The burden of proof is on pirate and his shills. It is a ponzi until proven otherwise as far as any reasonable person is concerned.
Why? Do you have funds involved? Is there a law being broken? Has someone committed a tortious offense?
I'm curious why spectators are so excitable about this, other than,"Internet arguing! Wheee!"
This:
Who needs a 51% attack when you can just make sure every newspaper article on bitcoin forever mentions the countless ponzi schemes and untold millions stolen from credulous fools?
It is clear that the repercussions will be substantial.
And now you've hit the nail on the head for why I care.
If this was a scam occurring in USD or something similar - wouldn't bother me, buyer beware and all that.
But really now, how do you think the press will react if someone successfully steals about 5% of all the bitcoins in circulation?
That'd be the USD equivalent of someone stealing in the many trillions of dollars.
If some poor misguided fool's been scammed out of his college fund, do you really think he's going to be coming back to bitcoin in a hurry? Do you really think someone who knows that person or who reads about the story online will be rushing straight over to the forum or to Mtgox?
pirate have provided a lot more information and confirmation of his good business than you guys could provide that his business is bad.
What confirmation?
Are you not asserting the claim that Pirate is a ponzi? Guess that means its on you.
Intentionally or not, you're confusing the issue here.
If I come on here asking for a 20000BTC loan, because I've got an awesome business plan that pays 4500% per year, but won't tell you what it is, what my assets are or anything of that nature, I'd be laughed off the forums, and rightly so. People would naturally assume that it was a scam unless I provided clear evidence of my ability to repay that money.
Why is it any different for pirate, when he's doing exactly this and operating at somewhere between fifteen and twenty five times that scale?
Basically:
Demand for the impossible proof of a negative is a reliable gambit for the conman and also assuages the bedeviling consciences of the naively complicit (and there are many of those, indeed).
