Topic: My response to the community - page 4. (Read 17818 times)

I went off the deep end long before the first block was mined.  Interested in PM's, found more plausible explanations for the WTC event observations than Muslims in caves, etc, etc.

In fact, getting interested in Bitcoin and actually trading some USD for BTC pretty much qualifies as a 'deep end' indicator in and of itself.  To most normal people at least.

A lot.

He went off the deep end.  It happens in bitcoin.

What this guy did? 6016 posts and scammer?? why god? why?? 

He just wants to be an actor that's all!

Maybe this isn't the right place for acting.

On a bullshit scale with 10 being total bullshit, I would say that several of the above lines score a 9.5 and the remaining ones a perfect 10.

I also happen to disagree about 'trust'.  Ideally 'trust' is completely absent in order to make a transaction work smoothly.  That is, the expected things happen with mechanical precision and no possibility for error.  Obviously that is not practical in most situations, but the closer transactions can approach this goal the better.

I'm getting the sense that some people on this forum are trying just a wee bit to hard to cultivate a persona of wholesomeness.  If I were involved in the economic activity at this point I'd be being wary of some of them.  As it is, I'll be following their exploits with interest.

Well I don't want to spend too much time on this since a) it didn't happen, and b) Matt is a scammy fuck who wouldn't have done it anyways.

Simple version
1) I write a message with my intent and digitally sign it. I then encrypt it and provide it to a trusted person to act as a notary.
2) Trusted person appends date time information and digitally signs the encrypted message.
3) Either me or the trusted persons publicly posts a copy of the double signed & encrypted message.
3) I include in my bet that I automatically lose unless I reveal the secret message at the end of the bet.

There are lots of ways to make a claim/statement provably true after the fact.  That shouldn't be construed as "the only and definitive way".  Lots of options.  Matt chose none.  IMHO (and due to a lot of other factors) it was because Matt made a legit bet and simply walked out on it.  Nothing more.  Just a scamming fuck.

Doesn't someone need to know it so that it can be revealed even if he wins and doesn't want it revealed?

And what is the pretense for withholding info at all "here's a message that may or may not say I'm totally kidding". I mean in the future now mostly.

Bitcoin is Money.

And the inner circles of the Bitcoin community is in The Business of Money.  A very serious business.

In any business Trust is the most important factor.  This scoundrel burnt all his creditabilty to prove what? Thou shall not Trust anyone?

The Bitcoin community has demostrated great integrity and ablility to enforce the social code of Trust.

This liar was dealt with immediate justice.  This is a victory that underscores the integrity of the Bitcoin community to maintain principles.  
Thank you M.N. Wright and the league of Scammers for your lessons.

The Lesson / The Law :: If you enter into a pledge by oath of public promise ... you will honor it.

That is the bedrock of this network of Trust.  

Exactly.  The trusted party would simply be acting as a notary of sorts "Yes Matt delivered this digitally signed (possibly encrypted) doc to me on xx/xx/xx".  

Why? He could sign it and send it to the 3rd party to sign, then post it. There's no need for the 3rd party to know the contents of the message until the 9th.

Scams usually happen only under certain social conditions.
So altho a lot of people have the potential for scamming they will only take the risk if their social bond with the other side is not strong but strong enough for the other side to trust them.
And in the bitcoin community these conditions are flourishing.

That would have required the trusted third party to know that Matthew wasn't going to pay out and collude with him in concealing that fact from all the BS&T investors who were using his bet to hedge their potential losses. I'm honestly not sure whether anyone willing to do that could be called trustworthy.

FYPFY.

He obviously means a trusted THIRD PARTY.

For Matt could have written up a letter explaining the prank and how even if he won he would not under any circumstances expect the losers to pay or seek any consequences for them, dated it,  then digitally signed it.  He could then have a trusted third party (say Gavin) digitally sign it as a notary.  Even better would to then take a hash of the final double signed document and put that hash in the OP.

While it would still be a scumbag thing to do, it would make it a provable prank.   I am convinced Matt for whatever deluded reason (likely thinking emotially) thought Pirate would repay.  He bet 10K BTC with the intent to collect (and teach all those naysayers a lesson).  Over the intervening weeks it became obvious Pirate wouldn't pay and after the fact Matt removed the cap, and started accepting unescrowed bets from noobs for hundreds and even thousands of BTC in an attempt to run the bet up into insane amounts as cover that it was all a joke.  His "technicality" is so beyond weak (10 year old thinking) that for someone as creative as Matt it comes off as a weak after the fact play.  He couldn't change the terms so he had to look for something to hang his "joke" on.

Obviously that theory can never be proven (baring a confession from Matt) but had he created a digitally signed document he could have proved his intent.  One would think Matt who used provable lottery in the past would have considered making a letter to provide him cover when the "joke" exploded.  He didn't because at the time of the bet it wasn't a joke.

The worst part is he tried to take the coward liar (yes Matt you are a liar) way out.  Had he just said "Fuck you all, you aren't seeing a cent.  See the danger of betting/investing with an unknown counterparty" I would have at least had a little respect for him.   He simply didn't even have the guts to do that.   

Scammers are integral to bitcoin community.

Nothing is wrong with btc community, just the damn scammers.

Then he should've used that argument without even trying to use a lame excuse.
My 9 year old son is more mature than Matthew...

You mean a trusted person like Mathew.. or Pirate... right? Right?

Yeah his response to me a little over 12 hours before this thread was posted was:
 

I believe this one is a more accurate portrayal of how Matthew feels about the situation, not this half assed apology.