Topic: Is pirate considered a scammer by Bitcoin community*? Poll:vote/view results - page 2. (Read 7033 times)

Yes, by those terms he would not be a scammer. Anyone who makes an investment and isn't willing to at least consider and accept the very real possibility of default is entirely deluded. Of course, if Pirate made claims that there was no risk of default (I am unaware of any such claims and have not done a search), then he is either making those claims in a state of delusion or is making them deliberately with intent to extract money under false pretenses (in which case he is a scammer).

In my opinion the most damning evidence that he is a scammer came from his continued assurances after default had occurred that he would still pay people back. Liar = Scammer. Simple as that.

Something to consider for the future if you decide to enter into a peer-to-peer investment contract where no central legal authority is involved: It should be spelled out very clearly at the beginning what redress should be expected upon default (from loss of collateral up to and including the death penalty for the defaulting party). This is one area where organized crime does a much better job of making contract details crystal clear as well as performing "contract enforcement".

Bottom line: With no threat of consequences upon default, "scammers gonna scam".

He said he had everyone's money, promised to pay back, then disappeared? Not hard to figure out why people are annoyed.

Read this and enlighten yourself, instead of making stuff up.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-savings-and-trust-is-closing-101339

I thought the deal with pirate was something like this.

Give me btc at 7% a week interest with no insurance or guarantee on your deposit. I won't tell you specifically what it's used for and if i default you lost your btc. Deal? Ok thanks.

Am i missing something? I don't see what all the uproar is about.

... and pay GST/HST or VAT on Bitcoin. No way!

I just remember the old avatar pic and always wondered if that was really you

You cannot imagine how spot on you are!

People say my driver's license picture looks exactly like the Unibomber. It could be the dictionary's picture for "terrorist".

And about ten years ago, my daughters swam competitively. To raise money, their team operated a Bingo hall. Each parent had to work a few days in the Bingo hall, and the old ladies there used to call me "Jesus".

So I'd say you nailed me.

As for offence, only two things have ever offended me. One was the Penn Jillette and Paul Provenza movie, "The Aristocrats", and I can't remember what the other is. It's really hard to offend me.

I give you props. Your's was funny.

I must know one thing though - Do you really resemble the love child of Jesus Christ and the Unibomber in real life ? (I had to ask, no offence intended)....

I agree that it would be more likely for Bitcoin to be treated as a commodity. Should've said "real value" instead of "real money."

Can't hand out any scammer tags until we know Pirateat40 wasn't hacked by some mysterious international art collector mafioso.

I don't think anyone signed a contract, but Pirate made an offer and people accepted it by doing what the offer told them to do.

If I say, "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today", and you give me a hamburger today, then I have to pay you Tuesday. If I do it reluctantly, you have a case against me.

Update: Or, what Validimir said above me. But I think I said it funnier.

Contract is a very simple concept. Generally to create a contract there should be an offer, acceptance of the offer and consideration.

In case of pirate, his forum or even IRC posts would be an offer. Opening an account with him would be acceptance of the offer. Sending some BTC would be consideration. As simple as that.

Bitcoins do not grow old and die. You do not have to feed them either. They just sit around waiting to be spent, they are not good for much else. To me they resemble gold much more than fruit or cows.

Being one of the local 'Crazies' as well as a believer in the possibility of Legal action, I do not think that a BTC 'payout' would be possible for a judge to hand down.

If/when Bitcoin finds it's day in court, I believe that it may very well be treated as a 'Commodity' and not a 'Currency'.

Although we use the term 'Mining' when referring to the generation of Bitcoins, the reality is, it can be better compared to 'Agriculture' or FARMING...either Livestock or Grown Food, both of which are commodities and can be either grown/produced/birthed OR purchased using a fiat currency.

Animals that are birthed on a farm have value, can be traded and are worth just as much as the same animal of comparable age etc, if acquired using fiat.
The same rings true for fruit, vegetables, plants and anything else that makes up a Farm's ability to sustain itself and prosper in the future.

From a Legal standpoint, Bitcoin has a far greater chance as a commodity than a currency.

Did anyone sign a contract with pirate prior to sending them their coins?  Would the exchange of bitcoins count as an agreement of a contract?

Let's say the pirate situation continues, and he keeps stalling payment to the point where it is blatantly obvious that he will not be paying back.

If a legal case emerges, and a judge rules that pirate has to pay back his investors, it could actually be extremely beneficial for Bitcoin as a whole. People would see that Bitcoin Land isn't just some wild-west place where they will surely lose anything they put into it. Instead, they might come to understand that there is no "Bitcoin Land," and that the people using Bitcoin are using real money value that holds weight in a court of law. It would instill a lot of confidence.

Oh, and bonus points if the judge makes pirate pay back in BTC rather than USD.

EDIT: For clarity's sake, I'm not siding with one side or another saying that he will or will not pay out. There are crazies on both sides of the fence...  

It definitely does not hurt your cause. You will almost assuredly have valid cause of action if he fails to pay back your money

Actually, a forum post might be better than just a verbal agreement, because you can go back and point to it rather than just relying on people's word as to what was said.

Oral contracts are binding in every state - there is a defense for certain contracts that fall under the statute of frauds

A "statute of frauds" requires that certain contracts be in writing, and that they be signed by all parties to be bound by the contract. Although there can be significant variation between jurisdictions, the most common types of contracts to which a statute of fraud applies are:

Surety and guaranty contracts – These are contracts where one party agrees to be responsible for another party’s debts.  A student loan co-signed by a parent is a good example.

A contract, for consideration, to marry – Modernly, this rule has been eliminated in many states for policy reasons

A contract that cannot be fulfilled within one year of the start of the contract – This generally means long terms contracts

A contract for the sale of goods over $500 or a lease of goods over $1000

Contract involving the exchange of land or real property, or an interest in real property (such as a lease)

A contract to give property on or after death

A contract to sell stocks and bonds

The UETA allows binding legal transactions to be created using email or electronic signature technology.  

If this is such a transaction that may fall under the statute of frauds, additional evidence can be submitted, receipts etc, to show a contract was in fact formed and that consideration was passed in order to prevent unjust enrichment by the Pirate40

I remember a hilarious review praising the hell out of the application, basically the best thing ever and solved all his problems, but it ended "3 bucks, too expensive. 1 star."

It is amazing how many apps have 4 stars given with the comment "It doesn't do what it is supposed to and crashes my phone, but the user interface sure looks nice".

Perhaps there would be a way for other people to thumb up/down ratings to give them more or less weight?