[BitcoinMax.com] Closed

[JoelKatz]

Well.. Who didn't know the risk?
You want to argue that payb.tc knew more than the users investing through him? That he knowingly kept things secret?

The issue is not whether payb.tc ripped off the users investing through him. You are responding to an argument that nobody is making.

Nah. He was scammed the same as his users. No idea why people are going after him now? Seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Did you read the message you are responding to. I explained why people are going after him.

The talk of giving him a scammer tag is not because he didn't do what he said he would do. The talk of giving him a scammer tag is because he paid Pirate to make his customers the recipient of fraudulent transfers. Essentially, the argument is that he knowingly (or in reckless disregard for the near certainty) paid Pirate to operate a scam.

(You are welcome to disagree with this argument. I disagree with it. But you are not welcome to ignore it or misrepresent it, which is what it seems you are doing here.)

[1713999209]

1713999209

[1713999209]

1713999209

[1713999209]

1713999209

[1713999209]

1713999209

[hgmichna]

Well.. Who didn't know the risk?

Gullible, inexperienced, possibly simple-minded investors.

You want to argue that payb.tc knew more than the users investing through him? That he knowingly kept things secret?

You are saying it. I'm not Joel, but I would answer yes.

payb.tc certainly was able to understand these things. Without such understanding he would not have been able to run his operation, which requires some understanding and some intelligence. And he operated in the face of relentless explanations and warnings from a range of knowledgeable people.

The same is true for all feeder funds.

[Ente]

Well.. Who didn't know the risk?
You want to argue that payb.tc knew more than the users investing through him? That he knowingly kept things secret?

The issue is not whether payb.tc ripped off the users investing through him. You are responding to an argument that nobody is making.

Nah. He was scammed the same as his users. No idea why people are going after him now? Seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Did you read the message you are responding to. I explained why people are going after him.

The talk of giving him a scammer tag is not because he didn't do what he said he would do. The talk of giving him a scammer tag is because he paid Pirate to make his customers the recipient of fraudulent transfers. Essentially, the argument is that he knowingly (or in reckless disregard for the near certainty) paid Pirate to operate a scam.

(You are welcome to disagree with this argument. I disagree with it. But you are not welcome to ignore it or misrepresent it, which is what it seems you are doing here.)

You are right, I was not solely responding to your post. I should have taken more care to quote the stuff I respond to :-)
It was more like a loud thinking à la "why the heck are people complaining about payb.tc now, instead of going after pirate/trendon?"

Ente

[Turbor]

Gullible, inexperienced, possibly simple-minded investors.

Yeah right, only simple-minded people make mistakes.

[iCEBREAKER]

"why the heck are people complaining about payb.tc now, instead of going after pirate/trendon?"

Because payb.tc insists that he, not pirate, owes us bitcoins.

Since payb.tc refuses to disintermediate himself, responsibility for BitcoinMax losses is entirely his problem.

Regardless of his intransigence, it's ridiculous for a (former) ponzi feeder fund operator to insist on having control over the wind down and clawback phases.

Too many conflicts of interest (in both senses of the word "interest") and ignores the victims' needs for transparency, oversight, and simplicity.

[Ente]

"why the heck are people complaining about payb.tc now, instead of going after pirate/trendon?"

Because payb.tc insists that he, not pirate, owes us bitcoins.

Since payb.tc refuses to disintermediate himself, responsibility for BitcoinMax losses is entirely his problem.

Regardless of his intransigence, it's ridiculous for a (former) ponzi feeder fund operator to insist on having control over the wind down and clawback phases.

Too many conflicts of interest (in both senses of the word "interest") and ignores the victims' needs for transparency, oversight, and simplicity.

You have your point for sure.

Although its not like pirate says "Do this, and this will happen. if you don't, instead that will happen". In fact I am slightly disappointed that he didn't serve another serving on the 12th..

