Quote from: Zeeks on November 06, 2012, 05:10:19 PM

Why does a "common mistake" matter? Anyone lending/giving/investing Bitcoin probably believes that the other side can live up to their end of the agreement but when they don't it's the fault of the person receiving the Bitcoin who is then unable to pay back what they owe.

Because when there's a common mistake, the contract is about something that doesn't actually exist. For example, if both the buyer and seller believe there's 5,000 pounds of cherries in a truck and agree to sell the 5,000 pounds of cherries in the truck for $10,000, the contract is void. There's no way to enforce it because its subject doesn't actually exist.

The issue is not that one side can't live up to the agreement. This issue is that the agreement was about a loan portfolio that both sides believed had particular attributes it didn't actually have. The agreement was about something that both sides believed to exist but that did not actually exist.

Quote from: superfastkyle on November 06, 2012, 05:47:24 PM

Patrick was acting as a bank. Charging higher interests for loans vs paying deposits, with the assumptions that the difference would more than make up for defaults in the loans with a little profit left for him.

That's correct. However, don't forget that this assumption was shared by those who loaned money to him. Read the transcript.

Quote from: MPOE-PR on November 06, 2012, 03:41:27 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 06, 2012, 03:29:23 PM

So the agreement still would have happened even if Patrick said "Yes, I have significant Pirate exposure"? Bullshit.

Fuck you. The agreement would NOT have happened if the scammer admitted at that time what we now know to be reality. The fact that you do not know this speaks about your ignorance, that's all.

Somehow, I think we're talking past each other. Please re-read what I wrote. If you don't understand it, perhaps I can find a way to make it clearer. Your response reflects a complete misunderstanding of the clear meaning of my words. My whole point is that both sides believed there was no significant Pirate exposure in the loans, and had either side believed otherwise, the agreement would not have happened. I think you agree with me on this, right?

Quote

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 06, 2012, 03:29:23 PM

Honestly, I'm somewhat disgusted at the righteous indignation of the usurious lenders who refuse to accept any responsibility for their significant role in this fiasco.

So you're against lending, btc business, money, whatever. Your problems, I don't care and they don't amount to arguments against contracts. Seek help.

Nope, I'm just against idiocy. Lending at usurious interest rates using contracts that can't be enforced in a court of law with people who have no ability to repay the loan other than from the expected profits of an implausible business is idiocy. Without that idiocy, none of these fiascos would have happened.