Bitcoin Forum

Okay, so I am confused... I have seen many of these Ponzi "Games" come out that instantaneously gather loads of negative trust. Most of this negative trust is usually given from Quickseller (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=358020)/Redsn0w (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=211419) just to name a few of the major people. I am confused as to why these games are given negative trust?

#1: It's a game, even though it is based upon "Ponzi Schemes" these are in no way, a Ponzi.
#2: People know what they get into when they invest on these sites, they realize that if nobody invests after them then they are fucked.
#3: It's a gamble, like any other site: Poker, Dice, Casino... etc.
      Any of those sites have the availability to scam but do not get red flagged.

So tell me why people automatically get red flagged for owning a Ponzi Game Site? I believe that if we get rid of this narcissistic negative trusting then the Actual Members behind the sites will come out so that in the case that they do scam, just action can be placed.

This act just seems kinda stupid in my honest opinion... these sites are games like any other Casino, Dice, or Poker site. I believe that it is the basic name that has been applied to these games that sets off these "Neggers" Alarms; which if they read into the sites they should notice it's just a game.

I am actually developing a Ponzi Game and hence asked How can we create a provably fair Ponzi Game ? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=926237.0)

- Surprisingly, almost no one is reading what I wrote. They are only just blindly saying Ponzi = Scam !!! I dont know why they are not getting the fact that this is only a game where every investor know that if they are the last then they'll lose. Being an early investor is the game here. How come that be a scam ?

- A few people said that Ponzi Game owners may run off with money. But same is true for Dice game operators, especially those who are accepting invetment. Do you people turn them red as soon as they launch ?

- Some are saying Ponzi operators may invest themselves. I agree. But again, dice operators may play themselve as well. Moreover, even if operator invest himself, what is wrong there as long as he returns the money as per rule ? He is also taking the chance. This is not scam either !!!

I think, there should be a clear resolution of this issue by the forum authorities as it seems those who are leaving the -ve feedback have some extra power given by the forum. I have not yet launched my game, but I am afraid that as soon as I launch, they'll stamp me a scammer !!!

Are you developing it for a different account to launch, because this account of yours may lead people to be weary. Also, provably fair with a ponzi game is just the matter of watching the blockchain. It's as simple as that, there's nothing else you can do.

I don't understand why people hate the honest ponzi games so much. It's gambling and not a scam as the owners are being truthful about what it is.

Why are people upset about them so much? yes they need their own section, preferrably a subsection in gambling, but how can a website be "untrustworthy" when they are being upfront and truthful about everything? and if people want to risk their money playing them knowing what they are, why do you care?

I don't play the ponzi games, but I don't care if others want to.


Argument #1: Ponzi sites are illegal
So are gambling websites that don't have the proper gambling licenses.
So are Bitcoin exchanges that do not have the proper money transmitter licenses or AML procedures.
So are lenders that don't abide by payday loan laws.
So are public performances of the song "Happy birthday to you" which is copyrighted by Warner/Chappell Music.

Argument #2: All ponzi sites are a scam

If the ponzi site fulfills their side of the deal and does exactly what they promise and both parties are willingly trading, where did the scam occur?

Argument #3: Ponzi's should be banned because they make Bitcoin look "bad"
Instead of banning ponzi's, why don't we make things a bit better and form a mining cartel, make a blacklist of bitcoin addresses known to be used by ponzi sites and never confirm any ponzi site payments?

 ;)

The general ethos of Bitcoin is for free market trade and against regulation. How can you actually believe that and at the same time be trying to ban people from using Bitcoin because it makes Bitcoin look bad?

Argument #4: Most ponzi sites aren't provably fair so they are scams
There is probably a way to make ponzi sites provably fair using tx scripts. But if ponzi sites are a scam due to the lack of provably fair, then so are all gambling sites that don't have provably fair, such as poker sites and sportsbook websites.

Argument #5: Ponzi's arent entertainment
People have different opinions on what entertainment is. It may not be entertaining for you, but I'm sure its entertaining for others.

Argument #6: Ponzi's are scams because people will lose money
There will always be people who lose money on any gambling website. Otherwise the website would be losing money.

Thats all the arguments I can think of right now.

Exactly, so do you consider it "just" or "right" for them to give negative trust to these Honest games?

Absolutely not.

Say I made the following post:

Does that make me untrustworthy? No, because I'd be fulfilling the "contract".

The same applies with the ponzi's, at least the "honest" ones that let the gamblers know it is actually a ponzi, the "this-is-totally-not-a-ponzi" ponzi's is a different story, those could warrant negative trust if the owner was lying and saying it wasn't a ponzi. I don't see how you can call it scamming when the other person fulfills his/her side of the deal.

Well, I negative trusted Quickseller for all this... I think they need to learn and fix their actions.

This idea of an "honest" ponzi needs to be buried.
Until it can be proved that the operator of the scheme or his alts are not in the queue for payment, a queue that they can both anticipate and manipulate, then players in the "game" cannot possibly know that the returns that are promised are achievable.
As for leaving trust on the basis of opinion, this has been flogged to death recently.

The people can check the blockchain, and we're talking about Ponzi Games...

So what if they can check the blockchain?
That's what I'm talking about too.

What does it matter if the owner has accounts in the payment queue? That's like saying that it'd be bad if Casino owners didn't have people playing poker for them or something... Do the game owners say that they don't participate in them themselves? If they do, then you got a problem... but all that I have seen don't say they don't play.

In an honest ponzi, the returns should not be guaranteed.

It is up to the players to figure out if the operator is in the queue. Being able to detect such schemes is a skill a good ponzi player should have. If the operator promised he wasn't in the payment queue and later on it was found that he was, then he would be untrustworthy, but if no such promise was made then thats a risk the players take when playing the ponzi.

Let's say a 50% ponzi "game" runs out of steam at 450BTC and ends. The first 300BTC owners get their stake back plus 50% i.e. the balance.
The last 150BTC owners get jack shit.

You are seriously telling me that if the operator of the "game" owns 200 of those first 300BTC then the "game" is in any conceivable way fair?
What do casinos have to do with it?

I think this thread is more to do with your own feedback than anything else.

 
In an honest game of chance the odds should estimatable by the player, yes.

How could anyone figure out if the operator or his alts was in the queue?
"If the operator promised..........."..lol

 

A ponzi isn't a game of chance, it is more skill based like poker. You need to know which ponzi to "invest" in, get in early and get out at the first sign of trouble and know how to spot signs of trouble too.


Thats like saying how can you figure out your opponents hand in a game of poker. A good ponzi player will use things like blockchain analysis and his experience to try and figure that out, similar to how a poker player uses 'tells' to try and figure out his opponents hand.

I bow to your superior knowledge lol, but if I were to play poker with you then it wouldn't be with a deck you (nothing personal) provided and later turned out to have another set of aces living up your sleeve.

aren't ponzi schemes illegal anyway?

Yes but that is in no way the point of this thread. We are talking about the new Ponzi "Games"... simply based off the style of a Ponzi. People send money to an address and get paid out with a % as new investments come in.

Well Michael, this is the 2nd time you have used your position on the default trust list to try to censor my actions.
If you bothered to read my comment, it is because they are running a ponzi
A ponzi is a ponzi. The game is based on building up trust. It works like this, the ponzi operator first either buys up or creates a bunch of newbie accounts to act as their shills. Then then use a mixing service to spread out their own money into various addresses to make it look like each address is coming from a different person. When they start the ponzi game few other people will "invest" however the shills will push the ponzi game and will vouch when they end up winning. This makes it appear that they are trustworthy. The next round a few more people will play along with the shills. The shills will obviously all win and the "real" people will sometimes win but at a lower then expected rate. Their trust is now built up a little more. The process continues until the ponzi "game" operator is trusted by various "players" enough so that they control a very large amount of bitcoin at one time.

This is very similar to loan confidence scammers as they first take out a .1 BTC loan, then a .2BTC loan when people see they repaid the first loan without problems, the process continues until they can get a very large loan from a sucker and they abandon the account. The difference is that in a ponzi "game" the amounts a user is trusted with will grow much quicker.
Not true. They can also get screwed if the operator of the game decides he has enough money to make it worth his while to run away with investor money.
it is very rare that a dice casino will be created by a brand new user. Also, again their business is generally not one that will be trusted with an massively growing amount of money.
See above.
Duly noted. Thank you.

So are gambling websites that don't have the proper gambling licenses, so are Bitcoin exchanges that do not have the proper money transmitter licenses or AML procedures and so are lenders that don't abide by payday loan laws.

Any gambling site can run with the money and these sites are just games that are based off ponzis...

This should be implied. I cannot in any way see how it would be fair to have a casino betting against their own players. Doing so would be similar to a casino that accepts bankroll investments to play against the house

Fucking poker you dumbass... Poker websites have people betting against players...

True, however ponzi games are designed so that people will trust them with exponentially growing amounts of money after a very short period of time.

All other gambling sites have much slow deposit growth. Also all the gamblers money must be trusted with the ponzi "game's" operator at once while a casino will need to process withdrawals from players throughout the day and if they stop players will obviously stop depositing additional funds there

The same is true for PvP dice sites. However the operator is not playing against the players (who would have an obvious advantage)

Most ponzi game sites here automatically send out after 1 confirmation, so the amount in the wallet at one time can be limited.

Anyways, you are giving them negative trust essentially because they have the OPPURTUNITY to scam. That isn't right at all...

Seals with clubs for example probably has a ton of btc in their wallets, why not give them negative trust too? They have a large opportunity to scam.

Are you serious man? You accused me on my thread of scamming for literally no reason and made baseless accusations against me because I suggested the trust system be revised. Note that I am neither positive or negative I am unbiased and made this suggestion because I saw the trust system being abused. And now you get negged and you know what? That's a taste of your own medicine you were making baseless accusations against me now someone has negged you. It's funny how much of a hypocrite you are you were calling me a scammer for asking to revise the trust system now your wining asking for the trust system to be revised because you have been negged. For the record I think Michael was right in giving you negative trust because quickseller you were blindly giving out negative trust to ponzis without using your head.

Justice served

How silly of me, I didn't even mention the exchanges that have the capacity to haul out millions of dollars worth of bitcoin at will!!! Those guys deserve negative trust, maybe even jail time.

I don't see it as censoring your actions at all. He made a valid point.



Thats the case with pretty much any Bitcoin business. Remember mybitcoin.com?


And you have proof that every single ponzi website on BitcoinTalk goes through this same procedure? Because it seems you are leaving negative trust on EVERY ponzi website. Of course ponzi's have risks and some may be untrustworthy, but I don't think you have investigated all of those websites that you negged enough to know if they are untrustworthy. You were just blindly giving out negs to every ponzi site.

