Joel, your arguments are absurd. If a seller agrees to sell 5000 pounds of cherries, but only delivers 4500 pounds, that is on him. He either needs to make things right by delivering an additional 500 pounds, or renegotiate the contract (i.e., agree with the buyer to only sell 4500 pounds at a lower total price).
The contract in question with Patrick wasn't an agreement about "what to do with X number of bitcoins", it was an agreement whereby the buyer would give Patrick a particular number of bitcoins, and Patrick would "deliver" 1% per week back to the buyer, plus the principle at a certain date. Just like an agreement where a seller agrees to deliver a particular number of pounds of cherries to the buyer. It wasn't contingent upon whether Patrick's investments panned out or not. If it did, the contract would have stated as much. NOWHERE does Patrick and the other party agree that, if Patrick's investments default, then Patrick can default without giving his investors recourse.
Anyway, I'm done debating about this - we're just rehashing the same thing over and over. I'll just say that your arguments are fairly silly, and would not hold up in any court of law.
Topic: Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett - page 21. (Read 39315 times)
In the case with Patrick, the number of cherries WAS specified. Well, the interest rate was, anyway. And Patrick failed to hold up to that interest rate.
That's certainly a breach, but not even the biggest one. The main problem here is that Patrick failed to repay the principal on the commonly agreed due date, not that he failed to repay interest as agreed.
So to use your cherries example: someone agreed to sell one truck with 5k lbs of cherries to be delivered at a specified location at a specified time, and someone agreed to buy same. The buyer paid the seller on the spot. At time of delivery, seller informs buyer that a) there's only 4500 lbs of cherries in the truck and b) the truck is "somewhere in Argentina" but will be making it towards the specified location "as best it can".
Well duh.
Seems odd that there is even an argument. Patrick Harnett is supposed to have paid back some Bitcoins and has not. I am sure there are reasons for this but that still does mean he is in default. Paying back little bits of what he owes doesn't change that.
Did you read the thread you are responding to? The agreement by which he was supposed to have paid back some Bitcoins is not enforceable as agreed due to common mistake.Quote
Or, do Bitcoins operate on a different set of logic?
Of course they do. Otherwise the agreement would be void because of the usurious interest rate.Why does a "common mistake" matter? Anyone lending/giving/investing Bitcoin probably believes that the other side can live up to their end of the agreement but when they don't it's the fault of the person receiving the Bitcoin who is then unable to pay back what they owe.
Seems odd that there is even an argument. Patrick Harnett is supposed to have paid back some Bitcoins and has not. I am sure there are reasons for this but that still does mean he is in default. Paying back little bits of what he owes doesn't change that.
Did you read the thread you are responding to? The agreement by which he was supposed to have paid back some Bitcoins is not enforceable as agreed due to common mistake.Quote
Or, do Bitcoins operate on a different set of logic?
Of course they do. Otherwise the agreement would be void because of the usurious interest rate.Here's a trivial example: Both parties to an agreement believe a truck contains 5,000 pounds of cherries and both believe that $2/pound is a fair price. They agree to sell the cherries for $10,000, based on their common correct belief that cherries are worth $2/pound and their common mistake belief that the truck contains 5,000 pounds of cherries. If it turns out the scale was broken and the cherries actually weigh 4,500 pounds, how much is "his debt"?
The argument would be that you can't look to the contract because the contract doesn't say what happens if the cherries weigh 4,500 pounds. Everything written in the contract is based on the assumption that the cherries weigh 5,000 pounds. (Unless it contains some clause about the weight, of course.) Here, it is clearly unjust to enforce the contract as agreed because the agreement was predicated on the shared belief.
Assuming you mean a buyer and a seller by "both parties," the number of cherries wouldn't make a bit of difference unless mentioned in the contract. If the buyer didn't do his due diligence in verifying the number of cherries on the truck, and didn't add wording specific to the number of cherries he was receiving, that was his problem.The argument would be that you can't look to the contract because the contract doesn't say what happens if the cherries weigh 4,500 pounds. Everything written in the contract is based on the assumption that the cherries weigh 5,000 pounds. (Unless it contains some clause about the weight, of course.) Here, it is clearly unjust to enforce the contract as agreed because the agreement was predicated on the shared belief.
Suppose the contract isn't written, but there was a mutual understanding that the truck contained 5,000 pounds of cherries. Does the buyer have to make the truck contain 5,000 pounds of cherries? Or does the seller have to settle for however many pounds of cherries are in the truck? You *can't* enforce the contract as agreed because the agreement is based on a false premise -- that the truck contains 5,000 pounds of cherries.
Quote
In the case with Patrick, the number of cherries WAS specified. Well, the interest rate was, anyway. And Patrick failed to hold up to that interest rate. It'd be like the seller of the cherries writing in the contract that he was selling 5000 pounds of cherries, but he only brings 4500 pounds, using the excuse that someone must have stolen the other 500 pounds out of the back of the truck last night. That doesn't make a bit of difference - the buyer bought 5000 pounds of cherries, not 4500, and unless a new contract can be established (likely with a reduction in price), the seller is in the wrong, not the buyer.
Why didn't the seller sell 5,000 pounds of cherries, not 4,500?Quote
You stick to the word of the contract no matter what. That is what is enforceable by law. Assumptions DO NOT MATTER.
The problem is that in cases like this, it's impossible to do that. The words of the contract refer to things that don't actually exist. The "cherries" spoken of in my example contract don't actually exist. Whether the contract said "5,000 pounds of cherries" or not, if that's what "cherries" meant, then it's speaking about a non-existent thing. There's no way to enforce it as written. (Unless it had some kind of clause that addressed this case.)This case is similar. The loans the agreement was premised on turned out not to exist in the form both parties believed they did.
By the way, I now have looked at the amounts outstanding and the repayments, and I think it's inevitable that Patrick will default by any equitable standard, if he hasn't already. Even with absurdly generous terms (like repaying 40% of premiums, with no past or future interest, over three years) I don't think Patrick and his wife will make the lifestyle sacrifices they would need to in order to pay back debts that are likely not enforceable in any court of law. If he's not presently willing to negotiate, and stick to, some kind of reasonable repayment terms and schedule, he deserves a scammer tag now.
Seems odd that there is even an argument. PatrickHarnett is supposed to have paid back some Bitcoins and has not. I am sure there are reasons for this but that still does mean he is in default. Paying back little bits of what he owes doesn't change that.
Or, do Bitcoins operate on a different set of logic?
Or, do Bitcoins operate on a different set of logic?
Here's a trivial example: Both parties to an agreement believe a truck contains 5,000 pounds of cherries and both believe that $2/pound is a fair price. They agree to sell the cherries for $10,000, based on their common correct belief that cherries are worth $2/pound and their common mistake belief that the truck contains 5,000 pounds of cherries. If it turns out the scale was broken and the cherries actually weigh 4,500 pounds, how much is "his debt"?
The argument would be that you can't look to the contract because the contract doesn't say what happens if the cherries weigh 4,500 pounds. Everything written in the contract is based on the assumption that the cherries weigh 5,000 pounds. (Unless it contains some clause about the weight, of course.) Here, it is clearly unjust to enforce the contract as agreed because the agreement was predicated on the shared belief.
Assuming you mean a buyer and a seller by "both parties," the number of cherries wouldn't make a bit of difference unless mentioned in the contract. If the buyer didn't do his due diligence in verifying the number of cherries on the truck, and didn't add wording specific to the number of cherries he was receiving, that was his problem.The argument would be that you can't look to the contract because the contract doesn't say what happens if the cherries weigh 4,500 pounds. Everything written in the contract is based on the assumption that the cherries weigh 5,000 pounds. (Unless it contains some clause about the weight, of course.) Here, it is clearly unjust to enforce the contract as agreed because the agreement was predicated on the shared belief.
In the case with Patrick, the number of cherries WAS specified. Well, the interest rate was, anyway. And Patrick failed to hold up to that interest rate. It'd be like the seller of the cherries writing in the contract that he was selling 5000 pounds of cherries, but he only brings 4500 pounds, using the excuse that someone must have stolen the other 500 pounds out of the back of the truck last night. That doesn't make a bit of difference - the buyer bought 5000 pounds of cherries, not 4500, and unless a new contract can be established (likely with a reduction in price), the seller is in the wrong, not the buyer.
You stick to the word of the contract no matter what. That is what is enforceable by law. Assumptions DO NOT MATTER.
looks like Hartnett took the loan, and thus the obligation to repay. further, he misrepresented his exposure to his creditors.
mistake is his. scammer/default.
mistake is his. scammer/default.
I never said they had exactly the same information, I said they had substantially the same information. I even explained what information they both had.
"Substantially" bs. We all have substantially the same information to some imaginary post-hoc standard. There's no whitewashing this, if the scammer didn't have a privileged position with respect to his investments then the contract would have made absolutely zero sense to enter into. Think about it for a moment, your retarded argument can be used to try and weasel out of any agreement ever.
Part of my argument is that Patrick in fact made that mistake. To respond by saying Patrick made that mistake doesn't make sense.
Your argument boils down to: Patrick made a mistake so he shouldn't have to honor contracts (because you presume, without any proof, that everyone else "would" have made the same mistake, and further presume that this amounts to a "everyone else did in fact make the same mistake"). This is just a way of saying Patrick is god. Patrick isn't god, and therefore your entire line is invalid.
So the agreement still would have happened even if Patrick said "Yes, I have significant Pirate exposure"? Bullshit.
Fuck you. The agreement would NOT have happened if the scammer admitted at that time what we now know to be reality. The fact that you do not know this speaks about your ignorance, that's all. What do you think, someone who had zero pirate exposure since the very start, someone (the only one) who turned down pirate's slimy advances in an ultimately doomed bid to protect idiots just like you and made a point of it suddenly changed his mind, and decided to buy a 1% a week pirate passthrough when the 7% real deal was still available?
The common mistake was the belief that Patrick's loan portfolio didn't have significant Pirate exposure when it actually did.
This is not a common mistake. In fact, Patrick's portofolio was neither discussed nor at least considered. The money was lent on Patrick's name and word, nothing else.
Honestly, I'm somewhat disgusted at the righteous indignation of the usurious lenders who refuse to accept any responsibility for their significant role in this fiasco.
So you're against lending, btc business, money, whatever. Your problems, I don't care and they don't amount to arguments against contracts. Seek help.
What information did Patrick have that others didn't have that would have changed the conclusion they drew?
That's immaterial. What proof do you have the lender had exactly the same information as the borrower did?
The problem is that the contract doesn't cover the case where the loans have correlated risk.
Yes, it does. That's exactly why the negotiations start with "do you have correlated risk X". Had the scammer answered "yes" or even "maybe" the contract would never have happened. He did neither, he answered "no". Living up to that "no" is upon him.
Right, but the agreement was predicated on a mutual understanding that the loans didn't have significant correlated risk.
Nothing of the kind. The agreement was predicated on a mutual understanding that the lender lends and the borrower repays with interest.
Quote
The quote from "another thread" has the relevance of pointing out that we were both the first and for a long time the only to clearly state that Pirate is a scam. As such, proposing this theory whereby "nobody knew" that Pirate might have been a scam is ridiculous. The entire point of that agreement is squarely against this.
Somehow we must have some kind of a disconnect somewhere. Of course both knew Pirate was at least very likely to be a scam. That's the whole reason this agreement was constructed the way it was -- to protect against Pirate exposure. The common mistake was the belief that Patrick's loan portfolio didn't have significant Pirate exposure when it actually did.Both parties willfully ignored the obvious gaping holes in Patrick's business model, despite being repeatedly told what they were. Honestly, I'm somewhat disgusted at the righteous indignation of the usurious lenders who refuse to accept any responsibility for their significant role in this fiasco.
What information did Patrick have that others didn't have that would have changed the conclusion they drew?
That's immaterial. What proof do you have the lender had exactly the same information as the borrower did?
The problem is that the contract doesn't cover the case where the loans have correlated risk.
Yes, it does. That's exactly why the negotiations start with "do you have correlated risk X". Had the scammer answered "yes" or even "maybe" the contract would never have happened. He did neither, he answered "no". Living up to that "no" is upon him.
Right, but the agreement was predicated on a mutual understanding that the loans didn't have significant correlated risk.
Nothing of the kind. The agreement was predicated on a mutual understanding that the lender lends and the borrower repays with interest.
The quote from "another thread" has the relevance of pointing out that we were both the first and for a long time the only to clearly state that Pirate is a scam. As such, proposing this theory whereby "nobody knew" that Pirate might have been a scam is ridiculous. The entire point of that agreement is squarely against this.
No. It was based on Patrick's representation to that effect. Your attempts to represent this as a "common mistake" are unseemly and quite frankly are doing a lot of damage to your own credibility.
What information did Patrick have that others didn't have that would have changed the conclusion they drew?This turned out to be incorrect. It's not clear that this is Patrick's fault. This fault is equally on both sides of the agreement.
If I offer to sell you a house and you pay me money, except my house doesn't really exist would you say that the fault is equally on both sides of the contract? Because in that case I have a bridge....
Patrick has stated in another thread that he is paying this debt back the same way he is paying back similar debts. He is taking responsibility for his share of the common mistake and his lenders should do the same.
Bullshit. "The same way he is paying similar debts", what's that even mean? You make a contract, you stick to that contract or else you are in default. Nobody cares and it makes no difference that you "are doing it differently now". What is this Patrick, the Government of Bitcoin?
Quote
No, seriously, what are you talking about? How does each side have substantially the same information?
Both Patrick and those who loaned him money understood his business model and the rates he charged. They both equally understood that he asked people whether they were investing in Pirate and made clear that this was unacceptable. It's not like Patrick had evidence of correlated risk that he had from his investors, at least not the we know of.Quote
Deposit was made, as per an agreement. Deposit was not returned, as per the agreement.
Right, but the agreement was predicated on a mutual understanding that the loans didn't have significant correlated risk.As for your quote from another thread, I can't quite understand the relevance. Are you saying you were aware that there was a high probability that Patrick's loans had significant correlated risk due to exposure to Pirate?
Quote
At this point, what exactly is your relationship to the scammer? Are you being paid to shill?
I very strongly dislike Patrick. If he was willing to pay me to shill, I'd happily take his money, but he has not yet made such an offer.Quote
Quite willful ignorance from someone who's contributed half the words to this thread. The numbers are staring you in the face: 500 BTC going out from lender to borrower. ~15-20 BTC coming out from borrower to lender, two-three months later.
I've expressed no opinion on whether his repayment schedule is adequate or not. Roughly speaking, if he's on track for 50% within a year, that'd be reasonable in my view. As I said, I'd really like to see him committing to an amount and a schedule and sticking to that commitment. The contract couldn't have had such a clause because neither side believed that situation was possible.
Except for
Quote
Quote
I would be more interested in how many reserves the "trust" still has. E.g. what would happen if the 10 biggest accounts cash out at the same time. Right now.
This.
Scenario.
I. Buy, borrow or steal 1k btc.
II. Open Krakken Bank of Bitcoin, October 1st (as we all know krakken eat pirates). Offer 7% per week to investors. At this point it makes sense strategically to open it only to "selected" investors - most everybody isn't interested anyway so you gain some "mystique" that costs nothing.
III. 1st of November. Collected a few hundred in principal, paid maybe 10-20 BTCs from your 1k. BuKK stands at a few hundred btc invested + the goodwill of paid investors, you stand at ~980 BTC.
IV. 1st of December. Collected about 1k BTC in principal, paid ~200 BTC from your 1k. BuKK stands at 1k invested, buzz is starting to fly. You're ~750 BTC.
V. 1st of January. Collected 2-3k BTC, paid pretty much the remainder of your original balance. Start making little noises here and there about how you "own" the bitcoin market and delicately suggest to people that your moves actually have any impact (a ludicrous concept, but it served the bankers of old fiat well).
VI. 1st of February. Things start to balloon from here. BuKK principal is easily over 10k BTC, growth rates in the 10 to 20% range each week. Replenish your original 1k with some fringe just in case, pay the suckers their "interest" from the growth rate like any serious pirate/krakken/anything else designed-to-fail ponzi scheme. Do a lot of mouthing about imaginary investment opportunities irl or at the irl/btc interface that somehow magically net you what no business in the ~1000 years of business history ever made and each hyip in the ~10000 years of hyip history always claimed.
VII. Fail. A well, certainly not the first time, certainly not the last time, it's a pity to let a sucker keep its bitcoin and all that. Not like any lessons are liable to be learned or anything of the sort.
What's that, June? September? May? Heck, with a little luck it might even survive till the reward halving.
(https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.854918)I would be more interested in how many reserves the "trust" still has. E.g. what would happen if the 10 biggest accounts cash out at the same time. Right now.
This.
Scenario.
I. Buy, borrow or steal 1k btc.
II. Open Krakken Bank of Bitcoin, October 1st (as we all know krakken eat pirates). Offer 7% per week to investors. At this point it makes sense strategically to open it only to "selected" investors - most everybody isn't interested anyway so you gain some "mystique" that costs nothing.
III. 1st of November. Collected a few hundred in principal, paid maybe 10-20 BTCs from your 1k. BuKK stands at a few hundred btc invested + the goodwill of paid investors, you stand at ~980 BTC.
IV. 1st of December. Collected about 1k BTC in principal, paid ~200 BTC from your 1k. BuKK stands at 1k invested, buzz is starting to fly. You're ~750 BTC.
V. 1st of January. Collected 2-3k BTC, paid pretty much the remainder of your original balance. Start making little noises here and there about how you "own" the bitcoin market and delicately suggest to people that your moves actually have any impact (a ludicrous concept, but it served the bankers of old fiat well).
VI. 1st of February. Things start to balloon from here. BuKK principal is easily over 10k BTC, growth rates in the 10 to 20% range each week. Replenish your original 1k with some fringe just in case, pay the suckers their "interest" from the growth rate like any serious pirate/krakken/anything else designed-to-fail ponzi scheme. Do a lot of mouthing about imaginary investment opportunities irl or at the irl/btc interface that somehow magically net you what no business in the ~1000 years of business history ever made and each hyip in the ~10000 years of hyip history always claimed.
VII. Fail. A well, certainly not the first time, certainly not the last time, it's a pity to let a sucker keep its bitcoin and all that. Not like any lessons are liable to be learned or anything of the sort.
What's that, June? September? May? Heck, with a little luck it might even survive till the reward halving.
I expect an apology, JoelKatz.
Deposit was made, as per an agreement. Deposit was not returned, as per the agreement.
Still, you did not provided the evidence required.
Where is the contract that you both signed to a third party verify the legitimacy of your claims?
As for him paying back slowly; so are a few other labeled scammers. Im all for removing the tags once they paid everything back.
Exactly. The problem here is that he's not even making enough payments to cover interest.
Here's his scam in simple terms:
I. Do the Peter Lambert thing: pretend like you know what you're doing, give out ratings, all that jazz.
II. Take deposits, recallable on demand, at a reasonable rate (1% was, back in August, pretty much tiny).
III. Refuse to repay deposits.
IV. Make a "best effort" repayment of about .9% a week.
This is an out and out scam. Better designed than pirate's, sure, but just as much a scam.
The only other way you could look at it would be "How to sell miner bonds without any miner gear, and without the risk of difficulty dropping". Also a scam.
I'd say there's a bit a difference between PH who's paid back half the money and is making reasonable progress
To date, he's paid less than half the interest or something like 3% of the money. Do the math eh?
Each side had substantially the same information and made substantially the same mistake.
No, seriously, what are you talking about? How does each side have substantially the same information?
At this point, what exactly is your relationship to the scammer? Are you being paid to shill?
Patrick claims he has been making reasonable payments on all his outstanding debt. I have no idea how much debt he has outstanding or what kinds of payments he has been making.
Quite willful ignorance from someone who's contributed half the words to this thread. The numbers are staring you in the face: 500 BTC going out from lender to borrower. ~15-20 BTC coming out from borrower to lender, two-three months later.
500 * 1.01^14 = 574.7371066; 20 / 574.737106619 = 0.034798519. Was that so hard?
And finally, to the scammer himself, who "is not going to fan the flames": fuck you, asshole.
on the common understanding that he had no or limited Pirate exposure.
No. It was based on Patrick's representation to that effect. Your attempts to represent this as a "common mistake" are unseemly and quite frankly are doing a lot of damage to your own credibility.
This turned out to be incorrect. It's not clear that this is Patrick's fault. This fault is equally on both sides of the agreement.
If I offer to sell you a house and you pay me money, except my house doesn't really exist would you say that the fault is equally on both sides of the contract? Because in that case I have a bridge....
Patrick has stated in another thread that he is paying this debt back the same way he is paying back similar debts. He is taking responsibility for his share of the common mistake and his lenders should do the same.
Bullshit. "The same way he is paying similar debts", what's that even mean? You make a contract, you stick to that contract or else you are in default. Nobody cares and it makes no difference that you "are doing it differently now". What is this Patrick, the Government of Bitcoin?
Frankly, Joel, I think you just enjoy taking the contrarian stand. That's fine, but just put a label on your stuff "I'm only stating this nonsense because I enjoy trying to make impossible arguments".
Am I the only one who after reading the transcript, does not understand what is wrong other than the allegation that a deposit has not been paid back in a timely manner. Could the OP please summarize what is actually the issue so we can weigh the evidence. Just posting some logs out of context and having someone passionately arguing with the OP using Pirate references is not enough.
I want your argument so I can weigh it.
Appreciated,
Dalkore
I want your argument so I can weigh it.
Appreciated,
Dalkore
Deposit was made, as per an agreement. Deposit was not returned, as per the agreement.
So PatrickHarnett should either refund 50% of the loan on his own funds or get a scammer tag, because right now, I see only one party bearing the cost of what you argue (and which I do not argue one way or another) is a shared mistake.
A 50% refund would certainly be one equitable resolution of the mistake. It's not the only one.Patrick claims he has been making reasonable payments on all his outstanding debt. I have no idea how much debt he has outstanding or what kinds of payments he has been making.
I agree that a scammer tag would be completely appropriate if Patrick has been making unreasonably small payments on any of his outstanding debts, hasn't been open about his repayment schedule, hasn't been keeping his repayment schedule, or has proposed an unreasonable repayment schedule.
It's entirely possible that Patrick can't, or won't, cover his fair share of these losses. Whether that's due to intentional fraud or just lack of resources despite his best efforts, I absolutely agree it would justify a scammer tag.
It is absolutely inequitable to make one party to an agreement bear the full cost of a shared mistake made equally by both parties.
So PatrickHarnett should either refund 50% of the loan on his own funds or get a scammer tag, because right now, I see only one party bearing the cost of what you argue (and which I do not argue one way or another) is a shared mistake. I still completely disagree with you Joel. It doesn't matter what Patrick's plans with the money was - he agreed to pay back at a certain rate for a certain period of time. He failed to do so. He broke the contract. That's all that matters.
It absolutely does matter when both parties to a contract assume a particular state of affairs and that neither party would have entered into the contract had they known that their common belief was incorrect. This principle is a very narrow one, but one required by equity. Quoting Lord Acton, "A mistake will not affect assent unless it is a mistake of both parties, and is as to the existence of some quality which makes the thing without the quality essentially different from the thing as it was believed to be." This is exactly what we have here, a mistake that affects assent because it is a mistake of both parties and it is as to the existence of some quality that makes the thing different from what it was believed to be.His agreement to pay back the loan at a certain rate for a certain period of time was clearly dependent on the shared belief that his loans were independent of Pirate exposure. Both parties discussed this common belief and relied on it when they entered into the agreement. It is absolutely inequitable to make one party to an agreement bear the full cost of a shared mistake made equally by both parties.
The simple predictable rule here is that the debtor is always responsible for his debt (at least before bankruptcy law)
That's not helpful. The challenge is figuring out what "his debt" is. See my example of the payment for partial interest in a car. Sure, the buyer is responsible for "his debt", but the question is whether he in fact owes the payment. That's the same problem we have here. When a promise to pay is predicated on a belief shared by both parties and without which neither party would have entered into the agreement, figuring out how much is owed is not simple. You can't just look to the contract.Here's a trivial example: Both parties to an agreement believe a truck contains 5,000 pounds of cherries and both believe that $2/pound is a fair price. They agree to sell the cherries for $10,000, based on their common correct belief that cherries are worth $2/pound and their common mistake belief that the truck contains 5,000 pounds of cherries. If it turns out the scale was broken and the cherries actually weigh 4,500 pounds, how much is "his debt"?
The argument would be that you can't look to the contract because the contract doesn't say what happens if the cherries weigh 4,500 pounds. Everything written in the contract is based on the assumption that the cherries weigh 5,000 pounds. (Unless it contains some clause about the weight, of course.) Here, it is clearly unjust to enforce the contract as agreed because the agreement was predicated on the shared belief.
The problem with simple rules is that sometimes you don't have simple cases.