Topic: I'm giving 100% ROI away to anyone who thinks pirate is a fraud - page 57. (Read 102982 times)

At this point, due to the OP, even if I accepted your bet, I could later argue that it wasn't a "real bet" because the rules strictly stated that you weren't eligible. Better than making some modification to the rules this far into the thread, it'd be safer if you just have a 100+ post trusted user bet on your behalf. I will hold off making any recommendations though because it seems it would be a conflict of interest.


Interesting theory. Wasn't it proposed that PIrate had like 500,000BTC or some ridiculous number like that? How would this measly betting thread even make a dent then?

These bets will be funneled to pirate to help him complete payouts

hi, I would love to join the bet with 50BTC, my address 1FWMPAwHkqeTh9jdEo9YBoFztYbobZUPFS .
I know I am not an established member, I would be willing to send the money to you upfront or to any trustworthy escrow...

It has nothing to do with having money invested.

You give me too much credit. I have nothing invested in Pirate. If I lose this bet, I simply lose. You only live once though, right?

This is difficult to clarify, but I'll do my best in good faith:

If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% without agreement to investors, -that- is fraud and a failure to pay back. I would obviously lose the bet.
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% but the investors agreed to it, -that- is the agreement and therefor he has paid it back. I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and pays back 100%, I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and does not pay anything anything back, I would lose the bet.


I'm trying my best to be smart about my clarifications, but if you need any more clarification, please ask and give examples so I can better explain. This is all on good faith of course, I don't want to get into legal arguments "But you said if he paid back on 12oclock and that was EST not KST" and other bullshit. This is about whether he is a scammer/ponzi or not, not about whether you can cheat the system for a cheap profit.

Is it really pointless?
I can see what Matthew is doing, can't you?
No, I will not comment on his real intentions. It's a win/win situation for him.

Its not pointless, If I was worried about my investment I would bet half of it here, and hey, I might just (swash)buckle and do that yet, but I'm still pretty confident pirate is above board

Agreed.

100 btc
1MBYncGH6q2NCfHQjrEH5WXe4JzafHircx

Still hoping for a clean closing of bst where everyone gets their coins back.

Well, the rules of the thread are that he pays back as he described in his post. I am not sure how more specific I could get. I obviously can't include all the passthrus because that's up to the owner of the passthru, but if he paid out everyone that he is directly responsible to by the terms they agreed on and by the terms of his posts, that will be pretty easy to figure out won't it?

BTW, Ribuck, are you coming to London in September? I just hope that one of you will pay the winner 100 BTC there and I'll get myself a free dinner or beer by virtue of being close by.

nanotube has the hashes of all withdrawal addresses and deposited ammounts. It's somewhere on the bet thread.

Bump. I want in, but this NEEDS to be clarified.

Valid bet.

Question: how will you decide if pirate really paid back his investors?

1. what happens if he pays back the small investors at the expenses of the largest ones, and pretends that those that have not been paid never invested in his fund?

2. what happens if he pays back all investors, and some users pretend to have been scammed, just in order to destroy your bet?

100BTC
18pChH7Mf8DjP5Vxxva8R4UxRT22eMZd2j
Reckless? Matthew?

We are a very diverse team, many things we do not agree on. One thing we agree on is absolute transparency in businesses. We also agree that if you're anonymous, you're not worth even talking to. None of our contributors are allowed to be anonymous either (unless they're wikileaking things). I do not support the anonymous movement. However, Vladimir and many others like to use the "If it walks like a duck" line. I walk like a duck. Quack. I'm definitely not a duck though, so I have sympathy for trade secrets, idiots and unprofessionals and don't like to assume the worst. In my posts I often "draw out" people's true intentions by pretending to believe they are scammers, but once I realize they're legitimate, I apologize and begin to help them work towards a better image to avoid guys like me bothering them in the future. In pirate's case, he's not anonymous. Hardly. He's just not transparent. Is he a mafia kingpin? Maybe. If he is, would that mean he doesn't make money? The argument should never have been "is he a ponzi?", it should have been "Do we want morals involved in Bitcoin?" (SilkRoad? Assassinations? Give me a break.)

I respect Vladimir greatly for his security advice. He is spot on when it comes to the risk level of Pirate. I believe that is where the advice should stop however. When it comes to asserting opinions as absolutes, you lose my attention.

I am not locked up in anything, I have never participated in Pirate or any ponzi. If you look at my previous posts, I was one of the loudest mouths when it came to trying to get ponzis kicked off the forums. In fact, that's how I met JRO in the first place. I thanked him like this in PM out of the blue (paraphrased from memory):

"Dear Jonathan,

I fucking hate ponzis and I think they're ruining bitcoin and by extension, I hate you too for running bitcoinduit. That said, I have to give you credit and thanks for giving them a place to go so that we can have a cleaner forum. Cheers"

Unchanged, I still think chances of it being a poinzi are extremely high. Worried about Matthew being reckless here. Really worried.