one place can't simultaneously be invested in another.  If the money is not paid back, not only is that obviously robbing the person of their initial principal, but it's robbing that person of the gains they could have potentially made by investing the money elsewhere, but instead invested there.  That interest represents the time that the money they invested was tied up in their investments and not available to them, and guaranteeing an interest rate over that period makes you just as responsible for repaying that interest as the principal itself.

This applies to pretty much every other guaranteed interest rate lending nonsense here too.

[AndrewBUD]

He got the tag...

[Fiyasko]

He got the tag...

Holy shit, He got the tag!, Who slapped that on!
I dont feel that Patrick Deserves it!, He is clearly paying other people, There is just THIS one messup and he gets labled a SCAMMER?
He's not a SCAMMER... wtf... Did he go rouge? I dont see any evidence of that... What the fuck guys..

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124152.0
^ WTFFFF?!

[Benatar]

Well even if you don't think he's a scammer, there's no "incompetent moron" tag yet so the scammer one will have to do.

[MPOE-PR]

Repentance, I guess now you have to make amends. I don't think any mods lost money in Kraken/Starfish.

[vampire]

He got the tag...

Holy shit, He got the tag!, Who slapped that on!
I dont feel that Patrick Deserves it!, He is clearly paying other people, There is just THIS one messup and he gets labled a SCAMMER?
He's not a SCAMMER... wtf... Did he go rouge? I dont see any evidence of that... What the fuck guys..

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124152.0
^ WTFFFF?!

If he lied and looks like he did, he deserves the tag.

[augustocroppo]

Congratulations to JoelKatz and Namworld. You both made a remarkable example of philosophical debate over the evidence available. I suspect the your recent posts were decisive to issue the scammer tag.



(...)



...and MPOE-PR, improve your speech, it is annoying and offensive. You can do better than that.

[repentance]

He got the tag...

Holy shit, He got the tag!, Who slapped that on!
I dont feel that Patrick Deserves it!, He is clearly paying other people, There is just THIS one messup and he gets labled a SCAMMER?
He's not a SCAMMER... wtf... Did he go rouge? I dont see any evidence of that... What the fuck guys..

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124152.0
^ WTFFFF?!

The evidence suggests that he created Kraken in order to transfer his own toxic pirate debt to others.  He literally stated that contributed capital was backed by his personal funds and that any losses would be funded personally.  He set the maximum size of the fund at 25,000 BTC so he should have been willing and able to personally cover any losses up to and including that amount.

[Dalkore]

That is that.  I hope Patrick pays off his debt so he can have the tag removed. 

[bulanula]

So much for him being "rock-solid"

[SAC]

So much for him being "rock-solid"

Indeed next up for inclusion in the club all the mining bond scammers, should be good for a few more laughs...

[evolve]

Hahahahaha........ called it!

How long before the next scammer gets busted? How many of you are rushing to invest in another bank ponzi?

[JoelKatz]

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?

I don't think I ever outright said he was scamming -- only that he was either a scammer or a fool and that either way it was foolish to invest with him. But if he never intended to honor his personal guarantee with his personal funds, maybe he was a scammer all along.

I did think he was a scammer from the beginning. Now I'm not so sure he wasn't just deluded in the beginning, thinking the risk was low. And perhaps even intending to honor his personal guarantee at first and then not realizing that there was no way he could once the amounts started to increase. When things went bad, he sold out his investors to save his own funds.

[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?

I don't think I ever outright said he was scamming -- only that he was either a scammer or a fool and that either way it was foolish to invest with him. But if he never intended to honor his personal guarantee with his personal funds, maybe he was a scammer all along.

I did think he was a scammer from the beginning. Now I'm not so sure he wasn't just deluded in the beginning, thinking the risk was low. And perhaps even intending to honor his personal guarantee at first and then not realizing that there was no way he could once the amounts started to increase. When things went bad, he sold out his investors to save his own funds.

Okay then. Either a scammer or a fool. Now we are really on the same page! I always described these types as "either a scammer or an idiot."

They are usually observationally equivalent.

Hmmm. I wonder why you choose "fool", while I choose "idiot." To me "fool" sounds slightly more polite.

[Coinoisseur]

Well, even if he started out just foolish he definitely was out to save his own skin with the Kraken fund. Not sure if we will hear from Patrick again on the forums, he stopped logging in right around when the frustrated posts popped up in this section.

