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

[JayJuanGee]

I would suggest that if you raise an issue, and say:  This is a witch hunt, then you have the burden to show that.  Of course, you can express that "this is a witch hunt" as an opinion, but if you are trying to persuade someone, then you have the burden, no?

I posted some evidence of "Witch Hunt" back on page 7, but it was dropped as off topic and it seems you didn't want to look too far into it..

Just because you raise a topic, and present evidence in support of that topic does not make it relevant, necessarily.

Seems to me that the more important point of relevance is whether OGNasty engaged in the alleged conduct rather than the supposed vindictive behaviors of the purported accusers.  There are standards like this in all kinds of areas of life. 

Let's take an employment example.  Let's say that an employer can fire someone for any reason at all, so long as it is not based on a discriminatory category (such as race, age, sex). The employer had stated that it would like to get rid of Billy because billy is over 50, so therefore the employer has an unlawful motive; however, the Employer also has a rule that stealing from the company is a fireable offense.  Billy is caught on camera stealing a $2k computer from the company, and he is clearly guilty of stealing the computer from the company.  The company fires Billy.  In this hypothetical, it does not matter that the employer has a bias and an unlawful motive against Billy that is clearly proven by evidence if the evidence shows that Billy had been fired for stealing the computer from the company, and everyone who steals from the company gets fired.  So you can argue and provide facts until you are blue in the face that you have brought up a valid point about the companies proven bias about billy, but that evidence is irrelevant - even if you have  established your burdens on that irrelevant point.

If evidence of "Witch Hunt" is now of concern for this topic,

I don't think it is, but I am not denying that there are people making claims that it is relevant and that there is evidence of it.  My assertions about burden of proof in regards to that topic does not make it relevant, necessarily.  It is just an example of how someone might have a burden who is attempting to make a point about a topic, but does not make the topic relevant, necessarily.

I'm sure I/we can provide a plethora thereof, all the way back to and including the creation of this thread by the OP in the first place..

That would be called going on a tangent.

Should we really go down that path?

Of course, you are free to try, but it seems mostly irrelevant... not completely, but mostly.  Of course, opinions can vary about what is relevant and what is not too, and trolls, shills, distractors become very good at attempting to make irrelevance seem to be irrelevant, but does not cause irrelevance to become relevant.

Let me know if/when you would like abundance of "Witch Hunt" supporting evidence presented if it is now considered on topic and relevant to this case..

Maybe you could start a thread on such "witch hunt" topic, and if you provide a link to such topic here, that link might not be considered to be irrelevant to this thread, because at least the link on its own does not provide a lot of gobbledy-gook of tangentially possible distracting information.. and allows a bit better focus on the main topic here, which seems to be whether OGNasty did the alleged unethical or even misleading, fraudulent, conversion deed that he is alleged of doing or not and maybe what the remedy should be, if it seems to be true that he did those things?

[1715306974]

1715306974

[1715306974]

1715306974

[1715306974]

1715306974

[sirazimuth]

[edited out]

<lots of proof burdens and other lawyer speak>

<more burdens and proofs business>

we are now entering the burden of proof rabbit hole......

[TwitchySeal]

Twitchy clearly stated he has NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED WRONG DOING. IT is merely speculation.

It's not merely speculation.  There's a shitload of evidence.  What I stated was that the evidence "proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he pocketed BTC144"  

If scammers were only labeled such when it was proven that it would be impossible for them not to have scammed....nobody would ever be labeled a scammer.

Could you take the default trust list drama to another thread please?

But you are SPECULATING he did not pay it back via another account right??

I mean, we're just going in circles at this point.
Speculation implies there is no firm evidence.
It's not merely speculation.  There's a shitload of evidence.  When you take it all into consideration, it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he pocketed BTC145

If you wake up in the morning and your yard is wet, but you didn't see it rain, would you consider it just speculation that it rained because someone could have come  and sprayed your yard with water while you were sleeping?  No.  The wet yard proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it rained.

[teeGUMES]

If you wake up in the morning and your yard is wet, but you didn't see it rain, would you consider it just speculation that it rained because someone could have come  and sprayed your yard with water while you were sleeping?  No.  The wet yard proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it rained.

I think you're using phrases that you shouldn't be. Here I sit on the jury, my yard was wet this morning from the phenomenon known as "morning dew". It did not rain yet my yard is wet. I now reasonably doubt your whole case.
When you're making accusations such as the ones in this thread/topic you better come harder than that.

[JayJuanGee]

If you wake up in the morning and your yard is wet, but you didn't see it rain, would you consider it just speculation that it rained because someone could have come  and sprayed your yard with water while you were sleeping?  No.  The wet yard proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it rained.

I think you're using phrases that you shouldn't be. Here I sit on the jury, my yard was wet this morning from the phenomenon known as "morning dew". It did not rain yet my yard is wet. I now reasonably doubt your whole case.
When you're making accusations such as the ones in this thread/topic you better come harder than that.

You are fighting with the hypothetical teeGUMES, rather than undermining the point that Twitchy made.

[owlcatz]

This thread is starting to remind me of the current impeachment on TV, but almost better because I can participate.

[TwitchySeal]

If you wake up in the morning and your yard is wet, but you didn't see it rain, would you consider it just speculation that it rained because someone could have come  and sprayed your yard with water while you were sleeping?  No.  The wet yard proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it rained.

I think you're using phrases that you shouldn't be. Here I sit on the jury, my yard was wet this morning from the phenomenon known as "morning dew". It did not rain yet my yard is wet. I now reasonably doubt your whole case.
When you're making accusations such as the ones in this thread/topic you better come harder than that.

Ok bad analogy lol.  Replace with snow.

The fact alone that a scenario exists where it did not snow does not make it impossible to come to a reasonable and reliable conclusion that it snowed.
The question should be how likely it is that the scenario of it not snowing happened. This logic is used in court rooms every day.  Judges sometimes use a similar analogy to explain the concept to jurors.  

In Ogs case, I suggest taking into consideration all evidence (blockchain, forum archives, pirates court documents, Ogs actions) and then coming to a conclusion of how likely it is you think he stole the BTC144 rather than just dismissing the whole thing because a scenario exists where he didn't steal the money.

I believe the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he stole the BTC144.  I also think it's worth noting that the evidence shows it is likely he stole much more.  The only burden I have is to be honest.

[Recaptcha007]

When was Mr. Nasty appointed a treasurer on this forum ?  before or after this ponzi passthrough?

[TwitchySeal]

When was Mr. Nasty appointed a treasurer on this forum ?  before or after this ponzi passthrough?

Pretty sure it was about 7 months later.

[trapcoder666]

When was Mr. Nasty appointed a treasurer on this forum ?  before or after this ponzi passthrough?

Pretty sure it was about 7 months later.

Any of his investors posted that they weren't settled yet?

[TwitchySeal]

When was Mr. Nasty appointed a treasurer on this forum ?  before or after this ponzi passthrough?

Pretty sure it was about 7 months later.

Any of his investors posted that they weren't settled yet?

No.

They received their July interest payments at the beginning of August, just like May June and July.  

News broke that the ponzi was collapsing in the middle of August.

Sept 1 OG posted that pirate had defaulted and paid out the insurance fund he had put aside in case is was a scam. (total of BTC65)

They likely just assumed that since it was well known that the ponzi had collapsed, Og hadn't received anything from pirate after August 1. He did though.

[trapcoder666]

When was Mr. Nasty appointed a treasurer on this forum ?  before or after this ponzi passthrough?

Pretty sure it was about 7 months later.

Any of his investors posted that they weren't settled yet?

No.

They received their July interest payments at the beginning of August, just like May June and July.  

News broke that the ponzi was collapsing in the middle of August.

Sept 1 OG posted that pirate had defaulted and paid out the insurance fund he had put aside in case is was a scam. (total of BTC65)

They likely just assumed that since it was well known that the ponzi had collapsed, Og hadn't received anything from pirate after August 1. He did though.

so BTC144 - BTC65 = BTC79 and at that time that's not much though.

[TECSHARE]

You get so worked up over a seemingly small point.  I am not asserting that any initial burden has been moved from Twitchy to you.

I am merely asserting that you have the burden to prove any assertions that you make, to the extent that you are trying to persuade anyone into siding with you or action or whatever.  

If you are not trying to persuade anyone, and you are merely rebutting the claims of others, then of course, you would have no burdens; however, let's say that Twitchy had met his burden of production and presentation, then the burden would shift to the other side (which seems to be you in this case?) to show that his evidence and logic is not true or persuasive.  

I am not asserting that Twitchy never had any initial burden of proof, but if he were to have met the burden of proof (which he claims to have done in part of the evidence that he presented), then if true, the burden would shift to the opposition in regards to either the truth of that evidence or the persuasiveness of the logical claims.  I would agree that we don't get to any of this shifting of the burdens, if what you said were to end up being true - that is that Twitchy has not provided sufficient evidence or logic to prove his points..

It is not just you who gets to decide whether Twitchy has met his burdens, but you are entitled to your opinion and your ability to present rebuttal, counter-evidence and counter-logic, of course.

I don's see how I am saying anything that is exactly controversial, like you seem to be attempting to make it out to be.

It is not a small point. It is a point upon which this entire accusation rests. Twitchy Seal is speculating where that money went, he has no proof of where it went, to whom, or why. I have highlighted in bold you contradicting yourself from one second to the next. I don't have any burden to prove anything, and this is you, once again, attempting to divert the burden of proof from Twitchy Seal to me.

I never said I was not trying to persuade anyone. I said I don't care if anyone believes me. There is a difference even if you don't want to admit the distinction. Claiming to have met the burden of proof and meeting the burden of proof are not equivalent. I don't get to decide he hasn't met the burden of proof, but you do? It is not my opinion, it is a fact. He has no proof where those funds went. Again, you attempt to invert the burden of proof and claim I need to present evidence his "evidence" does not meet the burden of proof. That is not how burden of proof works. Either he has the evidence or he doesn't, and he doesn't, that is a fact. What you are saying is not controversial, it is a logical fallacy.

I mean, we're just going in circles at this point.
Speculation implies there is no firm evidence.
It's not merely speculation.  There's a shitload of evidence.  When you take it all into consideration, it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he pocketed BTC145

If you wake up in the morning and your yard is wet, but you didn't see it rain, would you consider it just speculation that it rained because someone could have come  and sprayed your yard with water while you were sleeping?  No.  The wet yard proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it rained.

No, you are going in circles. You don't have any proof theft occured, that OGNasty victimized anyone, or even any proof who those funds went to. You are SPECULATING that it was stolen funds. This is not proof. Your own analogy is accidentally perfect. Your lawn being we doesn't mean it rained. It could have been humid that day, it could be dew, it could have snowed, hell maybe your neighbors sprinkler cast a bit too wide of a spray that day. Your ASSUMPTION that is rained is nothing more than that, an assumption. A wet yard does not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt besides that your yard is wet. I must say, speaking of lawyer speak, your repetition of the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" is nothing more than a rhetorical sophist mechanism to persuade people of your speculative conclusions. You might want to look up the definition of that phrase by the way, because it doesn't mean what you think it does.

1. You do not know the owner of the output address of the "missing" funds.
2. There are no victims seeking redress or making accusations of theft.
3. EVEN IF you are right the amounts are so small as to not really make any sense for a very trusted member to trash his reputation over. Such an account could easily sell for well over the amount allegedly stolen, therefore it makes no sense for some one to do this for monetary gains when they simply could have just sold the account and associated signatures for a much higher return.

Are any of these three points incorrect? Please explain in detail if you think so.

You never responded to these points. I wonder why.

[JayJuanGee]

You get so worked up over a seemingly small point.  I am not asserting that any initial burden has been moved from Twitchy to you.

I am merely asserting that you have the burden to prove any assertions that you make, to the extent that you are trying to persuade anyone into siding with you or action or whatever.  

If you are not trying to persuade anyone, and you are merely rebutting the claims of others, then of course, you would have no burdens; however, let's say that Twitchy had met his burden of production and presentation, then the burden would shift to the other side (which seems to be you in this case?) to show that his evidence and logic is not true or persuasive.  

I am not asserting that Twitchy never had any initial burden of proof, but if he were to have met the burden of proof (which he claims to have done in part of the evidence that he presented), then if true, the burden would shift to the opposition in regards to either the truth of that evidence or the persuasiveness of the logical claims.  I would agree that we don't get to any of this shifting of the burdens, if what you said were to end up being true - that is that Twitchy has not provided sufficient evidence or logic to prove his points..

It is not just you who gets to decide whether Twitchy has met his burdens, but you are entitled to your opinion and your ability to present rebuttal, counter-evidence and counter-logic, of course.

I don's see how I am saying anything that is exactly controversial, like you seem to be attempting to make it out to be.

It is not a small point. It is a point upon which this entire accusation rests. Twitchy Seal is speculating where that money went, he has no proof of where it went, to whom, or why. I have highlighted in bold you contradicting yourself from one second to the next.

The part that you highlighted in bold is not contradictory.

I don't have any burden to prove anything, and this is you, once again, attempting to divert the burden of proof from Twitchy Seal to me.

I already said my part like three times and three different ways, so repetition is not going to make any difference.  I rest upon what I have already said.

I never said I was not trying to persuade anyone. I said I don't care if anyone believes me.

I said that if you are trying to persuade, then you have burdens.  I did not otherwise characterize your ambitions in that direction, but now, you seem to be admitting that you would like to persuade some people.

There is a difference even if you don't want to admit the distinction.

I don't see any reason to attempt to educate me on these points.  I have stated my perspective and you have stated yours.  Largely, we have exhausted the topic, it seems.

Claiming to have met the burden of proof and meeting the burden of proof are not equivalent.

Sound to be pretty close in the way you are phrasing it.  Maybe you would like to provide an example or some examples, and even describe why it matters to get into such distinction attempts?

I don't get to decide he hasn't met the burden of proof, but you do?

Each of us does.  You cannot decide for the rest of us.

It is not my opinion, it is a fact.

Everyone is going to agree with you then, if the facts are as obvious as you are making them out to be.

He has no proof where those funds went.

One step at a time.  There was some attempts to digest timelines for the various payments and to add them up, so of course, OGNasty could provide evidence, or someone can go through Twitchy's numbers and to show that they are wrong (several times Twitchy has already invited such criticisms of his numbers)

Again, you attempt to invert the burden of proof and claim I need to present evidence his "evidence" does not meet the burden of proof.

You can do whatever you want.   I doubt that repetitious debating with me about the same points over and over is going to be very helpful in this regard.

That is not how burden of proof works.

Well, I am glad that you have clarified everything.  I feel a lot more enlightened now.

Either he has the evidence or he doesn't, and he doesn't, that is a fact.

Well sometimes if something is being investigated, the evidence is still being established and developed.  At some point, all the evidence has been gathered that is available, and these evidentiary parts might constitute direct evidence and/or reasonable inferences.

What you are saying is not controversial, it is a logical fallacy.

You have not exactly clarified that purported logical fallacy part, but that's ok, because I already said what I had thought was responsive to the topic. 

[TwitchySeal]

When was Mr. Nasty appointed a treasurer on this forum ?  before or after this ponzi passthrough?

Pretty sure it was about 7 months later.

Any of his investors posted that they weren't settled yet?

No.

They received their July interest payments at the beginning of August, just like May June and July.  

News broke that the ponzi was collapsing in the middle of August.

Sept 1 OG posted that pirate had defaulted and paid out the insurance fund he had put aside in case is was a scam. (total of BTC65)

They likely just assumed that since it was well known that the ponzi had collapsed, Og hadn't received anything from pirate after August 1. He did though.

so BTC144 - BTC65 = BTC79 and at that time that's not much though.

The reserve fund was established in April and used to convince more people to invest.  It was increased a little every couple weeks until July, when it hit BTC65

RESERVE FUND:

A Reserve Fund has been established to provide depositors with insurance against loss of deposits.  In the event of a Bitcoin Savings & Trust failure, the Reserve Fund will be paid out to depositors, proportionately to their deposits held as listed on this thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75843.msg846783#msg846783

[TECSHARE]

1. You do not know the owner of the output address of the "missing" funds.
2. There are no victims seeking redress or making accusations of theft.
3. EVEN IF you are right the amounts are so small as to not really make any sense for a very trusted member to trash his reputation over. Such an account could easily sell for well over the amount allegedly stolen, therefore it makes no sense for some one to do this for monetary gains when they simply could have just sold the account and associated signatures for a much higher return.

Are any of these three points incorrect? Please explain in detail if you think so.

You never responded to these points. I wonder why.

How long will you continue to avoid addressing these points?

[trapcoder666]

When was Mr. Nasty appointed a treasurer on this forum ?  before or after this ponzi passthrough?

Pretty sure it was about 7 months later.

Any of his investors posted that they weren't settled yet?

No.

They received their July interest payments at the beginning of August, just like May June and July.  

News broke that the ponzi was collapsing in the middle of August.

Sept 1 OG posted that pirate had defaulted and paid out the insurance fund he had put aside in case is was a scam. (total of BTC65)

They likely just assumed that since it was well known that the ponzi had collapsed, Og hadn't received anything from pirate after August 1. He did though.

so BTC144 - BTC65 = BTC79 and at that time that's not much though.

The reserve fund was established in April and used to convince more people to invest.  It was increased a little every couple weeks until July, when it hit BTC65

So that's an excess of BTC79 unaccounted for since he paid out reserves (BTC65) to his clients. All in all during that time, it's not a big sum hence why OG's clients didn't make any accusations against him. Reckon everyone was satisfied. Not taking any sides, just stating what i feel from this fiasco. End of the day, money is still money and Theymos won't have trusted him with the forum funds if he isn't trustworthy. My 2 cents.

[TwitchySeal]

When was Mr. Nasty appointed a treasurer on this forum ?  before or after this ponzi passthrough?

Pretty sure it was about 7 months later.

Any of his investors posted that they weren't settled yet?

No.

They received their July interest payments at the beginning of August, just like May June and July.  

News broke that the ponzi was collapsing in the middle of August.

Sept 1 OG posted that pirate had defaulted and paid out the insurance fund he had put aside in case is was a scam. (total of BTC65)

They likely just assumed that since it was well known that the ponzi had collapsed, Og hadn't received anything from pirate after August 1. He did though.

so BTC144 - BTC65 = BTC79 and at that time that's not much though.

The reserve fund was established in April and used to convince more people to invest.  It was increased a little every couple weeks until July, when it hit BTC65

So that's an excess of BTC79 unaccounted for since he paid out reserves (BTC65) to his clients. All in all during that time, it's not a big sum hence why OG's clients didn't make any accusations against him. Reckon everyone was satisfied. Not taking any sides, just stating what i feel from this fiasco. End of the day, money is still money and Theymos won't have trusted him with the forum funds if he isn't trustworthy. My 2 cents.

I don't think the reserve funds should be considered out of pocket.  They were seperate, funded by interest payments Og received from his investors deposits and announced every couple weeks when he added a bit more to them.  They were clearly used to convince people to invest more and for longer.  Og was not entitled to them, the investors were.

In total the 4 investors received the BTC65 in lieu of their ~BTC950 deposits that were stolen by either Og or Pirate.

If you think they should be deducted from the total missing though, it was ~$980.  If you don't deduct them from the funds owed it's ~$1700.

There's also pretty strong evidence pocketed an additional ~BTC950 (~$11k), but that happened before August 1 interest/withdraw payments so they are more difficult to prove.  

Also worth considering - had it come out he did anything shady with the pirate passthrough, it's unikely he would've been able to convince people to loan him a bunch of money for Butterfly Labs hardware (another massive scam that had plenty of red flags), and even if they did, they would've been less likely to accept 5,000 'nasty fan seats' (which sure look just like a ponzi scheme) that were created just to pay off the BFL loans.

[TECSHARE]

1. You do not know the owner of the output address of the "missing" funds.
2. There are no victims seeking redress or making accusations of theft.
3. EVEN IF you are right the amounts are so small as to not really make any sense for a very trusted member to trash his reputation over. Such an account could easily sell for well over the amount allegedly stolen, therefore it makes no sense for some one to do this for monetary gains when they simply could have just sold the account and associated signatures for a much higher return.

Are any of these three points incorrect? Please explain in detail if you think so.

You never responded to these points. I wonder why.

How long will you continue to avoid addressing these points?

He can't respond to these points because they are all true, and it totally undermines the speculative narrative he is desperately trying to push. As you can see he is already laying the groundwork for shifting to another accusation to push once again clearly demonstrating this is about targeting the man OGNasty, not exposing any wrong doing.

[TwitchySeal]

1. You do not know the owner of the output address of the "missing" funds.
2. There are no victims seeking redress or making accusations of theft.
3. EVEN IF you are right the amounts are so small as to not really make any sense for a very trusted member to trash his reputation over. Such an account could easily sell for well over the amount allegedly stolen, therefore it makes no sense for some one to do this for monetary gains when they simply could have just sold the account and associated signatures for a much higher return.

Are any of these three points incorrect? Please explain in detail if you think so.

You never responded to these points. I wonder why.

How long will you continue to avoid addressing these points?

He can't respond to these points because they are all true, and it totally undermines the speculative narrative he is desperately trying to push. As you can see he is already laying the groundwork for shifting to another accusation to push once again clearly demonstrating this is about targeting the man OGNasty, not exposing any wrong doing.

Should I assume from now on that when you ignore my direct questions it's because you know I'm right?

1 true, bitcoin is fungible, you can't actually track individual bitcoin unless the transaction includes the entire balance. There are clues though.  He's made ~6,500 transactions over the past ~8.5 years.  More than 60% of his darknet(silk road) and gambling(satoshi Dice) related transactions occurred between June and August of 2011.

2 I've explained to you at least 3 times already.

3 If he thought there was a very low chance of getting caught then it does make sense.  Even if he could sell the account for $1700, it would basically be giving a green light for someone to use the account to scam.  Steal the money and hope you don't get caught so you can convince more people to invest in future ponzis (like BFL).