JayJuanGee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3822
Merit: 10746
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 11, 2019, 04:02:29 PM |
|
Anybody who can understand English knows what he meant. Let's look at it again: Is there anyone who thought Patrick Harnett & Pirate were doing honest dealings? I certainly hope not.
He uses the word "thought", as in "thought at the time." Don't know how you could possibly confuse this, but I'm sure you'll find a way. What part of any of this changes the fact that there are no victims seeking redress and this is purely driven by clear long term motives to target OGNasty rather than to seek any kind of restorative justice? Nobody is talking about the "victims," aka willing Ponzi participants, because nobody cares about that aspect. Its just interesting information that was recently brought to light. Don't know why you're getting all bent out of shape over it. I am not really opposed to bringing some of these matters to light based on possible new evidence, even though I hardly know shit about a lot of the underlying case. Nonetheless, if there is new evidence, we cannot keep considering the looking into the matter would merely be a personal vendetta or fishing expedition. Sure, having victims would seem to be some kind of necessity in terms of considering impact or even if there would be a damage related remedy, but, they might not even know enough details of the underlying situation to realize that they were damaged, and I keep coming back to the idea that the extent of damage would have some reflection of the dollar value of the asset at the time of the damage, even if the asset had subsequently appreciated in price (which we know to be the case with bitcoin). I see most of the time in 2012, BTC prices were around $4 but towards the end of the time period in question, BTC price went up to $16 before coming back down again to $10-$12 for the rest of the year. There seems to be some evidence that OGNasty may have paid off the bigger of the investors, so the ONLY remaining ones would have had smaller investments. Of course, in retrospect, we can see that it was a ponzi shceme and too good to be true, but when people are caught up in ponzi schemes they sometimes will still participate based on their considerations that they are not going to be the last person out, so they kind of already know the risk, or could be presumed to be sufficiently taking on their own risks. So some of the victims might have been reluctant to make any claims, even if they did not get paid back any of their investment, because there could be some feelings of guilt about making any kinds of claims in such an obvious too good to be true situation, but even if everyone kind of knew it was a ponzi scheme that would not remove fiduciary responsibility from anyone serving as a middleman, including if there was fraud, misrepresentation or conversion that is just discovered. There might be plenty of investors who don't give too many shits about chances that they took on a few hundred dollars, so they don't really want to rock the boat if they got paid back some of their amount, given that they knew the whole thing was bullshit, but if they later found out that there were breaches of fiduciary responsibility, fraud, misrepresentation or conversion, then that could raise their concerns (or change their perspectives). I still don't believe that any reasonable remedy would purely measure damages in BTC... but we cannot really know circumstances, if we cannot pindown any actual cases of actual victims, can we? On the other hand, there still could be conclusions of wrongdoing, based on the new evidence, even if the exact victim circumstances are not clarified?
|
1) Self-Custody is a right. There is no such thing as "non-custodial" or "un-hosted." 2) ESG, KYC & AML are attack-vectors on Bitcoin to be avoided or minimized. 3) How much alt (shit)coin diversification is necessary? if you are into Bitcoin, then 0%......if you cannot control your gambling, then perhaps limit your alt(shit)coin exposure to less than 10% of your bitcoin size...Put BTC here: bc1q49wt0ddnj07wzzp6z7affw9ven7fztyhevqu9k
|
|
|
ibminer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1853
Merit: 2896
Goonies never say die.
