OgNasty Ponzi passthrough and ponzi fans.. BTC losses everywhere he goes

[OgNasty]

When pirate opened his plan up to the public, users moved to dealing with him directly.  There's a reason you can't find any victims.  I'm flattered at the amount of effort you all put into trolling me, but it really is shameful what you will swear to.  I think you need to take a long hard look into your own lives and see what it is that makes you want to attack someone who has honestly been so successful here.  You should be happy for me, not spouting incessant lies like a band of rabid jealous failures.

[Vod]

OG is calling everyone in this thread a liar, despite the fact he was audited, and is now awaiting his fate.  :/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5136576.msg53280278#msg53280278

There will be no justice here.  Thankfully, OG could not lie to the auditor. 

[JayJuanGee]

OG is calling everyone in this thread a liar, despite the fact he was audited, and is now awaiting his fate.  :/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5136576.msg53280278#msg53280278

There will be no justice here.  Thankfully, OG could not lie to the auditor. 

The link that you provided, Vod, does not show evidence or any description of an actual audit. 

Are you referring to a different part of that thread in your above link?

[TwitchySeal]

I saw no losses being alleged. Only a list of people I made payouts to before they withdrew their entire balance. If you are trying to say all those users on the list didn’t get their entire deposit back, quit beating around the bush and say it so I can give you another negative for spreading lies.

I think the main reason I don't have more evidence is because on Feb 22, 2018 at 3:44 pm, I was dumb enough to make this post in your Pirate-Passthrough thread.  6 minutes later, at 3:52pm, while I was still reading through it... poof...a bunch of posts just vanished, and the OP was edited down to basically nothing.  2 minutes later, at 3:54 pm you posted in the thread saying it was a witch hunt and then locked it.  You've been cagey ever since, refusing to give any information or address any details about what really happened.  

I do have a lot of evidence though.  Before I thought you were just being scummy.  But that transcript sure makes it seem like Pirate returned your full balance:

A Yes. Ognasty, O-g-n-a-s-ty

Q And all the other individuals you named you returned their entire principal amount?

A Their entire balance.

Q Entire balance.

A Yeah.

Q At the time of the shut down in August 2012?

A Yes.

Q Whatever that balance may have been.

A Correct.

You on Sept 1:

UPDATE: Bitcoin Savings & Trust is officially in default and the reserve fund has been paid out to depositors.

And then you led your investors to believe that Pirate kept your full balance for himself.  Which would explain the 'no victims' defense.  The victims don't know they were scammed.  And I'm going to go ahead and guess many of them sent you money to invest in Butterfly Labs shortly after that.  And then when BFL crumbled you just rolled them all into NastyFan seats....

[TheNewAnon135246]

You can still see 2 cached versions (HERE and HERE).

[Vod]

OG is calling everyone in this thread a liar, despite the fact he was audited, and is now awaiting his fate.  :/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5136576.msg53280278#msg53280278

There will be no justice here.  Thankfully, OG could not lie to the auditor.  

The link that you provided, Vod, does not show evidence or any description of an actual audit.  

Are you referring to a different part of that thread in your above link?

The link was referring to the part I bolded above.

Sorry, I posted personal info once on that scammer, and his lackies left me negative trust.  Luckily I think the time he has to keep everything a secret is running out.

I just hope he doesn't take this forum down with him.  We should be safe provided Theymos can restore the hundreds of posts OG has deleted to cover his ponzi/scams.  He is a danger to bitcoin.  :/

You can still see 2 cached versions (HERE and HERE).

"HOW CAN YOU PAY MONTHLY INTEREST ON DEPOSITS?
I am running a pass-through operation for pirateat40's Bitcoin Savings & Trust for lenders looking to receive interest on their BTC.  I receive a higher interest rate from BS&T and I pass a portion of that to lenders as a monthly interest payment."

So pirate paid OG to help him scam?   Finally.  I think OG might be going to jail.   

[JayJuanGee]

OG is calling everyone in this thread a liar, despite the fact he was audited, and is now awaiting his fate.  :/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5136576.msg53280278#msg53280278

There will be no justice here.  Thankfully, OG could not lie to the auditor.  

The link that you provided, Vod, does not show evidence or any description of an actual audit.  

Are you referring to a different part of that thread in your above link?

The link was referring to the part I bolded above.

