Quote from: nutildah on December 21, 2019, 01:31:58 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 21, 2019, 01:27:54 PM

I am seeing a repeating theme of the inversion of the burden of proof and people demanding OGNasty prove his innocence rather than people proving his guilt.

Nobody is demanding anything.

We just want to know what happened.

Pirate said he repaid Og in full. Og said he didn't.

Og is the only person who can answer if pirate's sworn testimony to the SEC is true or not.

Yeah you're right, people are just making a string of accusations attempting to impugn his character over and over again until he is forced to prove his innocence rather than accusers proving his guilt = no one demanding anything.

Quote from: sbogovac on December 21, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 21, 2019, 01:27:54 PM

[...] I am seeing a repeating theme of the inversion of the burden of proof and people demanding OGNasty prove his innocence rather than people proving his guilt.

dude:

1. I dind't ask you anything; but,

2. there is proof (both sworn testimony as well as blockchain proof), so now it's only the polite thing to ask for a reply... (from OgNasty).

No, there isn't as Philipma1957 and others already pointed out:

Quote from: philipma1957 on December 10, 2019, 03:14:38 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on December 10, 2019, 07:37:04 AM

He received BTC1000 on August 2., BTC68.8 on August 6, and BTC38 on August 16 from pirateat.

the 1000 traces to being paid to investors . I did not check the 68.8 or the 38

still it seems that og did not get the other 1400. he may not be guilty of anything in the pirate case.

A) no one has come to the plate and said they were not refunded.

B) no one has shown he got 2500 coins paid back.

C) pirate may have misstated he fully paid Ognasty during statements quoted in the thread.

Quote from: philipma1957 on December 18, 2019, 11:38:45 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 18, 2019, 11:15:41 PM

Quote from: eddie13 on December 18, 2019, 09:30:47 PM

1. Their is no proof.. Only a dead end.. But many here seem to believe that proof is not required, contrary to my and philipma1957's opinion, which is what creates this great divide in the community, between those who require proof to come to a solid conclusion, and those who do not..

This is at the core of the issue, as those who do not, realize their ability to freely impugn the reputation of anyone who crosses them is threatened by such a standard.

other possibilities og paid the 144 in coins with cash.

to someone that was owed the btc.

and that person does not want to be revealed.

this would mean og is taking a beating in this thread simply because he is preserving some ones identity.

I want to point out. at first to this thread began with 2500 missing coins which became 1000 missing coins
which now really looks to be 144 coins worth just under 1700 usd.

i do sales i do passthroughs i do trades.

you could never understand my business by looking at the blockchain.

and my biggest account shows 350 coins passing through.

og has an address with 17500 coins coming in and out in the last 8 years.

i doubt very much that is the only way he does business.

look if you can show me someone that says og robbed the 144 coins directly from me i would be surprised.
ie john smith say og should have given me the 144 coins and did not.

as for obvious ponzi in 2012 there was no such thing since

pirate could have had 100000 or more cheap coins from 09 and 10.

so by creating the bank to boost price of his stack of coins it was possible it was not a ponzi.

these days this could happen with a coin like doge.

i have two trezor accounts one with 230000 doge and one with 140000 doge.

if doge went up to three dollars i would be a millionare.

maybe i would do a doge pirate club like the first pirate did.

the difference would be i would pay out in the hopes it would drive the price higher.

back in 2012 many may have thought pirate was running his club to publicize bitcoin and drive the price up.

there were very little coins to mine or use in 2012.

so to say it was an obvious ponzi is pretty much wrong.

to say it may have been a ponzi is more accurate.

do i think og gets a pass on this yes until

some one shows me he was not paid the 144 in coins and was due the 144 in coins og gets a pass.

As you can see what is being called "proof" is nothing of the sort, and a string of people intent on harassing OGNasty are in fact demeaning he prove his innocence rather than the accusers prove his guilt. All the accusers have is speculation, and the ambiguous statement of a convicted felon. There are no limits to how much people can speculate on and impugn the character of others, therefore it is totally irrational to expect people to have to defend themselves as if they are guilty until they prove themselves innocent as you are in fact demanding.