Topic: Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett - page 4. (Read 39244 times)

Repentance, I guess now you have to make amends. I don't think any mods lost money in Kraken/Starfish.

Well even if you don't think he's a scammer, there's no "incompetent moron" tag yet so the scammer one will have to do.

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?!

He got the tag...

Also, on why the interest needs to be paid as well to consider the debt fully paid and not just the principal, beyond the obvious "honor the contract as stated" thing: Time is money, and investments made in one place can't simultaneously be invested in another.  If the money is not paid back, not only is that obviously robbing the person of their initial principal, but it's robbing that person of the gains they could have potentially made by investing the money elsewhere, but instead invested there.  That interest represents the time that the money they invested was tied up in their investments and not available to them, and guaranteeing an interest rate over that period makes you just as responsible for repaying that interest as the principal itself.

This applies to pretty much every other guaranteed interest rate lending nonsense here too.

agree.  all this wrangling about precedents and narrow legal interpretations in such-and-such jurisdiction (the whole 'common mistake' discussion) is irrelevant to THIS community.  In simple terms, he didn't hold his end of the bargain.  Done.

Exactly.

Except I simply believe the mistake is not common and Patrick still owes the deposits for promising it with no conditional clause to execute said promise.

Patrick to depositor:
 - (X) You can withdraw anytime.
   - (Y) Because I can cover it.
     - (Y2) Because I make non BS&T loans to people.

Is the same as

Lendee to bank
 - (X) I will repay the loan.
   - (Y) Because I can pay for it.
     - (Y2) Because I have a business providing income.

The persons extending funds do not accept the arguments to directly prove that X can be made true because X can only be true once it becomes realized. (X) is fulfilled only if (X) is fulfilled. Any argument you can make can point toward that (X) will be fullfilled but cannot prove (X) will be fulfilled. They never accept to take any risk related to the arguments or that they can actually lead to X. Just the the borrower has made its case and we'll extend the fund.

Yes, I agree 100% with the rest of what you've just said however, including non-enforceability of those contract (Not because the contract was not legal but because you can hardly provide proof you entered that agreement. Patrick paid 5% per month or 60% per year which would have been the limit before breaching usury legislation, at least in my case.) That they didn't sign the contract and insufficient investigation is the mistake the depositors made when deciding to extend deposits to Patrick. They'd have a hard time proving it but it is still a verbal contract. You can call them whatever you want for putting themselves in that situation.

But Patrick's mistake is promising what he could not end up delivering and binding himself into the promise of repaying deposits without any conditional clause to protect him. Had he not created such a contractual offer and advertised it and exploited his business as he did, he would not have incurred the loss. Patrick created his loss when he willingly took responsibility for that potential loss by making a promise to repay his debt anytime. The lendee will still owe his debt even if he told the lender he wanted to use his loan for his business that does Y. It concerns not the lender that the lendee lose the deposit in his business other than it hinders the repayment of his funded he loaned to Patrick.

Had Patrick stated he would pay back deposits anytime IF not too many lendees defaulted, I'd input the full blame on lendees for the loss of funds and blamed Patrick and the Depositor conjointly for getting themselves conjointly into accepting the risk of lendees defaulting. But the depositor never accepted that.

You are suggesting he had a change of character? Doesn't it seem more likely that you just misjudged his character?

I agree. Post Kraken, a scammer. Pre Kraken, incompetent.

As I said before, it's this simple:

1) There's no way to enforce these loans in any court of law. That means if people have any reason not to repay, they won't repay. Many people won't sacrifice their real-world lifestyle and bank accounts to repay a bitcoin loan that can't be enforced anyway. Walking away is just too easy.

2) Borrowing from Patrick to invest in Pirate seemed like too good a deal, especially since people knew they could just default on Patrick without consequences. No method would prevent this, short of actually tracking what each person did with the bitcoins, which nobody would agree to and everyone knew Patrick wasn't going to do.

Not realizing this makes Patrick incompetent. However, it is important to remember that this should have been equally obvious to those who loaned Patrick money. So they too are incompetent, and their incompetence harmed Patrick just as Patrick's incompetence harmed them.

If people invested money with Patrick, then unless he can return 100% of the principal as well as any interest promised while his business was operational, then he should be labeled either a scammer or incompetent.

Celebrating two weeks since this thread was posted, three weeks or something since the last mockery masquerading as a "payment" (less than weekly interest owed) and about the same since the scammer disappeared.

Wow that is bad. I really don't like that that is possible.

Nothing shady about it and I made a thread announcing it when it happened. Anyone can message Theymos and get their name changed, and I havent ripped anyone off personally only become liable because I sent some asshole bitcoins for a site he stole.

X was never promised because Y. Otherwise by arguing that you can repay the loan (X) because you have a stable job (Y), you're not making to your bank the promise to repay the loan, you're strictly making the promise to the bank of having a stable job, not that you will repay the loan.

You agreed that in the case of the lendee stating he could repay a loan because he had a stable business or assets, the bank is not at common fault for considering his arguments sufficient.

The party does not accept that X is true because Y is true. The bank doesn't loan on the promise to repay the loan (X) because the argument he has a stable job (Y) inherently makes X (the actual promise) to be true. He just agrees that the Ys argued are sufficient to expect the other to honor his promise. When he states X because Y, he never strictly promised that he had a stable job to the bank. He's trying to provide reasons for the bank to believe him when he says he can repay the loan (X) which is what he actually promises. Both party cannot foresee the future events that would make the promise (X) an absolute truth that will be executed.

The Ys can be factual, but are strictly provided as arguments to convince the promise X can be honored. They are not provided as premises that can guarantee the conclusion (that the promise X can be held true.) Ys are there to convince that the promise X can potentially be true. Not that Y being true automatically cause X to be true. The parties are not attempting to establish logical truths which are impossible. Both party cannot foresee the future events that would make the promise (X) an absolute truth that will be executed before the party promising it executes or sees it becoming a fact as he promised, rendering it a truth through the direct realization of that promise.

I will repay the loan(X) only if I repay the loan (X). The deposit pay X% and can be instantly withdrawn (X) only if the deposit pay X% and can be instantly withdrawn (X). No arguments can prove those Xs to be absolutely true other than X becoming an accomplished fact. I don't see how you can assume that someone should not accept any arguments Y until such arguments proves without a doubt the conclusion the promise X will be executed because that is simply impossible. As such, no arguments can be contractual. By stating "because", he his arguing why he possibly can execute the promise. He cannot prove his promise will happen with any argument. Had he used the word "if", he would have made a conditional promise that he would honor his promise IF and only IF another event holds to be true.

By making a promise (X), you establish that it will be executed because it will be executed. Any arguments (Y)s are strictly there to point toward the fact you possibly can make (X) be a truth as you promised and for convincing the other party in that matter.

This is cute, Dave Hollis aka noagendamarket aka bitcoin.me somehow managed to change his forum name to Bitcoin Oz. I wasn't aware the forum allowed people to change their name in order to evade their shady past. Is a donation of merit involved?


This is exactly how the scammers win: they gang together, drown legitimate discourse and well...Meni Ronsenfeld avoids all responsibility for the scam he pushed. He makes an "unofficial claim thread" and a "vanity thread" where he mentions nothing of his scammy past, he's scott free.

This guy runs off with what looks like 10-20k btc, has his buddies here busily filling in the pages with meaningless crap, theymos states he doesn't read the proof but knows the scammer is an ok bro, he's scott free.

Same story with Nefario, same story all around.

The good news for anyone other than the scammer circlejerk (lucratively supported by people such as theymos) is that this stuff is never going away.

I will hold it against you, all of you, until the end of time.


There was no debate. Overwhelming proof that PatrickHarnett is a scammer was presented. Some shills tried to derail the discussion, and are still trying. Theymos stated his support for this scammer.

It is actually a quite interesting debate about common mistake in contract law, accountability and general arguments for moral opinions of how things should be accounted for. Not so much about the scammer tag which Patrick will almost certainly receive for another case. The thread seems to be mostly dead other than this debate.

JoelKatz, perhaps you would agree to pursue this debate outside of this forum? It seems we're taking quite some space for something no one else seems to care about.

And as such, Patrick's depositors make the same uncommon mistake as this example in believing his argument to be sufficient to expect him to be able to repay the loan. Not that these arguments were requirements/truths or that the repayment of the deposits were 100% dependent on those arguments. That the borrower spends the money as he said he would or that his arguments were truths does not free the debtor of his debt if a problem occurs.

Yes, I certainly hope people expected there was high risk at extending funds for such high rate. Yes they probably should learn from it. Yes, it could have been foreseen, although you cannot possibly argue that everyone was assured of that. If the person learns from the mistake, good for him/her. High returns, high risks of loss. But that it was risky certainly does not frees Patrick to fill his promised claim: I will honor withdrawals instantly and pay you X% on deposits.

Your statement that "This is false" is void of any valid argument. Please elaborate. Although I must agree it's probably not the best example I could have made to point my case.


I stress again that the arguments are NOT part of the contract just as you have agreed in the above example about the bank.

The doctor factual and contractual claim he made is a promise:
- (Factual) That you will not pay.
- (Argument) because the insurer pays for it. (false)
When his argument proved insufficient to make, he ended up paying because he had to honor is promise of the factual claim the you will not pay.

Patrick similarly made the promise that:
- (Factual) I can cover your deposit (He also made the other promise to pay X% interest)
- (Argument) because I have sufficient assets which are not invested in BS&T. (true)
When that argument proved insufficient to make his factual promise to held true, he still owes to fulfill that contractual claim.

The same way you agreed about the borrower of a bank that:
- (Factual) I can repay the loan
- (Argument) because I have a good credit rating. (true)
- (Argument) because I have a stable job. (true)
- (Argument) because I have enough assets to cover the loan should problems arise. (true)
Even if his arguments are true and the bank granted the loan, he did not make the same mistake as the bank. His arguments do not make the factual promise true and he has to respect what he promised.

In all these case the two parties make the same different mistake. One makes the factual promise and bring arguments (which can be factual (true) or not) that this promise is realizable, the other accept their arguments as sufficient to expect that promise to be achievable. The arguments were never part of the contract as exceptions to the factual claim or reasons not to honor it. When you make a promise, you have to fulfill it or otherwise fulfill it has much as you possibly can, regardless of personal consequences or whatever arguments you brought up to convince the other party to trust you.

Patrick knows what he promised, knows who he owes this promise to and provided no evidence he fulfilled his promise as much as it could possibly fulfill it. As far as I know he has personal asset left an he his willingly not departing with them. So he's not fulfilling his promise as much as he could have. You also agreed that the person accepting the contract is not at at cause for the loss for merely enabling it to occur because he accepted the contract. By accepting the contract of sending Patrick funds, they enabled the people (the lendees) who caused Patrick's losses to cause them. Not the depositors. Patrick is neither willingly causing that loss to himself, but he did create the loss to depositor by making the promise he could cover their deposits when it ended up he could not. The depositors lost funds because they lended them on Patrick's promise that he could cover them and pay X% fixed interest.

DEBATE IS OVER.   LETS ALL MOVE ON.  

Neither side is going to concede, that much is clear.   

^^^

I lost track, wasn't it about someone getting hit with a cherry truck and going to the doctor but it wasn't covered by insurance so somehow it's the cherry grower's fault for not being in the D.C. area? 

I say give the truck driver a scammer tag.