PPT issuers do not know who their bond holders are in GLBSE.
If I recall, PPT or any other security issuer can not get that information from GLBE even if they wanted to, unless Nefario has made some changes to GLBSE and made this information available.
Topic: Pirate wants to settle with individuals for less. Don't let him do it. (Read 4594 times)
September 01, 2012, 09:53:25 AM
September 01, 2012, 02:27:10 AM
You could argue the accounts were automatically closed when he defaulted. If he pays 100% up until the default that would be hard to call Matthews bet lost.
Well you can argue anything doesn't mean it is logical. Try this. Call your bank up and tell them you want to close your mortgage. You will pay it off eventually but since it is closed you want the interest reduced to zero.
The idea that someone can borrow money at x% then not repay it upon demand and then choose to pay a different interest (or none) doesn't even pass the chuckle test.
Pirate has default and will never pay according to the terms of his contract. Matt simply can not win the bet. The only thing which is unknown is will he payout or not (I bet not).
Pirate said he is in default. Matthew can win the bet if pirate's statement is false and he does pay all his lenders with interest up to the hour it was sent on or before September 9th.
September 01, 2012, 02:26:36 AM
Joel, he was referring pirate BTCST thread here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-savings-and-trust-home-closed-50822
Since then, and since Matthew posted his bet thread, Pirate announced interest will no longer accrue. There is no way Matthew can win his bet.
Thanks for the link. I think you're right.https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-savings-and-trust-home-closed-50822
Quote
When will I get my coins?
Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred. I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.
Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred. I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.
Since then, and since Matthew posted his bet thread, Pirate announced interest will no longer accrue. There is no way Matthew can win his bet.
This is what Pirate said that preceded Matthew's bet:
"Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred. I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent."
So if he is to pay "as agreed" above, for anyone who doesn't agree to any other terms in place of those above, he must pay all coins plus interest earned up until the hour he makes payment. There is no mention there of any additional terms or conditions, so any such additional conditions would not be "as agreed" unless people choose to accept them.
September 01, 2012, 02:21:00 AM
Joel, he was referring pirate BTCST thread here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-savings-and-trust-home-closed-50822
Since then, and since Matthew posted his bet thread, Pirate announced interest will no longer accrue. There is no way Matthew can win his bet.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-savings-and-trust-home-closed-50822
Quote
When will I get my coins?
Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred. I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.
Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred. I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.
Since then, and since Matthew posted his bet thread, Pirate announced interest will no longer accrue. There is no way Matthew can win his bet.
August 31, 2012, 08:45:15 PM
Matthew offered his bet before pirate contractually defaulted. He continued taking bets after the contractual default despite already losing the bet. Check into it.
Pirate defaulted as soon as he didn't process a withdrawal on time. Matthew's bet was offered in response to Pirate's response to his failure to pay. Any defaults prior to or implied by Pirate's agreement wouldn't cause Matthew to lose the bet."Post in this thread how much you're committing and I will double that amount you commit (maximum of 10,000BTC in bets allowed in this thread total) if Pirate does not pay out in 3 weeks as he described in his thread."
I can't quite figure out which thread that's referring to. Anyone have a link?
This will probably all become academic anyway once Matthew's deadline passes. I have a feeling we won't need to do any lawyerly parsing of ambiguous terms to figure out who won.
August 31, 2012, 01:53:21 PM
... despite already losing the bets
are you checking into it?
are you checking into it?
August 31, 2012, 01:50:15 PM
You could argue the accounts were automatically closed when he defaulted. If he pays 100% up until the default that would be hard to call Matthews bet lost.
Well you can argue anything doesn't mean it is logical. Try this. Call your bank up and tell them you want to close your mortgage. You will pay it off eventually but since it is closed you want the interest reduced to zero.
The idea that someone can borrow money at x% then not repay it upon demand and then choose to pay a different interest (or none) doesn't even pass the chuckle test.
Pirate has default and will never pay according to the terms of his contract. Matt simply can not win the bet. The only thing which is unknown is will he payout or not (I bet not).
Matthew offered his bet before pirate contractually defaulted. He continued taking bets after the contractual default despite already losing the bet. Check into it.
Each bet is its own bet. Perhaps they share the same terms, but they were all entered into separately.
August 31, 2012, 01:47:06 PM
You could argue the accounts were automatically closed when he defaulted. If he pays 100% up until the default that would be hard to call Matthews bet lost.
Well you can argue anything doesn't mean it is logical. Try this. Call your bank up and tell them you want to close your mortgage. You will pay it off eventually but since it is closed you want the interest reduced to zero.
The idea that someone can borrow money at x% then not repay it upon demand and then choose to pay a different interest (or none) doesn't even pass the chuckle test.
Pirate has default and will never pay according to the terms of his contract. Matt simply can not win the bet. The only thing which is unknown is will he payout or not (I bet not).
Matthew offered his bet before pirate contractually defaulted. He continued taking bets after the contractual default despite already losing the bet. Check into it.
August 31, 2012, 01:41:07 PM
I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to.
Proof? Also how exactly would Goat BLOCK other people from contacting Pirate even if Goat wanted to. Does he have complete control over the internet and all other methods of communication?
Yes, yes I do!
(Damnit Bruno... where were you on that one?)
August 31, 2012, 10:53:55 AM
You could argue the accounts were automatically closed when he defaulted. If he pays 100% up until the default that would be hard to call Matthews bet lost.
Well you can argue anything doesn't mean it is logical. Try this. Call your bank up and tell them you want to close your mortgage. You will pay it off eventually but since it is closed you want the interest reduced to zero.