So what about the auditing part?  Is there any actual audit, or are you just referring to the efforts of TwitchySeal and some other members attempts to draw attention to some of OG's history.. which I suppose is a fair use of the word "audit", even if I misread it to be more detailed in terms of review actual OG records, whether financial or otherwise.

Sorry, I posted personal info once on that scammer, and his lackies left me negative trust.  Luckily I think the time he has to keep everything a secret is running out.

I just hope he doesn't take this forum down with him.  

Probably makes it more difficult to take down the forum if he is holding less forum value.  I have hardly any ideas about total value that the forum has, or how much it goes beyond the 500BTC that were returned or other financial assets or encumbrances that the forum might have.  I suppose that you are not really referring to taking down the forum in terms of finances but instead if there were some other fraud that might end up implicating or even discouraging someone like theymos from continuing to run the forum?  which I suppose you never know if there could end up being evidence that implicates further down the line (or up the line), and of course, I am just engaging in logical speculation rather than any actual evidence that goes beyond inferences.... which sometimes people end up getting prosecuted for mere inferences rather than direct evidence.

We should be safe provided Theymos can restore the hundreds of posts OG has deleted to cover his ponzi/scams.  He is a danger to bitcoin.  :/

Bitcoin should give less than two fucks about any scammers within, unless they happen to be undermining bitcoin from within and placing secret code or something like that.  If we are talking about more scams getting revealed to the public, surely bitcoin should be able to survive those kinds of matters without any kind of blemish, because there are already scams upon scams upon scams, and scams likely come with the territory of any kind of asset (including new ones in the crypto space) that end up having actual financial value.   Regarding your point about administrative access to posts that were deleted, yep you would think that they could be made available, but again getting way beyond my factual knowledge that is for sure.

You can still see 2 cached versions (HERE and HERE).

"HOW CAN YOU PAY MONTHLY INTEREST ON DEPOSITS?
I am running a pass-through operation for pirateat40's Bitcoin Savings & Trust for lenders looking to receive interest on their BTC.  I receive a higher interest rate from BS&T and I pass a portion of that to lenders as a monthly interest payment."

So pirate paid OG to help him scam?   Finally. I think OG might be going to jail.  

There would need to be investigations by prosecutors and charges, and surely some charges can sometimes be secret until all of a sudden peeps end up getting arrested, but gosh, way too soon to be suggesting that OG might be going to jail - even though sometimes testimonial evidence could end up resulting in subpoenas, and frequently we are not going to hear about subpoenas in the public, but we might end up hearing about a door that gets broken down in the middle of the night in which arrests end up being made -as far as such a matter goes public... and hey, if an arrest gets made, peeps end up in jail real fast, even if they may be able to post bond and get out quickly, presuming that they are considered not to be a flight risk, which could go either way depending on how much value is actually at stake in any hypothetical charges that would be brought, whether against OG or any other person that ends up being accused of being involved in actual crimes within the bitcoin/crypto space.

By the way, many of us likely realize that there are many crimes in the crypto space that are not even prosecuted, yet.  I am not sure if I should name any names, but let me just say in the phone porting sims hi-jacking context, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars of value or even more are taken, but law enforcement does not seem to even investigate a lot of those relatively BIG value cases.... but I suppose, on the other hand, if they are pointed to an actual identifiable person and enough information to at least to make a prosecutable case, then in those cases they are going to be more compelled to take further investigatory actions that may end up resulting in an arrest (or arrests) - one of the risks of dealing with other peoples money and even exercising fiduciary duties (but end up abusing the following of those fiduciary duties).

[allyouracid]

One thing to keep in mind (because it came up in another unrelated thread) is that the eye-watering amount of 2000+ BTC was not quite as huge back then. Divide it by 1000 or so if you want to gauge the scale in fiat terms. Worth noting before someone jumps in to accuse Og of scamming $20 million.

While this is obviously true, I have my doubts if this should matter, today. Many, many users are here because they believe in the long term success of Bitcoin, and they expect its value to increase. In turn, anybody doing shady / fraudulent stuff (not judging, yet, just generally saying) with Bitcoin should expect his actions to become a huge matter at some point.

I'm not taking sides, here, but I'm inclined to believe what I read. @OgNasty, I think it's time to address the concerns in an appropriate manner. A simple answer to the question, "Did you receive the full amount (2.000something BTC) back from Pirateat40?" would be very, very helpful in this matter. As suchmoon said, it was no huge deal back in the days, but it could become one, now. So, this question should definitely get addressed rather sooner than later.

