Topic: Are people over-reacting on MNW's bet? (Read 6724 times)

No.

I sensed this technicality early on and was thinking about using it myself in the unlikely case I would lose. I concluded the wording of the bet does not allow this as a "honorable" alternative to paying, and I decided to not bet at all.

I am very sure any outside arbitration would agree with me. Even MNW seems to agree, or he wouldn't have needed to pay the 20BTC himself. Stop grasping straws.

True. There's also a risk of getting a negative rating in retaliation. Not sure how to deal with that.
We do have private credit rating agencies. I fully expect we'll have something similar for Bitcoin.

I don't know about others, but I'm not reacting much at all. I thought from the beginning that Matthew's bet was extremely stupid since he had no chance to win. I would have made a bet at almost any payout ratio about Pirate not paying out, and since he offered 1:1 I had my doubts about him paying.

But I don't think I made a fool of myself by betting, since it was totally zero risk for me. And I made my bet before he lifted the original 10k ceiling (and I didn't increase it afterward - didn't bother to because at that point I'd lost just about all confidence in Matthew paying). The only cost to me was the time to write the message where I made the bet. I guess I valued my 3 minutes (to check which of my addresses had a suitable amount of BTC in it and post the message) lower than the EV of the bet's outcome to me at that point of time.

However, if someone actually bought heavily into bitcoin only to participate in betting against Matthew, I guess I can understand if they're pissed off, since they'd have taken actual risks (regarding changes in the exchange rate etc.).

Down to 15 5 now (Thanks for the reminder BTW).
Regarding OTC, it's a bit cumbersome to use, so people don't bother. I'm surprised people who thought he was running a shady business didn't rate him accordingly. Plus, I guess in the end, you would still need to trust your own intuition (great score, but refusing to explain too-good-to-be-true business? Stay away). I'm confident that, as with everything that has happened in Bitcoinland, things will break and lessons will be learned (such as OTC being useful, but not the final say any more, which is fine)

For limited values of "good". Isn't pirateat40 still one of the highest-rated users on #bitcoin-otc?

Thank you all for your votes! I was really surprised by the result.

A good way to do this would be to allow a user to link their bitcoin talk account with their #bitcoin-otc rating and have their score displayed in place of the adjectives

/agree

Yes, the scammer thing is excessively binary, not enough shades of gray...perhaps the forum needs an ebay-type system with various ratings for users, that other users can vote on: ethical, trustworthy, troll, insightful, etc.  Combine that with the ability to filter out anyone with, say, a "troll rating" > 2 stars, or filter the lending forum by "ethical" < 4 stars.  As it stands, the current algorithmic mapping of high post counts to laudatory adjectives like "hero" is particularly misleading to someone reading the forum for the first time.


Aside from the moral issue, I think part of the strong reaction has to do with the pathetic and unimaginative excuse he used to renege on the bet.  It's as though he couldn't even be bothered to at least come up with something remotely clever or plausible.  When you've been lied to, and the lie is flimsy and obvious, it's much more annoying than if the lie is sophisticated and took some effort to construct.  His attitude implied: not only have I lied to you, but I also think you're all so stupid that you'll believe a ridiculous reinterpretation of the original bet.

I had one of the largest bets with Matthew, and I repeatedly said he'd never pay.

 I'm kinda surprised at how everyone reacted...I mean, it was the most likely outcome right? Is anyone THAT shocked?  Really?

That said, he deserves the scammer tag (as it was a condition of his bet) everything else is just icing on the cake.

It does seem to me that it would be a service to the community if there were a tag which indicated:

  "Cost people significant money due to negligence (or possibly worse.)"

That way it would be a no-brainier to pin useful tags on people like the three Intersango bozos among many others.  And do so in a timely enough manner to warn other community members.

Also Zhou, and Intersango are due, same with the "not really a PPT" investments that turned around and invested in Pirate (hashking, nckrazze).  Heck, even Bruce Wagner still hasn't received a scammer tag.

PPT operators are requested to get one  for example.

So far I've only seen two scammer tags thrown out, one for pirateat40, the other for Matthew. Who else is a part of this "everyone?"

Wouldn't that be nice?

Unfortunately you are asking far too much of our board mates.  

They are such silly ponies, if you tell them to get over it, they'll rant and rave and put you on ignore for having the temerity to disagree with them.

And then you have the wannabe casino-enforcers like Death&Taxes.  He had no skin in the game, but still insists on butting in and sitting in judgement of all who aren't having a cow over a well-timed, poignant prank.

Did u bet with him?

Not honoring a bet might be not a gentleman's choice but thats all..... Did anyone actually think that he pays out 10K BTC or 100K$?

Dit someone loose interest on the amount they bet with him?

The thin i leaned from MNWs bet is, not to bet with him.... and that this community it throwing scammer tags at everyone atm. While the real scammers get away with it ....

None and none.  Got any other strawman arguments?

Matt's actions weren't a stunt.  How much I did or did not lose is irrelevant.

I didn't make a wager.  I didn't say I was doing anything.  Matt got scammer tag, his rep ruined, and he lost his job over it.  Nothing more is going to happen.
I was just pointing out that making a wager and then taking it back after losing is generally not considered a "stunt" anywhere.  It is fraud.
Still the debt is uncollectable, Matt has no intent on paying, and likely can't pay even if he wanted to.  So it is over.

This post-bet experience has been enlightening.  When I see people like you who defend it or minimize it, well it provides some insight into the way YOU think, your value systems, and you likelihood to walk away from an agreement.  An agreement is an agreement and should be honored.  You obviously disagree and look for ways for it to be "ok" to break your word.  That is your choice, I just don't feel doing business with someone who's word means nothing is good risk management.  I also notice the orange Ignore is accurately colored so (click).  


See that is just dumb.  

If I ask you to make a logo and agree to pay 5 BTC and then walk away after you finish is it "no harm"?

Likewise our company allows depositors to lock rates for up to 72 hours.  Obviously this can expose us to currency risk so we have a non-funding penalty (which we rarely need to enforce).
If a client locks a rate, doesn't deposit, and refuses to pay the penalty we will inform the community they are a scammer.

Your "no harm" comment makes me think you feel it is ok to make and break agreements as long as you don't directly steal from someone. I have to disagree.  If you agree to terms and then don't honor them and don't offer compensation then you are a scammer.  That simple.  People shouldn't make agreements they can't or won't honor.

Its just a silly bet guys.... no harm done, since no money was stolen or spent. So get over it

How much of your money did MNW steal, exactly?  How much did pirate steal?