Pages:
Author

Topic: The pirate ponzi fiasco - page 6. (Read 10207 times)

sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
August 29, 2012, 10:46:06 PM
#53
But you will violate the privacy of people who sent messages to him.  Angry

I'm not going to publicly release the PMs until a few months from now, if ever. I'll create a topic about it then and we can have a public debate.

Honestly I would like to know now. I had no idea you would think it is okay to just send out PM's of not only people you think are guilty but also innocent people!

I'm honestly shocked and will no longer trust you to hold secret personal information Sad



Good, you shouldn't trust anybody with secret personal information--because you don't have to. If you're really worried about the things you say on bitcointalk, or anywhere for that matter... there's an algorithm for that.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Wat
August 29, 2012, 10:44:12 PM
#52
But you will violate the privacy of people who sent messages to him.  Angry

I'm not going to publicly release the PMs until a few months from now, if ever. I'll create a topic about it then and we can have a public debate.

Honestly I would like to know now. I had no idea you would think it is okay to just send out PM's of not only people you think are guilty but also innocent people!

I'm honestly shocked and will no longer trust you to hold secret personal information Sad



He could probably redact names but Im guessing if no payment comes from pirate in a month then a crime investigation will probably be happening. I would be shocked if its not by that point. Of course he cant release it during a criminal investigation either.

sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
August 29, 2012, 10:43:54 PM
#51
PPT operators don't deserve scammer tags at all, in my opinion. They provided a service that useful to those who wished to gamble on a black box investment. If people really want to throw their money at a Ponzi scheme, they should by all means be enabled. And I think a Ponzi scheme is a horrible thing.

I don't blame gas station owners for lung cancer because they sell cigarettes. I don't blame the tobacco farmers. If you wanna smoke, you're going to pay for it later. We tried to tell you.
full member
Activity: 206
Merit: 100
August 29, 2012, 10:40:12 PM
#50
You are going to make PMs public or give it to the police?

I will give them to the police if the police ask for them. Otherwise, I may post them publicly to help people find Pirate and obtain justice.

Pirates are hostis humani generis. Wink I'm not going to preserve the privacy of someone who stole 500,000 BTC.

But you will violate the privacy of people who sent messages to him.  Angry

Hmm.  I wonder if the shills were a little be more candid about being shills when talking with the ringleader?

theymos' position makes a lot a sense to me. Respond to official requests if there are any law enforcement investigations, and if there are not, and if we are on a desert island, and JoelKatz has put it, release the information in such a way to help the depositors recover (which may be a full public release, or something more selective).
administrator
Activity: 5222
Merit: 13032
August 29, 2012, 10:32:50 PM
#49
But you will violate the privacy of people who sent messages to him.  Angry

I'm not going to publicly release the PMs until a few months from now, if ever. I'll create a topic about it then and we can have a public debate.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
August 29, 2012, 10:31:05 PM
#48
You are going to make PMs public or give it to the police?

I will give them to the police if the police ask for them. Otherwise, I may post them publicly to help people find Pirate and obtain justice.

Pirates are hostis humani generis. Wink I'm not going to preserve the privacy of someone who stole 500,000 BTC.

There could be some other information in those messages that might indite other members. It would be like the wikileaks of bitcoin.
administrator
Activity: 5222
Merit: 13032
August 29, 2012, 10:20:09 PM
#47
You are going to make PMs public or give it to the police?

I will give them to the police if the police ask for them. Otherwise, I may post them publicly to help people find Pirate and obtain justice.

Pirates are hostis humani generis. Wink I'm not going to preserve the privacy of someone who stole 500,000 BTC.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
August 29, 2012, 10:06:16 PM
#46
Don't ASSume!
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
August 29, 2012, 09:26:39 PM
#45
Anyway giving PPT operators scammers tags is like giving master card a scammers tag when someone buys lotto tickets with them...
Interesting how you compare a situation with no fraud involved to a situation involving massive fraud.

If a PPT operator knew it was a Ponzi scheme, then weren't they paying Pirate to run the Ponzi scheme and transfer some of the proceeds to them?


You and Theymos assume it is a ponzi.

I said, "If a PPT operator knew it was a Ponzi scheme". If you're going to pretend to reply to me, please address the argument I actually made in the post you're purporting to reply to.

Quote
I do not, I have asked for evidence and you can give none. And proof? Oh lol!

You are like an evolution denier who, no matter how much evidence he is given, insists that he has none until he gets precisely the specific type of evidence he knows does not exist. The evidence is overwhelming, you just choose to stick your fingers in your ears.

For example, here's the SEC's list of signs of a Ponzi scheme. See what matches Pirate:

Quote
    High investment returns with little or no risk. Every investment carries some degree of risk, and investments yielding higher returns typically involve more risk. Be highly suspicious of any “guaranteed” investment opportunity.

    Overly consistent returns. Investments tend to go up and down over time, especially those seeking high returns. Be suspect of an investment that continues to generate regular, positive returns regardless of overall market conditions.

    Unregistered investments. Ponzi schemes typically involve investments that have not been registered with the SEC or with state regulators. Registration is important because it provides investors with access to key information about the company’s management, products, services, and finances.

    Unlicensed sellers. Federal and state securities laws require investment professionals and their firms to be licensed or registered. Most Ponzi schemes involve unlicensed individuals or unregistered firms.

    Secretive and/or complex strategies. Avoiding investments you don’t understand or for which you can’t get complete information is a good rule of thumb.

    Issues with paperwork. Ignore excuses regarding why you can’t review information about an investment in writing, and always read an investment’s prospectus or disclosure statement carefully before you invest. Also, account statement errors may be a sign that funds are not being invested as promised.

    Difficulty receiving payments. Be suspicious if you don’t receive a payment or have difficulty cashing out your investment. Keep in mind that Ponzi scheme promoters sometimes encourage participants to “roll over” promised payments by offering even higher investment returns.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm#RedFlags

This is a 100% perfect match.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
August 29, 2012, 08:48:06 PM
#44
Anyway giving PPT operators scammers tags is like giving master card a scammers tag when someone buys lotto tickets with them...
Interesting how you compare a situation with no fraud involved to a situation involving massive fraud.

If a PPT operator knew it was a Ponzi scheme, then weren't they paying Pirate to run the Ponzi scheme and transfer some of the proceeds to them?
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
August 29, 2012, 07:58:19 PM
#43
So should you be able to sue your stockbroker if the stock you told him to buy on your behalf tanks when all of the information you needed to assess the risk of that stock has been freely available to you?
You're missing the point. The claim is not that PPT operators breached their agreement with their bondholders. The claim is that PPT operators knowingly paid pirate to make them the recipients of fraudulent transfers. (Those of them on record as saying they knew or suspected Pirate was running a Ponzi scheme.)

The liability is like that of a fence who buys property he suspects is likely stolen and then sells it to someone else who also suspects it's stolen. It's not like thieves say to their fences, "You know this property is stolen, right?" The fence just has to suspect it's likely stolen and not look to closely at the fact that the circumstances strongly suggest it's stolen.

If a "stockbroker" helps a woman find a hitman to kill her husband and brokers the deal, he's as guilty of the murder as the hitman is. Yes, even if he kept his deal with the woman by finding a reliable hitman and paying him.
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
August 29, 2012, 07:56:34 PM
#42
Why not give the pass thru's scammer tags? If it weren't for them, the loss wouldn't be nearly as high as it is.. Granted, they didn't control the scam, but I liken it to a bank robbery.. I consider the pass thru's the get-a-way drivers after a bank robbery.. They didn't actually steal the money, but they helped contribute to the theft.......a getaway driver would be just as guilty in a court of law as the ones inside with the guns that were actually stealing the money..

Just a thought..

So should you be able to sue your stockbroker if the stock you told him to buy on your behalf tanks when all of the information you needed to assess the risk of that stock has been freely available to you?
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
August 29, 2012, 07:51:17 PM
#41
Why not give the pass thru's scammer tags? If it weren't for them, the loss wouldn't be nearly as high as it is.. Granted, they didn't control the scam, but I liken it to a bank robbery.. I consider the pass thru's the get-a-way drivers after a bank robbery.. They didn't actually steal the money, but they helped contribute to the theft.......a getaway driver would be just as guilty in a court of law as the ones inside with the guns that were actually stealing the money..

Just a thought..
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
August 29, 2012, 07:45:36 PM
#40
I think the only thing that would make it fraud is if the PPT knew for a fact that BCST was a Ponzi. They would only be committing fraud legally if there was intent or "mens rea".
You don't need to know "for a fact". You just need to know. Any PPT operator who is on record as saying that they think Pirate is operating a Ponzi is a scammer. It's no different from a guy who pays someone $50 for a TV thinking that person will likely steal a TV and give it to them.
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
August 29, 2012, 07:06:00 PM
#39
I think the only thing that would make it fraud is if the PPT knew for a fact that BCST was a Ponzi. They would only be committing fraud legally if there was intent or "mens rea".

I seriously doubt that any users are going to take legal action against the PPT operators anyway because it's likely that the people who were doubling their money every 10 weeks weren't declaring that income (or the BTC they invested in the first place).  In the event that they did, though, some of the operators may be more liable than others if they actively promoted the scheme or acted against the interests of their investors for their own enrichment (the buying up of accounts after pirate defaulted seems to be a real grey area here).