[suchmoon]

One thing to keep in mind (because it came up in another unrelated thread) is that the eye-watering amount of 2000+ BTC was not quite as huge back then. Divide it by 1000 or so if you want to gauge the scale in fiat terms. Worth noting before someone jumps in to accuse Og of scamming $20 million.

While this is obviously true, I have my doubts if this should matter, today. Many, many users are here because they believe in the long term success of Bitcoin, and they expect its value to increase. In turn, anybody doing shady / fraudulent stuff (not judging, yet, just generally saying) with Bitcoin should expect his actions to become a huge matter at some point.

It goes both ways. Not everyone was a staunch hodler back then just like not everyone is today. Just saying that whatever OgNasty's role was in the scam it shouldn't be amplified (or diminished) by "what if Bitcoin went up to $20k 5 years later". People were giving him 50-100 BTC because it was worth ~$10.

[allyouracid]

Right. But either way, things could get complicated if someone now demanded back his BTC, provided the "new" information that OgNasty got back all the Bitcoins is true. While I do realize it would not be fair to have someone pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for - generally speaking - being an egg thief half a decade ago, the claim for the BTC in itself would be very valid.

That's why I think it's important to get some clarity in this matter.

[JayJuanGee]

Right. But either way, things could get complicated if someone now demanded back his BTC, provided the "new" information that OgNasty got back all the Bitcoins is true. While I do realize it would not be fair to have someone pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for - generally speaking - being an egg thief half a decade ago, the claim for the BTC in itself would be very valid.

That's why I think it's important to get some clarity in this matter.

I doubt that it would be fair, in terms of equity, for any court to actually rule the return of the actual asset when the asset might be up anywhere between 50x and 1,000x depending upon a ruling that would establish when the violation had occurred (whether breach of fiduciary duties or some kind of fraud or conversion), if there were such a finding that put a date on the valuation and could conclude the amount of BTC at issue at the point of such violation(s). 

[owlcatz]

I doubt that it would be fair, in terms of equity, for any court to actually rule the return of the actual asset when the asset might be up anywhere between 50x and 1,000x depending upon a ruling that would establish when the violation had occurred (whether breach of fiduciary duties or some kind of fraud or conversion), if there were such a finding that put a date on the valuation and could conclude the amount of BTC at issue at the point of such violation(s). 

Coins are coins. Look at the craig wright ruling. I haven't read the shavers thing completely or recently, but to me 1 BTC = 1 BTC.  Not dollars.

[JayJuanGee]

I doubt that it would be fair, in terms of equity, for any court to actually rule the return of the actual asset when the asset might be up anywhere between 50x and 1,000x depending upon a ruling that would establish when the violation had occurred (whether breach of fiduciary duties or some kind of fraud or conversion), if there were such a finding that put a date on the valuation and could conclude the amount of BTC at issue at the point of such violation(s).  

Coins are coins. Look at the craig wright ruling. I haven't read the shavers thing completely or recently, but to me 1 BTC = 1 BTC.  Not dollars.

Of course, if you were a victim you could make those kinds of return of the asset arguments, especially if you have any meaningful evidence that the coins are still in the custody of the person claiming NOT to have them.   I just have my doubts about those kinds of arguments would fly necessarily if the possession of the coins are questioned.  Of course, there may be burden of proof for the holder of the coins to show that he no longer has them and certain facts around such matter that might be taken with a grain of salt, too depending on the whole set of facts regarding what happened and if there is any kind of showing that the holder of the coins had been acting in good / reasonable faith.


The Craig Wright ruling might be different, at least in the sense that he had continuously claimed to still have the coins (just not the ability to access to them, currently)... so the court was likely using his own statements of possession against him.  If he is claiming to have the coins, then it is easier to express such ruling in terms of both the asset and the dollar value and the change in value of the asset in terms of dollars seems to be almost a non-issue under those Craig Wright kinds of factual findings.

[allyouracid]

I doubt that it would be fair, in terms of equity, for any court to actually rule the return of the actual asset when the asset might be up anywhere between 50x and 1,000x depending upon a ruling that would establish when the violation had occurred (whether breach of fiduciary duties or some kind of fraud or conversion), if there were such a finding that put a date on the valuation and could conclude the amount of BTC at issue at the point of such violation(s). 

