Topic: Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett - page 15. (Read 39288 times)

I'm curious about which jurisdiction you think this contract exists in, because you're sure as shit not going to get an award of punitive/exemplary damages under NZ law.  Nor are you going to get an award for full costs (typically, only about 60-70% of actual costs are covered in a judgement where costs are awarded in Australia and NZ).

I don't agree with Joel's reasoning, but you're dreaming if you think that a NZ court would award you the amount you're trying to claim you're owed.

I am not the self-proclaimed business man which made a deposit without require a signed contract...

That novel is yours and only yours.

By the way, would please a moderator report if a decision was settled? The scammer tag is going to be issued or not?

@OP,

You got fucked.

Micon was warning people of Patrick yet you still invested with him. It's your loss and fault. I'm not even sure why we have a scammer subforum for requesting tags. In all fairness to people who invested requesting a scammer tag be given to another user, you, by DEFAULT, should get a DUMBASS tag on their account.

 

My core contention is that both parties are equally at fault for their mistaken belief that Patrick's business model, fully understood by both parties, was fundamentally sound.

There's no evidence Patrick ever misrepresented his assets. Both sides knew what they were -- high interest Bitcoin loans to people who swore they weren't borrowing money to loan to Pirate. That was sufficient information to realize there was likely to be huge correlated risk, yet neither party did. Outsiders realized this.

MP didn't believe PH's assertion. MP reached the same conclusion from substantially the same information.

Aug 10 08:10:56   well that works. i'd like to put 500 bitcoins with you

Patrick's methodology wasn't a secret. Outsiders realized that his belief that there was little correlated risk couldn't be true.

You are saying that Patrick's mistake is that he didn't do the impossible. I am saying Patrick's mistake was that he believed the impossible.

This is about money. Let us not mix things, because contrary to what you might think the reason fiat failed is exactly an attempt to mix them.

If you want to show empathy go ahead and donate, help someone, whatever. Do not attempt to ruin the workings of the economy, because in the end that just spells disaster (and for a good discussion on the why and wherefores, even if somewhat remote, see "It's not yours to give" Davy Crockett bit).

And incidentally, we happen to be the only Bitcoin business with an actual, regular CSR program. We've donated to numerous worthy causes, it's all in the monthly P&L statements. You seem to be arguing against the dirt of mud from inside the swamp or something like that.


The problem here is that I speak of the history as it is and you speak of the mythology as you imagine and interpret it.

In point of fact the historical events are Peter Lambert, Pirate, Meni Rosenfeld (with Bitdaytrade), Kludge, Nefario, the fifty-odd scams perpetrated under the GLBSE umbrella and so on. The cause of those (or, in some cases, the main compounding factor) was exactly this mistaken socialist attitude.

What Satoshi intended or didn't intend is a point of conjecture. I can just as well say he created Bitcoin specifically to nip in the bud even the hope of your attitude ever reaching cultural relevance again. I happen to believe this is exactly true. What difference does it make?


This is fine and not something anyone disputes. You further [seem to] believe that "providing opportunity" is something that you are allowed to do by stealing from those who do well to prop those who do poorly. This is certainly unacceptable, and provably what Bitcoin was made to destroy.



I am inclined to think augustocrappo is inclined to think something novel and interesting which he'll share with us presently.

Well put Deprived.

I am not sure why JoelKatz believes his arguments are logical, much less even slightly tenable.

You're repeating the same fallacy again and again.  The two cases aren't remotely similar.

In the cherries case either:

1.  Both parties can (or have) verify the contents of the truck (e.g. they're standing by it) - both equally at fault,
2.  Neither party can (or have) verify the contents of the truck (truck in neither of their possession) - contract void.

In this case PH, as you specifically pointed out, PH's assertion was:

"in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that"

Only PH can verify what his assets are - MP can't.

Going back to the cherry case, that makes the actual analogy:

PH: I have a truck with 1500 pounds of cherries on to sell you.
MP: Are there really 1500 pounds of cherries on it?
PH: Yes.
MP: OK I'll buy the truck.

Some months Later.

PH: About that truck ...  The truck's bust and turns out it had 5 pounds of bananas in it not any cherries.  So you can't have the money you paid me back as you should have known I couldn't possibly have any cherries.

