Topic: Is pirate considered a scammer by Bitcoin community*? Poll:vote/view results (Read 7003 times)

He has a scammer tag.  That outta teach a darn good lesson!

Sigh.

Everyone is so focused on his collateral damage, they forgot about him.

Nobody has forgotten about pirate, nor will they.

Pirate's tale of plunder (not really plunder, people willingly gave him coins) will be inscribed upon stone (or in the blockchain) and passed down through generations upon generations of future Bitcoinauts.

Everybody has forgotten about pirate, now we are talking about the GLBSE fiasco.

Bump, because I still haven't heard any actual movement re: Pirate

Correct. But that wasn't the question.

I think you lost the context of this conversation. The question was whether we know that he didn't put the money into legitimate investments as he claimed he would. And the answer is that we know he didn't because there are not, and cannot be, any legitimate investments that meet the necessary criteria.

Your original question was:

And the answer is that the uproar is that he claimed the money would be used for legitimate investments and we know they were not because there do not exist any legitimate investments that can pay 7%/week interest. (There's also other evidence, it's not just that. See the rest of the thread.)

Nothing in that theory explains where the coin was invested, if it even was invested, where it went, and most importantly where it is now. I think you have answered my question by refusing to answer it. Thanks again.

Hopefully someone with more intimate knowledge of pirates operation can help get some closure to the drama. Good luck.

Yes, like evolution and gravity. I analyze a set of facts and conclude that only one explanation for those facts is reasonably possible.

That's what I presented, real facts. They're just not the particular facts you want, and therefore you feel like you can ignore the conclusion they inescapably lead to.

The amount of money he took is a real fact. The return rate he promised is a real fact. That no business model is known that can provide those returns is a real fact. That he stopped making payouts with no explanation is a real fact. These real facts (and others) lead to one and only one conclusion.

If you have some alternate conclusion consistent with these facts, please share them with the group. But there are a large set of known facts and there is only one explanation consistent with them., No other explanation is known or reasonably imaginable. That is how you reason from facts and reach conclusions. There is no other way to do it.

That there are specific facts that we could have, don't have, and that could be helpful does not in any mean that we cannot be confident in the conclusions we've reached from the facts we do have. Can you set out any set of plausible additional facts that would change the conclusion? I'm pretty sure you can't.

Your explanation describes a theory. If i wasn't clear enough before, i'm asking does any have any real facts, or are we still just guessing? Something like real documented evidence that shows where coins went and didn't go. Does anyone even know who he is, and any of that evidence. The reality is that no one seems to know from what i have seen. It's all theories. Evidence does exist, but no one has put enough of an effort to gather it, didn't try at all to gather it, or just isn't posting it. You could have simply answered with "no i don't know" to my orignal post, "but i'm pretty sure something like this and this happened". End of story.

I do know. You keep saying I don't. I explained how I know. You don't disagree with my reasoning, yet you refuse to accept its conclusion. I'm baffled. Either I'm misunderstanding you or you seem to have stuck in your head that there's only one way you can know something and if you can think of one way you could know something that isn't the way you do know it, then you don't know it.

It's that you don't know, but you keep saying you know. That's all the question was. I was never questioning that your theory was wrong or right. In all honesty i don't really care. For the people that foolishly deposited coins with pirate. They should be seeking evidence not theories, if they care enough to get something back.

Yes, we do know. You're playing "if the glove does not fit, you must acquit" where you stubbornly insist on focusing on the one thing you don't have while ignoring the many pieces of evidence you do have all the while sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALALALALA!".

What is the other possibility?

If you check your gas tank and it's low and then you check it the next day and it's full, how do you know someone put gas in it? Simple. Something must explain why there's more gas in now than before, and no explanation other than that someone put gas in it is plausible. Is it possible something else bizarre happened. Sure, maybe. I can't think of anything, but it's possible there might be some other way the gas in the tank seems to have filled it. Does that stop us from knowing that someone put gas in it? No. The standard for knowledge is reasonable and contextual, it doesn't require some kind of absolute metaphysical certainty.

We assume he didn't make any investments at all since it was a ponzi scheme.

So we don't know. Thanks. 

There are no imaginable legitimate investments he could have made that would have explained his payouts. In any event, if he did in fact make legitimate investments, the burden is on him to justify his failure to make payouts on schedule.

