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.
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.
Topic: BurtW [SCAMMER TAG] (Read 6238 times)
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.
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.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.
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. 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.
We have a new Zyk.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
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.
We have a new Zyk. 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.
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.
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.
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.
It is absurd to suggest that a reasonable person could accept that it was anything other than a scam.
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.Quote
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.
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.
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.
It is absurd to suggest that a reasonable person could accept that it was anything other than a scam.
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.Quote
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 don't think most of these things are reasonable things to expect. We're not trying to recreate the conventional economy. Up until a few weeks ago, I would have vouched for Pirate, I bought a few hundred BTC from him with MoneyPak on BTC-OTC in the last few years, does this make me eligible for a scammer tag too?
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.
When I first heard about BS&T (it was called Pirate Saving and Trust back then) my first thought was that it was probably a ponzi. But instead of stopping there I did take the time to research it, talk to others, and eventually talk to Pirate himself in person about the business and was convinced it was not a ponzi. Based on that I felt OK being involved in the PPT zero coupon bonds.
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?
But "scammer" would imply that I did not settle my debts, did not deliver goods promised, did not pay a bet, etc. I have done none of those things.
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.Burt didnt lied.
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:
Quote
The seventh clawback targets an Albuquerque residential contractor, his real estate agent wife and their construction company.
Although they lost money in the scam, the legal argument will likely be that, as veteran real estate professionals, they should have known something was wrong with Vaughan’s scheme when they continued to make the promised 20 percent return on their investment after the real estate crash.
The rationale is that, if they had blown the whistle, then later investors would have been spared their deep financial losses running into millions of dollars.
Although they lost money in the scam, the legal argument will likely be that, as veteran real estate professionals, they should have known something was wrong with Vaughan’s scheme when they continued to make the promised 20 percent return on their investment after the real estate crash.
The rationale is that, if they had blown the whistle, then later investors would have been spared their deep financial losses running into millions of dollars.
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.
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.
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
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.
If BurtW knew it to be a ponzi he should have the tag, but since he did not, and lost his own money there is no way you will get the tag on him.
It would like trying to go after Nefario cuz he let a ponzi be listed on GLBSE. Nefario did not know it was a ponzi.
It would like trying to go after Nefario cuz he let a ponzi be listed on GLBSE. Nefario did not know it was a ponzi.
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
Well, I guess in case of Madoff he was the only one guilty,
No he wasnt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_the_Madoff_investment_scandal
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.
Well, I guess in case of Madoff he was the only one guilty,
No he wasnt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_the_Madoff_investment_scandal
Well, I guess in case of Madoff he was the only one guilty,
No he wasnt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_the_Madoff_investment_scandal
Well, I guess in case of Madoff he was the only one guilty, not all his office stuff...
So I cant get your point.
So I cant get your point.
From Nolo's thread:
Quote
Can "pass through" operators be criminally charged or civilly liable for their participation in facilitating the scheme?
The answer to this is almost assuredly yes. Every state has a different conspiracy statute, but they generally say the same thing:
A person or business generally is guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime if that person or business does one of the following:
It is not a defense to the charge of conspiracy that the person did not know what they were doing was illegal.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1194704 The answer to this is almost assuredly yes. Every state has a different conspiracy statute, but they generally say the same thing:
A person or business generally is guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime if that person or business does one of the following:
- with the purpose of facilitating or promoting its commission, agrees with another person or business to engage in conduct that constitutes a crime or an attempt or solicitation of a crime; or
- agrees to aid another person or business in planning, committing, or attempting to solicit a crime.
It is not a defense to the charge of conspiracy that the person did not know what they were doing was illegal.
Wow my very own Micon thread!
Let's see, maybe I can answer a few of the questions raised in this thread:
1) The 10,000 BTC bet was more or less "illustrative". Everyone else was making 5,000 or 10,000 BTC bets so I started that thread to show my support/belief in the business Pirate explained to me. If Pirate does not eventually pay back any BTC I will actually lose more than that.
2) I know most of the PPT operators and most of the Pirate supporters, again assuming Pirate does not pay, every single one of them will lose more than you can imagine. 50K+ BTC for some of them. This theory that those of us that supported him made any profit is total bullshit.
3) The Pirate situation has far reaching effects in the entire "financial sector" of the Bitcoin economy. Many of the people that borrowed BTC from me turned around and put it in BS&T accounts so many of my loans are now in default. In spite of this I have personally covered and made whole all but one of the people that had deposits with my lending business and I will be paying off that depositor as soon as my next $10K deposit clears the dwolla->gox gauntlet. There are a few individuals that made deposits into my BS&T account through me and their BTC is all tied up there. Every single one of them knew the risks and knew that I was not covering anything that was simply being passed through to BS&T.