At no stage was MP shown the truck - but made the deal assuming PH acted in good faith and knew what in his truck.  The above is YOUR argument, not one PH himself has made btw.

Now you're arguing that everyone knew PH only grew bananas so anyone who tried to buy cherries off him is as much at fault as he was for trying to sell them and for not looking inside his own truck that noone else had access to.

The saddest thing about your little argument is that PH himself seems to accept that he owes the funds - and hence that the error was his.  Not once does he appear to argue that his own incompetence (by YOUR definition - as he apparently couldnt reach a conclusion that you believe everyone else with less information could reach) negates the debt he owes or alters the fact that he's in default.

And no - both parties did NOT make the same mistake.  PH's mistake was not properly evaluating his OWN investments to ensure they were pirate-free - compounded by asserting that to obtain new business.  MP's mistake was believing PH's assertion.  If someone portrays themselves as competent in an area (in this case, assessing the viability of loans) then subsequent evidence that they weren't as competent as they liked to think doesn't remove from them their contractual obligations just because "well, everyone should have known he was wrong."

You can't have a common mistake where only one party is in a position to ascertain the relevant facts and the second party relies on an assertion from the first party.  Your example very carefully avoids the issue of who has possession of the truck/cherries and whether either/both parties have looked into it.  Written more clearly your example would clarify that PH owned the truck and asserted that he had verified its contents.  Moreover his "in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that" is analogous to a claim of "even if the truck is empty I have enough cherries to give you yours anyway."

It's a terrible analogy backing up an even worse argument.

We are all social creatures,  in certain ways I am individualistic /deterministic and other ways I am more socialistic (ie: towards my family, friends and allies).   With the view that people that are floundering are a disease and people who do not flounder are preferred, I don't think you want to actual interact in a world where people in the mindset dominate.   Most people's "floundering" come from environments and systems they had no hand in making that have impaired them with reduce opportunity to operate.  

You should have more empathy towards that kind of human suffering unless you do not have the ability to show empathy.  

You speak of the history of Bitcoin, you may want to re-read this history.   As far as I can see, Satoshi made Bitcoin as an Alternative to our current monetary system that actually mirrors your " world of ten poor people is of no interest, a world of four rich people (even if their riches come at the expense of excluding six others) is what we're building." comment.  I care and respect for anyone who truly reciprocates that care and respect back.  That doesn't mean I think we are all equal, we all have different talents and traits.   I do believe in Justice, a fair Rule of Law and providing opportunity to all.

From your comments to be honest, you sound jaded, cynical and domineering (no disrespect, just follow-up on your opinion of me).

Thoughts on my comments other that my personal evaluation of your character visa-vie the internet, lol?  

Fascinating, because that's exactly the situation you find yourself in.

I would never suggest taking the outputs of your delusions as the inputs of any process attempting to produce a fair result. GIGO and all that.

So basically you want to owe us half of the 1842.2613195 BTC, is that it?

No. If it turns out there aren't 1,500 pounds of cherries on the truck, then some equitable way has to be found to split the damages among the parties. If the money hasn't already changed hands and the cherries are still intact, it might make sense to just void the contract. But if some of the cherries have already been consumed or the parties have taken irreversible actions relying on the contract, then the harm done by the common mistake has to be divided fairly between the parties.

That's what I'm suggesting should happen here. Both parties made the same mistake which directly led to the harm and had the mistake not been made by both parties the contract wouldn't have existed,  so the harm should be divided fairly between the parties. I'm not proposing any specific division as fair, but 50/50 would be my default presumption. (Actually, if Patrick expected to get a greater share of the profits than those he borrowed from, it might be just to make him bear a greater share of the losses.)

You don't understand, it's a common mistake. Why are you so resistant to lunacy?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but MPBOR is at 9% a month atm, which comes to something like 2% a week.

That's an incoherent position for cases where the contract was based on a shared false belief.

Two people both believe that there are 1,500 pounds of cherries in a truck. They agree to exchange the 1,500 pounds of cherries in the truck for $5,000. It turns out, through equal fault, that they were mistaken and there are only 1,200 pounds of cherries in the truck. How can the contract be executed entirely as it is? Does the seller have to put 300 pounds more cherries in the truck? Or does the buyer have to take 1,200 pounds of cherries even though he agreed to take 1,500? Or what?

If a contract is based on a shared false belief, without which neither party would have entered into the contract, it's not possible to execute the contract as it is.

Yes, this would be an ideological divide. Our position is firmly that contracts must be executed entirely as they are, and that no claim can be diminished post default, but only increased (and preferably significantly).

This may yield a higher rate of people who run off from their obligations, but on the long term it has the positive effect of limiting the total BTC lost to incompetence/malfeasance by excluding the incompetent and the malfeasant from the marketplace.

Your alternative point of view may seem reasonable, but this is only if you subscribe to a socialist view of the world (ie, we are all equal, we must all find a way to live together, we're not individuals but parts of a collective etc). These notions are not tenable on the Internet. We are not at all interested in helping the floundering, we are interested in cutting off the floundering as soon as practically possible so as to prevent them from bringing their disease upon others. A world of ten poor people is of no interest, a world of four rich people (even if their riches come at the expense of excluding six others) is what we're building.

The history of BTC world, short as it may be, seems to wholly support our position. In fact, all the failures so far can be traced to people instinctively (and, I dare say, uninformedly) taking a stance similar to yours.

The business model, the interest rate, and the existence of Pirate. That was all that was necessary.

The business model was fundamentally broken. The only people who will borrow money at such absurdly high rates are those that are taking, or are, absurdly high risks. The existence of Pirate and the greater interest rate he was paying is sufficient information to conclude that people would borrow from Patrick to loan to Pirate and lie about it. The lack of enforceability in any court of law is sufficient to conclude that if the things people did with the loans went bad, they wouldn't be willing to take their own money to cover the losses. (As Patrick appears to be unwilling to do.)

Yes. It's has nothing to do with PH's reputation. It has nothing to do with what he did or didn't do. It has to do with the simple fact that he was saying "X follows from A, B, and C" when it simply did not follow.

Search the forums. You'll see lots of people saying this. It is obvious. It was obvious.

I am saying that he, like all the people who loaned money to him or Pirate, had objectively unreasonable beliefs. They were deluded.

They both should have known. Neither knew.

They both drew the same incorrect conclusion. So did everyone who loaned money to Pirate. This was a case of common mistake from equal fault.

Why are you so resistant to holding people accountable for mistakes that cause harm?

So what evidence did MP have to draw that conclusion when PH asserted the opposite?  What information was there about PH which meant any reasonable person would have concluded he was lieing or mistaken?  I was under the impression he had a fairly good reputation - what am I missing?  Didn't he do credit-ratings - suggesting he went far beyond normal due-diligence?

Looking back after the facts and concluding "well it should have been obvious..." isn't much evidence of anything.  Is it really your assertion that ANY investment paying 1% per week (or whatever he was offering) back then MUST have been invested in pirate?  Was there NO alternative?  Was PH's reputation SO bad that he deserved NO credit for doing due diligence?

If you're going to assert that something was common knowledge (in this case that it was common knowledge that PH was invested directly or indirectly in pirate) then:

1.  You should prove it.
2.  How come PH didn't know?  If he didn't know how can you reasonably assume MP must have?  Or are you saying he DID know?

You see, point 2 is the key one.  PH had MORE information than MP (deposit details).  If PH couldn't draw that conclusion it logically can't make sense to assert that someone in MP's position MUST have known it.  The alternate, that PH DID know (and MP should have) would be an automatic scammer tag - as then PH would have misrepresented himself when making the contract.  You can't have it both ways - that PH didn't know but MP must have known.   So which is it?

Because Pirate committed fraud and his customers did not. Otherwise, you would be absolutely right and the blame, and hence the damages, should split between Pirate and his customers.

In this case, both parties had sufficient knowledge to conclude that Patrick had significant Pirate exposure. Total outsiders reached this same conclusion. It was obvious. And there's no evidence of greater fault on either side.

Your other examples are inapplicable. This contract was predicated on a mutual agreement to something that was false due to equal fault on both sides. None of your examples have that characteristic.