Is Taavet Hinrikus our resident FUDster?

[RodeoX]

Just before climbing up to $460 in the last week bitcoin was again declared dead. Whatever, that happens every day.  
Another almost daily occurrence is the creation of several threads by brand new accounts warning us of the immanent collapse of bitcoin. They are generally a few sentences long and never provide any supporting evidence. They typically look like this:

“Bitcoin, I think we can say, is dead. There is no traction, no one is using bitcoin. The bitcoin experiment, I think we can say, is over.”

Except that example was not from these forums. It is a quote from Taavet Hinrikus, CEO of TransferWise. TransferWise is a payments app, the kind of dinosaur that is not going to survive the cryptocurrency revolution. It makes sense that he would deride bitcoin, but the words he uses are strikingly similar to our local FUDster.

Could be nothing, but did anyone else notice this?

[unamis76]

I don't think FUDsters here are necessarily paid shills by a company like that... I imagine most of them are just trolls that have nothing more exciting to do than announce that doomsday is approaching and most of them likely do it for free.

The sentences these people use are all very similar, the content is pretty much the same, there isn't much to add to their speech, so it will always be similar. It doesn't directly mean these are the same people, but I could be wrong

[RodeoX]

I don't think FUDsters here are necessarily paid shills by a company like that... I imagine most of them are just trolls that have nothing more exciting to do than announce that doomsday is approaching and most of them likely do it for free.

The sentences these people use are all very similar, the content is pretty much the same, there isn't much to add to their speech, so it will always be similar. It doesn't directly mean these are the same people, but I could be wrong

Yes, it may not be the same people, for the reasons you stated. It could also be that he is paying for the posting of stuff he writes. I doubt he spends all his time doing the posting.
At least it offers a logical reason for these posts. I assumed that the FUDster lost his shirt in a scam and his anger drives him to post. But perhaps he is just doing a job. Trying to put downward pressure on peoples perception of BTC and earning a few Satoshi each post?

[Denker]

Yes I know what you mean RodeoX.
That guy who creates all these new accounts and posting his FUD nonsense, mostly in the speculation are, must have some serious mental illness or so.
I always thought this would be our beloved Notlambchop.
This is definitely annoying as hell.
If he, whoever that is, will some day realize that all this attempts are a total waste of time?

[unamis76]

At least it offers a logical reason for these posts. I assumed that the FUDster lost his shirt in a scam and his anger drives him to post. But perhaps he is just doing a job. Trying to put downward pressure on peoples perception of BTC and earning a few Satoshi each post?

Maybe yes. I believe some might be like this. I guess that's one of the things in life we'll never know

[Evildrum]

Those bitcoin is dead threads are mostly ignored by me as they tend to be pushing a altcoin or the price. Either way its done by people with low scruples. Think they should be tossed in the altcoin section rather then here pushing decent threads to the next page.

[gentlemand]

That's kind of odd. I think I remember someone from Transferwise saying they dug Bitcoin big time but couldn't touch it because they'd lose their banking relationships.

Edit - here it is - https://transferwise.com/blog/2013-04/notice-to-bitcoin-users-april-2013/

[RodeoX]

That's kind of odd. I think I remember someone from Transferwise saying they dug Bitcoin big time but couldn't touch it because they'd lose their banking relationships.

Edit - here it is - https://transferwise.com/blog/2013-04/notice-to-bitcoin-users-april-2013/

Ha, good find. So because they could not figure out how to use them for their business bitcoin is dead. And like any "dead" financial instrument it has gone up $50-60 in the last few weeks. 

[whoreble]

And like any "dead" financial instrument it has gone up $50-60 in the last few weeks. 

Lol @ "financial instrument." You do know that *all* ponzis bitcoin-like financial instruments have to go up before they crash, correct?

[gentlemand]

Is that you Mr Hinrinkydinky? Has it been you all along? Don't you have more important things to attend to? You've taken delegation too far.

[cjmoles]

I don't know if we could make a connection between the Fudsters and CEO's of any of the antiquated payment systems but I do know that bitcoin isn't dead....it's just dying.  Its technology is becoming antiquated as we post.  So, these "Fudsters" are wasting their time trying to put down bitcoin....they should be attacking one of the cutting edge technologies like Ethereum.  Bitcoin will always be the parent technology in my opinion but all the heavy lifting will soon be done by one of the newer more innovative alternative platforms.  That's just truth there!

[road to morocco]

That's kind of odd. I think I remember someone from Transferwise saying they dug Bitcoin big time but couldn't touch it because they'd lose their banking relationships.

