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

[DannyHamilton]

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.  The best thing you can do is click "Ignore" and walk away.

[AnonyMint]

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).

They are still interacting with his "gold" promotion:

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf#page=3

It hasn't moved since the day he announced it on the cryptography mailing list (wow was he well organized!) I admire the guy, except for the bad outcome coming.

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.

He has vanished physically and due to the anonymity of Bitcoin (damn this guy was clever!) he can still be around without being around.

His promotion lives on without his physical presence.

This is the first case of someone doing an anonymous extension of the ponzi.

I ADMIRE HIM, but as I said, I suspect the NSA is behind this, not only one person.

[AnonyMint]

Proof: Speculation ≠ Ponzi.

Excellent point.

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

Gold, silver, and google aren't/weren't 100 to 200 times their floor value.

[christop]

Also from that Wikipedia article that you are relying on:

Similar Schemes:

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.

If Bitcoin were overvalued, it would be an economic bubble rather than a Ponzi scheme. Bitcoin is an open market. A Ponzi scheme is not. Bitcoin has "no single person misrepresenting the intrinsic value." A Ponzi scheme does.

If you want to gain any credibility, stop calling it a Ponzi scheme.

[christop]

Proof: Speculation ≠ Ponzi.

Excellent point.

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

Gold, silver, and google aren't 100 to 200 times their floor value.

In your mind, what is the threshold for something to be called a "Ponzi scheme"?

[AnonyMint]

Also from that Wikipedia article that you are relying on:

Similar Schemes:

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.

If Bitcoin were overvalued, it would be an economic bubble rather than a Ponzi scheme. Bitcoin is an open market. A Ponzi scheme is not. Bitcoin has "no single person misrepresenting the intrinsic value." A Ponzi scheme does.

If you want to gain any credibility, stop calling it a Ponzi scheme.

Why do I have to repeat myself are you blind?

They are still interacting with his "gold" promotion:

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf#page=3

It hasn't moved since the day he announced it on the cryptography mailing list (wow was he well organized!) I admire the guy, except for the bad outcome coming.

And don't tell me that investors in Bernie Madoff where not bringing in other investors for him.

[DannyHamilton]

In your mind, what is the threshold for something to be called a "Ponzi scheme"?

- snip -
See my definition below, which matches perfectly with Bitcoin.
- snip -
A ponzi scheme is where there needs to always be new people bringing capital in, else the price collapses in a spiral. This is because there is no income model.

This is why I am saying a correct design (such as my design for AnonyMint.org AnonyCash.org AnonyCoin.org you can go read it) should discourage dormancy-- i.e. the measurement of how long the coins sit with one owner and are not traded.

If you know the Quantity Theory of Money (wikipedia is your friend), then you understand that the value of a currency is dictated by the money supply and the velocity of money, not just one of the two.
- snip -

[AnonyMint]

Proof: Speculation ≠ Ponzi.

Excellent point.

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

Gold, silver, and google aren't 100 to 200 times their floor value.

In your mind, what is the threshold for something to be called a "Ponzi scheme"?

It requires some white lie. The pseudo-lie is that bitcoin is anything like a commodity currency or gold.

Then it requires some level of exponential valuation where it can't possible happen due to the law of nature that large things grow slower.

I think people will have to dig into details and justify that case.

The key here is the trajectory. With a currency, we know that if dormancy is not decreasing while the price is exponentially increasing, then the greater fool effect is kicking in.

[Peter Lambert]

The long-term and short-term expectations polls, both show extreme ponzi valuations.

I see links to two very unscientific, self-selecting polls with small sample sizes. Basically useless.

The short term and long term expected value of bitcoins is currently 75 USD per BTC. That is what the market is telling us. Some people may be overexcited and expect to make 1000% returns, but if the overall consensus was that the price would be over $1000 in a couple years, then the price would quickly correct to over $1000 now.

[AnonyMint]

The long-term and short-term expectations polls, both show extreme ponzi valuations.

I see links to two very unscientific, self-selecting polls with small sample sizes. Basically useless.

Agreed except not totally useless when factored in with other information, such as the lower-bound of 60% dormancy, which means it is in reality much higher do to sending to self and FX not being goods & services.

The short term and long term expected value of bitcoins is currently 75 USD per BTC. That is what the market is telling us. Some people may be overexcited and expect to make 1000% returns, but if the overall consensus was that the price would be over $1000 in a couple years, then the price would quickly correct to over $1000 now.

That is not correct. Try to cite a reference on that, you won't find it. You can't project the current market price as the future market price, you need discounting, such as a future's market. Geez, learn what an option is.

[Peter Lambert]

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.

Except bitcoin does not pay any returns. Therefore, it does not fall under the definition of a ponzi scheme you are trying to shoehorn it into.

Edit: Just noticed Korbman already said this farhter up in the thread, sorry.

[AnonyMint]

DannyHamilton is one of those guys who can only see his nose.

[AnonyMint]

Except bitcoin does not pay any returns. Therefore, it does not fall under the definition of a ponzi scheme you are trying to shoehorn it into.

I already refuted that. Go back up thread and read.

[AnonyMint]

Holliday, if you want to make a valid point, try again plot a relative chart to marketcap (M x P) rise. Then you will see it going the wrong direction.

[DataPlumber]

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

And yet you carefully overlook the items that don't support your assertion:

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

The "earnings" are exactly the payments to "investors", as buying and selling BTC is a zero-sum game.  And this is a currency, not an "investment scheme", though some seem to treat it as such.

The promoter sells shares to investors by taking advantage of a lack of investor knowledge or competence, or using claims of a proprietary investment strategy which must be kept secret to ensure a competitive edge.

Where are the secrets?  The only one that's been kept is the actual identity of Bitcoin's creator(s), but who can blame them?  Would you want the media (or other) attention of being the creator of something this potentially disruptive?  Besides, that would give the illusion of central control, which Bitcoin is created to be free of.

I could go on, but I grow bored of this thread.

[wtfvanity]

Proof: Speculation ≠ Ponzi.

Excellent point.

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

Gold, silver, and google aren't/weren't 100 to 200 times their floor value.

http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf

18->1800 seems about 100x the value.

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

silver from .34 to over 30 is about 100x as well.

SCAMS!

[Peter Lambert]

Except bitcoin does not pay any returns. Therefore, it does not fall under the definition of a ponzi scheme you are trying to shoehorn it into.

I already refuted that. Go back up thread and read.

You didn't refute it though. Ponzi schemes pay out some amount to those invested in the fund, like a dividend type payment. Bitcoin does not do anything like that. Buying bitcoin is only a ponzi in the same way that buying gold is a ponzi.

[TCollar]

Nakamoto is most one or more of a group of Anglos who were living in Japan in 2009.  The Pro-Ponzi argument is that it was founded by a mystery man, the early adopters (AKA Nakamoto) undoubtedly get the most coins for the least effort.  Those of us now, especially those of us interested in mining are at the suspicious point where we can still profit, but there are obstacles (cash to make machines, space, time heat dissipation, electricity) and an attempt to over-come those obstacles will make us more likely to be scammed.  Possibly a scam within a scam.

But.

I think the early adopters of bitcoin will make a tidy profit for themselves, but the openess of it, being able to look up each block chain and each transaction shows me it may not be a ponzi scheme.  It shows me this enough that I have invested in mining hardware, made my own controllers at what could be a real loss for me.

It could be a scam.  If it is, it is a good one.  If it is not a scam, it is a revolution in currency and economy.  If it is not faith, then it is risk.  I am taking the risk. I do not have faith is a mysterious founder and in fact I am suspicious of him.

[AnonyMint]

Except bitcoin does not pay any returns. Therefore, it does not fall under the definition of a ponzi scheme you are trying to shoehorn it into.

I already refuted that. Go back up thread and read.

You didn't refute it though. Ponzi schemes pay out some amount to those invested in the fund, like a dividend type payment. Bitcoin does not do anything like that. Buying bitcoin is only a ponzi in the same way that buying gold is a ponzi.

I wish you would bother to read Wikipedia:

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

Where is the profit of Bitcoin?

[GCInc.]

OP has a point for theorizing that an authoritative agency may have designed Bitcoin in order to relieve the fools [people] of their money.

This is an advanced conclusion not without merit. When one gets his bitcoin out of his ass, it would actually make as much sense as a super genius Satoshi devising world-changing monetary system by himself for the benefit of society, and then disappearing for good.

Thinking NSA, however, is naive in an obnoxious US-emphasized way. It would be something way larger. Just as naive is debating about the definition of ponzi. That's where the OP is wrong, and he's losing his own red thread because of that.