Coins are coins. Look at the craig wright ruling. I haven't read the shavers thing completely or recently, but to me 1 BTC = 1 BTC.  Not dollars.

Exactly. If someone stole me x ounces of Gold, a court would probably not even ask what the price of the Gold was at the moment of the theft. The only thing that would matter was the amount of Gold which was stolen.

But I do see the issue, here – as I said, this literally compares to egg thief vs. millions of Dollars. I have no idea how to handle such a (hypothetical) thing in a fair manner.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Coins are coins. Look at the craig wright ruling. I haven't read the shavers thing completely or recently, but to me 1 BTC = 1 BTC.  Not dollars.

I don't think law enforcement or anyone in the government would see it that way, however.  I think they'd probably look at the dollar value of the amount that was involved at the time it was stolen/embezzled/misappropriated/whatever and what the dollar value was at the time the coins were disposed of, if at all.

I read most of this thread, but it still isn't clear to me what a "pass-through" is.  From what I gather, OgNasty was obtaining a higher interest rate from Trendon Shavers and he passed the difference along to his own investors, which I got from Vod's previous post.

And honestly I don't even know what OgNasty's business is, so that's why I've always refrained from getting involved in the scam accusations against him.  But I do see what the potential problem is here with the claim that Shavers never refunded him anything more than the 65BTC, while he apparently got much more than that.  If I'm way off base, someone please correct me.

[allyouracid]

I don't think law enforcement or anyone in the government would see it that way, however.

As far as I remember, there were already cases other than the Craig Wright one where courts ruled that people have a right to get back what was taken from them (being Bitcoin). That's just from memory, though, and this case might be a bit different.

I read most of this thread, but it still isn't clear to me what a "pass-through" is.  From what I gather, OgNasty was obtaining a higher interest rate from Trendon Shavers and he passed the difference along to his own investors, which I got from Vod's previous post.

OgNasty was "investing" in the Pirateat40 scam, and he offered people to "invest" with him for a lower percentage (8, later 10+% a month instead of 1% a day, initially, as with Trendon Shavers / Pirateat40). And he'd "invest" those BTC with Pirateat40. Kind of an indirect, "insured" "investing" in the BTCS&T, hence the additional BTC for the insurance fund.

And honestly I don't even know what OgNasty's business is, so that's why I've always refrained from getting involved in the scam accusations against him.  But I do see what the potential problem is here with the claim that Shavers never refunded him anything more than the 65BTC, while he apparently got much more than that.  If I'm way off base, someone please correct me.

The 65 BTC came from the insurance fund which OgNasty set up on his own, likely from the profits he made from Pirateat40. To have at least some BTC in case Pirateat40 defaults, which eventually happened. And OgNasty paid out "investors" from his insurance fund.
Now the current accussation is that he was made whole by Pirateat40, receiving all 2.000+ BTC, but not telling it his "investors" and instead, only paying them the lousy remains from the insurance fund.

[TwitchySeal]

When pirate opened his plan up to the public, users moved to dealing with him directly.

I just have to point out how irrelevant this is.

You started your pass-through in April, 5 months after pirate was publicly looking for lenders and 4 months before it crashed. And you catered to people who couldn't afford the minimum investment required to deal with him directly.

The 65 BTC came from the insurance fund which OgNasty set up on his own, likely from the profits he made from Pirateat40. To have at least some BTC in case Pirateat40 defaults, which eventually happened. And OgNasty paid out "investors" from his insurance fund.
Now the current accussation is that he was made whole by Pirateat40, receiving all 2.000+ BTC, but not telling it his "investors" and instead, only paying them the lousy remains from the insurance fund.

Until yesterday, I wasn't really making a scam accusation.  I was just pointing out that the whole 'I had a reserve fund that protected my investors' argument was disingenuous since the reserves were only worth a fraction of the actual investments.  Imagine putting $1,000 into a high risk investment and being told not to worry about the risk because if your $1,000 was stolen you'd still get $40 back.

I think I figured out what happened to about 40% of the BTC2600 known invested bitcoin by digging through the block chain. and pretty confident that the following is true.  Hopefully someone will double check my claims and tell me what you think.

We have data from Og Pass-Through funds from the beginning of May, June and July.  Since we're trying to figure out what happened in August, we really only need to pay attention to July since it's the most recent.

