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

[Vod]

I could try to make sense of this insane rambling, but then I would probably require heavy medication like you.

All you can do is deflect, you sick fuck.  :/

Maybe shut up for a bit and let OG explain why he didn't return funds that were returned to him. 

[TECSHARE]

I could try to make sense of this insane rambling, but then I would probably require heavy medication like you.

All you can do is deflect, you sick fuck.  :/

Maybe shut up for a bit and let OG explain why he didn't return funds that were returned to him.  

That's not how burden of proof works. The accusers have produced completely ambiguous evidence that is proof of nothing. The burden of proof is on the accusers to prove their claims, not OGNasty to detail his private activities to satiate your obsessive vendetta.

[Vod]

I could try to make sense of this insane rambling, but then I would probably require heavy medication like you.

All you can do is deflect, you sick fuck.  :/

Maybe shut up for a bit and let OG explain why he didn't return funds that were returned to him.  

That's not how burden of proof works. The accusers have produced completely ambiguous evidence that is proof of nothing. The burden of proof is on the accusers to prove their claims, not OGNasty to detail his private activities to satiate your obsessive vendetta.

My agenda?   Why are you so obsessed with deflecting  everything, pervert?

Now shut up for a bit and let's get back on topic.  Let OG explain why he didn't return funds that were returned to him.

[TECSHARE]

I could try to make sense of this insane rambling, but then I would probably require heavy medication like you.

All you can do is deflect, you sick fuck.  :/

Maybe shut up for a bit and let OG explain why he didn't return funds that were returned to him.  

That's not how burden of proof works. The accusers have produced completely ambiguous evidence that is proof of nothing. The burden of proof is on the accusers to prove their claims, not OGNasty to detail his private activities to satiate your obsessive vendetta.

My agenda?   Why are you so obsessed with deflecting  everything, pervert?

Now shut up for a bit and let's get back on topic.  Let OG explain why he didn't return funds that were returned to him.

Are you hearing voices now too Vod? I never said anything about your "agenda", but thanks for the demonstration of your abilities of projection. How about instead of declaring people guilty until proven innocent, you prove your accusation.

[sbogovac]

Aaaaand... back on topic:

A reply by OgNasty would be appreciated:

[...] From Og:

I lost my BTC in Bitcoin Savings & Loan along with everyone else.

I did not keep any "refund" for myself.

From Shavers' SEC testimony:

Q And did you return bitcoins to others during that time period?

A Yes.

Q Who?
...
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.

Then you have Exhibit 3 which shows transactions being made to Og, backed by entries on the blockchain.

This is plenty of proof. [...]

So, still the same question for OgNasty:

[...] it would be quite simple:

[Deflection]

C'mon... how hard can it be...?

[...]This is pretty much very simple yes-know question.

@OG have you returned whole amount to depositors? Did pirate return you whole amount, as he claim he did?

and provide the blockchain proof to back his words up... sounds simple enough to me...

[TECSHARE]

Aaaaand... back on topic:

A reply by OgNasty would be appreciated:

[...] From Og:

I lost my BTC in Bitcoin Savings & Loan along with everyone else.

I did not keep any "refund" for myself.

From Shavers' SEC testimony:

Q And did you return bitcoins to others during that time period?

A Yes.

Q Who?
...
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.

Then you have Exhibit 3 which shows transactions being made to Og, backed by entries on the blockchain.

This is plenty of proof. [...]

So, still the same question for OgNasty:

[...] it would be quite simple:

[Deflection]

C'mon... how hard can it be...?

[...]This is pretty much very simple yes-know question.

@OG have you returned whole amount to depositors? Did pirate return you whole amount, as he claim he did?

and provide the blockchain proof to back his words up... sounds simple enough to me...

I am seeing a repeating theme of the inversion of the burden of proof and people demanding OGNasty prove his innocence rather than people proving his guilt.

[nutildah]

I am seeing a repeating theme of the inversion of the burden of proof and people demanding OGNasty prove his innocence rather than people proving his guilt.

Nobody is demanding anything.

We just want to know what happened.

Pirate said he repaid Og in full. Og said he didn't.

Og is the only person who can answer if pirate's sworn testimony to the SEC is true or not.

[allyouracid]

You'd be very smart to stop deflecting like that self described sick fuck.

I could try to make sense of this insane rambling, but then I would probably require heavy medication like you.

All you can do is deflect, you sick fuck.  :/

Why are you so obsessed with deflecting  everything, pervert?

So, this is your discussion culture? This is how you solve problems? How old are you?

[sbogovac]

[...] I am seeing a repeating theme of the inversion of the burden of proof and people demanding OGNasty prove his innocence rather than people proving his guilt.

dude:

1. I dind't ask you anything; but,

2. there is proof (both sworn testimony as well as blockchain proof), so now it's only the polite thing to ask for a reply... (from OgNasty).

[TECSHARE]

I am seeing a repeating theme of the inversion of the burden of proof and people demanding OGNasty prove his innocence rather than people proving his guilt.

Nobody is demanding anything.

We just want to know what happened.

Pirate said he repaid Og in full. Og said he didn't.

Og is the only person who can answer if pirate's sworn testimony to the SEC is true or not.

Yeah you're right, people are just making a string of accusations attempting to impugn his character over and over again until he is forced to prove his innocence rather than accusers proving his guilt = no one demanding anything.

[...] I am seeing a repeating theme of the inversion of the burden of proof and people demanding OGNasty prove his innocence rather than people proving his guilt.

dude:

1. I dind't ask you anything; but,

2. there is proof (both sworn testimony as well as blockchain proof), so now it's only the polite thing to ask for a reply... (from OgNasty).

No, there isn't as Philipma1957 and others already pointed out:

He received BTC1000 on August 2., BTC68.8 on August 6, and BTC38 on August 16 from pirateat.

the 1000 traces to being paid to investors . I did not check the 68.8 or the 38

still it seems that og did not get the other 1400.  he may not be guilty of anything in the pirate case.

A) no one has come to the plate and said they were not refunded.

B) no one has shown he got 2500 coins paid back.

C) pirate may have  misstated he fully paid Ognasty during statements quoted in the thread.

1. Their is no proof.. Only a dead end.. But many here seem to believe that proof is not required, contrary to my and philipma1957's opinion, which is what creates this great divide in the community, between those who require proof to come to a solid conclusion, and those who do not..

This is at the core of the issue, as those who do not, realize their ability to freely impugn the reputation of anyone who crosses them is threatened by such a standard.

other possibilities og paid the 144 in coins with cash.

to someone that was owed the btc.

and that person does not want to be revealed.

this would mean og is taking a beating in this thread simply because he is preserving some one’s identity.

I want to point out. at first to this thread began with 2500 missing coins which became 1000 missing coins
which now really looks to be 144 coins worth just under 1700 usd.

i do sales i do passthroughs i do trades.

you could never understand my business by looking at the blockchain.

and my biggest account shows 350 coins passing through.

og has an address with 17500 coins coming in and out in the last 8 years.

i doubt very much that is the only way he does business.

 look if you can show me someone that says og robbed the 144 coins directly from me i would be surprised.
ie john smith say og should have given me the 144 coins and did not.

as for obvious ponzi in 2012 there was no such thing since

pirate could have had 100000 or more cheap coins from 09 and 10.

so by creating the bank to boost price of his stack of coins it was possible it was not a ponzi.


these days this could happen with a coin like doge.

i have two trezor accounts one with 230000 doge and one with 140000 doge.

if doge went up to three dollars i would be a millionare.

maybe i would do a doge pirate club like the first pirate did.

the difference would be i would pay out in the hopes it would drive the price higher.

back in 2012 many may have thought pirate was running his club to publicize bitcoin and drive the price up.

there were very little coins to mine or use in 2012.

so to say it was an obvious ponzi is pretty much wrong.

to say it may have been a ponzi is more accurate.

do i think og gets a pass on this yes until

some one shows me he was not paid the 144 in coins and was due the 144 in coins og gets a pass.

As you can see what is being called "proof" is nothing of the sort, and a string of people intent on harassing OGNasty are in fact demeaning he prove his innocence rather than the accusers prove his guilt. All the accusers have is speculation, and the ambiguous statement of a convicted felon. There are no limits to how much people can speculate on and impugn the character of others, therefore it is totally irrational to expect people to have to defend themselves as if they are guilty until they prove themselves innocent as you are in fact demanding.

[nutildah]

I am seeing a repeating theme of the inversion of the burden of proof and people demanding OGNasty prove his innocence rather than people proving his guilt.

Nobody is demanding anything.

We just want to know what happened.

Pirate said he repaid Og in full. Og said he didn't.

