Without their mutual erroneous belief that Patrick's business model was sound, the contract would never have occurred.
The contract does not involve Patrick's "business model".
I'm genuinely starting to wonder if you are delusional. You posted a log that *very* clearly shows the complete opposite of this.
Aug 10 08:06:54
hey. your deposits still bs&t free ?Aug 10 08:07:21 I run a slightly complicated business, but most of the deposit accounts I run are BS&T free
Aug 10 08:07:39 that's what the market wanted
Aug 10 08:07:58 you deem yourself able to repay your depositors in the event bs&t goes bankrupt, and nothing is recovered ?
Aug 10 08:08:00 back in a couple of minutes - grabbing a glass of wine - friday evening here
Aug 10 08:09:57 back
Aug 10 08:10:17 in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that
Aug 10 08:10:41 mainly because the 15,500 coins I hold on deposit are not invest in BS&T
Aug 10 08:10:56
well that works. i'd like to put 500 bitcoins with youIn fact, you argued yourself that the contract was based on Patrick's business model:
That's exactly why the negotiations start with "do you have correlated risk X". Had the scammer answered "yes" or even "maybe" the contract would never have happened.
The difference between our positions comes from the fact that you hold Patrick 100% responsible for this mistake while I hold both parties roughly equally responsible for it.
500 BTC capital
+ 1% per week until the date of full repayment. Currently this is 14 weeks (since August the 10th), or 74.7371065 BTC
+ .01 BTC per word of my posts in this thread. Currently this is 3935 words = 39.35 BTC
+ Treble damages (punitive).
Total sought (if discharged today): 1842.2613195 BTC.
You really are delusional.