Topic: Discussion about 10,000BTC Bet (Official) - page 4. (Read 104471 times)

So people make up shit and are wrong. Obv anyone can reserve anywhere from 0-100%+ of people's deposits.

What's really f'in ironic was that people were saying that Bitcoin isn't susceptible to fractional reserve or that sort of inflation, and here we have a situation where a bunch of HIYPs apparently invested in each other and possibly created a whole lot of Bitcoin wealth that doesn't actually exist. Guess if there are bubles to be had, Bitcoin WILL find them (though the most likely result of this is fake wealth disappearing, Bitcoin supply contracting, and price going up.... though an even more likely outcome is no effect on price, because "oh, another weird scam or theft? *yawn*")

Alright gene and JoelKatz, after giving this some further thought, I do agree with you that what was done here, including by those operating the pass throughs, was wrong.  Ultimately, it was an illicit redistribution of users' funds (with pirate and the PPT operators taking a cut of it), and those who ran the PPT's helped it happen.

Thanks for the discussion. 

yes!

I agree, and I include all the other shills and forum operators who facilitated this mess.

But the thing is. Even if so, they are as guilty as ultimate ponzi operators. They ought to have known better than to invest other peoples money into a ponzi and taking a cut for it. All this peer to peer ponzi and dilution of guilt is way too convenient. They may have fooled this community, but they are all on my shit list.

Not sure where you get that. I do think that standards should apply consistently and that those who hold positions of influence and privilege should be scrutinized more closely and held to higher standards in proportion to their responsibilities.

Please don't presume to lecture me about what is suitable for me. I don't seek central control to reinforce or obtain it. I seek it to question it and make it justify itself.

You're missing the point -- purposefully, I suspect. You didn't even try address anything of substance. Until we start holding people to account around here, this community (and by extension, bitcoin) will correctly be seen as a joke.

This time it's permanent.

That's our Bitmole. He was proud to wear the scammer tag just 12 months ago as well.

Pay out your blackjack accounts you fuck! You deserve a scammer tag and a spot right next to pirate in the scammer shitlist!

I hesitated at first to post this, because it should speak to more than gene. But as I see it, your insistence that theymos has some 'special level of responsibility' indicates to me that you have a deep-seated belief in Central Authority.

The way i see things, we have this anarchic community centered around this artifact of a forum that theymos built. While I tip my hat to his giving us a place to hang out, the real value of any community is in the shared wisdom of its participants. theymos owes no debt to anyone to police this freewheeling assembly of individuals.

And here is where the point gets uncomfortable for me even to make: If what you are seeking are centralized locii of control, I would suggest that perhaps bitcoin is an unsuitable place for you to be employing your accumulated wealth.

I feel like we're repeating. You still seem to think that Pirate was scamming because there came a time when he couldn't make payouts. That is totally missing the point.

If you hire me to protect your $850,000 retirement so that you have $7,000/month to retire on, and I spend $10,000/month of it on hookers and blow, I am scamming you. You don't have to wait until I can't pay you the $7,000/month to say it's a scam. That scam isn't that you couldn't get the $7,000/month you were relying on. The scam is that I spent your retirement on hookers and blow rather than investing it.

Until you realize this or respond to it directly with some kind of rebuttal, we'll keep talking past each other.

What did Pirate say he would do that he didn't do? Nobody could have reasonably thought that Pirate was promising to make payouts even if his fund was bankrupt. If you take money as an investment, it's not a scam if the investment loses money. He clearly can't make payouts if the fund is bankrupt. That's not the scamming part. The scamming part is when you make payouts to people when you acquired the money by claiming you would "invest" it. The scam is that there is no investment at all.

No. But that's not what Pirate said and that's not what the PPT operators said. Pirate promised his customers he would invest their funds and that was not the case. PPT operators paid Pirate to make their customers the recipients of funds that they knew (or should have known considering dozens of people were telling them this) would be acquired by claiming to be investing them when such payments were not an investment of any kind.

Matthew do us a solid and lock this thread. Many karmas if u do.

Ok, I highlighted the important part.  It's still the case that pirate didn't do what he said he would do, but the PPT operators did do what they said they would do.  Or, if they didn't, then they should be labeled scammers just like pirate.  I'm not sure I subscribe to the idea that just because they thought pirate would eventually stop paying out, they are scammers for being involved.  I DO subscribe to the idea that whenever someone doesn't hold to their word, they should be labeled as a scammer.

If I said, "I'll steal any coins that you send to me at this address," then am I a scammer?

It's "legitimate investment loss". Had Pirate been operating a passthrough to Zeek and there was no evidence he knew it was a Ponzi scheme, IMO he wouldn't be much more culpable than PPT operators and his investors. And I think that's one reason why the community is going to have to start holding people accountable all the way down the line to the individual investor.

Did you mean legitimate investment loss or legitimate investment loss? If he was a passthrough to Zeek and didn't know it was a Ponzi (a longshot, I know), then wouldn't that be a legitimate investment?

Did Pirate ever make an unconditional promise to pay out or claim that there was no risk associated with investing in him? The scam wasn't that he failed to pay out, the scam was that the transfers were fraudulent and the funds weren't invested as promised. Had he failed to pay out because of a legitimate investment loss, he wouldn't have been scamming at all. Risk is fine. Scamming is not. Pirate is not a scammer because he exposed his investors to risk. He's a scammer because all the transfers were fraudulent and the claimed profits didn't exist.

If a PPT insisted that it wasn't a ponzi when he full well knew it was very likely one, then I'd hand him the scammer tag in a heartbeat.

Oh, I am sorry - I didn't realize we were handing out scammer tags based on whether people would be indicted under common law.  I thought it was based on whether one person scammed another.

And no, it's a forum about Bitcoin.