Topic: BurtW [SCAMMER TAG] (Read 6193 times)

I don't like the idea calling people scammers for expressing an opinion and making an argument, no matter how "obviously wrong" it is. If "everyone knew it was obviously a scam", then they shouldn't have done any harm. The community as a whole failed and I hope the community as a whole will learn a lesson. I don't see punishment or blamethrowing as being particularly productive.

Have you considered group conformity effects here? If everybody around them is insisting that they're an idiot for even thinking that BS&T is a ponzi and that only stupid people don't understand BS&T's business model, even a lot of intelligent people are going to irrationally go along with the group consensus. There is literally no such thing as a non-irrational person. Doesn't exist.

It should apply to everyone who convinced other people to invest money in Pirate and insisted that all the people calling it a Ponzi were trolls.

Never said you are not smart but nevertheless brainless and corrupt, as you support the given brotherhood by ass - licking, cause its not "everybody" culpable in the same way.

You are the only one, who is morally more culpable (than you might have earned in the schemes) as the ones who pocket the loot to the ones who have to pay for it.

And everybody who has a sense of "community-spirit" , common sense or moral integrity left, must know by now, who  the robber-barrons are, who will deliberately prevent us

from making steps to secure pirates accounting, such that the fingers can be pointed to the proven guilty heads!

Ciao,Ciao

We have a new Zyk.

Yes, all are responsible, but to different degrees. I make a distinction between individual, small-time fools and bigger insiders who make a huge effort to appear legitimate and use other fools' money to greater effect. It stands to reason that those who command and employ greater resources to help perpetrate fraud are more responsible.


Part of being human means using common sense. They were just recklessly greedy. Making people realize they could lose more than what they put in would do a better job.

Exactly !  but only that in bold---read it 5 times !!   and now please draw some coherent conclusions!! can´t wait for it, if you come to the same shit ,you write all the time
then you are paid as well

As it would be so easy to make the community whole and restore intelligent humanity, if there wouldn´t ship brainless submarines right beneath the guys on the boats.

I agree, and yet that's what happens. Such is the absurdity of Ponzi schemes and the way they turn large numbers of otherwise intelligent people into irrational morons.

Why wouldn't this apply equally to everyone who deposited money with Pirate? If we can assume that every reasonable person must have known it was a scam, then everyone who deposited money with Pirate was paying Pirate to steal money from others and give it to them.

Ponzi schemes make people irrational. Scammers know how to exploit that. I want people to learn a lesson rather than punishing them for being human.

Of course they did know and thanks to Joel, the cat in the bag, can even still panic-hoard their coins, cause they had the inside information, when needing to draw on pirate and when
new suckers still came in sufficiency to pay the interest of the fat cats. They can still blame pirate and some russian, which is intimately familiar with Sir Byron Micon ( if OP cares to explain, why he new a week before mybitcointrade changed hands about this fact) Madoff was caught, half of the loot was recovered, not from him but from his feeder funds!

It is absurd to suggest that a reasonable person could accept that it was anything other than a scam. If a PPT operator didn't know, then they should have know and are negligent. This standard applies once you take an active role, as they did. Those who solicit money, fabricate credit ratings, promote or shill for the scam bear a greater share of culpability. A free pass would be a mockery of justice, if that matters at all.

For what it's worth, I'm now personally convinced that BurtW was himself convinced that Pirate was not running a Ponzi scheme or similar scam. He's actually a good example of why I think most PPT operators deserve a "free pass" for the Pirate fiasco.

I don't think most of these things are reasonable things to expect. We're not trying to recreate the conventional economy.

In the last few years?  When did you first deal with him?  I think plenty of people would like to know more about his history with Bitcoin prior to him turning up here in July last year.

The real problem for pass-through operators is that they either thought that pirate was operating a ponzi and didn't inform their investors of that or they failed to do adequate due diligence about his operation.  They knew that they were offering unregulated investments.  They knew that they had not obtained factual evidence of pirate's business model.  They knew that they had done nothing to confirm that those who placed funds in the pass-throughs were sophisticated investors.

I think this is the crux of the issue right here. You suspected Pirate was operating a Ponzi and then you somehow became convinced that it was not. If this was reasonable based on the information you collected, then it's hard to argue you were scamming. If this was unreasonable, then you're a scammer, no matter how much you subjectively believed it.

Personally, I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone could have reasonably become convinced that Pirate was probably not operating a Ponzi scheme. Those who have claimed such have either refused to explain their reasoning or have presented comically implausible reasoning.

Would you care to share what you thought Pirate's business model was?


You paid Pirate to make your customers the recipients of fraudulent transfers. If you did so knowingly (or under circumstances where you should have known), you're a scammer.

He claimed he knew Pirate wasn't running a Ponzi scheme at a time when that claim had a positive affect on his personal finances. If that claim was based on insufficient evidence, that's a form of lying -- claiming you know something you don't to get other people to give you money in reliance on the truth of that claim is lying and scamming.

It's not unusual with Ponzi schemes for people who lost money to also be legally and morally responsible for some of the losses other people suffered in the Ponzi scheme. The Vaughan clawbacks are a dramatic example of this. For example:

So, you meant that they were saying that they will put funds in madoff?
Or they just got money and put them there, paying lower rates?
All people there was accused not for putting money, but for scamming, lying and avoiding taxes. Thats different.
Burt didnt lied.

IANAL, but answering phones or repairing a xerox  isnt a crime and no reasonable person would call that by itself conspiring. Funneling investors money in to a criminal ponzi is quite a different thing.

He just admitted that he "suspected it was a ponzi" but did it anyway...

I mean not managers but stuff who is doing all the paper work, making calls and so on. The didnt knew anything, but they were also working for it

Who should? The people cleaning Madoff's building are just as "guilty" as whoever is cleaning Pirate's house. And similarly, managers of feeder funds who knew or should have known are just as liable in both cases.

Any way that was not ALL the stuff, but according to your statement they should.

No he wasnt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_the_Madoff_investment_scandal