The pirate ponzi fiasco - page 7. | Bitcointalksearch.org

BIGMERVE

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: BitBlitz on August 29, 2012, 12:26:55 PM

Quote from: BIGMERVE on August 29, 2012, 12:04:10 PM

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.

Pirate could've really f-d the PPTs over by claiming he repaid them, and left the PPT ~~investors~~suckers wondering *who* really has their bitcoins.

This would be easy to prove/disprove with blockchain.info. Although the shit-storm would be a blast to watch.

n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Quote from: freeAgent on August 29, 2012, 12:23:49 PM

It sounds like Pirate's plan was to take victims' Bitcoin and use it for higher than market-rate payouts at GPUMAX. In return, he got coins which could not necessarily/easily be traced to him. He planned to make up the difference by manipulating/playing the currency conversion market. He planned to be a net seller on highs and then buy up more than he sold for less in USD after he crashed the exchange rate. Unfortunately for Pirate, the market didn't go his way. Either it outgrew his influence or people wised up, or he played it poorly and his scheme was up. He found he wasn't able to swing the market enough to buy back the amount of Bitcoin necessary to pay his returns and has now defaulted.

It's likely they he probably has a bunch of "clean" coins from GPUMAX mining that he's hiding as well, but it's definitely not enough to pay everyone back. What remains to be seen is what will happen with GPUMAX now that BTCST has collapsed. I suspect either payouts will 1) drop to below market as Pirate attempts to pay BTCST victims 2) drop to a non-inflated rate now that there's nothing coming into BTCST or 3) it will collapse completely.

Anyway, that's is my theory.

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.

BitBlitz

sr. member

Activity: 285

Merit: 250

Turning money into heat since 2011.

Quote from: BIGMERVE on August 29, 2012, 12:04:10 PM

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.

Pirate could've really f-d the PPTs over by claiming he repaid them, and left the PPT ~~investors~~suckers wondering *who* really has their bitcoins.

freeAgent

sr. member

Activity: 240

Merit: 250

It sounds like Pirate's plan was to take victims' Bitcoin and use it for higher than market-rate payouts at GPUMAX. In return, he got coins which could not necessarily/easily be traced to him. He planned to make up the difference by manipulating/playing the currency conversion market. He planned to be a net seller on highs and then buy up more than he sold for less in USD after he crashed the exchange rate. Unfortunately for Pirate, the market didn't go his way. Either it outgrew his influence or people wised up, or he played it poorly and his scheme was up. He found he wasn't able to swing the market enough to buy back the amount of Bitcoin necessary to pay his returns and has now defaulted.

It's likely they he probably has a bunch of "clean" coins from GPUMAX mining that he's hiding as well, but it's definitely not enough to pay everyone back. What remains to be seen is what will happen with GPUMAX now that BTCST has collapsed. I suspect either payouts will 1) drop to below market as Pirate attempts to pay BTCST victims 2) drop to a non-inflated rate now that there's nothing coming into BTCST or 3) it will collapse completely.

Anyway, that's is my theory.

BIGMERVE

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: JoelKatz on August 29, 2012, 06:51:55 AM

Quote from: Sp0tter on August 28, 2012, 11:00:51 PM

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.

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

Quote from: Snapman on August 28, 2012, 10:52:21 PM

Well, time to break out the bubbly, its official.

You guys got ripped off... Same with you pass-throughers, gotta have some real balls to build a pt over a ponzi scheme.

Finally, a place to place the image I found the other day.

bbit

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1000

Bitcoin

Quote from: Snapman on August 28, 2012, 10:52:21 PM

Well, time to break out the bubbly, its official.

You guys got ripped off... Same with you pass-throughers, gotta have some real balls to build a pt over a ponzi scheme.

hahaha......

wrend

member

Activity: 76

Merit: 10

Please vote in the pole:
Is pirate considered a scammer by Bitcoin community?

do you think pirate@40 should get a scammer tag?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/is-pirate-considered-a-scammer-by-bitcoin-community-pollvoteview-results-104322

No
Yes
Who is Pirate
I don't care
Yes, at least until he pays.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: Sp0tter on August 28, 2012, 11:00:51 PM

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.)

