Any counter-proof that Satoshi Nakamoto did not design a ponzi scheme on purpose

[AnonyMint]

Mine has no assumptions.  

You can't be serious?  Read your post out loud to yourself.  Listen critically.

It is a ponzi scheme.

You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.

Enumerate what you think are the assumptions, then I will clarify your misunderstandings.

I don't care what you call it, I described the reality above. Name it what ever you want. You can call it "ZOOZOO" for all I care.

[AnonyMint]

I think you actually mean 'puzzle scheme'
You sound very puzzled 

Ponzi scheme has a very specific structure and what we're seeing here, especially the appreciation and depreciation cycle of the BTC as an element of valuation and tradeability itself, makes BTC an element that COULD be part of a ponzi scheme the same way that fiat can, but no different than fiat in that regard.

Very different than fiat because of the debasement rate relative to the market cap.

This is why we are seeing $1 billion valuation expectations.

[christop]

Yes, it does matter what you call it. Don't call it a Ponzi scheme if it's not one.

You haven't shown how there is a central operator. That is a key ingredient in a Ponzi scheme. Are you claiming that Satoshi is somehow that central operator simply because he is one of many early adopters?

If Satoshi or some other early adopter did own a large number of Bitcoin, he could cash them out and this so-called "scheme" would continue to function without him. There is strong evidence that many early adopters actually have been dumping their stashes of Bitcoins onto the market. A Ponzi scheme, in contrast, would collapse if this were to happen.

Whereas a Ponzi scheme is organized like a pyramid, Bitcoin is organized like a network of buyers and sellers.

[AnonyMint]

It makes no difference to me if there is a central operator or not (obviously there is not), because it doesn't affect any of my claims about outcomes or causes.

[DataPlumber]

New topic: Any counter-proof that AnonyMint did not design this thread as a massive troll?

[AnonyMint]

New topic: Any counter-proof that AnonyMint did not design this thread as a massive troll?

Can you please stay on the facts?

I am waiting for you to enumerate what you claimed are my assumptions.

[jing_troop]

I think you actually mean 'puzzle scheme'
You sound very puzzled 

Ponzi scheme has a very specific structure and what we're seeing here, especially the appreciation and depreciation cycle of the BTC as an element of valuation and tradeability itself, makes BTC an element that COULD be part of a ponzi scheme the same way that fiat can, but no different than fiat in that regard.

Very different than fiat because of the debasement rate relative to the market cap.

This is why we are seeing $1 billion valuation expectations.

That's another issue, and yes you're correct in pulling a non-parallel between BTC and fiat with relativity to market cap.  My point is regarding BTC as a ponzi scheme; BTC is not a ponzi scheme though ponzi schemes can use BTC, just as they can use fiat and in *that* sense they are the same.  I am limiting my comment of similarity only to that aspect and for the sake of the point that the subject addresses, nothing more.

[jing_troop]

New topic: Any counter-proof that AnonyMint did not design this thread as a massive troll?

Zero.

[AnonyMint]

When you've lost the logic (al debate), you pull out the strawmen.

One of key attributes of a ponzi scheme (or call it exponential speculative bubble if you prefer, e.g. Tulip mania and South Seas Bubble), is the value portion is so tiny relative to the expectation, and the expectation of never-ending rise ("sky is the limit" type valuation).

[christop]

When you've lost the logic, you pull out the strawmans.

One of key attributes of a ponzi scheme (or call it exponential speculative bubble if you prefer, e.g. Tulip mania and South Seas Bubble), is the value portion is so tiny relative to the expectation, and the expectation of never-ending rise ("sky is the limit" type valuation).

One of the key attributes of water is that it is a liquid at normal atmospheric pressures and temperatures. Oil is a liquid at normal atmospheric pressures and temperatures, therefore oil is water. LOGIC FAIL.

Maybe Bitcoin has one or more of the key attributes of a Ponzi scheme, but it does not have all key attributes of a Ponzi scheme (ie, a central operator).

Can we both agree that you believe Bitcoin is some type of scheme but not a Ponzi scheme specifically? We're getting hung up on you insisting on calling it a Ponzi scheme when it clearly is not one.

[Korbman]

I suspect the skepticism stems from an obvious misunderstanding of what a Ponzi scheme is and seeing an apparent "bubble" forming. While it is true that Bitcoin value could come crashing down (whether that is likely or not is a separate discussion), it would be due to demand dropping relative to its supply. Remember, it doesn't have to be a Ponzi scheme for it to crash. Tulip mania, for example, wasn't a Ponzi scheme (there was no central operator).

Exactly. Hence my confusion when the OP was calling a speculative bubble a Ponzi Scheme.

Does it make any difference what you call it

Actually, it makes a huge difference. Don't call an apple an orange and expect people to know which fruit you're talking about.

if you've got a majority of predicting $100,000+ prices and the FX price is being driven by later investors without sufficient fundamental matching value in transactions velocity for goods & services?

Very few people [realistically] expect a price anywhere near what you stated. And who said Bitcoin had to represent a particular value based solely on goods and services? Bitcoin has the potential to act as a safe haven for individuals looking to break away from government-backed fiat. A lot of the upward pressure we've seen so far on price may have been influenced by financial turmoil in Europe...or maybe governments themselves...or maybe dealers looking to launder money...or maybe virtual currency fanatics...or maybe just some good 'ol fashion positive PR. There could be any number of reasons why people are purchasing Bitcoins.

[DataPlumber]

When you've lost the logic (al debate), you pull out the strawmen.

One of key attributes of a ponzi scheme (or call it exponential speculative bubble if you prefer, e.g. Tulip mania and South Seas Bubble), is the value portion is so tiny relative to the expectation, and the expectation of never-ending rise ("sky is the limit" type valuation).

When your assertions are shown clearly false, you wave your hand and say "semantics".  I would argue the moon is made of green cheese, and when you point out that we sent people there who discovered only rocks, I can say that what I really meant by "cheese" is "rocks" and you're just picking apart semantics.

How can anyone have a meaningful argument if the words don't really mean anything?  The only reason I'm still here is the entertainment value.

[yucca]

When you've lost the logic (al debate), you pull out the strawmans.

One of key attributes of a ponzi scheme (or call it exponential speculative bubble if you prefer, e.g. Tulip mania and South Seas Bubble), is the value portion is so tiny relative to the expectation, and the expectation of never-ending rise ("sky is the limit" type valuation).

OMG lulz, you cant call something a ponzi scheme when you mean speculative bubble. Just man up and say you came in guns blazing without knowing what "ponzi scheme" actually means.

Mathematically a finite trading resource HAS to rise in value as its trade depth against tangibles increases. Speculation will cause over optimistic rises but these will be followed by corrections to match tangible depth. Or if you want to be dramatic and newspeak you can say "BUBBLES AND CRASHES!!!"

Also: "straw mans" "occams razor", what have you been reading? maybe "debating 101 for dummies"? lulz.

[AnonyMint]

Sorry you lose.  

When you've lost the logic, you pull out the strawmans.

One of key attributes of a ponzi scheme (or call it exponential speculative bubble if you prefer, e.g. Tulip mania and South Seas Bubble), is the value portion is so tiny relative to the expectation, and the expectation of never-ending rise ("sky is the limit" type valuation).

One of the key attributes of water is that it is a liquid at normal atmospheric pressures and temperatures. Oil is a liquid at normal atmospheric pressures and temperatures, therefore oil is water. LOGIC FAIL.

Maybe Bitcoin has one or more of the key attributes of a Ponzi scheme, but it does not have all key attributes of a Ponzi scheme (ie, a central operator).

Can we both agree that you believe Bitcoin is some type of scheme but not a Ponzi scheme specifically? We're getting hung up on you insisting on calling it a Ponzi scheme when it clearly is not one.

It has all of the attributes of a ponzi scheme as defined by wikipedia.

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, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. Perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to keep the scheme going.

And Satoshi's very clever psychology ploy of making goldbugs think that Bitcoin is like gold (when in fact it has none of gold's qualities) and his designed system continues to act as a "hub" which is fooling the investors.

The promoter sells shares to investors by taking advantage of a lack of investor knowledge or competence

In a Ponzi scheme, the schemer acts as a "hub" for the victims, interacting with all of them directly. In a pyramid scheme, those who recruit additional participants benefit directly. (In fact, failure to recruit typically means no investment return.)

An economic bubble: A bubble is similar to a Ponzi scheme in that one participant gets paid by contributions from a subsequent participant (until inevitable collapse). A bubble involves ever-rising prices in an open market (for example stock, housing, or tulip bulbs) where prices rise because buyers bid more because prices are rising. Bubbles are often said to be based on the "greater fool" theory. As with the Ponzi scheme, the price exceeds the intrinsic value of the item, but unlike the Ponzi scheme, there is no single person misrepresenting the intrinsic value.

And he has run away with the initial money, as Wikipedia says:

The promoter vanishes, taking all the remaining investment money

[AnonyMint]

This guy has been running around bitcointalk for the past 24 hours shouting "Ponzi Scheme",  "Scam", "Designed to fail", etc.  He has his own crypto-currency he is pushing (AnonyCoin or something like that).  You are wasting your time responding to this troll.  Th best thing you can do is click "Ignore" and walk away.

Hey pumper, address the facts.

[Korbman]

It has all of the attributes of a ponzi scheme as defined by wikipedia.

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, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. Perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to keep the scheme going.

But Bitcoin doesn't pay a return to its investors, nor is there a central person/place/thing who "entices new investors by offering higher returns"...soooo how is this relevant? [HINT: It's not relevant. That's why it's not a Ponzi..and also the reason everyone thinks you're trolling]

Hey pumper, address the facts.

...Coming from the guy who registered his account yesterday..

[AnonyMint]

I see the three STFU votes switched to Yes, ostensibly after I linked to this page from the bitcoin SE Q&A, pointing out the "fingers in ears, nananan" skew in the poll. Don't worry, I am still counting you as STFU.

[AnonyMint]

It has all of the attributes of a ponzi scheme as defined by wikipedia.

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, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. Perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to keep the scheme going.

But Bitcoin doesn't pay a return to its investors, nor is there a central person/place/thing who "entices new investors by offering higher returns"...soooo how is this relevant? HINT: It's not relevant. That's why it's not a Ponzi..and also the reason everyone thinks you're trolling

Yes it does pay a return in the form of appreciating price which can be cashed out via FX, just as some investors were cashing out of Bernie Madof's scheme, but he tried hard to promote and keep them fooled, just as you are doing now by perpetuating Satoshi's clever "gold is better" delusion (given Bitcoin doesn't even have gold's debasement schedule nor other properties).

There is a hub, it is the single copy of the longest block chain.

And troll is what you call someone who you are losing the argument against.

Hey pumper, address the facts.

...Coming from the guy who registered his account yesterday..

Is promoting to change bitcoin to make it more stable a pumper?

You can search the developer area for "StableCoin". I am not the first to propose this.

[christop]

In a Ponzi scheme, the schemer acts as a "hub" for the victims, interacting with all of them directly. In a pyramid scheme, those who recruit additional participants benefit directly. (In fact, failure to recruit typically means no investment return.)

People who buy into Bitcoin for whatever reason do not interact with Satoshi or other early adopters directly (except when Satoshi or other early adopters buy or sell Bitcoins to other people).

And he has run away with the initial money, as Wikipedia says:

The promoter vanishes, taking all the remaining investment money

If the promoter has already vanished, then by your logic of calling it a Ponzi scheme, Bitcoin should have collapsed already. But has it collapsed? No? Well that's because Bitcoin doesn't need a central promoter to sustain its value.

[wtfvanity]

Proof: Speculation ≠ Ponzi.

Excellent point.

Were people calling gold, silver, and google stock ponzi schemes while their values sky rocketed?