Og is the only person who can answer if pirate's sworn testimony to the SEC is true or not.

Yeah you're right, people are just making a string of accusations attempting to impugn his character over and over again until he is forced to prove his innocence rather than accusers proving his guilt = no one demanding anything.

You are continuing to twist this into things its not about. TwitchySeal hasn't posted in days. How is asking a question the same thing as "making a string of accusations"? This is why some people consider you to be untrustworthy and/or a troll. I know you don't care what they think, but I'm just letting you know: this behavior is why they think what they do.

All the accusers have is speculation, and the ambiguous statement of a convicted felon.

There was nothing ambiguous about pirate saying he had repaid Og in full. He even spelled out O-G-N-A-S-T-Y for the record. Again, you are just lying. For what reason, I have no idea. If you didn't keep churning out bullshit I wouldn't feel the need to keep correcting you, BTW.

[JayJuanGee]

I am seeing a repeating theme of the inversion of the burden of proof and people demanding OGNasty prove his innocence rather than people proving his guilt.

Nobody is demanding anything except.

We just want are demanding to know what happened.

Pirate said he repaid Og in full. Og said he didn't.  Preponderance of evidence (if not beyond a reasonable doubt) blockchain evidence has been compiled and explained that supports Pirate's version of events rather than OG's.

Og is the only person who might be able to provide evidence of explanation that can answer if pirate's sworn testimony to the SEC and the supporting blockchain evidence is true or not might have some other explanation besides the most reasonable current inferences that OG took the money, which also might be justified as a fee or an expense, perhaps? if OG were to explain or provide any possible justification for any of that?

FTFY  or maybe I totally butchered the simplified version of it?.

[TECSHARE]

I am seeing a repeating theme of the inversion of the burden of proof and people demanding OGNasty prove his innocence rather than people proving his guilt.

Nobody is demanding anything.

We just want to know what happened.

Pirate said he repaid Og in full. Og said he didn't.

Og is the only person who can answer if pirate's sworn testimony to the SEC is true or not.

Yeah you're right, people are just making a string of accusations attempting to impugn his character over and over again until he is forced to prove his innocence rather than accusers proving his guilt = no one demanding anything.

You are continuing to twist this into things its not about. TwitchySeal hasn't posted in days. How is asking a question the same thing as "making a string of accusations"? This is why some people consider you to be untrustworthy and/or a troll. I know you don't care what they think, but I'm just letting you know: this behavior is why they think what they do.

All the accusers have is speculation, and the ambiguous statement of a convicted felon.

There was nothing ambiguous about pirate saying he had repaid Og in full. He even spelled out O-G-N-A-S-T-Y for the record. Again, you are just lying. For what reason, I have no idea. If you didn't keep churning out bullshit I wouldn't feel the need to keep correcting you, BTW.

Is that what this thread is? People just asking questions? To me it looks like yet one more attempt in a long string of attempts to attack OGNasty by casting aspersions upon him and demanding he prove his innocence, and dance like a puppet for his accusers, but sure you call it "just asking questions" if you like. There was plenty ambiguous about Pirate's statement, even if there wasn't, he is still a convicted felon. I don't know about you, but convicted felons don't rank too high in my trustworthiness or reliability ranking.

Also there is the little detail that no one has any proof where refunded funds went, and for all you know all of them were returned, but lets ignore that crucial gap in the evidence. Tell me, where in my quote there did I say anything about Twitchy Seal? I know it is hard to not let your projections bleed into your statements, but please do try.

[nutildah]

Is that what this thread is? People just asking questions?

Stop lumping us all into one group. Its dishonest, and stupid. That's why I brought up Twitchy: he was the one who said he could "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that Og stole from his investors. While I tend to agree with him, I'm not willing to invest the time trying to "prove it beyond a reasonable doubt." I never said that I could. What I did say about Og was this:

I certainly don't wish him punitive harm from something that happened 6-7 years ago.

So just stop with your bullshit Stazi Gang narrative for one second.

What I want to know is why pirate would say he reimbursed Og in full while Og said he didn't.

And you can't answer that question, so why you keep responding is beyond me.

[TECSHARE]

Is that what this thread is? People just asking questions?

Stop lumping us all into one group. Its dishonest, and stupid. That's why I brought up Twitchy: he was the one who said he could "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that Og stole from his investors. While I tend to agree with him, I'm not willing to invest the time trying to "prove it beyond a reasonable doubt." I never said that I could. What I did say about Og was this:

I certainly don't wish him punitive harm from something that happened 6-7 years ago.

So just stop with your bullshit Stazi Gang narrative for one second.

What I want to know is why pirate would say he reimbursed Og in full while Og said he didn't.

And you can't answer that question, so why you keep responding is beyond me.

Thanks for another demonstration of the inversion of the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.

[nutildah]

Thanks for another demonstration of the inversion of the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.

I accused Og of lying based on sworn testimony that is on public record and blockchain evidence that confirms/proves funds were returned to Og from pirate. I added him to my distrust list -- whoopty f'n doo. He's not being tried or convicted of anything because, as I've already explained to you yet you still don't seem to grasp, this isn't a court room. He could perhaps present another side to the story that I hadn't considered, but he doesn't feel its worth doing so, and frankly I don't blame him.

Am I missing anything? You feel the need to do some more barking still?

[eddie13]

blockchain evidence that confirms/proves funds were returned to Og from pirate.

But it doesn't?

i looked and looked and look and i dont see this.

i see a partial payment which ognasty  paid in under an hour to investors .

if you can show me more then the three payments you showed which add to under 1200 btc

meaning ognasty was shorted around 1300 btc.

if you find the payments for that 1300,which i cant. you would have something.

If anything, the blockchain evidence shows that he was not fully paid out by pirate..

How do you figure, nutildah, that the blockchain evidence even remotely shows OG's passthrough was fully paid out?

The blockchain evidence corroborates that the passthrough was shorted in the end.. Does it not?

[suchmoon]

The blockchain evidence corroborates that the passthrough was shorted in the end.. Does it not?

I think the allegation is that some of what he got back from pirate (even if it was not the full amount) he didn't "pass through" to the investors.

[eddie13]

The blockchain evidence corroborates that the passthrough was shorted in the end.. Does it not?

I think the allegation is that some of what he got back from pirate (even if it was not the full amount) he didn't "pass through" to the investors.

That is a separate allegation.. I was responding to this allegation..

I accused Og of lying based on sworn testimony that is on public record and blockchain evidence that confirms/proves funds were returned to Og from pirate.

Pirate said he repaid Og in full. Og said he didn't.

Og is the only person who can answer if pirate's sworn testimony to the SEC is true or not.

What I want to know is why pirate would say he reimbursed Og in full while Og said he didn't.

blockchain evidence that confirms/proves funds were returned to Og from pirate.

If anything, the blockchain evidence shows that he was not fully paid out by pirate..

The only "evidence" the passthrough was paid in full, is pirate's testimony to the police, in the transcript..

ognasty was shorted around 1300 btc.

if you find the payments for that 1300,which i cant. you would have something.

As for the mysterious 144BTC dead end.. Separate allegation... (144BTC is all that's left unaccounted for after it was shown that the passthough was stiffed around 1300BTC, not fully repaid by pirate)

[nutildah]

The blockchain evidence corroborates that the passthrough was shorted in the end.. Does it not?

I think the allegation is that some of what he got back from pirate (even if it was not the full amount) he didn't "pass through" to the investors.

That is a separate allegation.. I was responding to this allegation..

I accused Og of lying based on sworn testimony that is on public record and blockchain evidence that confirms/proves funds were returned to Og from pirate.

Pirate said he repaid Og in full. Og said he didn't.

Og is the only person who can answer if pirate's sworn testimony to the SEC is true or not.

What I want to know is why pirate would say he reimbursed Og in full while Og said he didn't.

blockchain evidence that confirms/proves funds were returned to Og from pirate.

If anything, the blockchain evidence shows that he was not fully paid out by pirate..

The only "evidence" the passthrough was paid in full, is pirate's testimony to the police, in the transcript..

ognasty was shorted around 1300 btc.

if you find the payments for that 1300,which i cant. you would have something.

As for the mysterious 144BTC dead end.. Separate allegation... (144BTC is all that's left unaccounted for after it was shown that the passthough was stiffed around 1300BTC, not fully repaid by pirate)

You're making things more complicated than they need to be.

1. The testimony was delivered under sworn oath to the SEC, not the police.
2. I can't prove that all funds were returned to Og by pirate by looking at the blockchain -- I never said that I could. But certainly some of them were, which contradicts Og's statement.

I just want to know what would compel pirate to lie under oath about returning all of the funds to Og, if he indeed lied.