- On July 1 there were 11 individual investors with deposits ranging from BTC10 to BTC700 for a total of BTC2,638.25
- Of those 11 individuals, we have 7 bitcoin addresses:

• They had a total of BTC1,140 invested as of the July 1 update (which leaves BTC1,488.25 from 4 investors still a mystery)
• 3 of them divested right away and their deposits, totaling BTC120, along with interest from June, were returned to their address 7/1 and 7/3
• 2 of them divested after July ended and their deposits, totaling BTC730, along with interest from July were returned to their address on 8/2
• 2 of them did not divest their deposits, totaling BTC300 and received a total of BTC27.54 from the reserve funds, which left short BTC272.46 on 9/1.

We don't know what happened to the BTC1488 that belonged to the other 4 investors, but I think we can get a more accurate number of how much money wasn't paid based on what we know about the reserve fund, and how much the 2 players that never divested were paid from it.

The reserve was at BTC65 on July 1 after building it up a little each month for the past 3 months.  It's likely he added a little more in August also, so lets say the reserve was at BTC80.

If BTC300 lost received BTC27.54 from the BTC80 reserve, that means that BTC300 was just over 34% of the total that was stolen from the investors, and the total stolen would be about BTC882.

One more variable that could make the number higher is if anyone invested in August.

Depositor	Address	Invested	5/1	6/1	7/1	8/2	9/1 (reserve paid)		Net	Divested
Anonymous №1	1AYoshhS6VLYNWRNX5P6EWxUcrKLr16KLB	(100.00)	25.00	10.00	110.00	X	X		45.00	Divested on 7/1
Anonymous №2	18fDCUZ9wvcrMFfQogCHar3FE7E5tu95E2	(50.00)	2.50	5.00	5.00	5.00	4.59		(27.91)
exahash -	1KH1wM55KJe422Uun66T7RC176MLZyKbRn	(250.00)	12.5	27.5	30	27.5	22.95		(129.55)
geodude -	1MJK5LNAdqhyCEeqAnpMjckKaFr8NXtTGu	(10.00)	0.60	1.00	11.00	X	X		2.60	Divested 7/3
Anonymous №4	1mCJ9UpGPE8vok8StdobELZrW643tYFiF	(700.00)	77.00	91.00	91.00	791.00	X		350.00	Divested 8/2
Jonny Heggheim	1MRnQVysnF9t91i5UPHsApFh4vRCvBwXux	(30.00)	3.00	3.00	3.00	32.40	X		11.40	Divested 8/2
Tannke -	INTEREST ROLLOVER PLAN	(440.00)
squirrelman	INTEREST ROLLOVER PLAN	(65.00)
Uncle Scrooge	INTEREST ROLLOVER PLAN	(487.50)
CecilNiosaki	INTEREST ROLLOVER PLAN	(252.25)
Tannke -	INTEREST ROLLOVER PLAN - ADD ON	(120.00)
Uncle Scrooge	INTEREST ROLLOVER PLAN - ADD ON	(12.50)
cst - - -	INTEREST ROLLOVER PLAN	(11.00)
BitLoan	1HshtPD1bSqH4KD9czH2fiNMTJxC6Xsxtd	(10.00)			10.30				0.30	Divested 7/1
notawake	INTEREST ROLLOVER	(100.00)
	Total invested:	(2,638.25)
	Total divested before August:	840.00
	Invested in August (not returned):	300
	Unkown:	1488.25

- The columns with dates are interest payments
- Everything happened in 2012

[Quickseller]

Instead of slinging mud at OgNasty endlessly, could you possibly explain what contract OgNasty violated?

[TwitchySeal]

Instead of slinging mud at OgNasty endlessly, could you possibly explain what contract OgNasty violated?

Wth man.  If you think I'm wrong just say so and explain why instead of vaguely implying everything I say is bullshit.

[suchmoon]

Instead of slinging mud at OgNasty endlessly, could you possibly explain what contract OgNasty violated?

Wth man.  If you think I'm wrong just say so and explain why instead of vaguely implying everything I say is bullshit.

Take it as a compliment. Quicksy has no explanation, not even a contrived pseudo-legal one, if he's resorting to a straw man argument. If he comes up with something he'll probably use his "more trusted" sockpuppet account to post it.