There's also the question of whether PPT could be held liable if they fail to aggressively pursue recovery of client funds from pirate.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
August 29, 2012, 05:42:59 PM
#38
Nobody disputes that the pass through owners are blameless.  They all made it very clear up front that whatever happens happens..
I dispute that. Any PPT owner who can be documented as having stated that they think it's a Ponzi scheme, but who nevertheless operated a PPT, is *not* blameless. They are almost as guilty as Pirate is.

If you go to a guy who you have reason to know steals televisions and give him $40 to get you a television, you're as guilty of the theft as that guy is. PPT operators who can be shown to have stated that they thought it was a Ponzi scheme knowingly paid Pirate to transfer other people's money to them knowing that Pirate collected that money by stating that it would be used for legitimate investments and knowing that such payments to them were not legitimate investments.

The issue is not the arrangement between them and their bondholders. The issue is that they knowingly paid Pirate to make them the recipients of fraudulent transfers, making them an accomplice to that fraud.

(Also, I predict that before this is all over, PPT operators will start breaching their agreements. Already there are whispers of them conspiring with Pirate to absolve themselves of their obligation to pass through payments and force their depositors to obtain their own settlements.)

That doesn't even make sense. The guys giving PPT did not know Pirate was going to run. They all clearly stated that It might be a Ponzi and that any investment in a PPT would be a risk. That doesn't mean they stole peoples money. The PPT can not be put at fault.
Not to be rude, but it looks like you didn't even read what I wrote. Please read the sections I bolded. The problem is that they knowingly paid Pirate to fraudulently transfer other people's money to them. (Note that this only applies to PPT operators who can be documented to have stated that they suspected Pirate was likely operating a Ponzi scheme.)


I think the only thing that would make it fraud is if the PPT knew for a fact that BCST was a Ponzi. They would only be committing fraud legally if there was intent or "mens rea".
sr. member
Activity: 240
Merit: 250
August 29, 2012, 05:12:06 PM
#37

I could buy this theory. As to GPUMAX, I would bet #3, anything and anybody that Pirate was directly involved with, will soon be treated as though it has leprosy.  The Bruce Wagner & ZT effect.

People are still happily joining GPUMax and openly stating that they don't care if pirate owes BS&T users hundreds of thousands of BTC.  Never underestimate the power of human greed and what people are willing to overlook in their quest for riches.

Those people are idiots and enablers.
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
August 29, 2012, 05:07:32 PM
#36

I could buy this theory. As to GPUMAX, I would bet #3, anything and anybody that Pirate was directly involved with, will soon be treated as though it has leprosy.  The Bruce Wagner & ZT effect.

People are still happily joining GPUMax and openly stating that they don't care if pirate owes BS&T users hundreds of thousands of BTC.  Never underestimate the power of human greed and what people are willing to overlook in their quest for riches.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
August 29, 2012, 04:48:19 PM
#35
Nobody disputes that the pass through owners are blameless.  They all made it very clear up front that whatever happens happens..
I dispute that. Any PPT owner who can be documented as having stated that they think it's a Ponzi scheme, but who nevertheless operated a PPT, is *not* blameless. They are almost as guilty as Pirate is.

If you go to a guy who you have reason to know steals televisions and give him $40 to get you a television, you're as guilty of the theft as that guy is. PPT operators who can be shown to have stated that they thought it was a Ponzi scheme knowingly paid Pirate to transfer other people's money to them knowing that Pirate collected that money by stating that it would be used for legitimate investments and knowing that such payments to them were not legitimate investments.

The issue is not the arrangement between them and their bondholders. The issue is that they knowingly paid Pirate to make them the recipients of fraudulent transfers, making them an accomplice to that fraud.

(Also, I predict that before this is all over, PPT operators will start breaching their agreements. Already there are whispers of them conspiring with Pirate to absolve themselves of their obligation to pass through payments and force their depositors to obtain their own settlements.)

That doesn't even make sense. The guys giving PPT did not know Pirate was going to run. They all clearly stated that It might be a Ponzi and that any investment in a PPT would be a risk. That doesn't mean they stole peoples money. The PPT can not be put at fault.
Not to be rude, but it looks like you didn't even read what I wrote. Please read the sections I bolded. The problem is that they knowingly paid Pirate to fraudulently transfer other people's money to them. (Note that this only applies to PPT operators who can be documented to have stated that they suspected Pirate was likely operating a Ponzi scheme.)
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
August 29, 2012, 04:08:40 PM
#34
I think that being 4 days offline is enough to call him a scammer as he should be at least 24 hours after all this.

He's been online. 

Last online August 26, 2012, 03:20:19 PM

He posts mostly on IRC and he's continued doing that.
Pages:
Jump to: