Quote from: copumpkin on July 25, 2012, 02:22:31 PM

I'm the one who was "claiming to have slept with his sister", but that was a long-running joke and who the hell thought that was anything but humor? He's openly admitted (on IRC at least) that he doesn't even have a sister. Please tell me: who has actually, seriously claimed to have met him?

Far too many people. Enough for you to have qualified for a scammer tag when this all collapsed and you proved not to actually know his identity. I've always figured that it was a joke, but given that nobody else has identified him at the time and the fact that you took it way too far, it seemed to be true enough. Thanks for coming forward with that.

Quote from: copumpkin on July 25, 2012, 02:22:31 PM

The paranoia here borders on a full-fledged witch hunt, wherein you (and many others) see anyone who criticizes the weak arguments you have against him as being paid off by him or dishonest.

Huh? I don't know about some people *cough* Vandroiy *cough*, but I don't see the people that support Pirate as being paid off or dishonest, just ignorant. Luckily, ignorance can be fixed and I'm glad to help. People who say they know Pirate (as of this moment, but maybe not after Vegas), however, are absolutely paid off, dishonest, or being misled, as I have just shown.

Quote from: copumpkin on July 25, 2012, 02:22:31 PM

That is ridiculous. If he admitted to me he was a Ponzi, or I had serious doubts about his honesty, I would not be lending him money. I may be stupid for trusting him, but I'm not dishonest, and I don't see why you'd assume his other lenders are either.

You are dishonest, but at least you admitted it before it was too late.

Quote from: copumpkin on July 25, 2012, 02:22:31 PM

Now consider what it would take to convince you otherwise.

Sure thing!

1) An audit by a respected third party (or two).
2) A series of pictures of Pirate in poses defined by the community with a sign that says "I am Pirateat40, and I am personally currently responsible for X million dollars worth of bitcoins in debt". Sure, he could still hire an actor, but it'd be more expensive thanks to the legal liability that sign will at least appear to carry.

At the very least, as someone who isn't personally invested in the venture, those would be the absolute minimum requirements to shut me up, given the current size. My standards started extremely small, and have grown as the venture has grown, so I wouldn't call this unreasonable.

Quote from: copumpkin on July 25, 2012, 02:22:31 PM

If this were anywhere but a pseudonymous internet, would you go around telling people it was a Ponzi? No, of course not, because you'd probably get sued for defamation/slander/libel (whichever one is relevant to the particular flavor you're going for), and you'd actually have to do this face-to-face, which takes something more than an internet tough-guy persona. Now, because this is a forum and everyone loves to be opinionated, right, and rides the highest horse in town ("I'm doing it for the good of Bitcoin itself! No cognitive dissonance here at all!"), anyone remotely associated with him is out to screw everyone else?

Get a grip, all of you.

Actually, I totally would. I've consulted a lawyer in the past about my rights when it comes to speech and defamation/slander/libel. Unless the law where I live has changed recently (admittedly, that's quite possible), this is absolutely the case for me:

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on July 25, 2012, 03:08:49 PM

I would point out you likely would not be sued for defamation. At least not in the US. Most people don't realize how (almost impossibly) difficult it is to win a defamation/slander suit in the SU.

The first amendment has (somehow despite the slow erosion of liberties) managed to keep the burden of proof very high.

Generally speaking (although statutes vary by state:

The statement must be false.
The defendant must know the statement is false or a reasonable person would determine the statement is likely false.
The plantiff must suffer a loss (one recognized by the court as compensatable damages) as a result of the statement.
The plantiff must be able to quantify and prove the loss.

The burden is very high. Plenty of people accuse other people of running Ponzi and don't get sued. Hell some investment brokers accused Madoff of running a ponzi for YEARS before the ponzi broke. Proving all four elements is extremely difficult even in the best circumstances. Lots of times people make claims that likely are slander that it would be impossible to prove.

Even then there are interesting carve outs like the Small Penis Rule.

I have no problem risking getting sued when I truly believe that what I'm saying is right.