Quote from: MPOE-PR on November 06, 2012, 02:53:35 PM

No. It was based on Patrick's representation to that effect. Your attempts to represent this as a "common mistake" are unseemly and quite frankly are doing a lot of damage to your own credibility.

What information did Patrick have that others didn't have that would have changed the conclusion they drew?

Quote

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 05, 2012, 07:29:45 AM

This turned out to be incorrect. It's not clear that this is Patrick's fault. This fault is equally on both sides of the agreement.

If I offer to sell you a house and you pay me money, except my house doesn't really exist would you say that the fault is equally on both sides of the contract? Because in that case I have a bridge....

It might or might not be equally on both sides of the contract, that would depend on the example. But if it was in fact equally on both sides of the contract, then it would be inequitable to enforce the contract as agreed. (I gave two examples that clearly show this. You are welcome to address them. But you can't just create an example where there isn't a common mistake, show that there's no common mistake in your example, and then try to argue that has some relevance to a contract that does have a common mistake.)

Quote

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 05, 2012, 07:29:45 AM

Patrick has stated in another thread that he is paying this debt back the same way he is paying back similar debts. He is taking responsibility for his share of the common mistake and his lenders should do the same.

Bullshit. "The same way he is paying similar debts", what's that even mean? You make a contract, you stick to that contract or else you are in default. Nobody cares and it makes no difference that you "are doing it differently now". What is this Patrick, the Government of Bitcoin?

The problem is that the contract doesn't cover the case where the loans have correlated risk.

Quote

No, seriously, what are you talking about? How does each side have substantially the same information?

Both Patrick and those who loaned him money understood his business model and the rates he charged. They both equally understood that he asked people whether they were investing in Pirate and made clear that this was unacceptable. It's not like Patrick had evidence of correlated risk that he had from his investors, at least not the we know of.

Quote

Deposit was made, as per an agreement. Deposit was not returned, as per the agreement.

Right, but the agreement was predicated on a mutual understanding that the loans didn't have significant correlated risk.

As for your quote from another thread, I can't quite understand the relevance. Are you saying you were aware that there was a high probability that Patrick's loans had significant correlated risk due to exposure to Pirate?

Quote

At this point, what exactly is your relationship to the scammer? Are you being paid to shill?

I very strongly dislike Patrick. If he was willing to pay me to shill, I'd happily take his money, but he has not yet made such an offer.

Quote

Quite willful ignorance from someone who's contributed half the words to this thread. The numbers are staring you in the face: 500 BTC going out from lender to borrower. ~15-20 BTC coming out from borrower to lender, two-three months later.

I've expressed no opinion on whether his repayment schedule is adequate or not. Roughly speaking, if he's on track for 50% within a year, that'd be reasonable in my view. As I said, I'd really like to see him committing to an amount and a schedule and sticking to that commitment.