Topic: OgNasty Ponzi passthrough and ponzi fans.. BTC losses everywhere he goes - page 8. (Read 8011 times)

we are now entering the burden of proof rabbit hole......

Just because you raise a topic, and present evidence in support of that topic does not make it relevant, necessarily.

Seems to me that the more important point of relevance is whether OGNasty engaged in the alleged conduct rather than the supposed vindictive behaviors of the purported accusers.  There are standards like this in all kinds of areas of life. 

Let's take an employment example.  Let's say that an employer can fire someone for any reason at all, so long as it is not based on a discriminatory category (such as race, age, sex). The employer had stated that it would like to get rid of Billy because billy is over 50, so therefore the employer has an unlawful motive; however, the Employer also has a rule that stealing from the company is a fireable offense.  Billy is caught on camera stealing a $2k computer from the company, and he is clearly guilty of stealing the computer from the company.  The company fires Billy.  In this hypothetical, it does not matter that the employer has a bias and an unlawful motive against Billy that is clearly proven by evidence if the evidence shows that Billy had been fired for stealing the computer from the company, and everyone who steals from the company gets fired.  So you can argue and provide facts until you are blue in the face that you have brought up a valid point about the companies proven bias about billy, but that evidence is irrelevant - even if you have  established your burdens on that irrelevant point.


I don't think it is, but I am not denying that there are people making claims that it is relevant and that there is evidence of it.  My assertions about burden of proof in regards to that topic does not make it relevant, necessarily.  It is just an example of how someone might have a burden who is attempting to make a point about a topic, but does not make the topic relevant, necessarily.


That would be called going on a tangent.


Of course, you are free to try, but it seems mostly irrelevant... not completely, but mostly.  Of course, opinions can vary about what is relevant and what is not too, and trolls, shills, distractors become very good at attempting to make irrelevance seem to be irrelevant, but does not cause irrelevance to become relevant.


Maybe you could start a thread on such "witch hunt" topic, and if you provide a link to such topic here, that link might not be considered to be irrelevant to this thread, because at least the link on its own does not provide a lot of gobbledy-gook of tangentially possible distracting information.. and allows a bit better focus on the main topic here, which seems to be whether OGNasty did the alleged unethical or even misleading, fraudulent, conversion deed that he is alleged of doing or not and maybe what the remedy should be, if it seems to be true that he did those things?

I posted some evidence of "Witch Hunt" back on page 7, but it was dropped as off topic and it seems you didn't want to look too far into it..
If evidence of "Witch Hunt" is now of concern for this topic, I'm sure I/we can provide a plethora thereof, all the way back to and including the creation of this thread by the OP in the first place..

Should we really go down that path?
Let me know if/when you would like abundance of "Witch Hunt" supporting evidence presented if it is now considered on topic and relevant to this case..

You get so worked up over a seemingly small point.  I am not asserting that any initial burden has been moved from Twitchy to you.

I am merely asserting that you have the burden to prove any assertions that you make, to the extent that you are trying to persuade anyone into siding with you or action or whatever.  

If you are not trying to persuade anyone, and you are merely rebutting the claims of others, then of course, you would have no burdens; however, let's say that Twitchy had met his burden of production and presentation, then the burden would shift to the other side (which seems to be you in this case?) to show that his evidence and logic is not true or persuasive.  

I am not asserting that Twitchy never had any initial burden of proof, but if he were to have met the burden of proof (which he claims to have done in part of the evidence that he presented), then if true, the burden would shift to the opposition in regards to either the truth of that evidence or the persuasiveness of the logical claims.  I would agree that we don't get to any of this shifting of the burdens, if what you said were to end up being true - that is that Twitchy has not provided sufficient evidence or logic to prove his points..

It is not just you who gets to decide whether Twitchy has met his burdens, but you are entitled to your opinion and your ability to present rebuttal, counter-evidence and counter-logic, of course.

I don's see how I am saying anything that is exactly controversial, like you seem to be attempting to make it out to be.

But you are SPECULATING he did not pay it back via another account right??