BlackBison

sr. member

Activity: 250

Merit: 250

come on mods just tag him and be done with it.

but dont give it to the pass through ops- maybe create a 'stupidity tag' for them..

wrend

member

Activity: 76

Merit: 10

Quote from: Snapman on August 28, 2012, 11:25:37 PM

Quote from: theymos on August 28, 2012, 11:16:40 PM

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on August 28, 2012, 10:53:39 PM

and yet they still haven't given him the scammer tag. Huh

WTF !!!

There are still some very reasonable people who think he'll pay back most/all of the BTC. If he loses both Matthew's bet and Vandroiy's bet and he hasn't at least started a reasonable repayment plan, I'll give him the scammer tag. (It's only symbolic at this point, anyway -- no one's going to be tricked into trading with someone involved in such a high-profile controversy.)

Passthrough operators will not get scammer tags unless they broke explicit contracts.

The key word of your statment.... they "THINK" he will pay back, so far thinking hasn't done much all that good. We all thought pirate was a truthworthy fellow, and we all see how that went.

Thinking doesnt pay the bills (unless your using your ideas for movies like porno), hell it doesnt even mine bitcoin.... Thinking only makes 7% possible for a short period of time Tongue

Then in comes the 100% pirate bankers fee....

Pirate broke explicit contracts.

swissmate

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: repentance on August 29, 2012, 05:28:03 AM

Quote from: swissmate on August 29, 2012, 04:46:56 AM

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

SpontaneousDisorder

member

Activity: 87

Merit: 10

Can he have a "ponzi legend" tag instead?

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: swissmate on August 29, 2012, 04:46:56 AM

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.

swissmate

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

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.

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Snapman on August 29, 2012, 01:31:59 AM

Are You Not Entertained?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs

If RICO was brought in, they would take out half the users in this forum....

Off course. Those operating large scale scams know damned well that many of their users are evading tax or committing other financial offences and are therefore highly unlikely to go crying to the authorities.

Bitcoin Oz

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Wat

Quote from: Snapman on August 29, 2012, 01:31:59 AM

Are You Not Entertained?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs

If RICO was brought in, they would take out half the users in this forum....

Yeah they would go further than just this one scam and declare bitcoin itself as a money laundering vehicle.

Snapman

sr. member

Activity: 291

Merit: 250

BTCRadio Owner

Are You Not Entertained?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs

If RICO was brought in, they would take out half the users in this forum....

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Snapman on August 29, 2012, 12:07:21 AM

Quote from: theymos on August 28, 2012, 11:41:05 PM

BTW, the forum has lots of good IP addresses logged for pirateat40 (he never used Tor) and 4077 PMs to/from him. This should help the investigation. I'd prefer to release this stuff privately to police, though I may release it publicly in a few months if no police officers contact me about it.

You will get the same run around so many others have been getting, Bitcoins arent under their jurisdiction.

I've yet to see a single post from anyone who has contacted their state/country's financial/computer crimes/financial intelligence authority and been told that a Bitcoin scam/theft isn't under anyone's jurisdiction. At the moment, the question is whether this is a straight up civil issue or whether it's an actual fraud/theft. If people believe it's a ponzi, then they should be reporting it to whoever handles ponzi investigations in their jurisdiction.

If I was totally convinced I'd never see any of my money and simply wanted to fuck up his shit, I'd be reporting him to FinCEN for probable money laundering, the IRS for probable tax evasion and whoever handles racketeering investigations for probable RICO offences.

People might use the "but Bitcoin" excuse for not reporting shit to the authorities, but it's likely because in many cases they don't want their own financial dealings put under scrutiny - kind of like people don't go to the police when their drug dealer rips them off.

evolve

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

daytrader/superhero

Nah, hes in another thread still taking bets.

Topic: The pirate ponzi fiasco - page 7. (Read 10207 times)