Bitcoin Forum
August 21, 2017, 06:11:29 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: « 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 [114] 115 116 117 118 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [BitcoinMax.com] Closed  (Read 186204 times)
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
October 18, 2012, 09:53:13 PM
 #2261

I agree that complying with Pirate's terms as they stood at the time he took deposits is one of his obligations. But he absolutely does not have to go along with a unilateral change Pirate may try to impose on him in the terms. If there's a reasonable case that Pirate made a reasonable change in the terms and a PPT operator didn't go along and that harmed their customers, I might agree with you. But I know of no case where that happened.

"Unilateral?"  All changes to PPT are/were unilateral, as pirate is the sole known principal of BS&T.  Operators were never in a position to jointly make bilateral changes.  Sure they negotiated some rate changes, but the decisions to change the rate and what rates to offer were exclusively pirate's.  Otherwise, the feeder funds would have been called PPPTs (Pirate Partnership Pass Though).

When payb.tc, faced with the choice of taking or leaving pirate's final change in terms, decided to not comply he ceased to be a PPT operator, thus becoming liable for repayments and culpable for any wrongdoing.

I'm not exactly sure how to judge what you mean by "reasonable change in the terms."  As there are arguments both for and against pirate's request for account info, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  And given the unique nature of the post-default wind-down situation, that request seems reasonable enough.

Payb.tc's decision to refuse further cooperation harmed BitcoinMax customers by giving pirate an easy way to avoid repayment, via the scapegoat of operator noncompliance.

His/your interpretation is abusive because it absolves pirate of any obligation to BitcoinMax depositors, and absolves payb.tc of responsibility by blaming pirate.  The buck has to stop somewhere; they can't just form an endless loop of blame by pointing fingers at each other!

Quote
10  Pirate?  Sorry, not responsible because payb.tc didn't transfer the account info.   Grin

20  Payb.tc?  Sorry, not responsible because pirate defaulted.   Grin

30  GOTO 10
   Grin

^^^This double-bind is not an acceptable resolution for us depositors.   Angry

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1503339089
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503339089

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503339089
Reply with quote  #2

1503339089
Report to moderator
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
October 18, 2012, 09:54:11 PM
 #2262



It would have made it impossible for them to ensure that any payments from Pirate on their deposits go to those depositors the contract specified it would go to.

Yes, good.  That's exactly what I wanted: payb.tc to take himself out of the loop entirely.  But instead of becoming more transparent, he insists on becoming opaque and functioning as a smokescreen for pirate.  Conveniently for him, it also keeps everyone from finding out whether or not he is the recipient of ill-gotten gains.

The other depositors shouldn't have any say in what is a matter between payb.tc, pirate, and myself.  This isn't a class-action suit, shareholder meeting, jury, or negotiating committee.

Say you and I are the sole depositors in a PPT and we each have 1 BTC invested. Say I'm next in line for a payout and so I'm contractually entitled to the next 1 BTC paid by Pirate on the 2 BTC we have deposited.

Thank you, that is an excellent thought experiment and helps clarify exactly where/why our opinions differ.

To answer your apposite questions:

What purpose could providing that information to Pirate possibly serve other than to allow him to pay you directly?

Providing that information disintermediates payb.tc, dissolving BitcoinMax as a crucial first step in the post-default wind-down.  Just as the Madoff feeder funds were eliminated prior to the consequent clawback/settlement phases.

Pirate (acting in the capacity of his own trustee of assets) needs to see how much each account has received to avoid sending anyone ill-gotten gains.  His lawyer insists on this!

Besides, Pirate should be paying me directly for several reasons.  1. to avoid the third party risk of payb.tc withholding funds (for whatever reason).  2.  so I may negotiate a settlement.  3.  so I may take action against him without his using the PPT as a shield or dodge.

how does that not defraud me of my contractual right to that first payment?

Prior to default, that *would* defraud you of that right.  But, after the default the contractual obligations no longer apply.  That's why it's called a "default," that's what "default" means.  Your contractual right to that first payment died with the default.  It's gone and it's never coming back.   Cry  Now a different set of rules applies. 


How can a PPT operator go along with a scheme whole sole purpose seems to be to enable Pirate to defraud his customers out of their contractually guaranteed rights to payments on the collective deposits?

Again, the contractually guaranteed rights to payments on the collective deposits you speak of are...


...not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This PPT is no more! It has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace!  'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!  He's f*ckin' snuffed it!..... THIS IS AN EX-PPT!!

The operator doesn't need to go along with anything once the default is announced, except for what is necessary to dissolve the PPT and allow the trustee and depositors to continue the processes of clawback and settlement.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile WWW
October 19, 2012, 04:46:49 AM
 #2263

I agree that complying with Pirate's terms as they stood at the time he took deposits is one of his obligations. But he absolutely does not have to go along with a unilateral change Pirate may try to impose on him in the terms. If there's a reasonable case that Pirate made a reasonable change in the terms and a PPT operator didn't go along and that harmed their customers, I might agree with you. But I know of no case where that happened.

"Unilateral?"  All changes to PPT are/were unilateral, as pirate is the sole known principal of BS&T.  Operators were never in a position to jointly make bilateral changes.  Sure they negotiated some rate changes, but the decisions to change the rate and what rates to offer were exclusively pirate's.  Otherwise, the feeder funds would have been called PPPTs (Pirate Partnership Pass Though).

When payb.tc, faced with the choice of taking or leaving pirate's final change in terms, decided to not comply he ceased to be a PPT operator, thus becoming liable for repayments and culpable for any wrongdoing.

I'm not exactly sure how to judge what you mean by "reasonable change in the terms."  As there are arguments both for and against pirate's request for account info, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  And given the unique nature of the post-default wind-down situation, that request seems reasonable enough.

Payb.tc's decision to refuse further cooperation harmed BitcoinMax customers by giving pirate an easy way to avoid repayment, via the scapegoat of operator noncompliance.

His/your interpretation is abusive because it absolves pirate of any obligation to BitcoinMax depositors, and absolves payb.tc of responsibility by blaming pirate.  The buck has to stop somewhere; they can't just form an endless loop of blame by pointing fingers at each other!

Quote
10  Pirate?  Sorry, not responsible because payb.tc didn't transfer the account info.   Grin

20  Payb.tc?  Sorry, not responsible because pirate defaulted.   Grin

30  GOTO 10
   Grin

^^^This double-bind is not an acceptable resolution for us depositors.   Angry

Since Pirate has not paid out, why does this even matter.  Pirate has not paid out to people who have followed the instructions. 

JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
October 19, 2012, 04:02:52 PM
 #2264

His/your interpretation is abusive because it absolves pirate of any obligation to BitcoinMax depositors, and absolves payb.tc of responsibility by blaming pirate.  The buck has to stop somewhere; they can't just form an endless loop of blame by pointing fingers at each other!

Quote
10  Pirate?  Sorry, not responsible because payb.tc didn't transfer the account info.   Grin

20  Payb.tc?  Sorry, not responsible because pirate defaulted.   Grin

30  GOTO 10
   Grin

^^^This double-bind is not an acceptable resolution for us depositors.   Angry
I agree, but it's Pirate who is in the wrong in that loop. Pirate's agreement is with payb.tc and it's none of his business how BitcoinMax got the funds deposited or what it would do with funds returned. However, I do believe that BitcoinMax depositors could sue Pirate directly, under an intended third party beneficiary theory. This is required in equity because BitcoinMax has no sufficient incentive to go after Pirate, especially since there's no way to pass the costs of doing so on to its depositors.


It would have made it impossible for them to ensure that any payments from Pirate on their deposits go to those depositors the contract specified it would go to.

Yes, good.  That's exactly what I wanted: payb.tc to take himself out of the loop entirely.
He can't do that without breaching his agreement with his depositors. Pirate is in default. payb.tc is not.

Quote
The other depositors shouldn't have any say in what is a matter between payb.tc, pirate, and myself.  This isn't a class-action suit, shareholder meeting, jury, or negotiating committee.
It can't work that way. If two people jointly own a house, one person can sell his right to half the house, but he can't actually sell half the house. The depositors jointly own the deposit with Pirate and have joint rights over it. Since payb.tc is not in default, I see no grounds to break the agreement.

Quote
Pirate (acting in the capacity of his own trustee of assets) needs to see how much each account has received to avoid sending anyone ill-gotten gains.  His lawyer insists on this!
First, as a factual claim, I don't believe his lawyer insisted on any such thing. If there's evidence of that, I'd like to see it. But assuming it's true, I don't think it makes any sense. Pirate's agreement is with payb.tc -- nothing stops him from treating payb.tc as a single entity.

Quote
Besides, Pirate should be paying me directly for several reasons.  1. to avoid the third party risk of payb.tc withholding funds (for whatever reason).  2.  so I may negotiate a settlement.  3.  so I may take action against him without his using the PPT as a shield or dodge.
I agree with this logic if, and only if, the depositors sue Pirate and gain standing as intended third party beneficiaries. I don't believe the PPT operators can disintermediate themselves on their own authority. They would be initiating a breach of the undefaulted agreement between themselves and their depositors. If they did that, any depositor disadvantaged by the payouts that eventually result from Pirate over what the contract with the PPT operator specified could sue the PPT operator and win.

Quote
how does that not defraud me of my contractual right to that first payment?

Prior to default, that *would* defraud you of that right.  But, after the default the contractual obligations no longer apply.  That's why it's called a "default," that's what "default" means.  Your contractual right to that first payment died with the default.  It's gone and it's never coming back.   Cry  Now a different set of rules applies. 
I agree, but the default was on Pirate's agreement with the PPT operators. There's no breach of the PPT operators' agreements with thier depositors.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
dlasher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 468



View Profile WWW
October 20, 2012, 03:14:18 AM
 #2265



All the threads seem to have fallen silent.... so I'm assuming it's just over?

jasinlee
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742


Its as easy as 0, 1, 1, 2, 3


View Profile
October 20, 2012, 03:21:35 AM
 #2266


BTC 1JASiNZxmAN1WBS4dmGEDoPpzN3GV7dnjX DVC 1CxxZzqcy7YEVXfCn5KvgRxjeWvPpniK3                     Earn Devcoins Devtome.com
chsados
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 652



View Profile
October 26, 2012, 02:45:32 AM
 #2267

why no scammer tag to pay.btc?

like icebreaker said
Quote
paybtc had no right to deprive me of the opportunity to negotiate or whatever directly with pirate.  That's why he deserves a scammer tag.

on top of that....pay.btc hasn't even responded posted in this thread for roughly 2 months (since September 06).  On TOP of that he has disabled his website... (without any explanation AFIK)

perhaps pay.btc was scammed just as hard as us lenders...but i don't believe for a second he hasn't made major $$ with his venture and i don't think it is acceptable for him not to keep us posted here in his thread with info.

i only put an initial 10 btc in.  probably got under 2 BTC back from interest gathered - that puts me in the hole for <8btc.

I know this is probably negligible to 90%+ of other users.... but pay.btc should take the total amount he MADE from our INITIAL deposits from every user (and subtracting any interest payed ) then dividing that amount by total amount of accounts and send that figure to each user.

/END DRUNKEN RANT
helloworld
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224



View Profile
October 26, 2012, 02:54:14 AM
 #2268

why no scammer tag to pay.btc?

Step one is start a thread for him in the Scam Accusations forum. I see no one has bothered yet, including you.
chsados
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 652



View Profile
October 26, 2012, 03:36:10 PM
 #2269

why no scammer tag to pay.btc?

Step one is start a thread for him in the Scam Accusations forum. I see no one has bothered yet, including you.


I'll take your advice and do it now!

pay.btc - i see you have not been active since     October 21, 2012, 09:26:44  - (nearly a week) why dont you come in here and explain whats going on - or have you "abandoned ship"?

EDIT: done
AngryCatfish
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 104



View Profile
October 27, 2012, 06:36:22 PM
 #2270

New info:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=120759.0

Progress is slow but it's something.
BrightAnarchist
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 853



View Profile
October 27, 2012, 08:37:40 PM
 #2271

I realize the info is proly around, but no time to find it - can someone tell me exactly how much bitcoinmax had in total in btcst at the time pirate shut down? I've heard it was around 120K BTC.
Bitsky
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 555


View Profile
October 27, 2012, 10:33:19 PM
 #2272

I realize the info is proly around, but no time to find it - can someone tell me exactly how much bitcoinmax had in total in btcst at the time pirate shut down? I've heard it was around 120K BTC.

payb.tc are you checking these topics?
are you willing to work together with the people that are going after him to recover our funds ?


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109126.0 (Trendon Shavers - Family Contact made)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108282.0 (Going after Trendon Shavers, Pirateat40, BTCST)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108932.0( Trendon Shavers/Pirate ~ New Info)



sure, if there's anything i can do to help that doesn't require thousands of dollars in lawyers fees or plane tickets, please let me know.
Did you try to contact payb.tc?

Hi!

 I'm a bit late but, WTF?!
 Who wants to buy this shit?!

Code:
Bitcoin Max

Logged in as: ThiagoCMC (User #374 of 373)      Balance: 110.74501165      Next Payment: 7.64140580

Sum total of older accounts: 167728.74239044

Deposit Address: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Account History   |   Earnings Reports   |   Account Settings   |   Change Password   |   Withdraw   |   Log Out


Account History

Showing latest 4 transactions. Check for new (confirmed) deposits.

Date Description Amount Balance
2012-08-27 21:00 Interest Earned 7.14818129 110.74501165
2012-08-20 21:00 Interest Earned 3.59683036 103.59683036
2012-08-17 05:30 Deposit 95.00000000 100.00000000
2012-08-17 04:00 Deposit 5.00000000 5.00000000

 Can you guys believe that I jumped in on day 17?!?! I must be the luckiest guy on this forum...  lol

Tks!
Thiago
So assuming nobody else sent BTC after that, the sum of all unpaid coins should be 167728.74239044 + 110.74501165 (which includes interest).

Bounty: Earn up to 68.7 BTC
Like my post? Feel free to drop a tip to 1BitskyZbfR4irjyXDaGAM2wYKQknwX36Y
hgmichna
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 653


View Profile
October 28, 2012, 03:43:58 PM
 #2273

So assuming nobody else sent BTC after that, the sum of all unpaid coins should be 167728.74239044 + 110.74501165 (which includes interest).

The interest is something like a phantasy number. I would consider it uninteresting. The money has never existed and will never be paid.

The only interesting figure is the number of bitcoins actually paid into the scam. And even that would only be interesting if part of it could be recovered. I consider even that unlikely, but we are free to hope.

All I remember is that the pirate took in something between Ƀ100,000 and Ƀ200,000, probably closer to the lower figure, but nobody knows for sure.
btcash
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 577



View Profile
October 28, 2012, 09:07:11 PM
 #2274

I get a blank page when I try to login.
payb.tc please make the account accesible.
dbox
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 86


View Profile
October 30, 2012, 09:39:51 PM
 #2275

We should consider payb.tc scammer for that reason, he should keep the website fully functional until the matter is clarified. Imporper communication and no funds means scam.

Ente
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2029



View Profile
October 30, 2012, 10:12:38 PM
 #2276

We should consider payb.tc scammer for that reason, he should keep the website fully functional until the matter is clarified. Imporper communication and no funds means scam.

Unprofessional? Yes.
Scammer? No.
Come on, which money did he steal, again?

Did anyone of you even contact him?

Ente
Bitsky
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 555


View Profile
October 30, 2012, 11:12:32 PM
 #2277

We should consider payb.tc scammer for that reason, he should keep the website fully functional until the matter is clarified. Imporper communication and no funds means scam.

Unprofessional? Yes.
Scammer? No.
Come on, which money did he steal, again?

Did anyone of you even contact him?

Ente
Actually, I did.
I asked for PGP signed account balances for everybody:
 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83904.msg1224833#msg1224833
 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83904.msg1281553#msg1281553

A week ago, I pm'ed him and asked for a confirmation of my account details.
So far, I have not heard anything from him.

Also, in another thread someone argued that we can't really be sure if every PPT forwarded all coins to Pirate, or used some/all for their own investment plans.
I'm not saying payb.tc did, but that argument has been going around in my head since then because it would open up another can of worms.

Bounty: Earn up to 68.7 BTC
Like my post? Feel free to drop a tip to 1BitskyZbfR4irjyXDaGAM2wYKQknwX36Y
adamas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


VIS ET LIBERTAS


View Profile WWW
October 31, 2012, 06:15:03 AM
 #2278

We should consider payb.tc scammer for that reason, ...

Come on, which money did he steal, again?
He did steel my money!

"Es ist kein Zeichen geistiger Gesundheit, gut angepasst an eine kranke Gesellschaft zu sein."
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
October 31, 2012, 11:16:21 PM
 #2279

Also, in another thread someone argued that we can't really be sure if every PPT forwarded all coins to Pirate, or used some/all for their own investment plans.
I'm not saying payb.tc did, but that argument has been going around in my head since then because it would open up another can of worms.
I don't see where this argument goes though. If you pay someone to do something knowing that they have no way to prove whether they did it or not, how can you later complain that they can't prove they did it? And why would it matter anyway since the consequences are the same -- the money is lost -- either way?

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2114


Revolution will be decentralized


View Profile
October 31, 2012, 11:29:21 PM
 #2280

Just to know exactly by whom we were scammed Smiley
...and he could probably at least prove at which address he sent BTC and show us his accountancy

Pages: « 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 [114] 115 116 117 118 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!