Edit - here it is - https://transferwise.com/blog/2013-04/notice-to-bitcoin-users-april-2013/

Ha, good find. So because they could not figure out how to use them for their business bitcoin is dead. And like any "dead" financial instrument it has gone up $50-60 in the last few weeks.  

This is getting too silly.
https://i.imgur.com/YRCrfDX.gif?noredirect

Norwegian Blue. Beautiful plumage.

[RodeoX]

And like any "dead" financial instrument it has gone up $50-60 in the last few weeks. 

Lol @ "financial instrument." You do know that *all* ponzis bitcoin-like financial instruments have to go up before they crash, correct?

And I assume that you know:
1. That bitcoin is provably not a ponzi. An open source ponzi, lol?
2. When an asset gains in value it is not a sign of collapse.
3. Bitcoin was not conceived as a financial instrument, but it regularly (mostly?) is used as one. 

[whoreble]

And like any "dead" financial instrument it has gone up $50-60 in the last few weeks.  

Lol @ "financial instrument." You do know that *all* ponzis bitcoin-like financial instruments have to go up before they crash, correct?

And I assume that you know:
1. That bitcoin is provably not a ponzi. An open source ponzi, lol?

You clearly have no idea of what a ponzi is, so I'll educate you by way of Wikipedia:
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned through legitimate sources."
Which part do you find irreconcilable with a ponzi being open source? You do understand that there is even a ponzi section here, and plenty of ponzi website scripts

2. When an asset gains in value it is not a sign of collapse.

No. Inevitable collapse is an inherent quality of all ponzi schemes. Most successful ponzis make money to their marks, until they don't. Ponzis that try to scam their victims from the start are called "unsuccessful ponzis."

3. Bitcoin was not conceived as a financial instrument, but it regularly (mostly?) is used as one.  

Ponzi operators aren't conceived as ponzi operators either, most being form’d of Joy and Mirth. Nevertheless, just as with Bitcoin, we're only concerned with what they have become, not how they were conceived.
So now you know.

[Kprawn]

In every group of people you get the negative and pessimistic individuals. Some of them are even a bit arrogant too.... If they cannot be right, nobody else can be right too. I had the same thing

happening with some of my extended family members... They read somewhere that Bitcoin failed and nothing you can do or say, will sway them to change their mind. Some people just get burned

through their own stupidity and then goes out on a crusade to FUD the technology. People are just human after all...  

[RodeoX]

And like any "dead" financial instrument it has gone up $50-60 in the last few weeks.  

Lol @ "financial instrument." You do know that *all* ponzis bitcoin-like financial instruments have to go up before they crash, correct?

And I assume that you know:
1. That bitcoin is provably not a ponzi. An open source ponzi, lol?

You clearly have no idea of what a ponzi is, so I'll educate you by way of Wikipedia:
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned through legitimate sources."
Which part do you find irreconcilable with a ponzi being open source? You do understand that there is even a ponzi section here, and plenty of ponzi website scripts

I have been a stock trader for 30 years man. I know quite a bit about what a ponzi is and you don't even seem to see it your own answer. Well, quote. There are ponzi's denominated in bitcoin just like dollars and Euros. But does that make dollars, Euros, and bitcoins ponzies? Of course not. In a ponzi the true asset value MUST be hidden from the investor and the payouts MUST be from new investment not from dividends or the asset gaining value. That is what makes it illegal, the facts are hidden. So what is it you think is being hidden from you when you buy bitcoin? Is the current price part of a global conspiracy to hide the real price from you?   

2. When an asset gains in value it is not a sign of collapse.

No. Inevitable collapse is an inherent quality of all ponzi schemes. Most successful ponzis make money to their marks, until they don't. Ponzis that try to scam their victims from the start are called "unsuccessful ponzis."

 ok... So gold is a 4000 year old ponzi? And no, ponzis generally make no money at all. The money is simply stolen.

3. Bitcoin was not conceived as a financial instrument, but it regularly (mostly?) is used as one.  

Ponzi operators aren't conceived as ponzi operators either, most being form’d of Joy and Mirth. Nevertheless, just as with Bitcoin, we're only concerned with what they have become, not how they were conceived.
So now you know.