The idea that someone can borrow money at x% then not repay it upon demand and then choose to pay a different interest (or none) doesn't even pass the chuckle test.
Pirate has default and will never pay according to the terms of his contract. Matt simply can not win the bet. The only thing which is unknown is will he payout or not (I bet not).
August 31, 2012, 10:49:30 AM
I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to.
Proof? Also how exactly would Goat BLOCK other people from contacting Pirate even if Goat wanted to. Does he have complete control over the internet and all other methods of communication?
August 31, 2012, 10:47:22 AM
You could argue the accounts were automatically closed when he defaulted. If he pays 100% up until the default that would be hard to call Matthews bet lost.
Well you can argue anything doesn't mean it is logical. Try this. Call your bank up and tell them you want to close your mortgage. You will pay it off eventually but since it is closed you want the interest reduced to zero.
The idea that someone can borrow money at x% then not repay it upon demand and then choose to pay a different interest (or none) doesn't even pass the chuckle test.
Pirate has default and will never pay according to the terms of his contract. Matt simply can not win the bet. The only thing which is unknown is will he payout or not (I bet not).
August 31, 2012, 10:41:34 AM
I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness. 
I don't think he has a choice. If he reveals his client information to Pirate, what keeps Pirate from trying to negotiate individual settlements with them? He has an obligation to his investors to ensure that any Pirate payments on their collective debt is divided according to his agreement with them. If he lets them contact Pirate individually, how can he comply with his obligation?He can't stop his customers from contacting Pirate directly, of course. But Pirate paying them directly wouldn't settle his debt with Goat anyway.
If my local sandwich store lets me have a sandwich on credit, I have to pay the shopkeeper back because he's the one who gave me the sandwich. I can't make individual deals with the shop's employers and suppliers and then claim I've settled the debt for the sandwich. The shop owner gets to decide how the money is divided per his agreement with the employers and suppliers. Me settling with them individually would cause the shop owner to be breaching his agreement with his employers and suppliers, which I would have no right to do.
August 31, 2012, 03:26:55 AM
Mental note: Before entering debate with an Aussie, have him pronounce both "hoot" and "foot" so I know what he's calling my arguments.
Try listening to a conversation between an Aussie, a Kiwi and a South African some time. We all pronounce our vowels slightly differently and if you're not attuned to the different accents you won't have a clue what people are actually saying.
Quote
Yeah, won't help when you get asked for a "root" though.
I strongly suggest never asking an Aussie woman which sports team she roots for. Avoid comments about her fanny, too.
Very good advice, all around. I know at least one person from each of those areas, and I can fairly easily tell them apart, and usually even tell what they're saying.
August 31, 2012, 03:19:09 AM
Mental note: Before entering debate with an Aussie, have him pronounce both "hoot" and "foot" so I know what he's calling my arguments.
Try listening to a conversation between an Aussie, a Kiwi and a South African some time. We all pronounce our vowels slightly differently and if you're not attuned to the different accents you won't have a clue what people are actually saying.
Quote
Yeah, won't help when you get asked for a "root" though.
I strongly suggest never asking an Aussie woman which sports team she roots for. Avoid comments about her fanny, too.
On topic : It will be interesting to see whether pirate gives any further explanations, hands everything over to his lawyers, or just drops out of sight after midnight Friday.
August 31, 2012, 03:15:58 AM
(I'm ignoring the Australian usage of the word "moot", since that means "vagina")
Pronounced differently. "Moot" as in point is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as hoot. "Moot" as in vagina is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as foot.
Mental note: Before entering debate with an Aussie, have him pronounce both "hoot" and "foot" so I know what he's calling my arguments.
Yeah, won't help when you get asked for a "root" though.
August 31, 2012, 03:11:47 AM
(I'm ignoring the Australian usage of the word "moot", since that means "vagina")
Pronounced differently. "Moot" as in point is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as hoot. "Moot" as in vagina is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as foot.
Mental note: Before entering debate with an Aussie, have him pronounce both "hoot" and "foot" so I know what he's calling my arguments.
August 31, 2012, 03:10:01 AM
This is interesting. Where is the alternative explanation from pirateat40?
I just can't make sense of it. Why does pirate want to handle it this way?
I just can't make sense of it. Why does pirate want to handle it this way?
Wild guess? He is going to pay a small amount of PPT holders directly, and blame the PPT operators for not refunding everyone else, possibly claiming he paid them back. Divide and conquer. It would be interesting to have a breakdown of sums owed directly and indirectly to see how/if this could work though.
August 31, 2012, 03:08:57 AM
(I'm ignoring the Australian usage of the word "moot", since that means "vagina")
Pronounced differently. "Moot" as in point is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as hoot. "Moot" as in vagina is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as foot.
Huh. I'd always thought "moot" as in debate was pronounced like "foot" and I always wondered how I was supposed to use the word in polite society. Now I know.
Nah. That's why Americans sometimes confuse it with "mute". If you've noticed, some US dialects pronounce "u" as in ewe (the sound in mute) the same was they pronounce "u" as in "hoot". You notice it a lot with "new". It seems to be regional, but a lot of people say "Noo York".
August 31, 2012, 03:01:45 AM
(I'm ignoring the Australian usage of the word "moot", since that means "vagina")
Pronounced differently. "Moot" as in point is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as hoot. "Moot" as in vagina is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as foot.
Huh. I'd always thought "moot" as in debate was pronounced like "foot" and I always wondered how I was supposed to use the word in polite society. Now I know.
Jump to: