Quote from: jbreher on August 31, 2012, 06:48:12 PM

Quote from: IveBeenBit on August 31, 2012, 04:15:28 AM

Quote from: Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย on August 31, 2012, 02:29:11 AM

Quote from: IveBeenBit on August 31, 2012, 02:26:29 AM

Quote from: wormbog on August 31, 2012, 12:35:18 AM

It would be easy to show a jury that pirate told his pass-throughs to supply sub-account information, therefore he could not use that as (legal) justification to claim his contract terms were broken.

Give it up. BTCST will never be in front of a jury. I will book odds on it if you think that scenario is realistic. Off the top of my head, I'd offer 8:1 or more. Let me know if you want to give me action & how much you'd want to risk.

This might be a good way to pay for court costs.

Are you willing to go as high as $100,000 ?

(That is if by jury you mean a Judge in court)

Cuz the flood please PM me if serious.

LOL...no, I'm not good for $100,000 of action. For that kind of scratch, you could get anything in front of a jury. I will offer 8:1 and put a maximum of 90 BTC at risk that BTCST/Trenton never stands in front of a jury before 12/31/2013.

If we can locate a mutually agreeable escrow, I'll bet my 12 BTC against your 90 BTC that any entity that ends up being the real-life incarnation of pirateat40/BTCST is engaged in either a criminal or civil action by 12/31/2013.

1) Being "engaged in a criminal or civil action" is far different than being in front of a jury, which is what I was initially responding to. So it would be dumb for me to take the bet at the same odds once you have so drastically changed the terms

2) I have no interest in locking up 90 coins in escrow for 16 months unless you have some interest in paying me 0.75% per week on those funds.

I still think it's highly unlikely that Pirate will be "engaged in a criminal or civil action" in connection with BTCST. If you want to negotiate terms and odds and be reasonable, let's start a new thread and I will entertain that.