Topic: Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett - page 19. (Read 39315 times)

It seems like Kraken may have started out with good intentions, but it was likely also used to buy worthless ponzi debt from the main "starfish" scheme. At least, that's what makes the most sense...

I didn't know about his escort service.  Nothing wrong with that.  I'll have to check that out.
[snip]assholish, ruthless, opportunistic businessman[/snip] is fine to, but maybe he should to hire someone to be a little more pleasant to be the face of  his business.  He is certainly not winning any friends and influencing people with him many abrasive and agressive posts all over these boards.  But then again maybe he's not interested in growing his business.  

Anyway good to know.  Thanks.

Who are you again?

Point to something you actually did. Absent that, point to at least a few smart things you said to counterbalance all the plain idiotic things you said one could point to.

Being able to create a forum name does not automatically make you someone.


You know, I actually am a girl.

Basically he runs this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/MPEx

He's also one of very very few people here who actually behaves like a businessman, instead of just imitating being a business man like most cargo cult followers here.

An assholish, ruthless, opportunistic businessman, I'll give you that, sure, but that IS in huge parts what is needed to BE a businessman.

I think people just don't like him because he also runs an image board, where Romanian escorts and other "erotic service partners" advertise their services.

greyhawk

I don't understand you post.  If you are vouching for MOE-PR.  The please do so.  Looks like this guys could use some friends around here.  I have no idea who he is or what his business is, but based on his posts I would put money with Zouh Tong  and Bitfloor before I'd allow this knucklehead to have one satoshi of my BTC.


Thanks

So the owner of Bitcoins only really existing stock exchange is a "troll" now?

And the user that was shilling for usagi for months and egging her/him/it on with trying to discredit as trolls those who were asking valid questions; that user is now a valuable "analyzer of posts"?

Good to know. I'll update my files accordingly.

*opens documentation to replace "unlikely scam target" with "troll" as well as "likely fraudster" with "honest businessman" and vice versa *

exorors

Yes,  I would have to agree.  Unfortunately there seems to be three things going on in this thread.  

MPOE-PR is trolling/rabble rousing as he is wont to do around these boards.  Why?  Your guess is as good as mine.

Joel is having a very detailed debate about contract law.

And Patrick Harnett is maintaining his dignity by not bothering to respond.

IF augostocroppo would do an analysis of MOE-PR's posts as he has with CharlieContent he would probably identify similar attributes.  Members trolling these board for their own humor and amusement while really adding nothing to any meaningful conversation.

Has there been a shift in applying the scammer tag? In the past, as long as the "offender" was in regular communication and working to pay back his debt, he didn't get tagged. Now, it seems that issuing the tag happens immediately and is removed after repayment. Also, doesn't the term "scam" imply malicious intent? Something which cannot be easily proven here.

The important point here is that intent can only be established by examining deeds. Nobody is in a position to posit what intent "is" or "really is" other or outside of what is supported by facts.

You claim (with no basis) that "he is making a solid effort". I show, clearly and so far indisputably that he is not: ~20 BTC coming out in three months on a 500 principal + 100-200 interest deal is neither solid nor effort.

You claim (with dubious basis) that he is keeping the creditors appraised. This is false: he has not been in contact to negotiate beg for a new agreement, as his position behooves him to do. In fact, he has not been in contact at all.

Finally, let me quote myself, maybe on 2nd read it sinks in:


There's no grounds for you to posit innocence or anything else about some vague "intent" when the construction the facts bear is scammer. Sorry.


This is something we have no knowledge of whatsoever, not being involved in that. However, if indeed the quote is correct I would like to include this by reference to further illuminate why Darlkore's claims above hold no water. If it quacks like a scammer, it can have a scammer tag at the very least until he stops. It's not like these scammer tags come with a beheading, he can earn his way back out of it just fine.

At any rate, the notion of a "default" tag, while maybe appropriate in general, is not appropriate here. It would seem to imply no blame and no wrongdoing, whereas blame and wrongdoing is exactly what we're showing. The man made false representations, which is a polite way of saying he lied, in order to steal money. That's all there is, we're not arguing against the general unfairness of the world and why oh why did our cherry tree not make any cherries this year. We're arguing against the very specific fraudulent behavior of one person who lied and misrepresented themselves for profit.

Just to clarify here, the scammer tag is not given out based on civil law, but on criminal law. Thus, this applies to us:
If we had a "default" tag, that would be a whole different situation, though. For sure, that would be based off of civil law.
Agreed. So, if Patrick doesn't want a scammer tag, he should either pay back as originally agreed or renegotiate in good faith.

As an aside, it does seem like the scammer tag is not always ideal but it's all we have on this forum? Some other tag for borrowers/invesments which fall into default should have their own special tag, perhaps with a default count or color based on severity.. or perhaps based on if they managed to repay what they owe eventually.

So someone could default, they get an angry red DEFAULT tag. They repay half or so and it turns yellow. They repay it all and it turns green. So they had defaulted in the past but repaid all their debts. Could even be like a badge of honor, if someone stuck it out like that and made their mistakes right people might be more likely to do business with them in the future.

He's the one left at fault without the money he owes though because he was the one taking money and trusting in those things so that he would be able to pay back what he agreed to. Therefore he's the one holding the bag, the one at fault. He willingly opened himself up to this position by partaking in these agreements and being the one taking the money which he agreed to return with interest.

The other people made a mistake but he's the one who made the mistake which caused him to apparently lose a bunch of money he soon owed back to the people who left it with him. That other people may have made the same mistake with the same data he had doesn't change that at all or make it any more ok that he can no longer pay back the money he now owes. He then did some sort of renegotiation of the terms for repayment without any actual negotiation with the people he owed money to.

You are saying that people made a mistake, the same mistake he made. That seems to be true, yes and I don't think anyone disputes that. However, he is the one who owes money and is in default over it, unable to pay it back as he agreed to.

There's no evidence he lied or mislead. In fact, he explained the factual basis for his incorrect conclusion and those he spoke to drew the same incorrect conclusion from the same facts.

Patrick didn't say, "trust me that X" or "I have secret knowledge that X". He said, "Because of facts A, B, and C, I conclude X". The facts A, B, and C were true. However, the conclusion X did not follow from them. If Patrick is responsible for the damages this mistake caused, so are the other parties who made the very same mistake and made the very same damages occur, drawing the same incorrect conclusion from the same correct facts.

Both parties had facts A, B, and C. Those facts were correct.
Both parties concluded X from A, B, and C. X was incorrect and did not follow from A, B, and C.
Both parties acted on X, jointly causing a loss.
Thus both parties are responsible for the loss and should share it.

I 100% agree. From what I understand about the Kraken fund, there is no excuse for Patrick not repaying principle to anyone who deposited in this fund. (And I strongly fear this fund may be 100% scam.)

I believe that the Kraken fund was only supposed to invest in things that Patrick 100% knew had nothing to do with Pirate or any similar kind of risk. So there should be no reason it shouldn't be able to return 100% of principle. (Other than perhaps a liquidity crunch or the like that might slow repayments.)

Update/Correction: The Kraken fund did make risky investments, but only after Patrick 100% knew precisely what those risks were, and he 100% personally guaranteed repayment of principle.

Patrick guaranteed pirate debt....and he did so after knowing pirate had defaulted. What a lowlife.

Patrick's Kraken fund might be an even more clear cut case that Patrick deserves a scammer tag. Patrick guaranteed those deposits, and it is clear that Patrick knew the Kraken assets were correlated and risky.

Approximately 75% of the assets in Kraken are bad Pirate debt via Payb.tc, PPT.A, PPT.B, and PPT.E (as later disclosed in his Kraken newsletter on October 14, 2012). This Pirate debt was purchased after Pirate had already defaulted. Joel can't argue that Patrick didn't know his Kraken assets were correlated, because Patrick specifically chose to put a significant portion of the fund in bad Pirate debt. Joel can't argue that Patrick didn't know the assets were risky, because Pirate had already defaulted.

Is there anybody that invested in the Kraken fund that has requested a withdrawal and hasn't been paid back in full? This might deserve a whole new thread since Kraken was a different fund.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1102858

That appears to be more like someone asking pertinent questions before handing over their money than part of the contract between them. That he lied or misled in his answers knowingly or unknowingly would put him more in the wrong.

See any case involving "common mistake". Couturier v. Hastie (5 HL Cas673), Galloway v. Galloway (30 TLR 531), Copper v. Phibbs (LR 2 HL 149), Davis v. Pennsylvania Company (337 PA 456), Cooper v. Phibbs, Great Peace Shipping Ltd v. Tsavliris Salvage, and on and on and on. "Common mistake" is a concept of contract law, it's not something I made up.

What do you think courts do when two parties enter into a contract and then discover that some element of the subject matter of the contract doesn't actually exist due to fault attributable to neither party or substantially equally attributable to both of them?

It's unfortunate Patrick doesn't want to tell his side, cause the available information doesn't look very good for him.

This is what Joel is talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_%28contract_law%29
I don't think I agree with his conclusions though.