Bryan Micon's List of BTC Ponzi Schemes that should not be listed as "Lending"

[Matthew N. Wright]

What evidence? I must keep missing it.

The really huge ones:
- There has never been an investment scheme that promises to pay this well that didn't turn out to be a ponzi.
- Only one guy claims to have gotten 100 BTC 5+ days after he was supposed to start paying.

Perhaps you are confusing evidence with proof?

Evidence can be misleading. Someone stabs themselves and drops the bloody knife and I pick it up. Evidence points to me stabbing them. Thankfully, real judges and courts are not so ignorant as this community to judge so quickly.

[1713951372]

1713951372

[1713951372]

1713951372

[1713951372]

1713951372

[Vladimir]

P.S.

The level of discussion here is appalling. I am too to some degree guilty of occasionally employing some logical fallacies, often intentionally, for that I do apologize. Now let me give you some details and examples.

The simple truth is that Pirate made an extrordianary claim that he has some kind of biz model that is producing >3400% APR AND that it is reasonable to buy capital at ~3400 APR% AND that his biz model is not a ponzi. Moreover he takes(has taken) deposits/money based on that claim directly and via intermediaries/partners/employees/etc.

The opponents have called this BS and are completely justified to assert that pirate is running a ponzi scheme. based on logical reasoning.


Pirate and his shills, supporters, lieutenants and captives went on offensive employing every logical fallacy in the book (many of them anyway).

Let's just list some of fallacies routinely used and/or likely will be used shortly by team "pirate, the miracle worker":

Ad hoc: "pirate paid 1 account, hence he will pay all accounts", "pirate paid N weeks on time, hence he will continue paying on time" etc...

Anecdotal evidence: "we had a dinner with pirate, therefore he is not anonymous"

Argumentum ad baculum: "you say something against pirate, you get paid last"

Argumentum ad crumenam: "pirate has NNNNNN BTC, therefore he is right", "I bet NNNNNNN BTC, therefore I am right (or ballsy), you did not bet therefore you shut up"

Argumentum ad hominem: attacking opponents personally and on various unrelated matters, like their own businesses, bets they have or not have placed etc...

Argumentum ad ignorantiam: "Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise.", "pirate is not a ponzi because nobody can prove otherwise", "there is a giant teapot orbiting the sun, because nobody can prove otherwise". This also includes "shifting the burden of proof", btw.

Argumentum ad misericordiam: (soon to be employed) "I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan.", "I lost so much money on ponzi and stupid bets, I am suffering enough, do not tell me that I am guilty of promoting and conspiring in a ponzi scheme and a scammer"

Argumentum ad nauseam: ohh yea repeat utter BS until any reasonable person tells you "fuck off, no point to talking to you", nauseating it is indeed.

Argumentum ad numerum: "so many people invested in that, they cannot be all wrong"

Argumentum ad verecundiam: (Appeal to authority, false authority in this case): "Pirates's lieutenants and shills say they know him, and he a has magical biz model and it is not a ponzi, it must be so then"

Bifurcation: "if pirate pays all accounts now, he is not running a ponzi" (That is an interesting one, think about it)

Fallacy of presupposition: (demanding an explanation of something that is not true or have not been established)

Ignoratio elenchi: (illogically concluding that some set of usually fallacious arguments support the desired conclusion)

Non causa pro causa: "pirate has defaulted because, they were posting that he is running a ponzi"

Non sequitur: "pirate pays 7%, therefore he has some miracle biz model making lots of money and it is totally possible"

Petitio principii: "pirate is not running a ponzi, because he pays dividends, and must have some underlying biz model, and therefore he is not running a ponzi"

Plurium interrogationum: demanding a simple answer to a complex question.

Red herring: "some copies of bitcoin magazine were delivered late, therefore pirate is not running a ponzi"

Shifting the burden of proof (again): "pirate has claimed that he is not running a ponzi and that he needs to buy capital at 3000% APR and that he has some underlying biz model other than paying capital back as dividend and asked and received lots of money, now you need to prove that he is not running a ponzi."

Straw man: (happens ~10 times in every thread.) miscquote your opponent than attack his, taken out of context or misrepresented, opinion. Works especially well with typos and grammar/spelling mistakes.

Tu quoque: "you attacked ad hominem, I will respond with ad hominem too."

The persistent abuse here of all the fallacies is so annoying that continuing any serious discussion here amounts to utter waste of time, not intellectual stimulating and often simply aggravating.

The above is why I do this...

For your reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapot
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[Matthew N. Wright]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam: "Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise.", "pirate is not a ponzi because nobody can prove otherwise", "there is a giant teapot orbiting the sun, because nobody can prove otherwise". This also includes "shifting the burden of proof", btw.

No one is claiming he's not a Ponzi. All I see are a bunch of people claiming he is. Sounds like a logical fallacy on your part. "I believe in the Devil, and I'm going to make you prove to me that he doesn't exist or else I'm going to keep on believing and telling about he's the Devil because he's red and does parlor tricks".

[Micon]

What evidence? I must keep missing it.

The really huge ones:
- There has never been an investment scheme that promises to pay this well that didn't turn out to be a ponzi.
- Only one guy claims to have gotten 100 BTC 5+ days after he was supposed to start paying.

Perhaps you are confusing evidence with proof?

Evidence can be misleading. Someone stabs themselves and drops the bloody knife and I pick it up. Evidence points to me stabbing them. Thankfully, real judges and courts are not so ignorant as this community to judge so quickly.

Matt, you always suggest the 0.00001% scenario when making the non-Ponzi argument.  

Stephen Hawkings TV special recently taught me about "best fit reality" - i.e. when I leave my office and come back in an hour, my chair is always in the same spot I left it - I assume it has been sitting there the whole time I was gone.  But what if when I left my office, my chair opened the window and flew to the international space station then right before I get back in the room it flies back in, closes the window and returns to the exact same spot I left it an hour ago.  Of course my "best fit reality" is that it just stayed there the whole time.

99.99999999999%+ the chair was just there the whole time, but I can never be certain, however I'd bet Matt an additional 500BTC on every trial of that too.

[imsaguy]

Matt, you always suggest the 0.00001% scenario when making the non-Ponzi argument.  

Stephen Hawkings TV special recently taught me about "best fit reality" - i.e. when I leave my office and come back in an hour, my chair is always in the same spot I left it - I assume it has been sitting there the whole time I was gone.  But what if when I left my office, my chair opened the window and flew to the international space station then right before I get back in the room it flies back in, closes the window and returns to the exact same spot I left it an hour ago.  Of course my "best fit reality" is that it just stayed there the whole time.

99.99999999999%+ the chair was just there the whole time, but I can never be certain, however I'd bet Matt an additional 500BTC on every trial of that too.

Maybe we're all in the matrix and the chair never existed at all?

[Matthew N. Wright]

What evidence? I must keep missing it.

The really huge ones:
- There has never been an investment scheme that promises to pay this well that didn't turn out to be a ponzi.
- Only one guy claims to have gotten 100 BTC 5+ days after he was supposed to start paying.

Perhaps you are confusing evidence with proof?

Evidence can be misleading. Someone stabs themselves and drops the bloody knife and I pick it up. Evidence points to me stabbing them. Thankfully, real judges and courts are not so ignorant as this community to judge so quickly.

Matt, you always suggest the 0.00001% scenario when making the non-Ponzi argument.  

Stephen Hawkings TV special recently taught me about "best fit reality" - i.e. when I leave my office and come back in an hour, my chair is always in the same spot I left it - I assume it has been sitting there the whole time I was gone.  But what if when I left my office, my chair opened the window and flew to the international space station then right before I get back in the room it flies back in, closes the window and returns to the exact same spot I left it an hour ago.  Of course my "best fit reality" is that it just stayed there the whole time.

99.99999999999%+ the chair was just there the whole time, but I can never be certain, however I'd bet Matt an additional 500BTC on every trial of that too.

If you want to go another 500BTC in, I'm game ^_^

[Shadow383]

If you want to go another 500BTC in, I'm game ^_^

Serious question:
How are you going to fund >$100k in bets if you lose?

[imsaguy]

If you want to go another 500BTC in, I'm game ^_^

Serious question:
How are you going to fund >$100k in bets if you lose?

It isn't $100k in bets, its BTC.  Until you convert, it has no USD value.

[elux]

... wall of truth ...

This devastating display of sanity should not be buried on page 57 of some obscure thread, but stapled to the church door.

Make it a top level post. Get it stickied as a warning, and for future reference. Perhaps the next would-be catastrophe can be averted.

[elux]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam: "Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise.", "pirate is not a ponzi because nobody can prove otherwise", "there is a giant teapot orbiting the sun, because nobody can prove otherwise". This also includes "shifting the burden of proof", btw.

No one is claiming he's not a Ponzi. All I see are a bunch of people claiming he is. Sounds like a logical fallacy on your part. "I believe in the Devil, and I'm going to make you prove to me that he doesn't exist or else I'm going to keep on believing and telling about he's the Devil because he's red and does parlor tricks".

Straw man fallacy. Try again. Try better.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy
• http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
• http://lesswrong.com/lw/85h/better_disagreement/

[Frankie]

... wall of truth ...

This devastating display of sanity should not be buried on page 57 of some obscure thread, but stapled to the church door.

Make it a top level post. Get it stickied as a warning, and for future reference. Perhaps the next would-be catastrophe can be averted.

This. People have started upteen threads with idiotic theories about Pirate's "business model," and this is more valuable than all of them.

[Shadow383]

If you want to go another 500BTC in, I'm game ^_^

Serious question:
How are you going to fund >$100k in bets if you lose?

It isn't $100k in bets, its BTC.  Until you convert, it has no USD value.

[imsaguy]

If you want to go another 500BTC in, I'm game ^_^

Serious question:
How are you going to fund >$100k in bets if you lose?

It isn't $100k in bets, its BTC.  Until you convert, it has no USD value.

How do you know he didn't acquire them when bitcoin was pennies?  To make a huge deal of it because its workworth $100k today with no lock until a person does something with it is a bit.. short sighted.

[DeathAndTaxes]

The only thing disgusting is having to repeat myself. I'm not for censorship. You and anyone else are free to bark all day about what you think, but accusations, harassment, and defamation (example: THIS IS A PONZI) need to be backed up with evidence.

That is an impossible burden of proof.  Baring some insider blowing the whistle, or the Police seizing evidence under a warrant it is impossible to prove a ponzi, given the fact that the operator can simply choose to not provide enough information to make that proof possible.  Still it isn't up to you to decide what constitutes acceptable evidence.   

Anything offering 3400% APR on $5M in capital is a ponzi.  Anyone who could pay that much interest simply WOULDN'T.  If they are smart enough to earn >3400% per year, then you are smart enough to use that profit to pay down the debt and keep the entire 3400% return to yourself.

If you feel I can't say that then feel free to sue me.  Baring a lawsuit it doesn't really matter what you think other people can or can not say. 

What scam are you referring to and what exactly collapsed? When referencing it, please also show a link to the evidence of it both being a scam and having collapsed, thanks.

Pirate is in debt service default of his own contract.  By the rules of this forum he is a scammer.   

He owes forum members in excess of $5M and has not repaid that nor provided any transparency on how/when he intends to repay it.   
His obligations are increasing at a rate of $57,600 per day. 

I mean by your logic as long as he never admits to it being a ponzi he simply can never pay anyone back ever and it isn't a ponzi or a scam. 
There may never be absolute proof baring a confession.  To be convicted in a criminal court only requires "proof beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT", in civil court is merely requires the "preponderance of evidence".  Yes based on the facts known unless Pirate provided additional evidence to his defense he would lose a civil case alleging fraud and running a ponzi scam.  Pirate is certainly free to provide evidence to his defense.  He has chosen to provide nothing, and not repay more than a token amount, provide no specific timelines on repayment, and is in default of his own contract.

THAT IS A SCAM.  PERIOD.

[MrTeal]

The only thing disgusting is having to repeat myself. I'm not for censorship. You and anyone else are free to bark all day about what you think, but accusations, harassment, and defamation (example: THIS IS A PONZI) need to be backed up with evidence.