4) A long time ago (in Bitcoin time) several of us got together and formed the first PPT on GLBSE more or less as an experiment to determine the market rate of deposits passed through to BS&T with a 25% insurance fund. Patrick decided to buy out all the partners - that was his decision. AFAIK anyone who has requested the 0.32 BTC payout on their PPT bonds has gotten them.
5) I do not live my life with the absolute certainty that Micon has. When I first heard about BS&T (it was called Pirate Saving and Trust back then) my first thought was that it was probably a ponzi. But instead of stopping there I did take the time to research it, talk to others, and eventually talk to Pirate himself in person about the business and was convinced it was not a ponzi. Based on that I felt OK being involved in the PPT zero coupon bonds.
6) My personal take on this is that either 1) Pirate lied to me (and everyone else) and it was/is a ponzi or 2) he told me the truth and it was legit but he has totally fucked up the shut down of the operations - a situation which should eventually resolve with us all getting all/most/some of our BTC back.
As far as a tag goes: if we end up with case 1) then "mark", "idiot", "taken", etc. might fit, if 2) then no tag is really need. But "scammer" would imply that I did not settle my debts, did not deliver goods promised, did not pay a bet, etc. I have done none of those things. All I have done is lost a boatload of BTC and by extension the same boatload of USD.
If I get nothing back from Pirate then I am basically broke and starting over - the Ponzi pals can all drink to that. Some larger Pirate supporters are even worse off and are in very large multi-year holes of debt - again, assuming no pay back from Pirate the Ponzi gang can feel justified in a big "I told you so".
As I said I am not as certain as many of the Ponzi pals and have taken a wait and see approach to this whole thing.
If Micon says anything interesting please quote if for me so I will see it.
Let's see, maybe I can answer a few of the questions raised in this thread:
1) The 10,000 BTC bet was more or less "illustrative". Everyone else was making 5,000 or 10,000 BTC bets so I started that thread to show my support/belief in the business Pirate explained to me. If Pirate does not eventually pay back any BTC I will actually lose more than that.
2) I know most of the PPT operators and most of the Pirate supporters, again assuming Pirate does not pay, every single one of them will lose more than you can imagine. 50K+ BTC for some of them. This theory that those of us that supported him made any profit is total bullshit.
3) The Pirate situation has far reaching effects in the entire "financial sector" of the Bitcoin economy. Many of the people that borrowed BTC from me turned around and put it in BS&T accounts so many of my loans are now in default. In spite of this I have personally covered and made whole all but one of the people that had deposits with my lending business and I will be paying off that depositor as soon as my next $10K deposit clears the dwolla->gox gauntlet. There are a few individuals that made deposits into my BS&T account through me and their BTC is all tied up there. Every single one of them knew the risks and knew that I was not covering anything that was simply being passed through to BS&T.
4) A long time ago (in Bitcoin time) several of us got together and formed the first PPT on GLBSE more or less as an experiment to determine the market rate of deposits passed through to BS&T with a 25% insurance fund. Patrick decided to buy out all the partners - that was his decision. AFAIK anyone who has requested the 0.32 BTC payout on their PPT bonds has gotten them.
5) I do not live my life with the absolute certainty that Micon has. When I first heard about BS&T (it was called Pirate Saving and Trust back then) my first thought was that it was probably a ponzi. But instead of stopping there I did take the time to research it, talk to others, and eventually talk to Pirate himself in person about the business and was convinced it was not a ponzi. Based on that I felt OK being involved in the PPT zero coupon bonds.
6) My personal take on this is that either 1) Pirate lied to me (and everyone else) and it was/is a ponzi or 2) he told me the truth and it was legit but he has totally fucked up the shut down of the operations - a situation which should eventually resolve with us all getting all/most/some of our BTC back.
As far as a tag goes: if we end up with case 1) then "mark", "idiot", "taken", etc. might fit, if 2) then no tag is really need. But "scammer" would imply that I did not settle my debts, did not deliver goods promised, did not pay a bet, etc. I have done none of those things. All I have done is lost a boatload of BTC and by extension the same boatload of USD.
If I get nothing back from Pirate then I am basically broke and starting over - the Ponzi pals can all drink to that. Some larger Pirate supporters are even worse off and are in very large multi-year holes of debt - again, assuming no pay back from Pirate the Ponzi gang can feel justified in a big "I told you so".
As I said I am not as certain as many of the Ponzi pals and have taken a wait and see approach to this whole thing.
If Micon says anything interesting please quote if for me so I will see it.
I think pirate will pay, am I a scammer?
You missed the point.
The fact that these people were in close contact with Pirate says they know more than most. And also they also profited the most.
They should be held just as responsible as pirate himself.
Sucks huh to not even hit it as big as pirate and suffer the same consequences eh?
What do you fancy yourself as, some sort of righteous crusader chosen by your deity of choice to slay the evil Pirate and his henchmen? This is not a trivial game where you can just spam A and win. Reality has different rules. Claiming ridiculous axioms and drawing conclusions not logical even by those axioms won't get you anywhere. I want this resolved just as much as (perhaps more than) you do, but this approach is not going to work.
I would very much appreciate some information from BurtW, but please refrain from lynch mob mentality. Innocent until proven guilty. Conviction on circumstantial evidence is both utter nonsense and entirely useless.
How much did you have invested with pirate or a ppt?
Honestly, I was hoping for a more entertaining response. Darn.
I don't usually share my financial details with strangers on Internet forums. If that has become common practice, apparently I missed the memo.
When you've prepared an actual response to my post, rather than generic ad hominem reasoning, I'd love to hear it.
I think pirate will pay, am I a scammer?
You missed the point.
The fact that these people were in close contact with Pirate says they know more than most. And also they also profited the most.
They should be held just as responsible as pirate himself.
Sucks huh to not even hit it as big as pirate and suffer the same consequences eh?
What do you fancy yourself as, some sort of righteous crusader chosen by your deity of choice to slay the evil Pirate and his henchmen? This is not a trivial game where you can just spam A and win. Reality has different rules. Claiming ridiculous axioms and drawing conclusions not logical even by those axioms won't get you anywhere. I want this resolved just as much as (perhaps more than) you do, but this approach is not going to work.
I would very much appreciate some information from BurtW, but please refrain from lynch mob mentality. Innocent until proven guilty. Conviction on circumstantial evidence is both utter nonsense and entirely useless.
How much did you have invested with pirate or a ppt?
I think pirate will pay, am I a scammer?
No just an idiot. Luckily there is no tag for that.
While you are waiting for Pirate to pay be sure to max out your CC and get those funds into Rusty 3% per week investment. I mean 3400% might be too risky but "only" 465%? That's easy money!
I generally do not think that PPT operators should get scammer tags (unless of course they broke their contract or failed to pay back insured deposits)
That said, if there is anyone who does deserve a tag, it is BurtW, perhaps the biggest pirate shill on the forum.
He even promoted his PPT in the newbie forums: PIRATE Pass Through (PPT) bonds - outstanding returns for the small investors!
That said, if there is anyone who does deserve a tag, it is BurtW, perhaps the biggest pirate shill on the forum.
He even promoted his PPT in the newbie forums: PIRATE Pass Through (PPT) bonds - outstanding returns for the small investors!
I think pirate will pay, am I a scammer?
You missed the point.
The fact that these people were in close contact with Pirate says they know more than most. And also they also profited the most.
They should be held just as responsible as pirate himself.
Sucks huh to not even hit it as big as pirate and suffer the same consequences eh?
What do you fancy yourself as, some sort of righteous crusader chosen by your deity of choice to slay the evil Pirate and his henchmen? This is not a trivial game where you can just spam A and win. Reality has different rules. Claiming ridiculous axioms and drawing conclusions not logical even by those axioms won't get you anywhere. I want this resolved just as much as (perhaps more than) you do, but this approach is not going to work.
I would very much appreciate some information from BurtW, but please refrain from lynch mob mentality. Innocent until proven guilty. Conviction on circumstantial evidence is both utter nonsense and entirely useless.
This is missing the point of vouching for someone. That person fucks up and vanishes, remaining shit spreads to supporters. That's how social networks and webs of trust work.
Now, I'm not talking about "he's decent" or "so far, dealing with him was good" type of posts. The statement "It's not a Ponzi" needs a very good explanation now.
Now, I'm not talking about "he's decent" or "so far, dealing with him was good" type of posts. The statement "It's not a Ponzi" needs a very good explanation now.
This is the heart of the matter. If someone defended Pirate by simply saying something like, "well, he's always paid me on time," they've clearly done nothing wrong.
But when someone belligerently counters any suggestion of the fraud by asserting its uprightness and even casting aspersions on the skeptic, you're dealing with someone who helped Pirate defraud the community. Chances are good that you're also dealing with someone who knew damn well that they would only make a profit if more people bought in (i.e., someone who at least suspected it was a Ponzi). Why else spend so much time in service of someone else's fraud?
Quote
And yes, AFAIK there's no proof these 10k BTC ever existed. It makes zero sense from the start: be so sure about it, but start pass-throughs long before digging up a 10k investment?
BurtW's supposed well-timed sale of his pass-through business is also suggestive. I think he not only knew it was a scam, but saw the writing on the wall and unwound his position as it crumbled. Or he can show us the transactions otherwise.
I think pirate will pay, am I a scammer?
You missed the point.
The fact that these people were in close contact with Pirate says they know more than most. And also they also profited the most.