There is no casting off prior DT precedents as DRAMA I'm afraid. OG is DT, those accusing him and seeking to punish are the SAME group that set the precedents YOU NEED CONCLUSIVE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE TO EVEN ASK POINTED QUESTIONS OF A DT MEMBER or else you will get red trust for defamation and spreading lies.

Are you saying we should have double standards here.

YES. Under the precedents set by DT it is true then it would be pretty IMPOSSIBLE to flag or tag any scammers. That is strange isn't it.

Apparently those super high standards are only needed for DT members so you can give NON DT members tags for ANYTHING including whistle blowing or just telling you to fuck off when you are derailing their threads.

The end of this matter is you do not know for SURE and have no CONCLUSIVE PROOF of OG committing ANY financially motivated wrong doing. /end thread.

You want to be able to FORCE people to defend possibly shady looking actions or punishment then best make sure that is the same for ALL MEMBERS. Or we will be there to point out the double standards.

Double standards = scamming. It is deception to claim you believe in one set of standards when really you do not believe in those set of standards at all. You just pretend you do for personal gain. This is demonstrated when you adopt and support another set of standards for other people.

Most DT members pushing for OG to be punished, are undeniably scammers or scammer supporters by the observable actions. Let's start with them before the POSSIBLE scammers.

I brought up the burden of proof, therefore I must prove that the accuser is engaged in a "witch hunt"? What? I never characterized this as a "witch hunt", Twitchy Seal did BTW. Yes, you are in fact inverting the burden of proof from the accuser on to me. I don't have to prove shit. End of story. Twitchy has to prove his accusation, he can not. This is not having my cake and eating it to, it is how burden of proof works. The one presenting the premise (theft) has the burden to prove the accusation. I don't have to prove it is a witch hunt, and your lack of belief in this premise is irrelevant to the fact that the burden of proof has not been met on the accusation of theft. The only thing ridiculous is your continual inversion of the burden of proof.

Agreed.


No, I don't see that.  Seems that you are the one who brought up this idea of burden of proof, and I am just responding to that.


I would suggest that if you raise an issue, and say:  This is a witch hunt, then you have the burden to show that.  Of course, you can express that "this is a witch hunt" as an opinion, but if you are trying to persuade someone, then you have the burden, no?

Why would it matter if anyone believes you about anything. You said that you have no burden, so therefore, you would not be trying to convince anyone of anything, right?  Or do you want to have your cake and eat it too?


Fair enough.

You are attempting to rebutt any evidence (while proclaiming that there is not any evidence, even though there is).     Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous?   

Undermining presumptions of innocence is not proving guilt. Do you see how you are consistently inverting the burden of proof from the accuser back to me? I have no burden of anything. I don't care if anyone believes me. I do however care if people believe accusations of scamming based on speculation. What I am doing is not stopping anyone from presenting evidence. What I am doing is however making rhetorical and sophist persuasion ineffective.



Wrong. Facts can be presented in addition to speculation. They are not exclusive. My point is your facts alone do not follow to prove the conclusion that theft occurred or people were victimized. This is completely an assumption on your part. You can argue about how likely it is or is not all day, the fact is this you can not prove.

The fact that I do not support your conclusions doesn't mean I haven't reviewed the information you have presented, and your patronizing tone is noted. I am refuting everything you have claimed because you can not prove your accusation as I have already explained.

1. You do not know the owner of the output address of the "missing" funds.
2. There are no victims seeking redress or making accusations of theft.
3. EVEN IF you are right the amounts are so small as to not really make any sense for a very trusted member to trash his reputation over. Such an account could easily sell for well over the amount allegedly stolen, therefore it makes no sense for some one to do this for monetary gains when they simply could have just sold the account and associated signatures for a much higher return.

Are any of these three points incorrect? Please explain in detail if you think so.



This isn't a "loaded question", he is addressing the heart of the issue. You don't know what the fuck that transaction was or who it was to. That is a crucial piece of information you are SPECULATING about. You can prove a transaction occurred, but not what it was for, who it went to, or why.