It is likely that the ponzi site is going to steal all investor money in one swoop, not over any period of time. The first sign of trouble is that no one received their payout even though some people should. The ponzi "game" would obviously be abandoned and the operator would create a new account to repeat the process.
The ponzi operator will have an unlimited amount of time to launder/mix bitcoin to make it appear that they are not playing against their players. The players on the other hand will have a much shorter time frame to check this. From what I have seen, many people "reinvest" their money back into the ponzi after receiving payouts so seeing money go from the ponzi back into the ponzi would be expected

The skill is to try and determine when the site will stop paying. This may start with obvious signs like late or missed payments, but it may also be when the owner decides the ponzi has gotten to a certain size. So estimating the size of the ponzi funds and the rate it is growing at is is another way to tell. A really skilled player may even decide to invest more funds  when they think the owner is going to close up in order to try and prolong the ponzi.


Well if the owner is using mixers then a skilled player will find out which ones he is using and ignore payments that are tainted by those mixers. And of course they reinvest, you should reinvest if you think it is still likely to pay out.

Point is, not all ponzi's are scams, don't paint them all with the same brush.

Look at the trust he left me. Do you think leaving negative trust for ponzi operators is in any way scamming?



Thats the case with pretty much any Bitcoin business. Remember mybitcoin.com?[/quote]No that was before my time, but I will trust that they eventually ran away with people's money after being trusted with a lot of it. The point is however any ponzi game will be trusted with a lot of money in a very short amount of time if they act 'honesty' for only a few 'rounds'. It was pointed out in another meta thread somewhat recently that everyone has their breaking point, and ponzi's are designed to attract a lot of money very quickly so the operator's breaking point will quickly be reached
No but this is the procedure that the successful ones go though (at least this is what they do from my viewpoint). (this only applies to the bolded part about the shills).

The part about building up trust is what happens. It is how pirate40 was able to run away with so much money (from what I have read), it is how dicebitco.in was able to attract such a large bankroll to steal from. This is what every ponzi site/game did as of last week (and probably not mistakenly, all at the same time)

Look at the trust he left me. Do you think leaving negative trust for ponzi operators is in any way scamming?
[/quote]
I never said you scammed, I left you negative trust because I don't "trust the trust that you leave" its not accurate in my eyes therefore it can't be trusted.

You think the idea of a ponzi "GAME" is new? They were here last year too.

Why are there no long term ponzi games if it so fair and profitable for an operator? But dice sites, casinos, and sportsbook have been in the Bitcoin world for years?

Michaeladair your arguments are weak and your promotions of ponzis is shameful

I dont promote all ponzi games, i just dont believe in leaving negative trust... Also theyre Ponzi Games... GAMES. i

I don't think that the negative trust is because of them running a game as you call it. it's rather the fact that whatever is going to happen the owner is going to get away with people's BTC.

I mean, this isn't anything different from a casino site? They have the same capacity to scam... Or even an exchange?

You didn't answer my point above that

"You think the idea of a ponzi "GAME" is new? They were here last year too.

Why are there no long term ponzi games if it so fair and profitable for an operator? But dice sites, casinos, and sportsbook have been in the Bitcoin world for years?"

I don't see how investing more funds would prolong the ponzi. If the owner is going to run away with investor funds then investing more would just give them a bigger take.

I don't think a ponzi would have any real reason to be "late" with payments because the money is all "there" in the unspent inputs of their ponzi address. A missed payment would obviously mean they have run away with investor money.
It would be expected that many players would either buy funds from an exchange or withdraw from other casinos to play the ponzi. A ponzi operator could counter this countermeasure by depositing funds on various exchanges and casinos and then withdraw to fresh addresses.
They are asking to be trusted with gamblers' money. Most of the ponzi's that I gave negative trust to were brand new accounts. Picking a random ponzi that I gave negative trust to (BTC-Pyramid-Ponzi (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=411627)) their first post is advertising their site. Looking at their site their minimum investment is .005 BTC. This is very similar to a brand new user asking for a loan on their first post. Would you trust a brand new user with .005 BTC if they promised to repay after x days? I assume the answer is 'no' and the reason is because you do not think they will repay. Why do you think it is that so many brand new accounts were created to promote ponzis? Do you think it had anything to do with the fact that they plan on eventually running away?

Your points about how a skilled ponzi player can avoid loosing money all involve ways to detect when the operator is trying to cheat. Do you think it would be fair to say that any casino that is actively trying to cheat players would be considered a scam?

I find it quite funny how many people here supports for free market trade, against regulation etc but once something like an honest ponzi comes around suddenly they are like "THIS WEBSITE IS ILLEGAL OMG GOVERNMENT SAVE ME AND SHUT DOWN THIS ILLEGAL WEBSITE. EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS THEM SHOULD BE ARRESTED NSA USE 0DAYZ TO PWN THE OWNERS AND JAIL THEM". The ponzi doesn't lie, it does exactly what it says it will do, if people want to play ponzi's knowing the risks then let them.

@Quickseller
They choose brand new accounts because they have seen what you do to new accounts and dont want that happening to their trusted accounts.

Now don't go telling me you wouldn't neg a trusted account on the same basis cause if you wouldnt then yhstd be going against all that you have said.

Yes you did. When you leave negative trust you are saying the person either scammed or is a scammer. If you do not trust my trust ratings then you can remove me from your trust list.

I am not saying any of that. My argument is that I feel that any ponzi "game" operator are going to scam. I personally think anyone who invests in a ponzi is a sucker who will eventually be parted with their money several times over.

I think that anyone who is actively promoting ponzis (that I think will eventually scam) are enabling the scam that will eventually happen

Casinos and exchanges are businesses. They try to maintain a reputation to keep their costumers. I'm sure majority of users here wouldn't use a casino or exchange if their service quality wasn't rock solid. Most long standing businesses are ran honestly and surely are not built with the sole intention to scam people when the owner decides to close his sceme down.

Okay, so maybe I did in your words then... Let me clarify.

Scam- To defraud; swindle
Swindle- To take money or property from someone by using lies or tricks.

I believe that your negative trust is tricking people into surrendering their opinions to you so that you can make them believe that these ponzi games are not to be trusted.

Do I really have to do this quick seller... You're making me go so far for a point that I've proven a ton of times in this thread.

I think that anyone who plays a dice site is a sucker and will be parted with their money several times over due to the house edge. I think that anyone promoting dice sites are enabling others to lose money.

Why not let the consumer decide for themselves then instead of negging every possible scam. Why not neg someone when they do scam?

What the fuck kind of reasoning is this? It's called being proactive and helping people.

Go into the lending section then and lend your funds to every newbie who promises to pay you back.

When I go to the lending section, I decide for myself what I want to and don't want to trust. Same with gambling sites. I didn't say you should send btc to every ponzi game you see. You should use your best judgment.

statistically speaking your first statement is correct. However in the short run, it is possible for people to end up with more money then they started with. The house edge is also known prior to a gambler playing (at least it is advertised) and the casino is not actively trying to cheat/deceive the gambler (as you described how a ponzi player would be a "good" ponzi player)

You answer that point. Why not answer the one I produced before?

If ponzi is such a legitimate gamble as well as profitable for a long time operator, where are the long term ponzis? The concept is not new. There were streams of them last year. Where are they now?

I wasn't here last year, also I'm talking about ponzi games... Not ponzis.

Actually I just realized I told a lie earlier. I have played a ponzi game before. A long time ago I put in 4.5BTC (when it was a lot less) into a ponzi game for fun and withdrew it a few days later at a 10% profit. A few months back I also invested 0.01BTC into a ponzi to see how their custom multi-cryptocurrency payment system worked as it looked cool and I also ended up making some money from it. In both cases I made a profit in the short run.

What is the negative expected value of poker? it varies


I didn't actually mean it like that, but rather a good ponzi player would be trying to outplay other ponzi players, the owner "could" be another ponzi player.

I'd just like to state that we are talking about ponzi games, not actual ponzis themselves... I don't want this thread coming off topic.

You can think that but at least that dice site is owned by a reputable member of the forums who has a high probability of NOT running with the funds if something goes wrong. In addition there is provably fair verification. I'd counter that anyone is a sucker to deposit their money into a highly suspect site, opened by a newbie that barely speaks English, promising unsustainable returns

Do a quick search. The skeletons of them are still here.

And those were ponzi GAMES

I'm just saying you can't judge a site by the past of others... I'm done with this thread for now, I've made my point clear enough. If you'd like to see what my thoughts are just look back in the earlier posts.

Are you leaving because your points have been refuted?

Anyone can judge the characters of the people who are opening sites deemed shady. You should have to prove and earn trust. Not have it given to you from your first post. Like you said you haven't been here that long. Maybe you should trust the judgement of other members that have seen hundreds of these scams such as ponzi GAMES. We were right about Bitcoin-stocks, and we are right about this ponzi craze too. Unless you have a vested interest in these scams, your reasoning makes no sense.

I'm leaving cause I'm tired and this thread isnt making me happy... Anyways, I guess I haven't been here long enough to know about how every ponzi game Is a scam.

I've decided to remove the negative trust I sent quick seller not because he told me to but because I have been thinking and I think that people can make their own decisions on whether or not to listen to his accusations.

The majority of people indeed lose money dicing, however the odds are extremely straight forward more so than any other gambling game and the edge is pretty minuscule at 1%. Dice is a sustainable and provably fair game of entertainment, Ponzi games ALWAYS end with users getting scammed as one user's funds are used to pay another user a premium and ultimately someone if not multiple people will lose all their money. They almost never have any value in terms of entertainment, it's hard to call them games when really they are high risk securities if anything.

The core issue with ponzi games right now is that they aren't just scamming one individual, and they are rarely if ever provably fair. There used to be games like the bitcoin bear and bitcoin gem which were provably fair ponzi games. The risks were well advertised and only one user would be losing their "investment' per round. When these new ponzi games get a large enough investment they simply steal it and continue to take further deposits and steal those as well.

I think it's extremely stupid for this forum to allow the serial scamming of users via openly letting ponzi owners advertise here. It shines an extremely negative light on this forum and bitcoin itself and puts the forum at legal risk.


I agree with negative trusting ponzi games if any of these conditions are fulfilled:


       1. Unrealistic promises/ Failure to fully disclose risks. Ex. Not calling the game a "ponzi"  (90% of games right now)


       2. Bought account: If the account they are using to advertise is bought and they are using that purchased reputation they should receive negative feedback.

  
       3. Fake users/puppets. Example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=927328.0


       4. Non-Instant games. Ponzis are now 48 hours or weekly and hold all deposits giving them the opportunity to scam massive groups of users. Example (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=921851.0).    



My beef isn't with classic bitcoin ponzi games, it's with the new generation of games which are highly deceptive and designed to scam giant groups when users believe that an individual "greater fool" will be the victim. It's possible to run a legitimate bitcoin ponzi game, but if you view the gambling section that is rarely the case and thus the majority of these games should either be deleted from the section or receive negative trust if they are to remain.

It's pretty obvious that all these games are being run by a small group of serial scammers who simply repost a new game and make a few design changes after scamming a prior group of "investors". The simple fact that the vast majority of this forum disagrees with these games is enough justification to permanently remove them.

In this case I agree with quickseller and stunna ( they have already give a valid explanation). At the end the problem is :

Where is the odds in a Ponzi scheme ? Please don't call them "ponzi games" because it isn't a 'game'.

