Wikipedia: "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme..."

[bitfreak!]

Calling me "SudoDouche" and creating subpages on your websites attacking me doesn't do you any good

lol how did I know he would stumble upon that and get really mad. Rudd-O really took it a few steps too far though... haha.

But in all honestly it seems kind of stupid to have a Wiki page being edited according to the emotional state of some guy.

[Roger_Murdock]

"Some A few morons criticize have incorrectly accused Bitcoin for of being a Ponzi scheme because they don't know the definition of "Ponzi scheme" and/or lack even a rudimentary grasp of Bitcoin's basic principles..."

That seems like a reasonable compromise, no?

[Roger_Murdock]

"Some A few morons criticize have incorrectly accused Bitcoin for of being a Ponzi scheme because they don't know the definition of "Ponzi scheme" and/or lack even a rudimentary grasp of Bitcoin's basic principles..."

That seems like a reasonable compromise, no?

Amen.

And let's not forget: some people HAVE in fact criticised Obama for being a Muslim.

It's very important to register their silly allegations criticism in an encyclopaedia, whether or not it's factual.

A Kenyan-born Muslim. But seriously, that's a great comparison.  But oddly enough, neither of those "criticisms" found its way into Obama's wikipedia page.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

[molecular]

Those comments from the ECB sum it up perfectly. And considering the authority of the ECB, it should be enough to totally debunk that accusation on the Wikipedia page.

That would, however, set a dangerous precedent.

[Gabi]

"Some A few morons criticize have incorrectly accused Bitcoin for of being a Ponzi scheme because they don't know the definition of "Ponzi scheme" and/or lack even a rudimentary grasp of Bitcoin's basic principles..."

That seems like a reasonable compromise, no?

+1

[ElectricMucus]

But here comes the best part:

The Register article is particularly useful because it explains why Bitcoin has the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. John Nagle (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like the Register simply plagiarised an earlier version of the Wikipedia entry! This is going to drag on for months! It looks like the Americans are really battling against the ECB report contagion

No it's about who posted it, Nagle was one of the guysthe guy shouting the loudest for a total crash of bitcoins valuation here on the forums last year.
He was absent since it went back up, now he is trolling you guys on wikipedia, successfully it seems since the sentence of concern is still there and kicking.

And that is a hilarity of its own.  

[ElectricMucus]

But here comes the best part:

The Register article is particularly useful because it explains why Bitcoin has the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. John Nagle (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like the Register simply plagiarised an earlier version of the Wikipedia entry! This is going to drag on for months! It looks like the Americans are really battling against the ECB report contagion

No it's about who posted it, Nagle was one of the guysthe guy shouting the loudest for a total crash of bitcoins valuation here on the forums last year.
He was absent since it went back up, now he is trolling you guys on wikipedia, successfully it seems since the sentence of concern is still there and kicking.

And that is a hilarity of its own.  

LOL. Never heard of him. Wikipedia is a sinking ship and its creators have been unable (or unwilling) to fix systemic issues that have resulted in a power-grab by Fascists. It's quite painful to watch, especially since it held such promise.

However, I guess there are some advantages in Wikipedia's writhing -- millions of people are slowly learning about the insidious nature of power and corruption, and they will be smarter next time.

Perhaps Mr Nagle should become a US Marine?

No, he is some self-proclaimed advisor, warning people of financial bubbles and their collapse. He runs http://www.downside.com

And IMO: The status quo on Wikipedia is just another instance of wide-spread ignorance rampant on the internet, here on bitcointalk we have it too... the other side of the coin.
I call it "Bitcoinism" - a couple of shenanigans that propose Bitcoin as the supreme ruler of all of Economics and Money for which the set up belief is that it is to assimilate the whole worlds economy by incremental "early adoption". THE CANCER of Bitcoin.
To be honest I don't blame people for beginning to think Bitcoin as a ponzi scheme. It's not inherently one, in a strict sense, but that attitude makes it into one.

[benjamindees]

Nagle was one of the guysthe guy shouting the loudest for a total crash of bitcoins valuation here on the forums last year.
He was absent since it went back up, now he is trolling you guys on wikipedia, successfully it seems since the sentence of concern is still there and kicking.

I knew that name sounded familiar.  I remember viewing his "algorithm" on Wikipedia last year and wondering "how does a computer scientist not seem to understand the definition of a ponzi scheme."

[MoonShadow]

Nagle was one of the guysthe guy shouting the loudest for a total crash of bitcoins valuation here on the forums last year.
He was absent since it went back up, now he is trolling you guys on wikipedia, successfully it seems since the sentence of concern is still there and kicking.

I knew that name sounded familiar.  I remember viewing his "algorithm" on Wikipedia last year and wondering "how does a computer scientist not seem to understand the definition of a ponzi scheme."

Nagle has literally built a reputation around predicting Bitcoin's near term demise.  It's his ego at stake here.

[Rudd-O]

Nagle was one of the guysthe guy shouting the loudest for a total crash of bitcoins valuation here on the forums last year.
He was absent since it went back up, now he is trolling you guys on wikipedia, successfully it seems since the sentence of concern is still there and kicking.

I knew that name sounded familiar.  I remember viewing his "algorithm" on Wikipedia last year and wondering "how does a computer scientist not seem to understand the definition of a ponzi scheme."

Selective ignorance.  Happens to the smartest of us all.

[giszmo]

To all those whining about the state of Wikipedia: It's free and open to anybody to fork it. In your fork you can try to get along without a hierarchy of admins. In fact I'm sure it could be done better but it gets me mad when open projects get bashing. Do it better. Please.

[Rudd-O]

To all those whining about the state of Wikipedia: It's free and open to anybody to fork it. In your fork you can try to get along without a hierarchy of admins. In fact I'm sure it could be done better but it gets me mad when open projects get bashing. Do it better. Please.

Ah, the standard "if you don't like it here, why don't you møøøøøøve".  Very handy to excuse anything that's wrong, from slavery to lies to rape.

[ElectricMucus]

To all those whining about the state of Wikipedia: It's free and open to anybody to fork it. In your fork you can try to get along without a hierarchy of admins. In fact I'm sure it could be done better but it gets me mad when open projects get bashing. Do it better. Please.

Excellent post. Ironic and ultimately full of truth

[flix]

Added my .02 on the wiki talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bitcoin#Please_add_a_correction_to_the_Ponzi_Scheme_accusation

The ECB report clearly does not see it as a Ponzi, since it does not promise any returns and even major project developers call it "an experiment" and "not an investment". At the very least, to comply with NPOV, the accusation of ponzi should be balanced by a mention of contrary arguments.
See: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf

[DobZombie]

This article is protected until January 11, 2013

What the fuck?  I hope nothing happens in the world on Bitcoin for the next 2 months, or this article will be ALL FUCKED UP

o.0

[giszmo]

To all those whining about the state of Wikipedia: It's free and open to anybody to fork it. In your fork you can try to get along without a hierarchy of admins. In fact I'm sure it could be done better but it gets me mad when open projects get bashing. Do it better. Please.

The thing is that Wikipedia seems mechanically fine. It's robust and it seems to be bug-free. The problem is that some of the people involved are -- how do I put it nicely -- misguided.

Is that really enough reason to start again? Maybe so, but without delving into and trying to resolve the "people bugs", it seems that a fork could be doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

If it's less work to fix the people than to fork the thing, fix the people but don't whine all over the internetz about how bad wikipedia is. Some Wikipedia admins are very religious about the rules and you can always get more admins into the edit war.

[barbarousrelic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors

Bitcoin pays no returns. So it can't be a Ponzi scheme.

The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments

Bitcoin offers no returns. So it can't be a Ponzi scheme.

The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors.

Bitcoin has no earnings and no payments to investors. Ditto.

Accusing Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme is a red flag that the accuser doesn't know what a Ponzi scheme is. If you want to accuse Bitcoin of anything, a very good case can be made that it is a bubble. Whether true or not, that at least makes sense. It makes no sense at all - it is a violation of the definition - to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme.

[Serith]

Added my .02 on the wiki talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bitcoin#Please_add_a_correction_to_the_Ponzi_Scheme_accusation

The ECB report clearly does not see it as a Ponzi, since it does not promise any returns and even major project developers call it "an experiment" and "not an investment". At the very least, to comply with NPOV, the accusation of ponzi should be balanced by a mention of contrary arguments.
See: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf

Can you change it to something like that: "Report made by ECB states that Bitcoin doesn't have two core properties of a Ponzi scheme"
While the meaning almost doesn't change it will rebuff the argument that ECB report doesn't state if Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme or not.

[Roger_Murdock]

"Some have criticized Bitcoin for being a ham and cheese on rye, but a report issued by the owner of a large delicatessen states that Bitcoin lacks three core features of a ham and cheese on rye, namely ham, cheese, and rye."

[Serith]

"Some have criticized Bitcoin for being a ham and cheese on rye, but a report issued by the owner of a large delicatessen states that Bitcoin lacks three core features of a ham and cheese on rye, namely ham, cheese, and rye."

+1
It's a sad world we live in.