If you have no particular reason to trust me but give me $100 to buy you groceries and I come back with no groceries and no $100, you can strongly suspect that I've just robbed you. But if you ask me what happened and I say, "No comment", then you can conclude that effectively you can act as though I've robbed you. Yes, it's possible that I got mugged. But if I did get mugged and lost your money, I have an absolute obligation to explain to you what happened. Otherwise, you absolutely should assume the worst.

This is even stronger than that because at least in the grocery example, we can imagine ways the money could have legitimately been lost. But Pirate didn't just lose money, he sustained a scheme where payouts were made as the profits from legitimate investments where no conceivable pattern of legitimate investments could explain those payouts. It's as if I said that aliens were going to give you not just ordinary groceries but the most delicious groceries imaginable, and then I took your $100 and never came back.

So we know he made illegitimate investments, or do we just not know?

You can dig up the dozens of places where he claimed that the funds would be used for legitimate investments.

What did he say then?

That's not what Pirate said, it's what he meant. The essence of scamming is not saying what you mean.

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?

This shuldn't be entertaining, but damn it is  "the people" can easily go quite far from acting rational...

My favs are "paid for my burger +5", "ran a typical Ponzi -1", "owes me money, not very talkative about anything, past his repayment delays -1", "Owes me ~35 BTC, has defaulted on his debts. Not trustworthy -2"

So basically the burger more than compensates for all that

Never bother looking at that before, but their seems to be quiet a bit of feedback referring to his trade of currency back and forth.
That part is not surprising, consider what he was doing, but paypal?! seriously haha. There is your risk.

http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=pirateat40&sign=ANY&type=RECV

+168 rep as we speak 

Everyone look at this post and laugh.


Then look at his signature and laugh even harder.





Edit: apparently he deleted his comment. I'm going to leave this up anyways.

Can I get some thousands of bitcoins? I will take 20 scammer tags!



I will bet 500 pennies that nothing happens to Pirate, he'll pay back what he can... TONS of people will cry to the police/fbi whatever, but they'll be like uhhh, thanks for the details goodbye....


Everyone willingly gave this dude their money.. No way in hell is a forum post a legal binding contract.....

But in the post where he said he was closing down BCTST, he said people would still be earning intrest. He changed terms and therefore, he is a scammer.

It is 0% for the waiting period as I understand.
He have declared that BTCST has defaulted.

While people are patiently waiting for pirate to pay back their money, are they earning the old interest rate (7%) or the new, lower rate (5%)?

Not that it really matters, that is still a shitload of interest every day.

It's called embezzlement.

Yes, but I understand the decision to withhold judgement. It's politics.

Comparing that Matthew at one point got a scammer tag by delaying 1BTC payment by a week or so. This indeed appears to be a case of double standards, does it not?

IMHO, he should have gotten the scammer tag the Monday he didn't give bitlane his coin. He acknowledged on the forums that he had been contacted with the "j/k you nut" message in his BS&T edit. Scammer tags should be pretty cut and dry with two requirements:

1) That you've made a promise to pay and it clearly isn't a joke,
2) That you subsequently don't pay.

The problem is that all these people do agreements without time-frames or vagueness about what constitutes an agreement, which is why they should honestly be using escrows so such a thing doesn't show up on the forums.

Somewhere between 2010 and today we went from always using escrows to never using them, and I'm not sure why.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me: He took money with a promise to repay, but didn't repay as asked. He should get the scammer tag to warn anybody who is new to the forum and has not watched this whole mess unfold.

Not even that.

Scammed 'investors' in denial.

7 PPT operators ?

Actually Robbery requires force or threat of force - he would be guilty of theft through False Pretenses - Obtaining property by false pretenses is when a person obtains property by intentionally misrepresenting a past or existing fact.

Just tell the fbi everyone sent it as a gift because of how awesome you are.

He didn't rob anyone - money was given to him freely.

Rob thousands of bitcoins and the only consequence is to recieve a "scammer tag" on the bitcointalk forum.

Yay!

Pretty sure Theymos already said he will get one, under condition I'm certain given pirates recent statements said in IRC he obviously fail to commit to.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1141973

*(as at 29-31Aug2012)

This poll is here to demonstrate how BTC community views Pirate, whether he/she is considered a scammer or not.

For extra clarity please note the pole question here is: "Should Pirate@40 get a scammer tag?*" and not "Is pirate is a scammer?"