Where is the odds in a poker game?

What is the final purpose of a ponzi schemes ? I think all we know the history or not ?

The term scammed means swindled, or cheated IE the other party you are trading with did not fulfill their side of the deal. How are they not fulfilling their side when they are clearly stating it is a ponzi?

I find it hard to believe there is no entertainment. Thats a matter of opinion.


So why don't we neg all forms of non-provably fair gambling then if there is something so wrong about it? lets neg all the sportsbetting websites.



I think me and you have different definitions of the word scamming. If the other person fulfills their side of the deal and both parties are willingly trading, where did the scam occur?

And the ethos behind Bitcoin in general seems to be for free market trade and against regulation, so why do you think its ok to tell businesses not to use Bitcoin because it will shine a negative light on it? thats completely against the general beliefs of many Bitcoiners.

And I don't know for sure but I suspect you are a not a qualified lawyer so there is no way you can know if such websites put the form at legal risk, but I can't see how it could. And if it did put the forum at risk maybe it would be a good idea to fight the unjustice of that and try and set a precedence in order to protect free market trade. Did the forum have any legal problems when pirateat40 was prosecuted?

Their purpose? To make money for the owners? like any other business

That taco truck over there, big ass scam... Selling tacos to make money. I'm pretty sure one day they'll just run with our money.

Ok , thanks for the information. So in this case all the ponzi schemes are legit , no problem.

Redsnow we are talking about goddamn ponzi games... Not ponzi schemes.

The ponzi games working around the ponzi schemes , because if I will invest for first and no one after me invest I will not receive nothing. So the base of a ponzi game , is a ponzi scheme.

You canno't talk about the ponzi games , they  don't exist.

I think you can actually see these "Ponzi games" as games. IF they atleast exactly state how they work: state that the last ones will not get paid and that every new entry pays the outstanding dept for earlier participants.

If that's stated very clearly, I think participants know the rules of the game. If they participate afterwards, they know the risks.

I think there actually is some "gambling" part in such games as you need to be lucky in both kind of games. Sure, you know the probability about how big your changes are to win (or loose) in for example a Dice game, and these probabilities are unknown in the Ponzi games. They unknown because they are based on the incoming BTC's after you participated, and no one can predict that.  Therefore I think you can see it as a way of gambling. You know the risk, and you take the risk by participating.

Ponzi schemes don't tell you they are ponzis. These games do because they are telling people that giving their money is a gamble, you may or may not get it back. People should know that because they freaking tell you

Exactly, the fact that most of them display the risks right in front of you is why they are games. Simpley a gambling game.

Ok , no problem. This is your opinion , and I accept it.   However what do you think for the question about the secondary "child board" only for those ponzi games ?

If these games are openly labeled as ponzi then you play at your own risk. It's up to the players of these games to be responsible with their money and educate themselves.
IMHO, a Negative isn't needed although perhaps a Neutral and a simple warning post in that particular thread.

This isn't my opinion, its the flat out truth. Go to any popular ponzi game and see that they display the risks.

I think because these Ponzi games are working around the ponzi schemes (which they do), does make you able to talk about ponzi games.

In my opinion something is a forbidden ponzi scheme IF the participants are NOT aware of the fact that they are participating in a ponzi scheme.   In (most) of these games, it's clearly stated that they are participating in a ponzi, and therefore explicitly take the risk that comes with the game by participating.

Whether of not these ponzi games should be banned from this forum or in total, I don't know. Personally I should allow them AS LONG AS they clearly mention the rules of the game, thus clearly mention that you are participating in a ponzi and therefore it's likely that you lose your investment (if your not one of the very early participants).

Yes of course , feedback removed now try to discuss with tysat , quickseller, shorena etc...

Not all. Are all the dice sites legit?

Let me break it down for everyone:

Argument #1: Ponzi sites are illegal
So are gambling websites that don't have the proper gambling licenses.
So are Bitcoin exchanges that do not have the proper money transmitter licenses or AML procedures.
So are lenders that don't abide by payday loan laws.
So are public performances of the song "Happy birthday to you" which is copyrighted by Warner/Chappell Music.

Argument #2: All ponzi sites are a scam

If the ponzi site fulfills their side of the deal and does exactly what they promise and both parties are willingly trading, where did the scam occur?

Argument #3: Ponzi's should be banned because they make Bitcoin look "bad"
Instead of banning ponzi's, why don't we make things a bit better and form a mining cartel, make a blacklist of bitcoin addresses known to be used by ponzi sites and never confirm any ponzi site payments?

 ;)

The general ethos of Bitcoin is for free market trade and against regulation. How can you actually believe that and at the same time be trying to ban people from using Bitcoin because it makes Bitcoin look bad?

Argument #4: Most ponzi sites aren't provably fair so they are scams
There is probably a way to make ponzi sites provably fair using tx scripts. But if ponzi sites are a scam due to the lack of provably fair, then so are all gambling sites that don't have provably fair, such as poker sites and sportsbook websites.

Argument #5: Ponzi's arent entertainment
People have different opinions on what entertainment is. It may not be entertaining for you, but I'm sure its entertaining for others.

Argument #6: Ponzi's are scams because people will lose money
There will always be people who lose money on any gambling website. Otherwise the website would be losing money.

Thats all the arguments I can think of right now.

Thanks for understanding. But I don't think I'll be able to persuade quickseller myself... If someone else would like to try then please, go ahead.

Gotta agree. Most of the ponzi game did say it is a ponzi game. To be honest, I dont look at the 'trust' when investing in ponzi schemes. Well, because I kniw people giving them 'red' without risking anything.

with the stupidity i see in this topic, no wonder these scams keep showing up daily ... "ponzi is a game" .... jesus christ ....  ???

Nobody here said that Ponzis are games. We are just talking about the "Ponzi Games", gambling games that tell you the risks involved and have people sending money in hope that people will send after them so they can claim the extra %.

+1. A ponzi is a fraud, period. Just changing the word scheme in a Ponzi scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme) to game is not making it legit.

+1

The others who claims different, there are 2 options :
1. u're incredible naive ( i tried to be nice)
2. u're behind these scams and try to convince us they are a game (rofl)

There is no way to defend ponzis with logical arguments.

How much overwhelming forum support is needed before any action is taken for a different section?

I'm not sure a different section 4 Ponzi would suffice; also, making an ad-hoc section for them seems to be exposing the bitcointalk forum (and its Admins) to legal liability for "supporting" them. I think a better solution is if everyone here hand to Ponzi runners a fair share of -ve trust.

The negative trust isn't doing anything. The Gambling board, as we speak, is overrun completely even with all the operators carrying red trust. 3/4 threads are hyip related. They scam with a brand new account and then make a new one. If there were some kind of restriction for newbie new posts, it would help. Newbie jail, like the forum had before, would curtail the number of new threads and shill posters.

I agree, the giving of negative trust is not stopping people from investing, at least not on some of the ponzis. I have also noticed that ponzis are getting away with negative trust by using two accounts, one to create their OP and others to post from to give updates, this forces people to read entire threads they have no interest in participating in to determine if their "spokesperson" account has negative trust.

I don't think theymos is going to institute any newbie restrictions although I do think it would at least slow down the ponzis. Ironically allowing so many newbies to create crap threads is probably hurting actual newbies who potentially want to participate in some kind of casino and/or gambling game because it is very difficult to navigate the gambling section without having to go past a huge number of ponzi sites/games. As a result they will probably not participate in any bitcoin related ponzis.

---

I am a big supporter of a "free market" however all these ponzi's really are giving bitcoin a very bad name, and will probably make a "good" number of people lose confidence in bitcoin in general.

I am curious to know if anyone is able to point to a ponzi that has been around for at least two weeks, had at least 50 participants and has not scammed. Does anyone know of any?

This is not cloud mining when 80% of the companies are scams, this is, as far as I can tell a phenomena where all of the sites/games are a scam.

Maybe the newbie jail is good only for that section (gambling). What do you think guys ?

I would wager my wallet there are none. If it's such a profitable venture for operators through fees and high entertainment value for the gamblers, why have there been no long standing ponzi games? These games aren't a novel concept.

Theymos asked if the people posting and visiting the gambling section are irritated. Yes, we are irritated. The gambling section has BECOME the ponzi section. I can't find any sports picks threads. Casinos and other gambling threads have been pushed back several pages. Any other threads are complaining about ponzis, recruiting for ponzis, or supporting ponzis. It's become complete shit.

Please save our section Theymos/Badbear

As I was writing my previous post I was somewhat contemplating offering a bounty to anyone who can find a ponzi site/game that has not scammed (and has at least 50 players and has been around for at least two weeks).

I agree that people should not have their hands held to protect their money, however the fact that they all eventually scam is somewhat of an argument to make somewhat of an exception to this belief.

I dont like the idea of restricting legitimate newbies just to make them a little saver.

[1]

Not that this is a state, but the principle is still the same.



Have you seen any of the more reputable members that argued here for ponzis create one? I would like to see that. Id like to see them prove us all wrong, yet somehow they dont even try, but keep on creating new accounts[2].


[1] http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/1995_03_Imprimis.pdf
[2] baseless assumption

I'm curious how one would go about building a provably fair ponzi. With the majority of the dice sites out there, while you have a net -ve EV at least you can ensure the game is run fairly. With all these ponzis it would seem trivial for the operator to open a round and fund the first block of bets. If the ponzi goes nowhere, no loss to them. If it's a success, they've made a bunch of BTC with no risk to themselves.
It's a little different with these Ponzis than with a dice game, as Stunna could play as many rolls as he wanted to without affecting other players.

Exactly this is the point where those in favour of the ponzi usually start to question whether provably fair is fair in the first place instead of confronting the argument. Cant really blame them as its hard to prove you did not do something.

I don't think a ponzi can be made provably fair at all. How can you stop the ponzi operator to make a bunch of early deposits in each round?

You can't and that is the problem. The ponzi operator is going to know the exact time when a round opens so he can easily have transactions prepared to send to his deposit address while others would need to stumble across an advertisement for the ponzi and send funds to it

my bolds.

These +++

Until someone can address this without strawmanning off into irrelevant comparisons with dice, poker, sports bets etc., the fact remains that, even without the risk of the operator just running off with huge deposits, there is no way any "ponzi games" are better or more trustworthy than out and out Ponzi schemes.

Have you seen what is happened to williamj2543 ? Here the thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=930008.0



The Ponzi schemes aren't safe ....

He has been caught red handed in lies and subterfuge with a known scammer and is still in denial about it.
He doesn't even address the above fatal flaw in his argument for a "fair ponzi".
If it wasn't in his own original game plan to rig the game, I'm sure it was in moreia's, else what was the need for the "investors" moreia said he had in place in the Skype call? He wasn't referring to gamblers, he was referring to alts to be tipped off and organized to keep the scam running whilst being paid thru early placement of their rigged bets, with williamj2543 directly personally benefiting thru his share of the 5%.

williamj2543's original motivation was pure greed and his reaction since he was unmasked as a liar has been to cover his ass.
He deserves all the negative trust he gets.