They should be held just as responsible as pirate himself.
Sucks huh to not even hit it as big as pirate and suffer the same consequences eh?
BurtW is an honest businessman, having dealt with him personally.
That's all I have to say.
That's all I have to say.
I think pirate will pay, am I a scammer?
I say give all the PPTs scammer tags. They help perpetrate this whole Bullshit and Trust.
They all profited off of it. I say they are just as guilty as pirate.
They all profited off of it. I say they are just as guilty as pirate.
Up until a few weeks ago, I would have vouched for Pirate, I bought a few hundred BTC from him with MoneyPak on BTC-OTC in the last few years, does this make me eligible for a scammer tag too?
did you issue many bonds and promote his system to everyone that would listen?
BurtW bragged in my original giant Ponzi thread that he coined the term "Pirate Pass-through" - he is one of the few that I believe knew all along what type of scam this was, and decided to profit by running his pass-through.
Easy scammer tag here.
Up until a few weeks ago, I would have vouched for Pirate, I bought a few hundred BTC from him with MoneyPak on BTC-OTC in the last few years, does this make me eligible for a scammer tag too?
BurtW totally deserves the scammer take.
multiple PPT bonds, put "Pirate is not a Ponzi" in his signature while knowing damn well it's a scam in the hopes of tricking the low-hanging fruit into shipping more BTC.
he continues to troll the scam-victims with this shameful shill thread created right before the Pirate collapse: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--97094
profited small while helping the largest BTC scammer in history profit $5M+ and doing so while knowing what he was doing the whole time. Extremely deserved scammer tag.
multiple PPT bonds, put "Pirate is not a Ponzi" in his signature while knowing damn well it's a scam in the hopes of tricking the low-hanging fruit into shipping more BTC.
he continues to troll the scam-victims with this shameful shill thread created right before the Pirate collapse: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--97094
profited small while helping the largest BTC scammer in history profit $5M+ and doing so while knowing what he was doing the whole time. Extremely deserved scammer tag.
You should make it a poll to see if other agree.
Jeffry Picower made more off of Madoff's ponzi than anyone, including Madoff. After his death in 2009, the US Federal government went after his estates assets and got a settlement for $7.2 billion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffry_Picower
I don't think you can really issue a scammer tag for that. Up until recently hundreds of BTC Talk users would have vouched for Pirate, do you want to give them all scammer tags too? The guy is free to have his opinions.
This is missing the point of vouching for someone. That person fucks up and vanishes, remaining shit spreads to supporters. That's how social networks and webs of trust work.
Now, I'm not talking about "he's decent" or "so far, dealing with him was good" type of posts. The statement "It's not a Ponzi" needs a very good explanation now.
And yes, AFAIK there's no proof these 10k BTC ever existed. It makes zero sense from the start: be so sure about it, but start pass-throughs long before digging up a 10k investment?
I could hardly care less about the scammer tag though. Trust isn't created by the mighty forum admins, they seem to let about anything pass on here. But look at the people who do real business. Most of them don't touch the funny bond markets with a ten foot pole, and often enough give their opinions on people involved in it.
What makes you think that this supposed 10,000 BTC account actually exists?
he continues to troll the scam-victims with this shameful shill thread created right before the Pirate collapse: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--97094
He is still... I cannot believe my eyes
For that he'd deserve a "sad troll" tag, much like Matthew would
Seems like he is indicating he feels his "bet" is now a loss. See the tagline "I will bet you I lost more than you did.".
So you're saying he should be labelled a scammer for losing 10,000 BTC of his own money?
I don't think you can really issue a scammer tag for that. Up until recently hundreds of BTC Talk users would have vouched for Pirate, do you want to give them all scammer tags too? The guy is free to have his opinions.
he continues to troll the scam-victims with this shameful shill thread created right before the Pirate collapse: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--97094
He is still... I cannot believe my eyes
For that he'd deserve a "sad troll" tag, much like Matthew would
BurtW totally deserves the scammer take.
multiple PPT bonds, put "Pirate is not a Ponzi" in his signature while knowing damn well it's a scam in the hopes of tricking the low-hanging fruit into shipping more BTC.
he continues to troll the scam-victims with this shameful shill thread created right before the Pirate collapse: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--97094
profited small while helping the largest BTC scammer in history profit $5M+ and doing so while knowing what he was doing the whole time. Extremely deserved scammer tag.
multiple PPT bonds, put "Pirate is not a Ponzi" in his signature while knowing damn well it's a scam in the hopes of tricking the low-hanging fruit into shipping more BTC.
he continues to troll the scam-victims with this shameful shill thread created right before the Pirate collapse: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--97094
profited small while helping the largest BTC scammer in history profit $5M+ and doing so while knowing what he was doing the whole time. Extremely deserved scammer tag.
Jump to: