Topic: Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett - page 6. (Read 39308 times)

Where do you get the idea that Mircea CLAIMED Patrick's portfolio was free of pirate debt? He never said: "Patrick, your portfolio contains no pirate debt, I can guarantee that to you." nor "Patrick, you have paid my withdrawal to me instantly."

He's stating: "I agree to pay for what you offer to deliver: Instant withdrawal, X% interest, no Pirate exposure."

The seller is the only one to blame for not delivering. The buyer never led Patrick to believe his portfolio had no pirate exposure, partially leading to Patrick's loaning practices and partially causing the loss. No "common mistake" applicable.

Patrick claimed that he would:
- Honor withdrawals instantly
- Pay X% interest
- He can pay if pirate default because he is not invested in BS&T

Mircea agreed that the terms of Patrick offered to deliver satisfied him, he did not claim Patrick's statements were truths. He accepted that he'd pay for what Patrick said he'd deliver and Patrick didn't deliver, which makes him in debt for breach of contract. He can't keep the deposits/share the loss.


--------------

He wasn't hit by a bus and has the mean to pay out of pocket.

He has the financial means to repay more of his debt but won't pay it of his pocket/reduce his lifestyle to do it although he guaranteed instant withdrawal and that he's in debt. I don't think he can't meet his obligations. I'm claiming he is unwilling to.

I'm making that statement because this forum is a private one owned by theymos and he's free to apply whatever rules he wants as to how to apply tags. His "private club", his free speech as to how to attribute tags. Those tags don't hold any legal value.

Replace "I borrow more money" with "I sell fake branded goods I claim are legitimate from the back of my van".

Of course. The resolution has to be equitable to both parties.

If you don't think the mistake was fundamental enough to constitute common mistake, which is a reasonable position given that the precise terms of the agreement are vague, then Patrick has a counter-claim against those who loaned him money precisely because the contract does obligate him to pay for their mistake.

Read the transcript, particularly the "well that works" part. The parties agreed that Patrick's business model left his loan portfolio free of significant correlated risk.

Aug 10 08:10:17   in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that
Aug 10 08:10:41   mainly because the 15,500 coins I hold on deposit are not invest in BS&T
Aug 10 08:10:56   well that works. i'd like to put 500 bitcoins with you

Here Patrick made the mistake of missing the issue of *indirect* Pirate risk. And MP agreed with him. This is inexcusable on both sides since the whole point of this conversation was MP trying to minimize indirect Pirate risk.

Quote from: Namworld on November 14, 2012, 07:01:51 PM

If it's forum policy to allow people in default that have the means to pay back debt to pay it back instead at a rate they are comfortable with, even if that was not in the agreement, than fair enough. I do not make the policies.

I will agree with that as long as balances are paid out within reasonable delays, for this case, whether it is out of his pocket or otherwise, so long as all his debt ends up being paid.

I think this really is overly generous. I guess it comes down to whether you think a "scammer" tag is appropriate even if it isn't clear there was any intent to defraud, even if there was reckless conduct that resulted in the person owing money they cannot pay back even close to the amount and rate that would be considered fair.

I guess it comes down to this question: If I borrow money to go on vacation and then when I get back I get hit by a bus, lose my job, and can only pay tiny amounts of money over long periods of time, do I deserve a "scammer" tag? In my opinion, the answer should be "yes". The scammer tag should just indicate a person who can't meet their obligations.

But in any event, it won't matter in this specific case because of Kraken. Certainly if after getting hit by a bus, I borrow more money that I can't pay back, ...

Quote from: Coinoisseur on November 14, 2012, 06:56:05 PM

Was there a contractually defined default clause? If there was I missed it.

That's the big question.

You have to imagine that instead of "well that works", MP had responded: "Say it turns out that lots of people are borrowing money from you to invest in Pirate and lying about it, and say Pirate shortly defaults and pays not one single bitcoin, and many of the people you loaned money to just refuse to pay you back since you can't sue them and they aren't willing to make lifestyle sacrifices to satisfy a debt that can't be enforced in a court of law. Will you and you wife make the sacrifices to personally ensure I get 100% of my money back, plus interest?"

What do you think Patrick would have said?

If it's forum policy to allow people in default that have the means to pay back debt to pay it back instead at a rate they are comfortable with, even if that was not in the agreement, than fair enough. I do not make the policies.

I will agree with that as long as balances are paid out within reasonable delays, for this case, whether it is out of his pocket or otherwise, so long as all his debt ends up being paid.

Was there a contractually defined default clause? If there was I missed it. Just checkout this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/payment-not-delivered-by-r-for-work-rendered-94734

If a debtor is paying the trend has been to allow time for resolution before attaching the scammer tag. I presume this is based on the reasonable logic that someone with a scammer tag is less likely to try to make good than someone trying to avoid a scammer tag.

Regarding Patrick vs the PPTs: Accusing Patrick of lying about what he thought his Pirateat40 exposure was is on par with accusing the PPTs of knowing Pirateat40 was a scam. Requires evidence.

I do think the Kraken Fund + not answering the moderators in regard to his operations is a good reason to give him the tag.

No, because they claimed no responsibility and they were clear they would strictly deposit money for them with Pirate and charge them a part of the % given by pirate for the "service of depositing". They fully delivered on all their claims. All those operators claims were found to be true and delivered upon, which makes the arrangement valid.

Patrick on the other hand claimed to offer instant withdrawal and x% interest on deposits. He did not deliver not because he can't but because he is unwilling to pay the debt he incurred in full from his own pocket. Which makes it not a default but a scam. He neither delivers all his claim as per agreement nor refunds the funds he received for the agreement.

Pretty much.

Was referring to this. ^

I definitely think this particular scammer request is a lot more grey than the Kraken Fund one. Might as well give all the PPT operators scammer tags, even those that were very clear they take no responsibility from the get go. Their defaults are just as opaque as Patrick's. Given there is currently not a "Debtor" or "In Default" tag it probably is for the best to slap a scarlet scammer on it all.

Edit: Also he seems to be dodging answering any questions in regards to his various dealings. Something else he shares with other questionable operators.

No, but they (the forum) should ban the one who went away with the money. Not people being similar to that person...

Zeeks, I'm not sure how you could read more than a few posts in Scam Accusations without noticing how the scammed have often taken no measures to protect their investments. Would you hand $500 cash to a guy at Starbucks in a trench coat and a Guy Fawkes mask because he promises to mail you $600? If you do and you never get the $600 then yes that person was a scammer but it's not the fault of Starbucks for letting the guy into their establishment. "Hey Starbucks you should ban trenchcoats and guy fawkes masks!" Ok, they do. But you lose $500 the next week from a guy in a hawaiian shirt and not sure if real Magnum P.I. mustache...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/can-police-trace-a-money-pak-coincleaner-scammed-500-121119

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--124195

There's people with deep pockets and there's real business going on in BTC land. You just have to sift through all the crap.

"Technical"...well, everything's technical, what else is there, religious? No ty.

The guy lied to get money. Once he got the money he disappeared. What more is there?

I can only speak for myself but I found my way to this subforum because of the name on the forum list. "Scams?" I thought, "Better take a look at that especially since I am considering ideas for a site based around visitors using Bitcoins."

Now I have read back many pages of the Scam forum and a great many threads and threads referenced from those threads as well as outside sources. What I have found is a community which seems to almost foster scamming and defaulting because by the time any action is taken (in this case the token "SCAMMER" tag) it is always far too late and the person is gone with all the money they are going to take. Furthermore, whenever it is someone who has been very active in the community is called into question even with an open and shut example of being extremely shady and deserving of the sole punishment around here there is always someone posting nonstop in the thread to muddy things up just like Joel has done in this one. It also has seemingly been a member of the forum staff in the past in an effort to shift any blame away from themselves.

As a whole this has sort of opened my eyes and I am rethinking how I will approach any Bitcoin endeavours. I am now thinking that any site I work on in my spare time ought to live on the backburner until the community surrounding this very technologically interesting currency matures a bit more and is willing to stop being so welcoming to scams, extremely shoddy business ethics and cronyism. After all, there is plenty of that in the offline world and I don't see the need to get invested with Bitcoins just to double dip my exposure to such things.

The question at hand is that Patrick did not honor some promises he made although he can still reimburse more. The debt for the deposits is his, regardless of what he do with the funds afterward. He did not present it as an investment/co-venture.

He offered to pay people X% interest on funds extended to him. He stopped although he still has personal assets he could pay his debt with.

Patrick did not deliver on his claims, so he's not entitled to the deposits. He's now in debt and yet will not pay personally for his debt.

All deposits should be regarded as loaned funds. Can you provide any evidence that it was clear an investment was being made and that people were not lending him funds on that % he offered on deposits? The way he presented things seems to indicate he was borrowing funds to run his loaning business and offered X% on balances, just like deposits at a bank. That Patrick's investments went bad does not concern the depositor, just as a bank's investments would not. Patrick/the Bank fully own the debt.

The issue is now that he guaranteed withdrawal, still has personal wealth, and willingly refuse to dispose of it to reimburse his personal debt.

my experience here is that mods will gladly apply the scammer tag when it is clear one user defrauded another.

It's not so clear cut when you make a bad investment choices. 

That's your problem.

No you just have to be an idiot and make the forum administrators lose bitcoins.  If you are popular and can claim ignorance, then you are free to scam.

Love it when the Jr. members pop up with these comments.   Where do they come from?   

Apparently yes

So what exactly do you need to do around these lands to get a scammer tag? Send a video from the Bahamas while drinking a pina colada with a little umbrella that says "Haha! I scammed you, you gullible idiots"?

I mean, seriously? Do you guys want a signed, notarized meas-culpa, written in blood?

Ah, but he does not receive a scammer tag for being in debt when there's no bad faith. He would get one because he operated as himself and that it is his personal debt and that himself has personal funds but of course won't reduce his lifestyle significantly to repay his debt. Which would technically make it a scam for refusing to depart with his assets to repay his debt which he claimed he would honor instantly.

It's purely technical. As long as he recover funds or repays it out of his pocket over time, I'm fine with it. But he willingly goes against one of his claim which would technically deserve a scammer tag. (It's his personal debt and he does not allow instant withdrawal/full repayment, even if he has personal assets to spare.)