Notice again the attempt at inversion of the burden of proof back on the people criticizing your lack of evidence. The facts you have are ambiguous at best. No one needs to prove themselves wrong, you need to prove yourself right, and you haven't done that. Theymos can speak for himself if he feels he was harmed. This is just another example of this being about attacking the character of OGNasty by shifting focus to another accusation rather than addressing this accusation at hand. The volume of unsubstantiated accusations does not magically make them more valid.

Come on man.  These loaded questions are part of the reason this thread is going to shit.

If you care, just look at the evidence and come to your own conclusion -  then try to prove yourself wrong before you try to prove anyone else wrong.  If all you've gathered from this thread is that I "cannot trace the blockchain evidence of $1,800 at the time worth of BTC past a dead end" then I don't know what to tell you.

If you don't care that he stole it because of the value, or that he didn't steal a lot more from theymos,  then don't bother.

(btw, I was wrong, it was only worth $1700 - bad math)

So you want me to find him a scammer, because you cannot trace the blockchain evidence of $1,800 at the time worth of BTC past a dead end, but he just returned 500BTC @ $7,500 = $3,750,000 +BCH forks and +++, and he is a scammer?

There's evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he stole BTC144.

There's evidence that he stole ~BTC1,000 , but not enough to classify as beyond a reasonable doubt.

When pirate sent him the funds he stole BTC1 = ~$11.80

If you think one of the most trusted users on the site deserves a pass because the bitcoin he stole was only worth $1,700 at the time , and you want to dismiss the other evidence that is was possibly much more, then you should give him a pass.

It is getting exceedingly difficult to read all of this thread.. Passing my give a fuck levels..

tl;dr please
144BTC @ <$10?

Get to it if you want me to change my mind to "OG is a scammer"..

Speculation happens when no compelling facts are considered, which is not the case here.  

You've been given the resources to educate yourself on the evidence of what happened but are unwilling, unable, or you did educate yourself but can't refute anything I have claimed, so you just call everything 'speculation'.

This is what it actually looks like when someone makes false assumptions just to attack someone:


If you're capable, just put a little effort into looking into the facts.  Maybe you'll find something I missed and then the next time you insult me it will feel even better than normal.

If you're not capable, then please stop making statements as you did consider the evidence.  



You're killing me man.  Just read the thread please, I'm starting to feel like a broken record.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53339211

Way too much personality happening in this thread now..
You you, He He, This user, That user, etc. etc. We are all guilty of it so don't try denying it..

Let's get to the facts of this matter so we can get it over and done with eh?
Isn't that what's best for BTC?

So we are down to 144 unaccounted for BTC now?
Worth what? Like $1,000 at the time?

You seem to be twisting my part in this whole situation.  I have not been presenting any evidence.  I have largely been commenting on the process, which seems to go to your witch hunt allegations, which I suppose I agree with you regarding any suggestion that, for example with OGNasty's conduct, there would be an initial presumption of innocence.  

But seems to me that Twitchy has presented evidence and logic to undermine those presumptions of innocence that could allow members to conclude that OGNasty might be guilty of the alleged conduct.  

You are largely asserting to stop the investigation because it is a witch hunt.  There could be some burden of production and persuasion upon you in that regard, also, but whatever, the evidence is still being presented here and members can decide for themselves whether the evidence is persuasive.

Kind of seems like you are admitting that your conclusions rely on speculation. I would love to hear you explain how the fact that your accusation relies on speculation is not addressing the central issue of burden of proof, which by definition relying on speculation you have not met.

I don't recall anybody saying "Hey, let's get TECSHARE's opinion on this." You could have chosen to not say peep, but instead you chose to start attacking literally everybody who pointed out the discrepancy between Og's words and Shavers' testimony (and documentary evidence supported by the blockchain).

Keep it simple. Just focus on the BTC144 I explained here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53327533

I am sure you two are having loads of fun obsessing over me, but back to the part where you prove your accusations against OGNasty...

Feels like we're back in Salem, Massachusetts , 1692