Why people think Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme?

[Korbman]

Hmm... Korb Investments... Member of the mining cabal I see ↑. I understand why my statements may not have "made much sense." As a miner, you are paid to not understand them.

Ah, I see why your "ignore" button is so darkly colored now. Instead of making insightful posts to show why I am mistaken, you've resorted to "durr, you don't understand me".

You've been presented with factual statements and definitions as to why Bitcoin cannot be a Ponzi Scheme, yet you're still arguing. Why? Obviously I must be missing something in this thread...

[cunicula]

You've been presented with factual statements and definitions as to why Bitcoin cannot be a Ponzi Scheme, yet you're still arguing. Why? Obviously I must be missing something in this thread...

How is that relevant? No one in the thread said that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme or even that they think Bitcoin may be a Ponzi scheme.

You are simple-minded and cannot grok ambiguity.

[BTC-Joe]

You've been presented with factual statements and definitions as to why Bitcoin cannot be a Ponzi Scheme, yet you're still arguing. Why? Obviously I must be missing something in this thread...

How is that relevant?

See thread topic.

No one in the thread said that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme or even that they think Bitcoin may be a Ponzi scheme.

You are simple-minded and cannot grok ambiguity.

And yet the question postulated was why some people may equate bitcoin with some type of sketchy investment scheme. For the sake of this discussion, you can take one of three valid positions:

a) You agree that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme or something along those lines and you can tell us why you think so.

b) You disagree that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme and can explain why you believe it is not.

c) You have an insight as to why some people may elect to believe bitcoin is a ponzi scheme.

[Crypt_Current]

Bitcoin Scheme = converting electricity into a digital currency.
People who say bitcoin is a ponzi scheme have never tried to make one and so don't understand it's value.

No, the whole PoW thing is not a marketing scheme. No, not at all. 

Isn't a similar method used to filter spam in emails?  I may be incorrect on this, so please correct me if I am.
But if this is the case, then wouldn't PoW have been just as much of a "marketing scheme" in the "campaign" which brought email to the masses?

[cunicula]

Isn't a similar method used to filter spam in emails?  I may be incorrect on this, so please correct me if I am.
But if this is the case, then wouldn't PoW have been just as much of a "marketing scheme" in the "campaign" which brought email to the masses?

You are right that a similar method was proposed. But AFAIK, it was never implemented because it was such an obvious failure.
Here is the best analysis I can find: "'Proof-of-Work' Proves Not to Work"

http://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Foinvite.googlecode.com%2Ffiles%2FProofofWorkNoWork.pdf&ei=bJetUIOuDcymrAeb-YAw&usg=AFQjCNE4hSD2PG6bUyBxyPrEkIthG0_a4w&sig2=D1LrCspXcoK3Nv3ACwueRQ


Analagous criticisms apply to bitcoin. Any system generating enough fees to deter attackers would also deter legitimate users, i.e. the only way to adequately protect bitcoin is to destroy it.

[Korbman]

Analagous criticisms apply to bitcoin. Any system generating enough fees to deter attackers would also deter legitimate users, i.e. the only way to adequately protect bitcoin is to destroy it.

Since you seem awfully sure of yourself in this thread, explain [in detail] the arguments behind your latest statement. This should help to show us your thinking processes when developing an argument...and also shouldn't be a problem if you know what you're talking about