That is an impossible burden of proof.  Baring some insider blowing the whistle, or the Police seizing evidence under a warrant it is impossible to prove a ponzi, given the fact that the operator can simply choose to not provide enough information to make that proof possible.  Still it isn't up to you to decide what constitutes acceptable evidence.   

Anything offering 3400% APR on $5M in capital is a ponzi.  Anyone who could pay that much interest simply WOULDN'T.  If they are smart enough to earn >3400% per year, then you are smart enough to use that profit to pay down the debt and keep the entire 3400% return to yourself.

If you feel I can't say that then feel free to sue me.  Baring a lawsuit it doesn't really matter what you think other people can or can not say. 

What scam are you referring to and what exactly collapsed? When referencing it, please also show a link to the evidence of it both being a scam and having collapsed, thanks.

Pirate is in debt service default of his own contract.  By the rules of this forum he is a scammer.   

He owes forum members in excess of $5M and has not repaid that nor provided any transparency on how/when he intends to repay it.   
His obligations are increasing at a rate of $57,600 per day. 

I mean by your logic as long as he never admits to it being a ponzi he simply can never pay anyone back ever and it isn't a ponzi or a scam. 
There may never be absolute proof baring a confession.  To be convicted in a criminal court only requires "proof beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT", in civil court is merely requires the "preponderance of evidence".  Yes based on the facts known unless Pirate provided additional evidence to his defense he would lose a civil case alleging fraud and running a ponzi scam.  Pirate is certainly free to provide evidence to his defense.  He has chosen to provide nothing, and not repay more than a token amount, provide no specific timelines on repayment, and is in default of his own contract.

THAT IS A SCAM.  PERIOD.

Isn't the burden of proof on the forum for a scammer tag having committed the scam, and showing no effort to pay it back? Pirate isn't quite there yet, although he's definitely getting close. Scammer tags probably require a higher standard here than a judgement in civil court.

I can imagine scenarios where Pirate is not running a Ponzi, but none of them wouldn't be considered fraud. If Pirate does manage somehow to pay back all outstanding debt through a combination of market moves to suppress the price and buying his defaulted debt through intermediaries for 10 bitcents on the coin, I would hope the admins would still brand him a scammer.

[hgmichna]

What is even more disgusting is that it is seems no one whose opinion I value is posting on this forum anymore. With a very few exceptions, of course. There is no reason for me to remain here until this has changed. …

I think the reason is that now, after the default, the people whose opinion you value can simply stand back for another week, until 90% of the believers finally grasp the truth. Conversely, those "investors" with at least half a brain recognize the default or the very high likelihood of it and also stand back waiting.

So only few people stay in the discussion, the hare-brained and the evangelists.  

By the way, now even the hare-brained should get second thoughts. The pirate has decided to shut down a business that ostensibly produced $50,000 per day. He does not gently wind it down over a couple of months. Instead he shuts it down from one day to the other, citing the reason that he wants time with his family. He does not pay out at least his bigger accounts, although each day would cost him another $50,000. How much crazier can it get?

I think, now we should indeed stand back until the last pirate fans see the light.

[elux]

Pirate is in debt service default of his own contract.  By the rules of this forum he is a scammer.   

He owes forum members in excess of $5M and has not repaid that nor provided any transparency on how/when he intends to repay it.   
His obligations are increasing at a rate of $57,600 per day. 

I mean by your logic as long as he never admits to it being a ponzi he simply can never pay anyone back ever and it isn't a ponzi or a scam. 
There may never be absolute proof baring a confession.  To be convicted in a criminal court only requires "proof beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT", in civil court is merely requires the "preponderance of evidence".  Yes based on the facts known unless Pirate provided additional evidence to his defense he would lose a civil case alleging fraud and running a ponzi scam.  Pirate is certainly free to provide evidence to his defense.  He has chosen to provide nothing, and not repay more than a token amount, provide no specific timelines on repayment, and is in default of his own contract.

THAT IS A SCAM.  PERIOD.

pirateat40
Avast Ye!
SCAMMER


Posts: 1145

Wake up, Theymos.

[Micon]

What evidence? I must keep missing it.

The really huge ones:
- There has never been an investment scheme that promises to pay this well that didn't turn out to be a ponzi.
- Only one guy claims to have gotten 100 BTC 5+ days after he was supposed to start paying.