That did not help one bit, lol. I don't even understand what your trying to say. "joy and mirth"

[whoreble]

^^
>I have been a stock trader for 30 years man.
And this is how it all ends? Playing P&D penny market. GreatSuccess.gif

>There are ponzi's denominated in bitcoin just like dollars and Euros.
Right. But Bitcoin itself is a ponzi.
Your coin becomes more valuable only if there's an influx of new users, only when greater fools buy your coins for more than you've paid for them. Hard to make it any simpler, man

>In a ponzi the true asset value MUST be hidden from the investor and the payouts MUST be from new investment not from dividends or the asset gaining value
Huh? Source of this nonsense?
This forum has a section dedicated to ponzis, these advertise themselves as ponzis, the word "ponzi" is often prominently featured in the name.
But... you say those aren't ponzis?

>So gold is a 4000 year old ponzi?
That's a topic in itself, but, for the sake of brevity, no. No more than any collectable, like Beanie Babies, is a ponzi. If you're happy with having a Beanie on your shelf, buy one. If you're buying it in hopes of getting rich, and create websites telling people that BTCeanies are the best investment ever OTH...

>And no, ponzis generally make no money at all. The money is simply stolen.
No, successful ponzis pay out really well until they don't. Otherwise the marks won't "invest."
What's funnier still is the people running the ponzi sometimes +don't even admit to themselves they're running a ponzi*.
Read this http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/magazine/the-pigeon-king-and-the-ponzi-scheme-that-shook-canada.html for a chuckle

[RodeoX]

Your coin becomes more valuable only if there's an influx of new users, only when greater fools buy your coins for more than you've paid for them. Hard to make it any simpler, man

So any item that you buy and sell for a profit is a ponzi. 

>In a ponzi the true asset value MUST be hidden from the investor and the payouts MUST be from new investment not from dividends or the asset gaining value

Huh? Source of this nonsense?
This forum has a section dedicated to ponzis, these advertise themselves as ponzis, the word "ponzi" is often prominently featured in the name.
But... you say those aren't ponzis?

That is correct. It is only a ponzi if the true asset price is hidden. If they are advertising as a ponzi it is really a game. You can try to get more people to sign up because you know that the money comes from the newer "investors". That is not deceptive and not even against the law. A good source is the source you used earlier.

Often the high returns encourage investors to leave their money in the scheme, with the result that the promoter does not have to pay out very much to investors; he simply has to send them statements showing how much they have earned. This maintains the deception that the scheme is an investment with high returns

>So gold is a 4000 year old ponzi?

That's a topic in itself, but, for the sake of brevity, no. No more than any collectable, like Beanie Babies, is a ponzi. If you're happy with having a Beanie on your shelf, buy one. If you're buying it in hopes of getting rich, and create websites telling people that BTCeanies are the best investment ever OTH...

No benie babies are not a ponzi either. They are just a stupid thing to invest in. The supply of benie babies is potentially infinite and controlled by the supplier. Much like the Tulip mania, they collapsed because of overproduction. Which can't happen with bitcoin.

>And no, ponzis generally make no money at all. The money is simply stolen.

No, successful ponzis pay out really well until they don't. Otherwise the marks won't "invest." What's funnier still is the people running the ponzi sometimes +don't even admit to themselves they're running a ponzi*.
Read this http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/magazine/the-pigeon-king-and-the-ponzi-scheme-that-shook-canada.html for a chuckle

I'll have to read it later as I am about out of time at work. I would guess that a ponzi pays out the minimum amount to convince investors of the fake valuation of their asset. They likely pay specific investors that they believe will spread the word or anyone who has become suspicious of the fake price. I know they sometimes start out as a real investment, but the minute you start saying the asset is worth $X and then pay out from the investment pool instead of profits you are operating a ponzi because you are lying about the value.

Now let's look at a bitcoin sale. When I buy I pay about the global average price that people all over the world pay on the open market. That price is not hidden or invented by the issuer. It is the provable price. And it's over, that is called a sale. I do not have any more relation with the seller. There are no dividends paid, no holding the asset by the issuer (which almost all ponzis do).
I can sell when I choose, there is no way for the issuer to give my money to the next buyer as there is no investment pool.

A classic ponzi goes like this:
I invent a stock and sell it for $1.
Now the first people who buy I tell them the good news. Your stock is now worth $1.50! Let's say someone calls me on that. I would buy back the stock for $1.50 and try convincing everyone that a profit was made. "Look, he made $.50! If you stick with this you are going to get rich!"

This goes on as long as the deception can be maintained. When enough investors start calling in their sell orders I pack my bags for Fiji and am never heard from again.

 

[whoreble]

Your coin becomes more valuable only if there's an influx of new users, only when greater fools buy your coins for more than you've paid for them. Hard to make it any simpler, man

So any item that you buy and sell for a profit is a ponzi.  

No. Only when you buy an item & sell it at a profit by convincing the buyer that he could rinse & repeat.
Some examples:
1. You buy a Princess Di beanie; sell it to a crazy lady who adores Beanies & double your money: Not a ponzi.
2. You buy a Princess Di beanie; sell it to a crazy lady by convincing her that she can doble her money by doing the same: Ponzi.

>In a ponzi the true asset value MUST be hidden from the investor and the payouts MUST be from new investment not from dividends or the asset gaining value

Huh? Source of this nonsense?
This forum has a section dedicated to ponzis, these advertise themselves as ponzis, the word "ponzi" is often prominently featured in the name.
But... you say those aren't ponzis?

That is correct. It is only a ponzi if the true asset price is hidden. If they are advertising as a ponzi it is really a game. You can try to get more people to sign up because you know that the money comes from the newer "investors". That is not deceptive and not even against the law. A good source is the source you used earlier.

Often the high returns encourage investors to leave their money in the scheme, with the result that the promoter does not have to pay out very much to investors; he simply has to send them statements showing how much they have earned. This maintains the deception that the scheme is an investment with high returns

Your definition of a ponzi is simply wrong, because most people (including the ponzi promoters, the ponzi investors, the people who run this forum, and the statist thugs who prohibit these ponzis) agree that those ponzis (which, oddly enough, call themselves ponzis) are, in fact, ponzis.
The word "hidden" never appears in the wiki article you quoted. Not once. Because there's no need to hide anything.
From the same article: "The promoter sells shares to investors by taking advantage of a lack of investor knowledge or competence."

This is *exactly* what's happening in Bitcoin.
Most *sincere* Bitcoin believers (the ones not buying BTC only to turn around and sell it at a profit) don't understand economics but are absolutely convinced that it's the rest of the world -- those dull unvisionaries who can't think outside the box because got brainwashed in schools and universities -- that are clueless.
Think Dunning–Kruger effect².

>So gold is a 4000 year old ponzi?

That's a topic in itself, but, for the sake of brevity, no. No more than any collectable, like Beanie Babies, is a ponzi. If you're happy with having a Beanie on your shelf, buy one. If you're buying it in hopes of getting rich, and create websites telling people that BTCeanies are the best investment ever OTH...

No benie babies are not a ponzi either. They are just a stupid thing to invest in. The supply of benie babies is potentially infinite and controlled by the supplier. Much like the Tulip mania, they collapsed because of overproduction. Which can't happen with bitcoin.

The supply of 1990s Princes Di Beanie Babies can't be increased for the same reason the supply of 1870 S Seated Liberty Dollars can not increase: it's 2016 and you can't go back in time. It's not the soft, cuddly fur and the adorable bear face that give Princess Di Beanie value, it is the fact that a *limited number was issued.*
As far as the number of BTC being artificially limited to 21mil? Trivial to change with either a hard or a soft fork. Software's like that

>And no, ponzis generally make no money at all. The money is simply stolen.

No, successful ponzis pay out really well until they don't. Otherwise the marks won't "invest." What's funnier still is the people running the ponzi sometimes +don't even admit to themselves they're running a ponzi*.
Read this http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/magazine/the-pigeon-king-and-the-ponzi-scheme-that-shook-canada.html for a chuckle

I'll have to read it later as I am about out of time at work. I would guess that a ponzi pays out the minimum amount to convince investors of the fake valuation of their asset. They likely pay specific investors that they believe will spread the word or anyone who has become suspicious of the fake price. I know they sometimes start out as a real investment, but the minute you start saying the asset is worth $X and then pay out from the investment pool instead of profits you are operating a ponzi because you are lying about the value.

Why lie about the current value when you can lie about *the future value*? Don't you want your lies to be unfalsifiable?
If it's 2013, I sell you a coin and tell you it's worth double what I'm asking for it, wouldn't your knee-jerk response be "then why are you selling it at half price?"
Now, if I told you that the coin you're buying for $1,200 will be worth $10,000 in 2014, you can't tell me I'm lying 'til 2014, and by then? SFYL
TL:DR: No, only the dumbest ponzis rely on hiding the value of the underlying asset. The smart ones exploit the marks' lack of knowledge, unbridled greed, and the old "we're coconspirotors" bit: "yeah, someone is gonna be had, but it ain't us, we're in this together, pulling one over on the rubes/Teh Man!"