[JoelKatz]

Okay then. Either a scammer or a fool. Now we are really on the same page! I always described these types as "either a scammer or an idiot."

They are usually observationally equivalent.

Hmmm. I wonder why you choose "fool", while I choose "idiot." To me "fool" sounds slightly more polite.

I usually reserve "idiot" for those who invest with fools.

I assure you, I wasn't trying to be polite. I genuinely think Patrick was an idiot at the beginning, and gradually shifted to scammer as the amounts got larger and he started to realize how high the risks were.

From the beginning, my argument was essentially this: Either Patrick was making decent profits, or he wasn't. If he was making decent profits, his first order of business, if he's not an idiot, would be to pay down his outrageously usurious debt. Yet he was taking on more and more of it. So either he's an idiot, and only fools invest with idiots, or he's not making decent profits. But if he's not making decent profits, why would he take on all this risk and do all this work? It could be because he's an idiot, but again, who wants to invest with an idiot? The most likely other possibility is that he intends to walk away with everyone's money and it sure as hell means he wouldn't honor the guarantee if he suffered huge losses.

In retrospect, I would have made a better argument (more focused on why he wouldn't honor his guarantee). But anyone can make better arguments in hindsight.

[Cobra]

I have always been a strong supporter of Patrick just based on my past dealings with him. Although I can also say the same about one particular other that vanished. I just did not see this coming.  When things came down I was owed 300BTC and he always was up front with me and communicated a payment schedule of 100BTC per month and did not miss an interest payment.  Thankfully I received the last 100BTC I was owed on 11/9. I consider myself lucky. He might be taking some time away and still can make things right.

[cunicula]

Okay then. Either a scammer or a fool. Now we are really on the same page! I always described these types as "either a scammer or an idiot."

They are usually observationally equivalent.

Hmmm. I wonder why you choose "fool", while I choose "idiot." To me "fool" sounds slightly more polite.

I usually reserve "idiot" for those who invest with fools.

I assure you, I wasn't trying to be polite. I genuinely think Patrick was an idiot at the beginning, and gradually shifted to scammer as the amounts got larger and he started to realize how high the risks were.

From the beginning, my argument was essentially this: Either Patrick was making decent profits, or he wasn't. If he was making decent profits, his first order of business, if he's not an idiot, would be to pay down his outrageously usurious debt. Yet he was taking on more and more of it. So either he's an idiot, and only fools invest with idiots, or he's not making decent profits. But if he's not making decent profits, why would he take on all this risk and do all this work? It could be because he's an idiot, but again, who wants to invest with an idiot? The most likely other possibility is that he intends to walk away with everyone's money and it sure as hell means he wouldn't honor the guarantee if he suffered huge losses.

In retrospect, I would have made a better argument (more focused on why he wouldn't honor his guarantee). But anyone can make better arguments in hindsight.

I agree with your scenario.

over optimistic fool with very weak integrity -> disappointed fool with very weak integrity -> scammer

[stochastic]

Okay then. Either a scammer or a fool. Now we are really on the same page! I always described these types as "either a scammer or an idiot."

They are usually observationally equivalent.

Hmmm. I wonder why you choose "fool", while I choose "idiot." To me "fool" sounds slightly more polite.

I usually reserve "idiot" for those who invest with fools.

I assure you, I wasn't trying to be polite. I genuinely think Patrick was an idiot at the beginning, and gradually shifted to scammer as the amounts got larger and he started to realize how high the risks were.

From the beginning, my argument was essentially this: Either Patrick was making decent profits, or he wasn't. If he was making decent profits, his first order of business, if he's not an idiot, would be to pay down his outrageously usurious debt. Yet he was taking on more and more of it. So either he's an idiot, and only fools invest with idiots, or he's not making decent profits. But if he's not making decent profits, why would he take on all this risk and do all this work? It could be because he's an idiot, but again, who wants to invest with an idiot? The most likely other possibility is that he intends to walk away with everyone's money and it sure as hell means he wouldn't honor the guarantee if he suffered huge losses.

In retrospect, I would have made a better argument (more focused on why he wouldn't honor his guarantee). But anyone can make better arguments in hindsight.

I agree with your scenario.

over optimistic fool with very weak integrity -> disappointed fool with very weak integrity -> scammer

Maybe next time people will ask for a credit report before loaning money to a stranger.  That is what they are for.