Topic: OgNasty Ponzi passthrough and ponzi fans.. BTC losses everywhere he goes - page 7. (Read 8011 times)

@TwitchySeal, You are just spitting on OGs repo in different threads with spatualtive accusations over and over. No one seems to see your accusations with solid base, even if OG got the funds they were worth pretty much less than what the two figures amounts of BTC look in today's BTC market. There is nothing much in digging up the ancient tricks people used to make profits out of BTC, no one knew it would become so serious afterall.

I think you should get back to P&S hole of yours and practice your attacking there, rather than firing accusations in air here.

Clearly you don't need my approval to make baseless assumptions about anything. Number 1 sounds distinctly different than "beyond a reasonable doubt" and a lot like "I am speculating". Once again, you are speculating that it was his funds used by him directly that went to dice sites (so what?) and the "darknet". You don't know if he made these transactions or if the clients had their payments directed there. You have fun with your raging "clues", the rest of us will stick to facts.

Should I assume from now on that when you ignore my direct questions it's because you know I'm right?

1 true, bitcoin is fungible, you can't actually track individual bitcoin unless the transaction includes the entire balance. There are clues though.  He's made ~6,500 transactions over the past ~8.5 years.  More than 60% of his darknet(silk road) and gambling(satoshi Dice) related transactions occurred between June and August of 2011.

2 I've explained to you at least 3 times already.

3 If he thought there was a very low chance of getting caught then it does make sense.  Even if he could sell the account for $1700, it would basically be giving a green light for someone to use the account to scam.  Steal the money and hope you don't get caught so you can convince more people to invest in future ponzis (like BFL).

He can't respond to these points because they are all true, and it totally undermines the speculative narrative he is desperately trying to push. As you can see he is already laying the groundwork for shifting to another accusation to push once again clearly demonstrating this is about targeting the man OGNasty, not exposing any wrong doing.

I don't think the reserve funds should be considered out of pocket.  They were seperate, funded by interest payments Og received from his investors deposits and announced every couple weeks when he added a bit more to them.  They were clearly used to convince people to invest more and for longer.  Og was not entitled to them, the investors were.

In total the 4 investors received the BTC65 in lieu of their ~BTC950 deposits that were stolen by either Og or Pirate.

If you think they should be deducted from the total missing though, it was ~$980.  If you don't deduct them from the funds owed it's ~$1700.

There's also pretty strong evidence pocketed an additional ~BTC950 (~$11k), but that happened before August 1 interest/withdraw payments so they are more difficult to prove.  

Also worth considering - had it come out he did anything shady with the pirate passthrough, it's unikely he would've been able to convince people to loan him a bunch of money for Butterfly Labs hardware (another massive scam that had plenty of red flags), and even if they did, they would've been less likely to accept 5,000 'nasty fan seats' (which sure look just like a ponzi scheme) that were created just to pay off the BFL loans.

So that's an excess of BTC79 unaccounted for since he paid out reserves (BTC65) to his clients. All in all during that time, it's not a big sum hence why OG's clients didn't make any accusations against him. Reckon everyone was satisfied. Not taking any sides, just stating what i feel from this fiasco. End of the day, money is still money and Theymos won't have trusted him with the forum funds if he isn't trustworthy. My 2 cents.

How long will you continue to avoid addressing these points?

The reserve fund was established in April and used to convince more people to invest.  It was increased a little every couple weeks until July, when it hit BTC65

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.846783

The part that you highlighted in bold is not contradictory.


I already said my part like three times and three different ways, so repetition is not going to make any difference.  I rest upon what I have already said.


I said that if you are trying to persuade, then you have burdens.  I did not otherwise characterize your ambitions in that direction, but now, you seem to be admitting that you would like to persuade some people.


I don't see any reason to attempt to educate me on these points.  I have stated my perspective and you have stated yours.  Largely, we have exhausted the topic, it seems.

Sound to be pretty close in the way you are phrasing it.  Maybe you would like to provide an example or some examples, and even describe why it matters to get into such distinction attempts?



Each of us does.  You cannot decide for the rest of us.


Everyone is going to agree with you then, if the facts are as obvious as you are making them out to be.


One step at a time.  There was some attempts to digest timelines for the various payments and to add them up, so of course, OGNasty could provide evidence, or someone can go through Twitchy's numbers and to show that they are wrong (several times Twitchy has already invited such criticisms of his numbers)

You can do whatever you want.   I doubt that repetitious debating with me about the same points over and over is going to be very helpful in this regard.


Well, I am glad that you have clarified everything.  I feel a lot more enlightened now.


Well sometimes if something is being investigated, the evidence is still being established and developed.  At some point, all the evidence has been gathered that is available, and these evidentiary parts might constitute direct evidence and/or reasonable inferences.


You have not exactly clarified that purported logical fallacy part, but that's ok, because I already said what I had thought was responsive to the topic. 

It is not a small point. It is a point upon which this entire accusation rests. Twitchy Seal is speculating where that money went, he has no proof of where it went, to whom, or why. I have highlighted in bold you contradicting yourself from one second to the next. I don't have any burden to prove anything, and this is you, once again, attempting to divert the burden of proof from Twitchy Seal to me.

I never said I was not trying to persuade anyone. I said I don't care if anyone believes me. There is a difference even if you don't want to admit the distinction. Claiming to have met the burden of proof and meeting the burden of proof are not equivalent. I don't get to decide he hasn't met the burden of proof, but you do? It is not my opinion, it is a fact. He has no proof where those funds went. Again, you attempt to invert the burden of proof and claim I need to present evidence his "evidence" does not meet the burden of proof. That is not how burden of proof works. Either he has the evidence or he doesn't, and he doesn't, that is a fact. What you are saying is not controversial, it is a logical fallacy.


No, you are going in circles. You don't have any proof theft occured, that OGNasty victimized anyone, or even any proof who those funds went to. You are SPECULATING that it was stolen funds. This is not proof. Your own analogy is accidentally perfect. Your lawn being we doesn't mean it rained. It could have been humid that day, it could be dew, it could have snowed, hell maybe your neighbors sprinkler cast a bit too wide of a spray that day. Your ASSUMPTION that is rained is nothing more than that, an assumption. A wet yard does not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt besides that your yard is wet. I must say, speaking of lawyer speak, your repetition of the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" is nothing more than a rhetorical sophist mechanism to persuade people of your speculative conclusions. You might want to look up the definition of that phrase by the way, because it doesn't mean what you think it does.


You never responded to these points. I wonder why.

so BTC144 - BTC65 = BTC79 and at that time that's not much though.

No.

They received their July interest payments at the beginning of August, just like May June and July.  

News broke that the ponzi was collapsing in the middle of August.

Sept 1 OG posted that pirate had defaulted and paid out the insurance fund he had put aside in case is was a scam. (total of BTC65)

They likely just assumed that since it was well known that the ponzi had collapsed, Og hadn't received anything from pirate after August 1. He did though.

Any of his investors posted that they weren't settled yet?

Pretty sure it was about 7 months later.

When was Mr. Nasty appointed a treasurer on this forum ?  before or after this ponzi passthrough?

Ok bad analogy lol.  Replace with snow.

The fact alone that a scenario exists where it did not snow does not make it impossible to come to a reasonable and reliable conclusion that it snowed.
The question should be how likely it is that the scenario of it not snowing happened. This logic is used in court rooms every day.  Judges sometimes use a similar analogy to explain the concept to jurors.  

In Ogs case, I suggest taking into consideration all evidence (blockchain, forum archives, pirates court documents, Ogs actions) and then coming to a conclusion of how likely it is you think he stole the BTC144 rather than just dismissing the whole thing because a scenario exists where he didn't steal the money.

I believe the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he stole the BTC144.  I also think it's worth noting that the evidence shows it is likely he stole much more.  The only burden I have is to be honest.

This thread is starting to remind me of the current impeachment on TV, but almost better because I can participate.

You are fighting with the hypothetical teeGUMES, rather than undermining the point that Twitchy made.

I think you're using phrases that you shouldn't be. Here I sit on the jury, my yard was wet this morning from the phenomenon known as "morning dew". It did not rain yet my yard is wet. I now reasonably doubt your whole case.
When you're making accusations such as the ones in this thread/topic you better come harder than that.

I mean, we're just going in circles at this point.
Speculation implies there is no firm evidence.
It's not merely speculation.  There's a shitload of evidence.  When you take it all into consideration, it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he pocketed BTC145

If you wake up in the morning and your yard is wet, but you didn't see it rain, would you consider it just speculation that it rained because someone could have come  and sprayed your yard with water while you were sleeping?  No.  The wet yard proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it rained.