Topic: pirate payments list -- accounts paid: 23/459 - page 19. (Read 62234 times)

I agree.

True, but if someone comes to me looking to hire a hitman to kill their wife and I help them find a hitman to kill their wife, then I'm as responsible as the hitman for the death of their wife. This is true even if I hired them a reputable hitman and fully complied with all my obligations to the person who came to me.

The issue is not whether the PPT operators breached their agreement to their investors. The issue is whether the PPT operators knowingly hired Pirate to make their customers the recipients of fraudulent transfers. If so, they're share the guilt with Pirate for those transfers.

If you are a PPT operator and you knew that Pirate was likely operating a Ponzi scheme, then you paid Pirate to make your customers the recipient of fraudulent transfers, payments from sources you know were told that their money would go to legitimate investments and where you knew that the payments to you were in fact not legitimate investments at all.

If they said, publicly, that they thought it was a ponzi, but were going to offer pass-throughs anyway, that's no different than the open ponzis run on here earlier.

Any customers of those PPT ops not only bought into something they couldn't prove wasn't a ponzi, they bought into something the guy selling to them told them was probably a ponzi. It's not the PPT's fault that their customers willingly bought into something they've been told repeatedy was most likely a ponzi.

You're assuming the set of people who encouraged others to invest and the set of people who lost money are somewhat more overlapping than they are likely to be. In fact, many of the encouragers are probably people who did profit or at least sought to profit from the scam. Holding them accountable is just as important as holding other scammers accountable. Anyone who recommended that people invest in an obvious Ponzi or made clearly nonsensical arguments (especially those who insinuated they had inside knowledge they didn't actually have) should be held accountable, just as Pirate should be.

A very good example are PPT operators who are on record as saying that they believed this was a Ponzi scheme, but nevertheless sought to personally profit by increasing the losses others would ultimately suffer. They knowingly paid Pirate to make their customers the recipients of fraudulent transfers.

Personally, I'm willing to give indirect scammers a pass on responsibility for this one. I don't think it was clear to them the responsibility they had for what was going on. So long as a lesson is learned here, I don't see any benefit to a witch hunt. (Plus, if there was a full reckoning, a lot of good people would be in that list. You all know who you are. If you knowingly profited from the Pirate Ponzi, even if you also suffered losses, this means you.) This a one time offer.

Maybe not, but the opposite, ie pointing fingers or  even putting labels on people who not only didnt "tell you  so", but in fact strongly argued the opposite (claiming something was not a scam), would be very helpful indeed. Perhaps it would make people think twice before defending a potential scam(mer) and reduce the weight their words carry next time a potential scam surfaces. Having those very same people rate current schemes with AAAs in a stickied post for sure isnt helpful.

+∞

Saying "I told you so" after the event is not helpful. I didn't claim anyone was at "fault", though that is plainly Pirate and those who gave him money. Trying to warn people of a possible scam should of course be encouraged. Though take it from this newbie, the tone of the discussion has not helped the vibe around this place, and some people on both "teams" have acted disgracefully.
 

Agree 100%


Why? I'm all for promoting personal responsibility, but being punished by losing money serves this purpose well. The only purpose served by screaming "I told you so" is making someone look like a bit of douche.


Agreed again. But there is always going to be disagreements in any community. Pirate has brought out the worst in many, not just in those who gave him money IMHO.

Even though I don't stand to lose in this drama, I still feel it is good for bitcoin if Pirate is held accountable. Nothing would suggest to this noob the bitcoin community is "100% intolerant of scams" more than if we put differences aside and got a resolution to this mess.

That's also a good point.

Personally, I'm generally very timid to come out and say when I think something looks like a scam when no one else does. It's become easier for me to jump on the "scam!" bandwagon as of late, thanks to Joel, Micon, Gavin et al speaking their minds.

I think one possible solution worth exploring would be to create a seperate domain for anything under "marketplace," as Gavin recently suggested.

Right, it's all the fault of the people begging and pleading to get others to listen and not the fault of those who refuse to listen. What the community needs is a 100% consistent vocal "this is a scam" response to everything that has the hallmarks of a scam. When scams break, the community needs a 100% consistent vocal "you were told that was a scam" response. What looks bad to the average Joe is someone saying "prove this is a scam" when it's an *obvious* scam. A community that is 100% intolerant of scams would look nice.

+10

I lol'd. So true.

Good point, I didn't remember who said it.


+10

I've resisted commenting on this drama because I didn't want to add to the noise. Obvious scam or not, the bitcoin community should not be attacking itself over this. Saying "I told you so" only helps the ego of those saying it, and certainly doesn't make bitcoin look any better to the average joe who's learning about bitcoin.

Since it appears yet another bitcoin scammer is going to get off scot free I can no longer bite my tongue. It is bad for bitcoin if Pirate is let off. Why are his "lenders" still so silent? Why is Pirate being allowed to make ridiculous demands when people know his identity? Even if Pirate is going to pay out (as unlikely as that seems) his actions have been far from honourable and his lenders deserve restitution.

Eyes on the prize people! Don't let this scumbag manipulate you into turning on each other or make unreasonable demands. It is his lenders who should be the ones making demands, and half a million dollars of debt should more than justify some pretty serious action.

to be fair though, it was mainly zyk that was accusing me, and noone ever really knows for sure what he's saying.

Right, but that didn't stop him from being accused, which was at least a little bit distracting.

This is why we cant have nice things.

If paybtc were running a ponzi I am sure pirate would have blown the lid.

The collapse of zero fee mining pool ?
We know zero fee is unsustainable yet people still mine there.

I would be very wary of ANYONE on this forum who was in control of X00,000 BTC. It's so easy to run away with. That's why sites like betsofbitco.in are starting to scare me. betcoin.eu already ran with their money.

He's still making money, why would he stop? Pirate debt still has a non-zero value. He can continue to trade his debt for Bitcoins.

I don't either. I think it's most likely time to make more money. Much less likely, it's time to buy his own debt at a low price to perhaps try to make it all work out in the end (which I don't think will work).

He miscalculated how much time he had. He was in the process of doing that when things collapsed.

Please name one such thing if you can.

And I don't believe it for a second, but payb.tc has already been accused of running his own Ponzi with bitcoinmax. It draws attention away from Pirate. Goat's noble refusal to hand over personal info to Pirate has also earned him some flak.

It is on this forum. For instance, RustyRyan has ~600 BTC and counting.


It kind of is, though. Nobody knows where Pirate is right now, and nobody knows whether he has bitcoins or USD.


Convenience, laziness. People were lining up in droves to pour bitcoins into his scheme, why not let others handle the legwork?