Well I cant, but I am willing to believe that someone smarter than me could invest heavily into the idea and come up with a solution. Yes, its impossible to prove that the operator is not playing, but it might be possible to remove the operator from the game. Thus the person in charge (operator) would be able to play, but be at risk of losing the same way everyone else does.

I don't think you're able to remove the operator from the game, as, especially with bitcoin, everyone obviously can participate and you don't know which wallet belongs to who.

"Thus the person in charge (operator) would be able to play, but be at risk of losing the same way everyone else does". Indeed. The only solution for that is script the game / system in such way that it organizes completely random rounds, or atleast creates random rounds.  (However, I think most operators are in such situation able to somehow get a message when a new round has started).

Because its a Ponzi something destined to fail that's why.

This is a ridiculous claim, "only the last person loses."
Only true if every mug 'investor' pays in double the previous person.

Simple question for you CrazyJoker....in your example above, could you prove that you or your alts are not #1, even #2, manipulating the 'game' and ripping off everyone else without them knowing?

You can't = there is no such thing as a "provably fair ponzi" and anyone pretending that there is should get negative trust.

Sorry to say, this is not a ridiculous claim. This is rather correct in www.crazyponzi.com. You are confused because you are assuming that it works the same way like other Ponzi Games, which is simply untrue.

The investor/player/person, however you identify an entity participating in the game, will have to pay double of the previous player, if the round return is 200%. Please note that, this return % will vary between 110% to 200% from round to round. If you still do not understand, I'd request you to give it a try for free at the site, where you'll get 1BTC non-withdrawable play money for testing.

Regarding your second Q... No, I can not prove that I'm not playing in the game at any point of time. But, if you look at the operation of the game, you'll discover that it does not matter. Because, if I play I'll also take the risk of being the last player, just like everyone else. If I am the #1 & #2 I'm just raising the value of initial deposit, which does not impact the way other users play the game, because they already know at any point of time anyone can be part of the game. Some rounds may have multiple investors, while some rounds may not have any... that is the luck factor everyone is playing against. Even if I assume that I'll play, then I have to play against the same luck factor.

The classical concept of Provably Fair does not apply here, because the whole luck concept is different here than normal dice games. I have also read somewhere that the Provably Fair concept is different for Poker sites as well.

The only attack vector I can see here is that I can run away with the money, which also exists in all dice sites that accepts investment in the bankroll. But, to reduce that risk, I am acceting daily withdrawal which is possible evn before a round is over.

Feel free to ask any more Q if you may have...

I have to disagree with you here.


Yet, if you are the last you are loosing only to yourself where regular players would lose to you. Thats an advantage for you.


You raise the amount they have to risk in order to play, thats exactly the point I was so confused about. "Only one person" can lose, yes but the amount they lose is higher than everyone else previously risked.


Which is not known in advance, but thats probably just me. Id like to know my odds.

I respect counter opinion.


That is only if there is no other investor except me in raising the initial deposit. If there is any, then I'll lose to them and hence I'm taking equal risk as of them.


True indeed. Everyone can raise the amount while only one will lose.


For dice or any other gambling, you dont know this in advance either. For dice and a few other category, you can verify in advance with hashing, which is not possible here as the randomness is coming from real life. But, it is 100% true, that I have no control on this randomness.

Soon I am planning to start deposit and withdrawal on www.CrazyPonzi.com. Feel free to test it with the 1BTC play money before it starts operating.

Make sense, I missed that indeed.



I dont know the result yes, but I know the odds (e.g. 49.50 % for 2x) on a dice site. I guess not knowing the odds is part of the charm though.


Ill look into it.

at a quick glance:

- your faq.php returns: The page you are looking for cannot be found.

I was told by a member here that if one promotes a ponzi link in their signature, they will earn negative trust but I don't know the reason as it does not mean that one is a cheat. May be because Ponzis are illegal?

Ya... FAQ is not written yet. Will be adding before I start accepting deposit & withdrawal.


Ponzi schemes are illegal, but honest Ponzi Games have nothing to do with that...

Attempts at legitimizing the "ponzi" and associating it with BTC via gambling is part of the "silent war" on Bitcoin IMO. This is a "slippery slope" tactic like how "they" push doctor assisted suicide to get their foot in the door to start culling the undesirables in society.

Well there's certainly something here where the ponzi's are very sensitive because in part of the negative reputation and the fact that some people are also worried about the community.

The op his ponzi and fake accounts hmmmmm

FAQ is now updated and the game is live...

#1: It's a game, even though it is based upon "Ponzi Schemes" these are in no way, a Ponzi.
= You cannot win

#2: People know what they get into when they invest on these sites, they realize that if nobody invests after them then they are fucked.
= Mostly, yes.

#3: It's a gamble, like any other site: Poker, Dice, Casino... etc.
      Any of those sites have the availability to scam but do not get red flagged.

= They all get flagged.


So tell me why people automatically get red flagged for owning a Ponzi Game Site?
= Because it is a scam.

I believe that if we get rid of this narcissistic negative trusting then the Actual Members behind the sites will come out so that in the case that they do scam, just action can be placed.
= True.

This act just seems kinda stupid in my honest opinion... these sites are games like any other Casino, Dice, or Poker site. I believe that it is the basic name that has been applied to these games that sets off these "Neggers" Alarms; which if they read into the sites they should notice it's just a game.

= It's just a game, but they are making profit from it and you (player) not.

I've decided today that I will be applying negative trust to anyone running a ponzi game that does not have the word "Ponzi" in the thread or website title. There's a lot of new ponzi games that are tricking less savvy users into thinking that they are "business games" and somehow sustainable due to their "professional traders" etc etc.

It's been months and nothing has been done about this, I think it's incredibly irresponsible for the admins to let gambling continue to fill up with new scams every day.

Some very reputable members of the forum were doing this around the time the gambling section was overrun by ponzis but this really had very little impact on people investing. People also would create additional accounts to serve as the spokesperson of the ponzi so you would need to somewhat closely follow the threads to see who is "speaking" for the ponzi
The forum does not moderate scams

Every greedy persons do it.


They can't moderate each and every scams but they can moderate Ponzis. I believe sooner or later, they will do.

   -MZ

They don't need to delete the threads, but move all those ponzi "games" in another sub-board. Those interested in running and playing them can have fun there, and those interested in gambling can ignore that section.

That's a good idea ,  a subforum for PONZI.

Gambling & ponzi are gambling but different path. If someone can't control himself, than he will fall into depth

By making another subforum, they can choose whenever they will visit the ponzi subforum or better visit the gambling sub-forum

It has already been suggested many times here but wasn't added. If we create a new ponzi sub-forum, I think 'Ponzi' in the title may start disappearing and also we might have to move some of the cloud minings too.

   -MZ

i agree to this

i support quick and redsnow about giving negative trust to people that open ponzis!!!
they are just a scam that will burst sooner or later...i think they should even be banned
from gambling section because they are spam!if you make a ponzi game legal then i would open personaly my self a ponzi
and hold it until i see a big btc and just take it and quit the ponzi or shut it until next round

thats why they should get negative trust!

I think me too that IF Ponzies and other frauds cannot be banned the only way to try containing them is by bashing people starting a Ponzi with negative trust. Also they clutter the whole forum with all their shitty spam.

This is abuse of the trust system and will get you removed from default trust. It is also slander to claim ponzis are scams and you will be sued for saying that.

I don't think leave a negative feedback to a scammer is "abuse of the trust system". Maybe it is the contrary , you are helping the community if you leave a negative trust.

Grand_Voyageur is neither in the Default Trust nor in the users'(who are in DFT) trust list.


resn0w is right! Ponzis always collapses sooner or later. One of the famous in Bitcoin is PBMining, maybe GAW too. Can you show me one BIG ponzi which hasn't collapsed?


   -MZ

In theory the trust system is unmoderated and people should do whatever they want to with it.  That is, they should use it as they see fit.  The only issue comes in because of "default trust" the fact that if you do nothing, you see the results of default trust as if they were meaningful.  This can lead to abuse by folks on "default trust".  If it were me, I'd simply remove "default trust" and have everyone start off with an empty trust network until they actually meet someone they actually trust.  This would remove the perception of abuse by those on default, I think.

It would be a complex-trust-system for newbies. Now DefaultTrust list is good enough. If you find a mole, report it. He/she will eventually removed from it if the claim is true.

   -MZ

no its not abuse of the trust sistem
they have every right to give negative or positive trust to a member,especialy negative trust to creators of ponzis
history on this forum says that all ponzis ended a scam 100%!!

Ponzi operators are never in short supply. I've just found a new one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=335191), here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=961142.00) its own ponzi scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme).

Agreed, I will be negative trusting all Ponzi games that are not "provably fair" in how they take funds from users. This is a very controversial issue, initially I was only negative trusting games that did not make use of the word "ponzi" but this is going too far. I'm confident that BTC-Flow will easily manage to steal hundreds of bitcoins if they are continued to be trusted at this pace and the least I can do is warn others.

The admins are dropping the ball on this issue, I urge them to begin moderating these "obvious scams" because users aren't learning and it is just pushing them away from using bitcoin entirely.

The caveat of all this is I will not negative trust a ponzi website that has made a strong effort to be provably fair. It's possible to build a sustainable ponzi game like the old bitcoin bear/gem games where an entirely random user will lose his funds to benefit the rest. These ponzi games will only result in all users losing their funds. I urge anyone who agrees with this to follow me in applying negative trust to the violating users. If you disagree that's fine as well but at the end of the day trust is an unmoderated system and I have the right to use it in a way that will minimize scams if I wish to do so. My hope is that this action will start pushing ponzi operators towards developing  provably fair risk games.

New Ponzi operators stream never dry! Just found a new one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=436907), here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=961576.0) its own ponzi scheme. He also have an alt account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=340202).

how can u open such a topic ? do you know what a PONZI is ? wtf is wrong with you people ?!?
a ponzi is NOT a game ! of course these scams owners tries to brainwash ponzi's are games ... wich they are NOT !


PS : and to answer your question, yes, u run a ponzi, so u run a scam, negative feedback .

They were starting to die out but there seem to be more ponzi threads then ever now.

They are streamlining the ponzi site process and recycling the idea over and over again.

Admins need to decide to intervene somehow

maybe they are starting to die as of now, but who knows when they have plans coming back promoting and creating ponzi sites again.. what they are doing is like pushing away victims on using bitcoin as currency and we are all affected on that

This is not abuse of the system, this is what the system is for, letting other prople know with who they are dealing with.
It would be much more effective if the forum rules forbid ponzi of any sort, but without that, and if u cant neg rep them, you would be leaving alot of room for ponzi operators to breathe, and take in more victims.
If you neg rep someone that to the best of your knowledge deserved it, i think u did the right thing, where abusing trust system shows easily, and those people can be removed from default trust in a heartbeat.

I claim ponzis are scam, sue me.

cheers