Perhaps you are confusing evidence with proof?

Evidence can be misleading. Someone stabs themselves and drops the bloody knife and I pick it up. Evidence points to me stabbing them. Thankfully, real judges and courts are not so ignorant as this community to judge so quickly.

Matt, you always suggest the 0.00001% scenario when making the non-Ponzi argument.  

Stephen Hawkings TV special recently taught me about "best fit reality" - i.e. when I leave my office and come back in an hour, my chair is always in the same spot I left it - I assume it has been sitting there the whole time I was gone.  But what if when I left my office, my chair opened the window and flew to the international space station then right before I get back in the room it flies back in, closes the window and returns to the exact same spot I left it an hour ago.  Of course my "best fit reality" is that it just stayed there the whole time.

99.99999999999%+ the chair was just there the whole time, but I can never be certain, however I'd bet Matt an additional 500BTC on every trial of that too.

If you want to go another 500BTC in, I'm game ^_^

ok, I'm in.  I assume we are talking about Pirate, not my chair going to the ISS.  I'll conf-post in the other thread or you can just do it / link to this acceptance

[Matthew N. Wright]

What evidence? I must keep missing it.

The really huge ones:
- There has never been an investment scheme that promises to pay this well that didn't turn out to be a ponzi.
- Only one guy claims to have gotten 100 BTC 5+ days after he was supposed to start paying.

Perhaps you are confusing evidence with proof?

Evidence can be misleading. Someone stabs themselves and drops the bloody knife and I pick it up. Evidence points to me stabbing them. Thankfully, real judges and courts are not so ignorant as this community to judge so quickly.

Matt, you always suggest the 0.00001% scenario when making the non-Ponzi argument.  

Stephen Hawkings TV special recently taught me about "best fit reality" - i.e. when I leave my office and come back in an hour, my chair is always in the same spot I left it - I assume it has been sitting there the whole time I was gone.  But what if when I left my office, my chair opened the window and flew to the international space station then right before I get back in the room it flies back in, closes the window and returns to the exact same spot I left it an hour ago.  Of course my "best fit reality" is that it just stayed there the whole time.

99.99999999999%+ the chair was just there the whole time, but I can never be certain, however I'd bet Matt an additional 500BTC on every trial of that too.

If you want to go another 500BTC in, I'm game ^_^

ok, I'm in.  I assume we are talking about Pirate, not my chair going to the ISS.  I'll conf-post in the other thread or you can just do it / link to this acceptance

Lol no not the chair going to ISS. -That- would be a gamble.

Bet increase acknowledged.

[Micon]

What evidence? I must keep missing it.

The really huge ones:
- There has never been an investment scheme that promises to pay this well that didn't turn out to be a ponzi.
- Only one guy claims to have gotten 100 BTC 5+ days after he was supposed to start paying.

Perhaps you are confusing evidence with proof?

Evidence can be misleading. Someone stabs themselves and drops the bloody knife and I pick it up. Evidence points to me stabbing them. Thankfully, real judges and courts are not so ignorant as this community to judge so quickly.

Matt, you always suggest the 0.00001% scenario when making the non-Ponzi argument.  

Stephen Hawkings TV special recently taught me about "best fit reality" - i.e. when I leave my office and come back in an hour, my chair is always in the same spot I left it - I assume it has been sitting there the whole time I was gone.  But what if when I left my office, my chair opened the window and flew to the international space station then right before I get back in the room it flies back in, closes the window and returns to the exact same spot I left it an hour ago.  Of course my "best fit reality" is that it just stayed there the whole time.

99.99999999999%+ the chair was just there the whole time, but I can never be certain, however I'd bet Matt an additional 500BTC on every trial of that too.

If you want to go another 500BTC in, I'm game ^_^

ok, I'm in.  I assume we are talking about Pirate, not my chair going to the ISS.  I'll conf-post in the other thread or you can just do it / link to this acceptance

Lol no not the chair going to ISS. -That- would be a gamble.

Bet increase acknowledged.

I feel the fact that I received this casino mailer today hurts my chances, helps Matt's side.  Hopefully unrelated: