Topic: Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett - page 3. (Read 39315 times)
The Kraken shit kind of made it moot to argue about whether his intentions might have been honorable on this other stuff, since Kraken was a brazen scam. However, I think his earlier actions can certainly be judged in the light that a person who would perpetrate the Kraken scam was probably never trustworthy in the first place.
He got the tag because of Kraken.
Scammer-tagged. He is obviously guilty of breaking his contracts here and in the MPOE-PR case, and he apparently hasn't been talking to his victims or arranging repayments. The tag can maybe be removed if he negotiates a reasonable repayment plan and makes payments for a while.
Apparently for both.
Congratulations to JoelKatz and Namworld. You both made a remarkable example of philosophical debate over the evidence available. I suspect the your recent posts were decisive to issue the scammer tag.
(...)
...and MPOE-PR, improve your speech, it is annoying and offensive. You can do better than that.
(...)
...and MPOE-PR, improve your speech, it is annoying and offensive. You can do better than that.
He got the tag because of Kraken.
Maybe next time people will ask for a credit report before loaning money to a stranger. That is what they are for.
For the record, his credit report used to look fine.
If he hasn't defaulted on anything which gets reported to credit reporting agencies, it still will.
Maybe next time people will ask for a credit report before loaning money to a stranger. That is what they are for.
For the record, his credit report used to look fine.
Maybe next time people will ask for a credit report before loaning money to a stranger. That is what they are for.
Please don't give the starfish any ideas for his next ratings adventure.
Okay then. Either a scammer or a fool. Now we are really on the same page! I always described these types as "either a scammer or an idiot."
They are usually observationally equivalent.
Hmmm. I wonder why you choose "fool", while I choose "idiot." To me "fool" sounds slightly more polite.
I usually reserve "idiot" for those who invest with fools. They are usually observationally equivalent.
Hmmm. I wonder why you choose "fool", while I choose "idiot." To me "fool" sounds slightly more polite.
I assure you, I wasn't trying to be polite. I genuinely think Patrick was an idiot at the beginning, and gradually shifted to scammer as the amounts got larger and he started to realize how high the risks were.
From the beginning, my argument was essentially this: Either Patrick was making decent profits, or he wasn't. If he was making decent profits, his first order of business, if he's not an idiot, would be to pay down his outrageously usurious debt. Yet he was taking on more and more of it. So either he's an idiot, and only fools invest with idiots, or he's not making decent profits. But if he's not making decent profits, why would he take on all this risk and do all this work? It could be because he's an idiot, but again, who wants to invest with an idiot? The most likely other possibility is that he intends to walk away with everyone's money and it sure as hell means he wouldn't honor the guarantee if he suffered huge losses.
In retrospect, I would have made a better argument (more focused on why he wouldn't honor his guarantee). But anyone can make better arguments in hindsight.
I agree with your scenario.
over optimistic fool with very weak integrity -> disappointed fool with very weak integrity -> scammer
Maybe next time people will ask for a credit report before loaning money to a stranger. That is what they are for.
Okay then. Either a scammer or a fool. Now we are really on the same page! I always described these types as "either a scammer or an idiot."
They are usually observationally equivalent.
Hmmm. I wonder why you choose "fool", while I choose "idiot." To me "fool" sounds slightly more polite.
I usually reserve "idiot" for those who invest with fools. They are usually observationally equivalent.
Hmmm. I wonder why you choose "fool", while I choose "idiot." To me "fool" sounds slightly more polite.
I assure you, I wasn't trying to be polite. I genuinely think Patrick was an idiot at the beginning, and gradually shifted to scammer as the amounts got larger and he started to realize how high the risks were.
From the beginning, my argument was essentially this: Either Patrick was making decent profits, or he wasn't. If he was making decent profits, his first order of business, if he's not an idiot, would be to pay down his outrageously usurious debt. Yet he was taking on more and more of it. So either he's an idiot, and only fools invest with idiots, or he's not making decent profits. But if he's not making decent profits, why would he take on all this risk and do all this work? It could be because he's an idiot, but again, who wants to invest with an idiot? The most likely other possibility is that he intends to walk away with everyone's money and it sure as hell means he wouldn't honor the guarantee if he suffered huge losses.
In retrospect, I would have made a better argument (more focused on why he wouldn't honor his guarantee). But anyone can make better arguments in hindsight.
I agree with your scenario.
over optimistic fool with very weak integrity -> disappointed fool with very weak integrity -> scammer
I have always been a strong supporter of Patrick just based on my past dealings with him. Although I can also say the same about one particular other that vanished. I just did not see this coming. When things came down I was owed 300BTC and he always was up front with me and communicated a payment schedule of 100BTC per month and did not miss an interest payment. Thankfully I received the last 100BTC I was owed on 11/9. I consider myself lucky. He might be taking some time away and still can make things right.
Okay then. Either a scammer or a fool. Now we are really on the same page! I always described these types as "either a scammer or an idiot."
They are usually observationally equivalent.
Hmmm. I wonder why you choose "fool", while I choose "idiot." To me "fool" sounds slightly more polite.
I usually reserve "idiot" for those who invest with fools. They are usually observationally equivalent.
Hmmm. I wonder why you choose "fool", while I choose "idiot." To me "fool" sounds slightly more polite.
I assure you, I wasn't trying to be polite. I genuinely think Patrick was an idiot at the beginning, and gradually shifted to scammer as the amounts got larger and he started to realize how high the risks were.
From the beginning, my argument was essentially this: Either Patrick was making decent profits, or he wasn't. If he was making decent profits, his first order of business, if he's not an idiot, would be to pay down his outrageously usurious debt. Yet he was taking on more and more of it. So either he's an idiot, and only fools invest with idiots, or he's not making decent profits. But if he's not making decent profits, why would he take on all this risk and do all this work? It could be because he's an idiot, but again, who wants to invest with an idiot? The most likely other possibility is that he intends to walk away with everyone's money and it sure as hell means he wouldn't honor the guarantee if he suffered huge losses.
In retrospect, I would have made a better argument (more focused on why he wouldn't honor his guarantee). But anyone can make better arguments in hindsight.
Well, even if he started out just foolish he definitely was out to save his own skin with the Kraken fund. Not sure if we will hear from Patrick again on the forums, he stopped logging in right around when the frustrated posts popped up in this section.
Post Kraken, a scammer. Pre Kraken, incompetent.
You are suggesting he had a change of character? Doesn't it seem more likely that you just misjudged his character?I did think he was a scammer from the beginning. Now I'm not so sure he wasn't just deluded in the beginning, thinking the risk was low. And perhaps even intending to honor his personal guarantee at first and then not realizing that there was no way he could once the amounts started to increase. When things went bad, he sold out his investors to save his own funds.
Okay then. Either a scammer or a fool. Now we are really on the same page! I always described these types as "either a scammer or an idiot."
They are usually observationally equivalent.
Hmmm. I wonder why you choose "fool", while I choose "idiot." To me "fool" sounds slightly more polite.
Post Kraken, a scammer. Pre Kraken, incompetent.
You are suggesting he had a change of character? Doesn't it seem more likely that you just misjudged his character?I did think he was a scammer from the beginning. Now I'm not so sure he wasn't just deluded in the beginning, thinking the risk was low. And perhaps even intending to honor his personal guarantee at first and then not realizing that there was no way he could once the amounts started to increase. When things went bad, he sold out his investors to save his own funds.
Hahahahaha........ called it!
How long before the next scammer gets busted? How many of you are rushing to invest in anotherbank ponzi?
How long before the next scammer gets busted? How many of you are rushing to invest in another
So much for him being "rock-solid" 
Indeed next up for inclusion in the club all the mining bond scammers, should be good for a few more laughs...
So much for him being "rock-solid"
That is that. I hope Patrick pays off his debt so he can have the tag removed.
He got the tag...
Holy shit, He got the tag!, Who slapped that on! I dont feel that Patrick Deserves it!, He is clearly paying other people, There is just THIS one messup and he gets labled a SCAMMER?
He's not a SCAMMER... wtf... Did he go rouge? I dont see any evidence of that... What the fuck guys..
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/patrick-harnett-kraken-fund-124152
^ WTFFFF?!
The evidence suggests that he created Kraken in order to transfer his own toxic pirate debt to others. He literally stated that contributed capital was backed by his personal funds and that any losses would be funded personally. He set the maximum size of the fund at 25,000 BTC so he should have been willing and able to personally cover any losses up to and including that amount.
Congratulations to JoelKatz and Namworld. You both made a remarkable example of philosophical debate over the evidence available. I suspect the your recent posts were decisive to issue the scammer tag.
(...)
...and MPOE-PR, improve your speech, it is annoying and offensive. You can do better than that.
(...)
...and MPOE-PR, improve your speech, it is annoying and offensive. You can do better than that.
He got the tag...
Holy shit, He got the tag!, Who slapped that on! I dont feel that Patrick Deserves it!, He is clearly paying other people, There is just THIS one messup and he gets labled a SCAMMER?
He's not a SCAMMER... wtf... Did he go rouge? I dont see any evidence of that... What the fuck guys..
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/patrick-harnett-kraken-fund-124152
^ WTFFFF?!
If he lied and looks like he did, he deserves the tag.
Jump to: