Quote from: MPOE-PR on November 09, 2012, 07:07:44 PM

Quote from: Dalkore on November 09, 2012, 06:28:34 PM

With the amount outstanding if you are correct (BTC20K), I would not take such a hardline stance on your settlement of this debt. I would be for sure, flexible on interest owed and just good judgement on the principle.

You did take risk in investing in "his" investment strategy and investing in "him" as that principle for your BTC. Maybe we just have different ideology on capital, investment and risk, I accept that. But please believe, I am quite read on this subject, I am mean the old way of doing things, which I think was a much more fair and proper system (pre-1913). I think keeping good communication with him and giving him time to dispatch his debt to you will serve your interest more that berating him on here as hard as you have.

Does anyone have a explanation on why his Guarantee did not meet his non-pirate exposed liabilities? I assumed it is from deadbeat borrowers.

Yes, this would be an ideological divide. Our position is firmly that contracts must be executed entirely as they are, and that no claim can be diminished post default, but only increased (and preferably significantly).

This may yield a higher rate of people who run off from their obligations, but on the long term it has the positive effect of limiting the total BTC lost to incompetence/malfeasance by excluding the incompetent and the malfeasant from the marketplace.

Your alternative point of view may seem reasonable, but this is only if you subscribe to a socialist view of the world (ie, we are all equal, we must all find a way to live together, we're not individuals but parts of a collective etc). These notions are not tenable on the Internet. We are not at all interested in helping the floundering, we are interested in cutting off the floundering as soon as practically possible so as to prevent them from bringing their disease upon others. A world of ten poor people is of no interest, a world of four rich people (even if their riches come at the expense of excluding six others) is what we're building.

The history of BTC world, short as it may be, seems to wholly support our position. In fact, all the failures so far can be traced to people instinctively (and, I dare say, uninformedly) taking a stance similar to yours.

We are all social creatures, in certain ways I am individualistic /deterministic and other ways I am more socialistic (ie: towards my family, friends and allies). With the view that people that are floundering are a disease and people who do not flounder are preferred, I don't think you want to actual interact in a world where people in the mindset dominate. Most people's "floundering" come from environments and systems they had no hand in making that have impaired them with reduce opportunity to operate.

You should have more empathy towards that kind of human suffering unless you do not have the ability to show empathy.

You speak of the history of Bitcoin, you may want to re-read this history. As far as I can see, Satoshi made Bitcoin as an Alternative to our current monetary system that actually mirrors your " world of ten poor people is of no interest, a world of four rich people (even if their riches come at the expense of excluding six others) is what we're building." comment. I care and respect for anyone who truly reciprocates that care and respect back. That doesn't mean I think we are all equal, we all have different talents and traits. I do believe in Justice, a fair Rule of Law and providing opportunity to all.

From your comments to be honest, you sound jaded, cynical and domineering (no disrespect, just follow-up on your opinion of me).

Thoughts on my comments other that my personal evaluation of your character visa-vie the internet, lol?