|
I don't think "Exhibit 3" has even that, at least I wasn't able to find it:
After a subpoena, exhibit 3 is apparently an export that was done by pirateat40 which contains raw data of "account histories" beginning in 2012, according to the document posted by TwitchySeal. I believe exhibit 3 is here: https://www.gwern.net/docs/bitcoin/pirateat40/gov.uscourts.txed.146063.4.8.pdfThe "balance" is odd on OgNasty's page towards the end..but if you calculate the totals listed for deposits/withdrawals/payments: deposits: 3,890.26 withdrawals: -3,948.00 payments: 2,540.63 I'm not sure what to take away from this... this appears to be actual evidence put into the case, but whether pirateat40 had any reason to screw with the data before sending it, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
TwitchySeal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 2052
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 11, 2019, 08:02:19 PM Last edit: December 11, 2019, 08:45:10 PM by TwitchySeal |
|
I don't think "Exhibit 3" has even that, at least I wasn't able to find it:
After a subpoena, exhibit 3 is apparently an export that was done by pirateat40 which contains raw data of "account histories" beginning in 2012, according to the document posted by TwitchySeal. I believe exhibit 3 is here: https://www.gwern.net/docs/bitcoin/pirateat40/gov.uscourts.txed.146063.4.8.pdfThe "balance" is odd on OgNasty's page towards the end..but if you calculate the totals listed for deposits/withdrawals/payments: deposits: 3,890.26 withdrawals: -3,948.00 payments: 2,540.63 I'm not sure what to take away from this... this appears to be actual evidence put into the case, but whether pirateat40 had any reason to screw with the data before sending it, I don't know. Great find! OG received 2 interest payments and a withdraw in mid August (total of BTC144) Yet no interest payments or withdraws were paid to pass-through investors. Just the reserve payout on September 1. This much is clear and provable.
|
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 11, 2019, 10:00:02 PM Last edit: December 12, 2019, 12:40:37 AM by TECSHARE |
|
~ TL;DR [I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway. Victims might not have known they were robbed. Who needs victims anyway? We can still use this as an opportunity to allow certain people here to pursue personal vendettas. After all what is important is that we pass judgement on people even if there is no harmed party seeking redress.] Anybody who can understand English knows what he meant. Let's look at it again: Is there anyone who thought Patrick Harnett & Pirate were doing honest dealings? I certainly hope not.
He uses the word "thought", as in "thought at the time." Don't know how you could possibly confuse this, but I'm sure you'll find a way. What part of any of this changes the fact that there are no victims seeking redress No part. Literally nobody is alleging that victims are coming forward. Just alleging that he lied to past investors and stole their money knowing they would assume someone else stole it. and this is purely driven by clear long term motives to target OGNasty rather than to seek any kind of restorative justice?
It's driven by facts. Court records, block chain transactions and forum archives. I understand you don't consider these things 'proof' but if you change your mind I encourage you to check them out by going back a few pages and reading up. It's all there. Literally no one is alleging you are alleging victims are coming forward. That is a cute little semantic trick though to make it superficially seem like I was accusing you of making that claim rather than accusing you of pursuing a personal vendetta for your own self serving purposes. All of your claims rely heavily on speculation, assumptions, and perfect hindsight. There are no victims seeking redress, meaning you are here to target OGNasty, not to serve any sort of justice. [...] all you are concerned with is the perception of control that attempting to use the state to fight your petty interpersonal battles gives you. You really honestly are a pathetic excuse for a human being and it is far past time you are shunned from this community for your endless power tripping psychotic abusive behavior.[...] Do you tell OgNasty - regarding this thread - that too? Basically a case of "what goes around, comes around" isn't it...? And time to stop has long passed (in both threads). Even theymos asked nicely: But by now I - personally - (and I suspect a lot of other users too) cannot take either "side" too seriously any more... too bad. I did not. Feel free to quote if you think I am wrong. I don't support your false equivalence. Vod has a long history of perusing his personal vendettas using every forum rule, community, and even the state to attack people who dare speak critically of him. OGNasty does not. They are no where near the same, so your "what goes around, comes around." colloquialism is meaningless in this context. Nobody is talking about the "victims," aka willing Ponzi participants, because nobody cares about that aspect. Its just interesting information that was recently brought to light. Don't know why you're getting all bent out of shape over it. I see you are borrowing TwitchySeal's semantic deceits as well. None of this information is new. This isn't about seeking redress for any harmed party. This is about targeting a specific user because it serves you and your friends personally. I am "getting all bent out of shape over it" because I am not a fan of little men trying to make themselves feel big by rallying mobs and using the state as a tool to punish people who are critical of them. That's all this is. You can postulate about the law like Vod all you like, everyone sees what this is even if they aren't as vocal about it as me.
|
|
|
|
JayJuanGee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3822
Merit: 10746
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 11, 2019, 10:43:07 PM |
|
~ TL;DR [I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway. Victims might not have known they were robbed. Who needs victims anyway? We can still use this as an opportunity to allow certain people here to pursue personal vendettas. After all what is important is that we pass judgement on people even if there is no harmed party seeking redress.] Gosh, Tecshare. What a great summary!!!!! No wonder you are so well liked in these parts. Your ability to boil a bunch of words down to their bare essence. ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) NOZT ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) By the way, Tecshare, I recall a few posts back, you were going on a little temper tantrum when Twitchy had attempted to summarize what you were saying, so you decided to attempt such paring down on your own?
|
1) Self-Custody is a right. There is no such thing as "non-custodial" or "un-hosted." 2) ESG, KYC & AML are attack-vectors on Bitcoin to be avoided or minimized. 3) How much alt (shit)coin diversification is necessary? if you are into Bitcoin, then 0%......if you cannot control your gambling, then perhaps limit your alt(shit)coin exposure to less than 10% of your bitcoin size...Put BTC here: bc1q49wt0ddnj07wzzp6z7affw9ven7fztyhevqu9k
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2019, 12:37:17 AM |
|
Gosh, Tecshare. What a great summary!!!!! No wonder you are so well liked in these parts. Your ability to boil a bunch of words down to their bare essence. ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) NOZT ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) By the way, Tecshare, I recall a few posts back, you were going on a little temper tantrum when Twitchy had attempted to summarize what you were saying, so you decided to attempt such paring down on your own? I am not really sure what ways I can make it more clear that the need to be liked is extremely low on my hierarchy of needs, but it always seems people like to remind me of this when I am critical of them as if it is an effective motivating force. It's not. Also, much like TwitchySeal it seems you also like to project emotional states upon me rather than respond to the substance of what I posted. You can all collectively wag your fingers at me and tell stories if you like, this Stalinist "show me the man I will find you the crime" bullshit must be stopped at all costs. If I need to be the whipping boy for a while until everyone else realizes they need to collectively stand up to this as well then so be it. All it takes is enough people saying no. The people doing this can't target all of us, their bullshit only spreads so thin.
|
|
|
|
JayJuanGee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3822
Merit: 10746
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2019, 12:58:35 AM |
|
Gosh, Tecshare. What a great summary!!!!! No wonder you are so well liked in these parts. Your ability to boil a bunch of words down to their bare essence. ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) NOZT ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) By the way, Tecshare, I recall a few posts back, you were going on a little temper tantrum when Twitchy had attempted to summarize what you were saying, so you decided to attempt such paring down on your own? I am not really sure what ways I can make it more clear that the need to be liked is extremely low on my hierarchy of needs, but it always seems people like to remind me of this when I am critical of them as if it is an effective motivating force. It's not. I am not trying to be prescriptive. I was merely describing. So motivate yourself however, you would like. Also, much like TwitchySeal it seems you also like to project emotional states upon me rather than respond to the substance of what I posted.
O.k. Just seemed like a temper tantrum to me, but if it was an objective and emotionless variation of a rant, then that is fine, too. You can all collectively wag your fingers at me and tell stories if you like, this Stalinist "show me the man I will find you the crime" bullshit must be stopped at all costs.
You are on a mission to stop injustices. I see. Great. If I need to be the whipping boy for a while until everyone else realizes they need to collectively stand up to this as well then so be it.
I am glad that you are taking one for the team. That's good of you. All it takes is enough people saying no. The people doing this can't target all of us, their bullshit only spreads so thin.
I doubt that you are being targeted. Anyhow, that seemed to be a bit off topic. ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
|
1) Self-Custody is a right. There is no such thing as "non-custodial" or "un-hosted." 2) ESG, KYC & AML are attack-vectors on Bitcoin to be avoided or minimized. 3) How much alt (shit)coin diversification is necessary? if you are into Bitcoin, then 0%......if you cannot control your gambling, then perhaps limit your alt(shit)coin exposure to less than 10% of your bitcoin size...Put BTC here: bc1q49wt0ddnj07wzzp6z7affw9ven7fztyhevqu9k
|
|
|
suchmoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 9007
https://bpip.org
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2019, 01:08:14 AM |
|
his Stalinist "show me the man I will find you the crime" bullshit must be stopped at all costs
You can stop posting any time you want.
|
|
|
|
TwitchySeal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 2052
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2019, 01:11:33 AM Merited by allyouracid (1) |
|
I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway.
I thought that was the case. I think it's kind of lame and that you say stuff like this without even looking into it: None of your conclusions are supported by the evidence and are 100% speculation.
I appreciate you admitting that you didn't bother looking into it though.
|
|
|
|
hacker1001101001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2019, 04:13:53 AM |
|
I doubt that you are being targeted.
his Stalinist "show me the man I will find you the crime" bullshit must be stopped at all costs
You can stop posting any time you want. I think it's kind of lame and that you say stuff like this without even looking into it: None of your conclusions are supported by the evidence and are 100% speculation.
I appreciate you admitting that you didn't bother looking into it though. If one goes Sherlock on the traces of this attacks on specific people, you would know who's being targeted for what. But most don't bother, afterall it's all just a forum for many but much more than it for some.
|
|
|
|
JayJuanGee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3822
Merit: 10746
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2019, 06:46:53 AM |
|
I doubt that you are being targeted.
his Stalinist "show me the man I will find you the crime" bullshit must be stopped at all costs
You can stop posting any time you want. I think it's kind of lame and that you say stuff like this without even looking into it: None of your conclusions are supported by the evidence and are 100% speculation.
I appreciate you admitting that you didn't bother looking into it though. If one goes Sherlock on the traces of this attacks on specific people, you would know who's being targeted for what. But most don't bother, afterall it's all just a forum for many but much more than it for some. Differences of opinion is not a bad thing, and even clusters of alliances are not necessarily bad, either. The forum seems to allow for that, and surely seems to be dangerous if newbies get too caught up in such battles, which makes it seem that they are accounts created or paid for by other members, even if they are overly enthusiastic to take sides. None of us that you quoted, herein are newbies. Anyhow, I try NOT to participate too much in those kinds of alliances, but the use of trust and various aspects/ tools of the forum does seem to encourage some of that kind of involvement. Came for the bitcoin, stayed for the interludes of drama.
|
1) Self-Custody is a right. There is no such thing as "non-custodial" or "un-hosted." 2) ESG, KYC & AML are attack-vectors on Bitcoin to be avoided or minimized. 3) How much alt (shit)coin diversification is necessary? if you are into Bitcoin, then 0%......if you cannot control your gambling, then perhaps limit your alt(shit)coin exposure to less than 10% of your bitcoin size...Put BTC here: bc1q49wt0ddnj07wzzp6z7affw9ven7fztyhevqu9k
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2019, 07:20:24 AM |
|
I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway.
I thought that was the case. I think it's kind of lame and that you say stuff like this without even looking into it: None of your conclusions are supported by the evidence and are 100% speculation.
I appreciate you admitting that you didn't bother looking into it though. Do you always edit people's quotes and take them out of context to manufacture deceptive conclusions or just when you have no argument to support your personal vendettas?
|
|
|
|
TwitchySeal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 2052
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2019, 08:18:51 AM |
|
I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway.
I thought that was the case. I think it's kind of lame and that you say stuff like this without even looking into it: None of your conclusions are supported by the evidence and are 100% speculation.
I appreciate you admitting that you didn't bother looking into it though. Do you always edit people's quotes and take them out of context to manufacture deceptive conclusions or just when you have no argument to support your personal vendettas? I did not do that. It's pretty ironic how you've been defending Og and claiming all of my assumptions are baseless and none of my conclusions are supported by fact (plus all the personal attacks), despite the fact you haven't bothered to look into it. Textbook psychological projection.
|
|
|
|
sbogovac
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2730
Merit: 1192
I don't believe in denial.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2019, 08:43:33 AM Last edit: December 12, 2019, 09:56:46 AM by sbogovac |
|
[...] [...] all you are concerned with is the perception of control that attempting to use the state to fight your petty interpersonal battles gives you. You really honestly are a pathetic excuse for a human being and it is far past time you are shunned from this community for your endless power tripping psychotic abusive behavior.[...] Do you tell OgNasty - regarding this thread - that too? Basically a case of "what goes around, comes around" isn't it...? And time to stop has long passed (in both threads). Even theymos asked nicely: But by now I - personally - (and I suspect a lot of other users too) cannot take either "side" too seriously any more... too bad. I did not. Feel free to quote if you think I am wrong. I don't support your false equivalence. Vod has a long history of perusing his personal vendettas using every forum rule, community, and even the state to attack people who dare speak critically of him. OGNasty does not. They are no where near the same, so your "what goes around, comes around." colloquialism is meaningless in this context. [...] You're comparing apple's and oranges, I only referred to the two threads who are basically the same petty $%^*(&&... The one has done a lot of "policing" on this forum (stepping on a lot of toes while doing so) and the other one has mainly used this forum for his own financial gain (making a lot of people look green with envy). Not supporting either one, nor condemning either one (although; yes, the one might have been a bit more tactfull and the other might have used a bit better judgment in appraising opportunities). But you must admit that both threads turned out to be nothing more than "petty interpersonal battles" (as you say), by both... ![Lips sealed](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/lipsrsealed.gif) PS and doing more harm to this forum and community than contributing...
|
0x7442A5c37E513D335F53843cD20c00F77eAC7867
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2019, 12:04:40 PM |
|
I did not do that.
It's pretty ironic how you've been defending Og and claiming all of my assumptions are baseless and none of my conclusions are supported by fact (plus all the personal attacks), despite the fact you haven't bothered to look into it. Textbook psychological projection. But you did in fact do that. I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway.
I thought that was the case.I think it's kind of lame and that you say stuff like this without even looking into it: None of your conclusions are supported by the evidence and are 100% speculation.
I appreciate you admitting that you didn't bother looking into it though.I put the quote you selectively edited in bold and underlined the parts where you took what I said out of context and pretended as if it were a direct statement from me as a matter of fact. What I actually said: ~ TL;DR [I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway. Victims might not have known they were robbed. Who needs victims anyway? We can still use this as an opportunity to allow certain people here to pursue personal vendettas. After all what is important is that we pass judgement on people even if there is no harmed party seeking redress.] You will notice you removed the context of not only the "TL;DR" indicating it was a summary of another user's post, but you also took the time to remove the brackets which are another indication of such so that you could reply to the comments as if it fit the narrative you are trying to manufacture. You did in fact edit my quote and take it out of context. You can repeat that I have not looked into it ad nauseam, but that doesn't make it a fact. You know what is textbook psychological projection? Exactly what you just did editing my quotes and purposely manufacturing new context to push your preferred narrative. Just because you have some facts doesn't mean they support your every conclusion. You have established a relationship. You haven't established intent, harmed parties, or even missing funds. Your conclusions rely on speculation, assumption, and suspicion, not facts. You have come to a conclusion first then are attempting to arrange the facts around that conclusion. That is called confirmation bias, and it is a logical fallacy. You're comparing apple's and oranges, I only referred to the two threads who are basically the same petty $%^*(&&... The one has done a lot of "policing" on this forum (stepping on a lot of toes while doing so) and the other one has mainly used this forum for his own financial gain (making a lot of people look green with envy). Not supporting either one, nor condemning either one (although; yes, the one might have been a bit more tactfull and the other might have used a bit better judgment in appraising opportunities). But you must admit that both threads turned out to be nothing more than "petty interpersonal battles" (as you say), by both... ![Lips sealed](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/lipsrsealed.gif) PS and doing more harm to this forum and community than contributing... You are the one comparing apples and oranges. I didn't make a comparison, I pointed out your comparison is a false equivalence because their behavior is no where near comparable. Petty bickering is one thing, perpetual organized attacks on targeted users abusing the forums trust systems and using the force of the state as a weapon is not comparable. One is distinctly more dangerous to this community than the other.
|
|
|
|
TwitchySeal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 2052
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2019, 12:29:31 PM Last edit: December 12, 2019, 12:43:26 PM by TwitchySeal Merited by vapourminer (1), JayJuanGee (1) |
|
Just because you have some facts doesn't mean they support your every conclusion. You have established a relationship. You haven't established intent, harmed parties, or even missing funds. Your conclusions rely on speculation, assumption, and suspicion, not facts. You have come to a conclusion first then are attempting to arrange the facts around that conclusion. That is called confirmation bias, and it is a logical fallacy.
I hadn't made any conclusions until yesterday. If you'd have read the thread you would've known that I was open about the fact that I could be wrong. Right now (as of yesterday) there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Og stole BTC144 and I don't need Pirates statement about paying out OgNasty in full to prove it. (There is evidence that he took more, but it's not strong enough (yet).) We have pirates ledger for every transaction. We have ogs thread archived. We have both Pirates and OgNastys wallets indexed on wallet explorer. We have the block chain. Og was receiving weekly interest payments from Pirate, and making monthly payments to his pass through investors. The last interest payment Og sent to his investors was on August 2, 2012. On August 6 Og received an interested payment of BTC66.8 On August 13 Og received an interested payment of BTC39.2 On August 17 He received a withdraw for BTC38 On Sept 2 he paid out the insurance he had been collecting to 4 investors. BTC9.92, BTC4.59, BTC22.95 and BTC27.54 We know that was the insurance because Og posted on the same day 'reserves have been paid, pirate has defaulted', and they total BTC65, the same amount Og listed as the 'current reserves' on August 2. You'll find transaction ids to all of these in the thread if you decide to bother looking into it.
|
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2019, 03:14:29 PM |
|
Just because you have some facts doesn't mean they support your every conclusion. You have established a relationship. You haven't established intent, harmed parties, or even missing funds. Your conclusions rely on speculation, assumption, and suspicion, not facts. You have come to a conclusion first then are attempting to arrange the facts around that conclusion. That is called confirmation bias, and it is a logical fallacy.
I hadn't made any conclusions until yesterday. If you'd have read the thread you would've known that I was open about the fact that I could be wrong. Right now (as of yesterday) there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Og stole BTC144 and I don't need Pirates statement about paying out OgNasty in full to prove it. (There is evidence that he took more, but it's not strong enough (yet).) We have pirates ledger for every transaction. We have ogs thread archived. We have both Pirates and OgNastys wallets indexed on wallet explorer. We have the block chain. Og was receiving weekly interest payments from Pirate, and making monthly payments to his pass through investors. The last interest payment Og sent to his investors was on August 2, 2012. On August 6 Og received an interested payment of BTC66.8 On August 13 Og received an interested payment of BTC39.2 On August 17 He received a withdraw for BTC38 On Sept 2 he paid out the insurance he had been collecting to 4 investors. BTC9.92, BTC4.59, BTC22.95 and BTC27.54 We know that was the insurance because Og posted on the same day 'reserves have been paid, pirate has defaulted', and they total BTC65, the same amount Og listed as the 'current reserves' on August 2. You'll find transaction ids to all of these in the thread if you decide to bother looking into it. This is exactly what I am talking about. A discrepancy in the numbers does not equal theft. Again, you are making conclusions then arranging the facts around it to support that conclusion, not looking at the facts and making a conclusion based on the facts. This is textbook confirmation bias. You are so thirsty for this to serve your personal vendettas. You aren't interested in facts or an honest assessment of what happened here. You are only interested in crafting a narrative that is maximally destructive to OGNasty's reputation because your target is the man, not any damages caused.
|
|
|
|
sbogovac
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2730
Merit: 1192
I don't believe in denial.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2019, 03:33:01 PM |
|
[...] You're comparing apple's and oranges, I only referred to the two threads who are basically the same petty $%^*(&&... The one has done a lot of "policing" on this forum (stepping on a lot of toes while doing so) and the other one has mainly used this forum for his own financial gain (making a lot of people look green with envy). Not supporting either one, nor condemning either one (although; yes, the one might have been a bit more tactfull and the other might have used a bit better judgment in appraising opportunities). But you must admit that both threads turned out to be nothing more than "petty interpersonal battles" (as you say), by both... ![Lips sealed](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/lipsrsealed.gif) PS and doing more harm to this forum and community than contributing... You are the one comparing apples and oranges. I didn't make a comparison, I pointed out your comparison is a false equivalence because their behavior is no where near comparable. Petty bickering is one thing, perpetual organized attacks on targeted users abusing the forums trust systems and using the force of the state as a weapon is not comparable. One is distinctly more dangerous to this community than the other. It's obvious you are on OgNasty's side. That's your prerogative. I'm just pointing out they are both prolonging "petty interpersonal battles" that are harmful to this community either way. Now we can discuss the extent to which one is more harmful than the other, but I (and - again - I suspect more people around here) am (are) not up for that. As I already said: [...] by now I - personally - (and I suspect a lot of other users too) cannot take either "side" too seriously any more... too bad. Just leaving this out here - again:
|
0x7442A5c37E513D335F53843cD20c00F77eAC7867
|
|
|
TwitchySeal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 2052
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2019, 03:54:15 PM |
|
This is exactly what I am talking about. A discrepancy in the numbers does not equal theft.
If you can actually disprove something specific I said, please do. Your 'A discrepancy in the numbers does not equal theft' defense is a true statement, but it doesn't directly address anything. Sometimes a discrepancy absolutely does prove theft. And sometimes, like in this case, it's just one piece of the big picture. I'm going to keep editing out and ignoring all the bullshit assumptions and personal attacks from now on, btw.
|
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2019, 04:06:53 PM |
|
It's obvious you are on OgNasty's side. That's your prerogative. I'm just pointing out they are both prolonging "petty interpersonal battles" that are harmful to this community either way. Now we can discuss the extent to which one is more harmful than the other, but I (and - again - I suspect more people around here) am (are) not up for that. As I already said: [...] by now I - personally - (and I suspect a lot of other users too) cannot take either "side" too seriously any more... too bad. Just leaving this out here - again: Again, this is a totally false equivalence as I already explained. You can keep trying real hard to make it sound like they share equal fault here, but that is absolute horse shit. This is Vods MO 100%. Target people abusing whatever systems of power he can, the slide the topic with so much bullshit and bickering people don't want to even look at it any more, then they throw their hands up and call it a draw. He does this EVERY TIME he is challenged on his abusive behavior. Its easy to poo poo and say just ignore him when you aren't the one being targeted. After all it costs you nothing to dismiss attacks on others now doesn't it? This is exactly what I am talking about. A discrepancy in the numbers does not equal theft.
If you can actually disprove something specific I said, please do. Your 'A discrepancy in the numbers does not equal theft' defense is a true statement, but it doesn't directly address anything. Sometimes a discrepancy absolutely does prove theft. And sometimes, like in this case, it's just one piece of the big picture. I'm going to keep editing out and ignoring all the bullshit assumptions and personal attacks from now on, btw. So I am to prove a negative now? That's not how it works captain confirmation bias. You are making the claim, you have the burden of proof. It is just one piece of the big picture, and the rest of the pieces you drew in with crayon from your imagination and stomp your feet and demand the Easter bunny you drew is real because rabbits exist.
|
|
|
|
|