Topic: My response to the community - page 7. (Read 17818 times)

To clarify, when I say evil, I meant intentionally trying to steal or cause harm. I fully believe his initial bet was real. What I meant was that I believe when things went south for him, he panicked, and tried to do something stupid to get out of it. JoelKatz, I agree with you completely. This was at the least an act of cowardice. I just can't see Matthew being so bad (evil) that we would set up a scam like this from the start. What dissipate said +1
And no, I'm anti-religious.

Evil has religious connotations so I won't say what he did was 'evil', but it was certainly malicious and wrong. As many others pointed out, if Pirate had paid out and Matthew won the bet, he would have collected every last Bitcoin from the people he bet with. And if they didn't pay, they would have received scammer tags. Hence, what he did was steal from those he bet with. He is a thief, plain and simple. He shouldn't be trusted to do anything but the most menial blue collar jobs where trust isn't a factor, as far as I'm concerned.

I have a theory about this bet which I'm not sure others have stated yet. I don't think Matthew ever intended to pay out if he lost, but I think as time went on and it became more apparent that he was going to lose the bet, he kept increasing the bets more and more to make the whole thing look like a ridiculous prank. Look at all the people now saying 'But all of you KNEW he wasn't going to pay out 80,000 BTC'... The bet increases were a ploy to make the whole thing so absurd that only a 'fool' would have expected him to pay out.

I believe you are operating on the assumption that he meant it as a joke from the beginning and knew that the chance of him winning his bet was effectively zero. Assume, for the sake of argument, that he originally expected to win the bet and collect every Bitcoin he could from those who bet against him and to pursue scammer tags for anyone who didn't make 100% payment. Under those assumptions, would you still say it's stupid, not evil?

Prior to this stunt, I trusted Matthew. You can probably find me vouching for him in public and I did the same in private. And despite my friendship and trust, I still believe that Matthew initially expected to win his bet and would have collected had he won. If you have any reason to believe that is not so, please share it. Pirate debt was selling for 35% to 50% at the time Matthew made his bet, so there were certainly many people who didn't think Pirate debt was worthless.

Isn't that more proof that he considered it quite possible that he would win and would have collected if he had?

No. It wasn't. Not at first. If it's a trollish prank, it has cost Matthew hundreds in escrowed bets. Since you obviously weren't there, please stop commenting as if you know everything. Judging by the deep brown color of your ignore, I doubt anyone is listening anyway.


WTF?

1) He is an adult, I think in mid to late 20's, living on his own in Korea
2) He owns and is involved in many businesses, and has worked at a few high profile, non-bitcoin related businesses. It wouldn't be surprising for him to have $100,000 worth.
3) True. Although in this case his point was "Why can't you leave pirate alone?!"  
4) There was AT LEAST $400 worth of escrow, which Matt lost in the end.

This pretty much solidified for me that YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Why would he pay out the fractions he is able to? Would it really improve your opinion of him if he paid you 1/1000th of what you bet, assuming all his money is distributed proportionally? To me his money won't matter. Only thing that will is the rest of his actions.
Maybe I'm just biased, but this whole incident looked to me as someone doing something stupid, not evil, even if it hurt people just the same. That's why I don't see a problem with him still being around. He got a massive kick in the pants for what he did, and I guess, for some reason, I still have faith in him. Not trust (aside from trusting he'll do something stupid again), just faith.

As I recall he's a legal adult by any international standard.  I'd say "manchild" is an apt description.  The rest of your list is completely true and on-point.

And Matthew was one of them, re. original intent of his bet. THAT'S why I have a problem with it.
Also, don't let someone off the hook for punching you in the face just because there are murderers in the Congo.

You are correct Yolocoin!  It's nice to see some people are capable of replacing the batteries in their sarcasm detectors in a timely fashion.

Christ bitcoinBull, do I have to spell it out for you?  I mean, even more than it was already spelled out several times during the course of Matt's bet's drama?

Clues for the Clueless Volume XXII
1) Matt is a minor and can't legally sign a contract
2) Matt had not visible means of repayment
3) Matt is a jocular, arguably immature fellow who likes to make his points via escalation
4) NO ESCROW (yes I am screaming that)

Need I go on?

And nothing of value was lost.

If I read his posts correctly (with heavy sarcasm) then I don't believe he's defending MNW or pirate.  Rather he's openly mocking the gullibility of the people who invested or bet.

OK. So first you defended pirate and now you're defending MNW. ad hominem reasoning is only a fallacy if its irrelevant to the issue. and its only a strawman if i misrepresent your position.

I only quoted you to see if I could establish a pattern. Since you provide no reasoning that met's bet was "obviously a 100% trollish prank", there's no logic to argue with.

My response to you, Matthew:

  Any honest and reasonable person would realize that they might need to provide proof that they would not have collected on the joke if they won.  This is especially true considering you were talking to a bunch of people that claimed Pirateat40 was a scammer.  So, either you are not honest and hence can not prove your intention was never to scam.  (In fact this proof should have been given the moment you stopped taking bets)  Or you are not reasonable and it never occurred to you that people might not take you at your word.  (Not to mention the other harm you little "joke" caused)

  I don't believe the second option.  You aren't that dumb.  Therefore, I can only conclude you did intend to collect if you had won.  You are too proud of you literal wording; I think you would have demanded payment to teach us a lesson.

  I would have payed because I am honest.  You may pay if you are honest.

  Apology rejected.

I say there be a day of Boycott on  MWN by everyone taking a moment and hitting "ignore" on his profile.  This will force him to come in as a sock poppet but it will also help us know nobody is listening to him.

As a /b/tard, I beg to differ.
This wasn't even a remotely good troll. I'd give it a 3/10, just because it caused huge amounts of butthurt. Without the butthurt, it wouldn't even be rated.

Also, it's not /b! or /b. It's /b/

Good find! Bravo!

Well, you see, you'd need to hang around longer than 2 weeks on this forum to start seeing the signs..

Congratulations on answering your own question, and in the affirmative to boot.  I haven't seen an ad hominem strawman get tackled like that since the 1984 Superbowl!

But all that has nothing to do with the fact that Matt's "bet" was obviously a 100% trollish prank and people were saying so all along, only to be ignored by the gambling addicts.

sounds like MNW must be the guy in betsafe commercial. "It was just a stupid bet"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uygVheqZm9c&feature=relmfu

In Australia there was a show called "The Chasers War on Everything". They considered nothing taboo in the pursuit of laughs. They minimised and belittled to a horrifying extent children with cancer (look it up if you're morbidly curious) as a form of humour. Suffice to say almost no-one  "got" their humour, among other instances. Their show was subsequently cancelled and almost universally derided. In the very best context your activity equates to their situation.

At worst? You've used your real identity to fraudulently and ineptly place a bet you were in full control of yet never limited. Seriously, you in your OP stated you were trying to make a point, was a bet of 1000BTC too little? You stated you would lock the thread when too many bets were placed yet kept "accepting" them? You, in full realisation of your role as an editor of Bitcoin magazine dragged Bitcoin Magazine in regardless just for the "lulz".

Then, to really undermine your situation, you reneg on the "bet" and act like a five year old after the fact. This is 4chan shit (no, no, I shouldn't be that low, this is /b!.).

Before this, you acted like a decent person, I liked you, hell, even admired you for putting yourself out there and contributing in real substantial ways to the Bitcoin community. But seriously, this either shows a complete lack of character, or a complete lack of sound judgement. Either way you completely undermined your own image in this community, and you did it of you own volition.

As I see it you have five options

1. Go back to /b. never to return, forever known as a pariah, but likely forgotten.
2. Make good on the bet and suffer the stigma of trying to reneg. (yes this is an option still)
3. Reneg and leave gracefully, knowing you will be a pariah.
4. Reneg, not leave and be a pariah.
5. Reneg, apologise but forever be a pariah.

Please choose one of these and at least stop drawing attention to yourself. I'm tired of the childishness and would prefer news of substance in this forum.

Are you the same guy who was accusing "team ponzi" of not understanding "investment liquidity" and spreading "pirate FUD"?




If so, I must admit that you sure are a fast learner.