Littleshop
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1003
|
 |
October 19, 2012, 04:46:49 AM |
|
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.  Since Pirate has not paid out, why does this even matter. Pirate has not paid out to people who have followed the instructions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JoelKatz
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
|
|
October 19, 2012, 04:02:52 PM |
|
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
|
|
October 20, 2012, 03:14:18 AM |
|
All the threads seem to have fallen silent.... so I'm assuming it's just over?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chsados
|
|
October 26, 2012, 02:45:32 AM
Last edit: October 26, 2012, 03:22:38 AM by chsados |
|
why no scammer tag to pay.btc? like icebreaker said 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
|
|
October 26, 2012, 02:54:14 AM |
|
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
|
|
October 26, 2012, 03:36:10 PM
Last edit: October 26, 2012, 04:12:41 PM by chsados |
|
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
Activity: 104
Merit: 10
|
|
October 27, 2012, 06:36:22 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BrightAnarchist
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 853
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 27, 2012, 08:37:40 PM |
|
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
|
|
October 27, 2012, 10:33:19 PM |
|
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.
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?! 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). |
|
|
|
|
hgmichna
|
|
October 28, 2012, 03:43:58 PM |
|
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
|
|
October 28, 2012, 09:07:11 PM |
|
I get a blank page when I try to login.
payb.tc please make the account accesible.
|
|
|
|
|
dbox
Member
Offline
Activity: 86
Merit: 10
|
|
October 30, 2012, 09:39:51 PM |
|
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
Activity: 2126
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 30, 2012, 10:12:38 PM |
|
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
|
|
October 30, 2012, 11:12:32 PM |
|
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#msg1281553A 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. |
|
|
|
adamas
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1014
Merit: 1003
VIS ET LIBERTAS
|
|
October 31, 2012, 06:15:03 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
|
|
October 31, 2012, 11:16:21 PM |
|
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
Offline
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
|
|
October 31, 2012, 11:29:21 PM |
|
Just to know exactly by whom we were scammed  ...and he could probably at least prove at which address he sent BTC and show us his accountancy |
|
|
|
|
|
Bitsky
|
|
October 31, 2012, 11:31:26 PM |
|
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? What if the PPT decided to invest the coins somewhere else? Most investors left their interest in the PPT. Now that Pirate defaulted a malicious PPT could keep the coins, knowing that Pirate will be blamed for the loss, and get away relatively easy. |
|
|
|
|
helloworld
|
|
November 01, 2012, 01:41:50 AM |
|
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? What if the PPT decided to invest the coins somewhere else? Most investors left their interest in the PPT. Now that Pirate defaulted a malicious PPT could keep the coins, knowing that Pirate will be blamed for the loss, and get away relatively easy. It's easy in hindsight, everyone's an expert on Pirate and Ponzi schemes. But in the thick of it 6 months ago, PPT operators would have taken a huge risk to do what you're suggesting, because if Pirate turned out be legit and returned all the coins, then PPT operators had better make sure they can come up with 7% per week somewhere else otherwise they'd get 100% of the blame not just some of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