Ente

[MelMan2002]

Well, IF pirate was working as a pass-through for Zeek then it looks like it will be a long slog.  The receiver for Zeek now has a plan but still a lot of work ahead of him:
http://mlmhelpdesk.com/breaking-zeek-rewards-news-zeek-receiver-files-preliminary-liquidation-plan-with-updates-on-asset-recovery-clawbacks-and-claims-process/

I guess their next update is on Oct 30th.  We'll have to keep a close eye on that...


To note, when I first had suspicions (Sep 6th) that pirate may be tied to Zeek I sent a email of inquiry to info@ZeekRewardsReceivership.com as to whether they could confirm that pirate was a participant in Zeek but I still have yet to hear back from them (I'm sure they are swamped with emails).  I'll certainly give a report if I ever do hear from them.

[dbox]

My guess is that nobody will get back their coins.

[Buffer Overflow]

If pirate took out of zeek more than he put in, he may owe the receivers money.

[hgmichna]

Gullible, inexperienced, possibly simple-minded investors.

Yeah right, only simple-minded people make mistakes.

Some would argue that you would have to be outright stupid to give your money to a Ponzi operator in the face of ample warnings and explanations. The pirate's Ponzi scheme was very easy to recognize. Most recognized it after a quick and simple analysis. Only a tiny fraction of bitcoin users fell for it.

[Bitsky]

Because payb.tc insists that he, not pirate, owes us bitcoins.

Would be fun if he'd pay us back then.
I still cannot believe how bad my luck was. I made a withdrawal request literally a few hours before Pirate admitted default, but thanks to the "it can take up to 24 hours to process withdrawals" I got nothing.

[iCEBREAKER]

The talk of giving him a scammer tag is because he paid Pirate to make his customers the recipient of fraudulent transfers.  Essentially, the argument is that he knowingly (or in reckless disregard for the near certainty) paid Pirate to operate a scam.

I see it the other way round:

The argument is that Pirate paid payb.tc to scam BitcoinMax depositers, for the benefit of BS&T.

Additional suspicion is created by the fact that payb.tc refuses to release the BitcoinMax records which would show exactly how much he was, or was not, paid by Pirate.

That gives the appearance of having something (ill-gotten gains) to hide.

[JoelKatz]

The talk of giving him a scammer tag is because he paid Pirate to make his customers the recipient of fraudulent transfers.  Essentially, the argument is that he knowingly (or in reckless disregard for the near certainty) paid Pirate to operate a scam.

I see it the other way round:

The argument is that Pirate paid payb.tc to scam BitcoinMax depositers, for the benefit of BS&T.

Fair enough. I think that's a slightly harder case to make, but certainly not completely unreasonable. The counter-argument would be that PPT operators did everything they promised their depositors that they would do and there's no good argument that the operators had information superior to what their depositors had. In some cases, I think there's a good argument that PPT operators should have known that BS&T was a scam even we don't expect the same of all their depositors.

As I've said, I'm willing to give a one time exception on the grounds that there was a lot of disinformation and a lot of naive people in the community. I don't see a benefit to excommunicating everyone who has learned a valuable lesson. But I fully expect people to learn from this fiasco and I hope the community has no intention of being lenient next time. There will be a next time.

[Vandroiy]

Is there any possibility that (some of) PPT were actually acomplices in this whole pirate scam thing? I wonder if paybtc got some share of bitcoins. The lack of information and activity regarding this matter is very suspicious.

According to block chain analysis, payb.tc real balance was in the black around the time when Bitcoinmax started, and was receiving 7.7% weekly interest. Since the final paper balance was in the six-digits, it's safe to assume there was plenty of room for profit.

The Bitcoinmax-to-BS&T activity was quite insane. Someone managing this fund flow and user base growth would have to be very negligent to not notice something is wrong.

But (Jessi behave) there is no Cyber Police. People on the WoT may earn themselves a negative rating with such behavior, but that's it. Okay, we could discuss the ultimate dreaded internet punishment: the scammer tag. I can imagine better time-wasters. The rest is up to those who claim to have lost money in Gpumax having legal fun, which they don't seem to try. Neat mess anyway.

[ErebusBat]

Because payb.tc insists that he, not pirate, owes us bitcoins.

Would be fun if he'd pay us back then.
I still cannot believe how bad my luck was. I made a withdrawal request literally a few hours before Pirate admitted default, but thanks to the "it can take up to 24 hours to process withdrawals" I got nothing.

I am in the boat as you... Was right before the drop and I was going to use sell them on GOX.

[iCEBREAKER]

The talk of giving him a scammer tag is because he paid Pirate to make his customers the recipient of fraudulent transfers.  Essentially, the argument is that he knowingly (or in reckless disregard for the near certainty) paid Pirate to operate a scam.

I see it the other way round:

The argument is that Pirate paid payb.tc to scam BitcoinMax depositers, for the benefit of BS&T.

Fair enough. I think that's a slightly harder case to make, but certainly not completely unreasonable. The counter-argument would be that PPT operators did everything they promised their depositors that they would do and there's no good argument that the operators had information superior to what their depositors had. In some cases, I think there's a good argument that PPT operators should have known that BS&T was a scam even we don't expect the same of all their depositors.

As I've said, I'm willing to give a one time exception on the grounds that there was a lot of disinformation and a lot of naive people in the community. I don't see a benefit to excommunicating everyone who has learned a valuable lesson. But I fully expect people to learn from this fiasco and I hope the community has no intention of being lenient next time. There will be a next time.

Not believing in psychic powers, I don't like getting into mind-reading and divining payb.tc's motives.  I'm sure you appreciate that as a fellow skeptic/critical thinker.   

I don't know payb.tc personally so am in no position to judge his character.  I can only evaluate his public statements, decisions, and actions.

All that matters to me is whether or not he benefited from the scam(s?), regardless of his level of knowledge regarding BS&T operators or intentions towards BitcoinMax depositors. 

Although you state your case well I feel mine is a cleaner, more objective standard of judgement than messy emotional dissections and appeals to naivete/ignorance/greed/forgiveness/etc.

I understand completely the POV that payb.tc did exactly what a PPT operator was supposed to, passing the profits and then passing the default through to us.

But what brings that notion down are his post-default actions.  Instead of ceasing PPT operations and disintermediating himself, payb.tc insists on 1) being payed in full, as if no default occurred, and 2) keeping account info secret and not (no longer) complying with pirates' terms.

I see compliance with pirates' terms as the main obligation of any PPT operator.  Refusing to comply leaves payb.tc holding for bag for depositor compensation, and not meeting that obligation (which he insisted on taking on despite many requests that he not do so) makes him a scammer.

Until the account info is released, we don't know whether payb.tc was a victim or beneficiary of pirate's scam.  Hiding the info reeks of guilt, IMO.

[JoelKatz]

I see compliance with pirates' terms as the main obligation of any PPT operator.  Refusing to comply leaves payb.tc holding for bag for depositor compensation, and not meeting that obligation (which he insisted on taking on despite many requests that he not do so) makes him a scammer.

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.

If you're talking about Pirate's request for information on the PPT's depositors, the PPT operators could not have gone along with that arrangement if they had wished to. 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. I advised PPT operators not to go along with this unless every singe one of their depositors agreed.

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. What purpose could providing that information to Pirate possibly serve other than to allow him to pay you directly? And how does that not defraud me of my contractual right to that first payment? 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?

[Bitsky]

@payb.tc
I would like to repeat my request to you to repair the login section and provide PGP signed balance information there after posting your public key here on the forum.
Or, if that's too much work, PM me my last balance information.

[iCEBREAKER]

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!

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

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

30  GOTO 10   

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

[iCEBREAKER]

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.     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.