[BitcoinMax.com] Closed - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

zyk

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 101

Hi Pbc.t , hi Theymos,

isn´t it a bit risky to lift Zyks bitcointajk.org ban ?

my promised silence - 6 months - luckily is over and even as I did let corrupt myself :

am back to show the light to all my fellow idiots.....right Erebus? still waiting?

Cheers Zyk Grin

P.S. there always got to be a payout somewhere, even if its deep down under the doorsteps Shocked

EskimoBob

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank

Quote from: strello on March 04, 2013, 03:17:07 PM

No, he just changed his name again.

In Bitcoinmax days he was "payb.tc". He went quiet for a while, then became "E&G"- (IanG- get it?) until this recent interest in this thread.

Now he has become "User25846".

He still has his 2673 post count, and "Hero" status.

I think it's really out of order that theymos is allowing him to pull this namechanging act every so often.

He always openly stated that if pirate defaulted any invested BTC would be lost, so I don't know if he deserves a scammer tag. But then, who can tell if he ever actually sent pirate any coins?

His contact info can be found here: http://www.sitetrail.com/payb.tc

Code:

Registrant Ian Grice
86 Monash Rd
4000 Brisbane
QLD
Australia
Phone: +61.414235463
Fax: +61.111111111
Identifier: grice513d

Technical Contact Ian Grice
86 Monash Rd
4000 Brisbane
QLD
Australia
Phone: +61.414235463
Fax: +61.111111111
Identifier: grice041z

Billing Contact Billing Department
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Germany
Phone: +49 . 6894 9396 870
Fax: +49 . 6894 9396 871
Identifier: depar518k

Admin. Contact Ian Grice
86 Monash Rd
4000 Brisbane
QLD
Australia
Phone: +61.414235463
Fax: +61.111111111
Identifier: grice276j

Search for other domains with the same

RegistrantTechnical ContactBilling ContactAdmin. Contact

- x -
AdamsNames Limited is registered as a Company in England and Wales.Registration Number: 3714632, VAT Registration Number: GB 731 9129 38.Registered Office: Reg'd Office: 9 Quy Court, Colliers Lane, Stow-cum-Quy, Cambridge, CB25 9AU, UKThe WebmasterURL:
Last modified: Sun Nov 6 12:09:10 2011

strello

full member

Activity: 234

Merit: 101

No, he just changed his name again.

In Bitcoinmax days he was "payb.tc". He went quiet for a while, then became "E&G"- (IanG- get it?) until this recent interest in this thread.

Now he has become "User25846".

He still has his 2673 post count, and "Hero" status.

I think it's really out of order that theymos is allowing him to pull this namechanging act every so often.

He always openly stated that if pirate defaulted any invested BTC would be lost, so I don't know if he deserves a scammer tag. But then, who can tell if he ever actually sent pirate any coins?

His contact info can be found here: http://www.sitetrail.com/payb.tc

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Shadow383 on March 04, 2013, 02:19:23 PM

Quote from: theboss on March 04, 2013, 01:35:41 PM

The thing that bothers me the most is that he still posts all around the forum except for this one thread that he started.

I think that's called "Ignore the multi-million dollar fraud and hope it goes away"

And holy shit, only on here could people know someone's name and not chase them for that amount of money Roll Eyes

It's amazing that this proven scammer/scam-enabler doesn't get tagged as such, yet Matthew gets it for daring to make an obviously fake joke bet.

Double-standard much BTCtalk?

Shadow383

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: theboss on March 04, 2013, 01:35:41 PM

The thing that bothers me the most is that he still posts all around the forum except for this one thread that he started.

I think that's called "Ignore the multi-million dollar fraud and hope it goes away"

And holy shit, only on here could people know someone's name and not chase them for that amount of money Roll Eyes

theboss

member

Activity: 94

Merit: 100

The thing that bothers me the most is that he still posts all around the forum except for this one thread that he started.

poly

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Weighted companion cube

Quote from: Bitsky on March 03, 2013, 04:12:52 AM

Quote from: Shadow383 on March 02, 2013, 08:19:16 PM

Ian is almost certainly on an incredibly dodgy legal footing, having made huge profit by perpetuating fraud.

So yeah, I'd sue him if I'd been dumb enough to put money into this scheme.

Quote from: 00null on February 28, 2013, 10:07:12 PM

When you had an account with BitcoinMax your contract partner was Ian Grice (paybtc/E&G). So maybe it would be the best to build a legal case against Ian. That way he would at least most probably start to respond.
At one point in time Trendon wanted to have the accounts transfered to him. If Ian had complied, you could go direct for Tendon. Unfortunately, or deliberately?, Ian decided to protect Trendon and keep the accounts. Now Trendon has an additional shield, because only Ian had a contract with him, and Ian is apparently no longer interested. I assume he had profited enough.

Or maybe he has not sent coins (all or just a part of them) to Pirate at all. If you knew right from the start that Pirate never planned to pay back, you could add your own scam on top of it. With the result that the blame goes to Pirate. He just needed to pay the bit of interest which investors requested, something that worked out fine as long as new investors joined; and that worked until Pirate defaulted. With his explanation of "coin ownership change" (see below) he broke the traceability of coins. So even if you could prove that an address holding BMax coins is under his control he could simply say that's because he invested the amount from his other wallet. With this in mind it would be foolish for him to officially acknowledge BMax balances because during a lawsuit it would show that his BST account had less coins than the sum investors sent to him.

Quote from: payb.tc on July 04, 2012, 04:39:53 PM

an example of that would be let's say to start with i have 200 btc which i keep here:

BST wallet   100   i own 100% of these coins
My wallet   100   i own 100% of these coins

then, a bitcoinmax lender decides to invest 40 btc (sending it to MY wallet), the ownership changes immediately to:

BST wallet   100   i own 60 of these coins, and the bitcoinmax lender owns the other 40
My wallet   140   i own 100% of these coins

then if BST stops paying, i've lost 60 btc, and the bitcoinmax lender has lost 40 btc, even though the actual 40 bitcoins that he sent are still unspent in my own personal wallet.

This is very informative and is a great point. It's possible that E&G/Bitcoinmax was running their own ponzi and not actually investing any of the coins into BTS&T, or very small amounts into it.

Bitsky

hero member

Activity: 576

Merit: 514

Quote from: Shadow383 on March 02, 2013, 08:19:16 PM

Ian is almost certainly on an incredibly dodgy legal footing, having made huge profit by perpetuating fraud.

So yeah, I'd sue him if I'd been dumb enough to put money into this scheme.

Quote from: 00null on February 28, 2013, 10:07:12 PM

When you had an account with BitcoinMax your contract partner was Ian Grice (paybtc/E&G). So maybe it would be the best to build a legal case against Ian. That way he would at least most probably start to respond.
At one point in time Trendon wanted to have the accounts transfered to him. If Ian had complied, you could go direct for Tendon. Unfortunately, or deliberately?, Ian decided to protect Trendon and keep the accounts. Now Trendon has an additional shield, because only Ian had a contract with him, and Ian is apparently no longer interested. I assume he had profited enough.

Or maybe he has not sent coins (all or just a part of them) to Pirate at all. If you knew right from the start that Pirate never planned to pay back, you could add your own scam on top of it. With the result that the blame goes to Pirate. He just needed to pay the bit of interest which investors requested, something that worked out fine as long as new investors joined; and that worked until Pirate defaulted. With his explanation of "coin ownership change" (see below) he broke the traceability of coins. So even if you could prove that an address holding BMax coins is under his control he could simply say that's because he invested the amount from his other wallet. With this in mind it would be foolish for him to officially acknowledge BMax balances because during a lawsuit it would show that his BST account had less coins than the sum investors sent to him.

Quote from: payb.tc on July 04, 2012, 04:39:53 PM

an example of that would be let's say to start with i have 200 btc which i keep here:

BST wallet   100   i own 100% of these coins
My wallet   100   i own 100% of these coins

then, a bitcoinmax lender decides to invest 40 btc (sending it to MY wallet), the ownership changes immediately to:

BST wallet   100   i own 60 of these coins, and the bitcoinmax lender owns the other 40
My wallet   140   i own 100% of these coins

then if BST stops paying, i've lost 60 btc, and the bitcoinmax lender has lost 40 btc, even though the actual 40 bitcoins that he sent are still unspent in my own personal wallet.

Shadow383

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: 00null on February 28, 2013, 10:07:12 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

E&G, quit ignoring us!
I want my detailed info from my accounts, I am needing the info to build a legal case again Trendon.

When you had an account with BitcoinMax your contract partner was Ian Grice (paybtc/E&G). So maybe it would be the best to build a legal case against Ian. That way he would at least most probably start to respond.
At one point in time Trendon wanted to have the accounts transfered to him. If Ian had complied, you could go direct for Tendon. Unfortunately, or deliberately?, Ian decided to protect Trendon and keep the accounts. Now Trendon has an additional shield, because only Ian had a contract with him, and Ian is apparently no longer interested. I assume he had profited enough.

Ian is almost certainly on an incredibly dodgy legal footing, having made huge profit by perpetuating fraud.

So yeah, I'd sue him if I'd been dumb enough to put money into this scheme.

00null

full member

Activity: 148

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

E&G, quit ignoring us!
I want my detailed info from my accounts, I am needing the info to build a legal case again Trendon.

When you had an account with BitcoinMax your contract partner was Ian Grice (paybtc/E&G). So maybe it would be the best to build a legal case against Ian. That way he would at least most probably start to respond.
At one point in time Trendon wanted to have the accounts transfered to him. If Ian had complied, you could go direct for Tendon. Unfortunately, or deliberately?, Ian decided to protect Trendon and keep the accounts. Now Trendon has an additional shield, because only Ian had a contract with him, and Ian is apparently no longer interested. I assume he had profited enough.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: ?? on ??

E&G, quit ignoring us!
I want my detailed info from my accounts, I am needing the info to build a legal case again Trendon.

Why would pirate's accomplice help you?

It's been clear for a long time which side he's on.

Dude practically drove the get-away car.

ErebusBat

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

I am the one who knocks

Me too, but I doubt I will get it.

Bitsky

hero member

Activity: 576

Merit: 514

I still would like a PM with my last balance and deposits too.

Ente

legendary

Activity: 2126

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ehmdjii on November 17, 2012, 04:05:23 AM

i know i am terribly late, and i will be ridiculed a lot, but are people actually still buying pirate debt? i have a 17 BTC bitcoinmax account to sell.

Pirate debt is worthless now, even the last people who bought for less than one % stopped buying it.
If you want to help to get something back from Pirate: Here is your chance:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/trendon-shavers-philip-moustakis-united-states-securities-exchange-commission-120759

Ente

ehmdjii

sr. member

Activity: 351

Merit: 250

i know i am terribly late, and i will be ridiculed a lot, but are people actually still buying pirate debt? i have a 17 BTC bitcoinmax account to sell.

guruvan

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Seems likely the SEC will go to the PPT operators, rather than the other way around. I would imagine that they are all concerned about their own liability in this.

In fact, the synthetic PPT wasn't hypothetical, it just closed before Pirate did. One might more properly refer to such a thing as a naked credit default swap. It was listed on MPEx, and yes it would have paid out of pocket in the event of a pirate default (effectively producing a short position on pirate for the issuer)

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: makomk on November 05, 2012, 08:36:51 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 01, 2012, 08:37:39 AM

Correct. The difference would be that Pirate's scam has innocent victims while the PPT operator's scam has only one victim -- Pirate.

Not true. There's a good chance pirateat40 still has funds which could be recovered in order to partially refund investors - this has happened before in other ponzis - but if the PPT investors' funds were never invested in Pirate then there's nothing to recover.

If there were a Pirate recovery, the PPT operators would have to pay that recovery to their customers, whether they got the funds from Pirate or not.

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 01, 2012, 08:37:39 AM

Surely that wouldn't be a "completely separate scam" if people agreed to it? And there's no rational reason a person who invested in a PPT wouldn't be equally happy in a "synthetic PPT". You have to trust the PPT operator to pay you in either case.

If Pirate did actually pay out in full, how exactly would this hypothetical "synthetic PPT" be able to pay their investors though? They wouldn't, which means they had no intention to pay their investors regardless of whether Pirate fails, which means they themselves were operating a ponzi and scamming their investors.

They would pay their investors out of their own funds. I'm not sure how you know they wouldn't. This actually would have been a really, *really* good bet. And you could cut your losses at any time by passing funds to Pirate. It's actually a very sensible business model.

Topic: [BitcoinMax.com] Closed - page 2. (Read 190287 times)