Topic: Who got paid from scammer Matthew N. Wright famous bet : 0/112 Total 0/79947.58 - page 2. (Read 6385 times)
September 09, 2012, 11:25:06 AM
Scammer tag has been given to Matthew
September 09, 2012, 11:23:02 AM
I bet there will be a repeat of the pirate-default. A lot of FUD and then nothing.
Exactly. What will happen when Matt doesn't pay? Nothing at all. And THAT is his lesson to the community.
No, the lesson is don't be stupid with your money [...]
If you want to pay someone to protect you with charge back functionality, let me direct you to some of these fabulous services.
https://www.paypal.com/
http://www.mastercard.com/index.html
http://usa.visa.com/index.html
September 09, 2012, 11:12:02 AM
I bet there will be a repeat of the pirate-default. A lot of FUD and then nothing.
Exactly. What will happen when Matt doesn't pay? Nothing at all. And THAT is his lesson to the community.
No, the lesson is don't be stupid with your money [...]
September 09, 2012, 10:53:38 AM
I have not been paid.
Ditto. I'll give it an hour. Hopefully theymos is on the scammer tag business and we can go find his house. 
September 09, 2012, 10:52:24 AM
I have not been paid.
September 09, 2012, 10:46:00 AM
Still it wasn't completely useless, I did learn I should never do business with myrkul, as he seem to think that evading the intent of the agreement is ok as long as you don't evade the technical requirements. Thanks.
No, I will hold to the spirit, as well as the letter, of any deal I make. Because I don't expect matt to isn't indication that I wouldn't.
As you said, the use of "contract" here is excessive.
September 09, 2012, 10:44:24 AM
Good job......... Now where is my dollar 
September 09, 2012, 10:40:18 AM
Litecoin at least doesnt have one scammer with 2.5% of all the coins in existence.
What 500K? The 500K was simply paper profits. It never existed. If you think the 500K existed you must think Pirate now has 640K BTC and in a month he 838K BTC and in a year he will have will have 28.2 million BTC.
Pirate never had and likely never will have 500K BTC. Hell Pirate probably was enough of a retard that all his profit from the ponzi-passthrough was in the zeek ponzi when it collapsed. Pirate's coins are being held by other people totally unrelated to the scam. How? He accepted bitcoins, sold them on exchanges and OTC for USD which he like an idiot put into another ponzi calling it a "biz".
BTC moves from weak hands to stronger hands.
September 09, 2012, 10:38:29 AM
I think that Matthew has been working with Al Qaeda this whole time. I almost have enough proof to tie him to the September 11th Terror attacks. I just need to confirm if he has his pilot's license or not.
September 09, 2012, 10:35:50 AM
The forum post and agreement to enter the bet qualifies as contract. GPG or not doesn't matter.
Contracts need to be signed, or else they're just words.
The signature proves that you agreed to it.
Well no signatures are not required for contracts. When you signed up for cable TV did the CEO of your cable company come over to your house and sign the contract in person? I am guessing not. You will do have a service contract with the cable company.
Still the use of the word contract is this case is likely excessive. Matt had an agreement, an agreement that he failed to honor. Yeah I am going to go way out of the limb and say neither Pirate nor Matt are going to pay giant sums they never had the intent of repaying in the next however many minutes remain.
Still it wasn't completely useless, I did learn I should never do business with myrkul, as he seem to think that evading the intent of the agreement is ok as long as you don't evade the technical requirements. Thanks.
September 09, 2012, 10:31:28 AM
Well, I can't say that the most successful bitcoin ventures haven't consisted of hacking, stealing and defrauding people. It's easy, risk free and extremely lucrative. Kind of too good to be true. 
If it's true and people don't find a way to make it more risky (find and punish some of the criminals, for instance), I guess Bitcoin would constitute a negative sum game in which all honest participants lose. I wonder how long such a thing could last.
If it's true and people don't find a way to make it more risky (find and punish some of the criminals, for instance), I guess Bitcoin would constitute a negative sum game in which all honest participants lose. I wonder how long such a thing could last.
Its pretty much dead for me now for that reason.
Im not interested in promoting a system where the richest people are scammers and my efforts go towards making them richer. I may as well use fiat in that case
Litecoin at least doesnt have one scammer with 2.5% of all the coins in existence.
September 09, 2012, 08:02:44 AM
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oral?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
Oral herp derp.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oral?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
Oral herp derp.
Was pointing out things don't need to be singed to be binding. Especially if witnessed which Matthew's bet has been by many people. You can agrue semantics but you just come off as a douche, especially with the dictionary link in true 14 year old internet king style. Replace oral with verbal and see what you find, here I'll even help you "written or spoken".
My point is that you shouldn't trust the words of an anonymous person on the internet. Matt could easily claim he was hacked, and never agreed to any of that. Why? Because the "contract" wasn't signed. There's no proof that he agreed to it. Yes, a verbal agreement can be binding. If you can prove it was me that said what I said (a third party as witness is usually sufficient). Anybody sit over Matt's shoulder and watch him post that bet?
Just in case it got lost in the shuffle, I'm not saying Matt's bet is void. But the fact that you consider an internet forum post binding and worthy of making financial decisions upon is just fucking laughable.
September 09, 2012, 08:02:02 AM
2 pages of irrelevant crap as expected
Closing the thread until the time is up and heads can roll... or not.
Closing the thread until the time is up and heads can roll... or not.
September 09, 2012, 07:53:06 AM
Well, I can't say that the most successful bitcoin ventures haven't consisted of hacking, stealing and defrauding people. It's easy, risk free and extremely lucrative. Kind of too good to be true.
If it's true and people don't find a way to make it more risky (find and punish some of the criminals, for instance), I guess Bitcoin would constitute a negative sum game in which all honest participants lose. I wonder how long such a thing could last.
If it's true and people don't find a way to make it more risky (find and punish some of the criminals, for instance), I guess Bitcoin would constitute a negative sum game in which all honest participants lose. I wonder how long such a thing could last.
Its pretty much dead for me now for that reason.
Im not interested in promoting a system where the richest people are scammers and my efforts go towards making them richer. I may as well use fiat in that case
Litecoin at least doesnt have one scammer with 2.5% of all the coins in existence.
September 09, 2012, 07:52:53 AM
If it's true and people don't find a way to make it more risky (find and punish some of the criminals, for instance), I guess Bitcoin would constitute a negative sum game in which all honest participants lose. I wonder how long such a thing could last.
It's a bit like playing in a rigged poker game. Eventually the honest players realise what's going on and leave the table, leaving the stunned co-conspirators aghast that no one wants to play with them any more. Bitcoin tends to hit the popular media for all the wrong reasons (drugs / hacks / scams). People wanting to use it for something else may wonder if there's any point. We don't want to head down that road.
September 09, 2012, 07:52:45 AM
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oral?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
Oral herp derp.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oral?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
Oral herp derp.
Was pointing out things don't need to be singed to be binding. Especially if witnessed which Matthew's bet has been by many people. You can agrue semantics but you just come off as a douche, especially with the dictionary link in true 14 year old internet king style. Replace oral with verbal and see what you find, here I'll even help you "written or spoken".
September 09, 2012, 07:50:02 AM
Well, I can't say that the most successful bitcoin ventures haven't consisted of hacking, stealing and defrauding people. It's easy, risk free and extremely lucrative. Kind of too good to be true.
If it's true and people don't find a way to make it more risky (find and punish some of the criminals, for instance), I guess Bitcoin would constitute a negative sum game in which all honest participants lose. I wonder how long such a thing could last.
If it's true and people don't find a way to make it more risky (find and punish some of the criminals, for instance), I guess Bitcoin would constitute a negative sum game in which all honest participants lose. I wonder how long such a thing could last.
Its pretty much dead for me now for that reason.
Im not interested in promoting a system where the richest people are scammers and my efforts go towards making them richer. I may as well use fiat in that case
Litecoin at least doesnt have one scammer with 2.5% of all the coins in existence.
September 09, 2012, 07:46:23 AM
So Matt lost? I want me bit dollar
September 09, 2012, 07:45:24 AM
The forum post and agreement to enter the bet qualifies as contract. GPG or not doesn't matter.
Contracts need to be signed, or else they're just words.
The signature proves that you agreed to it.
I guess you never heard of oral contracts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract
Quote
In general, oral contracts are just as valid as written ones
just words, herp derp.
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oral?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
Oral herp derp.
September 09, 2012, 07:41:38 AM
The forum post and agreement to enter the bet qualifies as contract. GPG or not doesn't matter.
Contracts need to be signed, or else they're just words.
The signature proves that you agreed to it.
I guess you never heard of oral contracts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract
Quote
In general, oral contracts are just as valid as written ones
just words, herp derp.
Jump to: