Quote from: Bitsky on November 01, 2012, 09:44:08 AM

So you are saying that a bunch of possible scammers can be let off the hook just because they lied when they said that they invested with another scammer?

No. That's it not at all what I'm saying. Why not read what I actually wrote rather than picking a small bit of it and putting the word "just" in front of it?

Quote

If each and every coin from a PPT went to Pirate, well, bummer. But if only a single coin was not passed through, then the PPT should be treated just like Pirate.

Why? Pirate's actions caused people actual harm. You are talking about an action that caused no harm whatsoever to anyone but Pirate. I can't see why you would equate them.

Quote

Let's look at the following hypothetical scene:
1. Pirate starts his business
2. PPT's pop up everywhere
3.1. PPT operator sends every coin to Pirate but pulls out before he defaults, or
3.2. PPT operator uses all coins for other projects, or
3.3. PPT operator simply keeps all the coins
4. Pirate defaults
5. PPT operator keeps the coins and Pirate gets the blame

What you are now saying is that this does not matter although those PPT operators could in fact pay the investors back.
If you have a criminal intend and jumped onto the bandwagon, the chances to get the blame is reduced by 50%.

It makes no difference to a PPT purchaser whether their money actually goes to Pirate or not so long as the PPT operator pays the purchaser exactly the same amount as what Pirate would have paid. The only "victim" of this "scam" is Pirate!