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

[DataPlumber]

Good to see that you didn't read the thread. Or if you did, you are incapable of comprehending it.

MUST....NOT.....FEED.......THE......TROLL 

WHOA... my reply posted BEFORE the post it quoted!

I CAN BEND SPACE AND TIME!!!

Now to go back in time and buy when I should have, at $5

[AnonyMint]

You either didn't read the thread. Or if you did, you are incapable of comprehending it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

With a name like odolvlobo, it is not surprising.

Btw, what happens to Bitcoin bcz transaction fees won't scale? 

[mokahless]

New topic:

Any counter-proof that Apple stock is not a ponzi scheme?

[AnonyMint]

New topic:

Any counter-proof that Apple stock is not a ponzi scheme?

$130+ billion a year in revenue.

You are batshit stupid.

[JoelKatz]

Your idealistic bullshit about Bitcoin being different, is just naive and nothing more.

It's possible that you might actually have a point, but I can't tell. What did I say that you think is "idealistic bullshit"?

David, I like you, I was just using some vulgar words for the hyperbole. Please don't mind it. It is not personally directed at you.

That's fine. The problem is that I can't figure out what you're talking about. I thought we were talking about whether Bitcoin was a Ponzi scheme or whether its use as a payment system was something people could legitimately expect to add value. That was a reasonably interesting conversation but then you suddenly switched to full conspiracy mode.

Let's say you're right about all of that. Wtf does that have to do with Bitcoin? Okay, the whole world is badly broken and so is Bitcoin. But then, everything is. So your argument isn't *about* Bitcoin anymore. Your complaint then reduces to complaining that I'm not making the exact same argument you are making.

But we can have that argument if you want, and maybe I can convince you that Bitcoin is a tiny bit less awful because at least people can't inflate it.

[DataPlumber]

You expect me to be nice and respect you when you continue batshit dumb juvenile behavior?

I'd suggest you go back up and see who started that.  Your very first reply on this thread was condescending and rude, and had I noticed that at the time I might have declined to engage you.

Liar. Here is my first reply to you:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=158111.msg1674023#msg1674023

Nothing there but being respectful and answering your question.

Just to clarify, I said "first reply to the thread", not "first reply to me".  Didn't notice that misunderstanding earlier; I guess I should have been more clear.

Your first reply to the thread was,

yucca thanks for your comment, because even comments that show complete lack of understanding of the valuation of money, are useful inputs for our analysis of behavior of bitcoiners.

Which is unarguably condescending and rude.

[DataPlumber]

That's fine. The problem is that I can't figure out what you're talking about.

Joel, I invite you to read back through the thread, to include the handy summary on Page 5.  You're hardly alone in this sentiment.

[mokahless]

New topic:

Any counter-proof that Apple stock is not a ponzi scheme?

$130+ billion a year in revenue.

You are batshit stupid.

Ever heard of sarcasm?
Ever heard of being polite?
Ever heard of not being rude?
----------------------------------------------------
Edit: Nevermind. I should have seen that coming by your first post. You probably posted something trolly and rude while I was editing this post. It seems proper conversations about the topic of bitcoin and ponzi schemes cannot be discussed. I was hoping to incite some interesting comparisons and discussions from others with my post but I think this thread is just troll. I am done here. I advise others to do the same to prevent bumping by anyone except anonymint

yucca thanks for your comment, because even comments that show complete lack of understanding of the valuation of money, are useful inputs for our analysis of behavior of bitcoiners.

Which is unarguably condescending and rude.

[DataPlumber]

You are batshit stupid.

New Topic:

Any counter-proof that AnonyMint is not batshit insane?

[AnonyMint]

Okay David I'm humbled by your humbleness and motivated by your rationality, so let me step out my war mode and speak to you civil. Apologies, I had gotten war weary in this forum dealing with so many combatants.

I just provided a new answer at the bitcoin SE about transaction fees won't scale. So thus, it adds another reason to support that Bitcoin is designed to not scale for transactions, rather for investment.

But without transactions, there is nothing to invest in-- no value. Precisely what makes a ponzi scheme.

It is specifically designed to fall off in revenue for miners, as transactions were supposedly going to increase.

Satoshi separated transactions from blocks. The only protocol point of Bitcoin is to mine blocks, not to process transactions. And the mining was designed to fall off at halving every 4 years.

If that ain't a scam, then tell me why?

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/876/how-much-will-transaction-fees-eventually-be/8749#8749
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3111/will-bitcoin-suffer-from-a-mining-tragedy-of-the-commons-when-mining-fees-drop-t/8686#8686
http://anonymint.org/#Bitcoins_Transaction_Flaws


I want to share something about the way money should work from a genius (who was held in prison by the USA for 7 years without a trial):

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/03/25/sovereign-debt-crisis-conference-2/

We must address a basis question. Those who cannot comprehend what is really at stake will just be fixated on “where do I put my money” and could care less that the barn is burning down around them. The core issue is if money is INTANGIBLE and is simply electronic, then we must ask two critical questions:

(1) why do we borrow with no intent of paying anything back, and

(2) why do we need taxes if money is INTANGIBLE?

If government simply created the money it needs to fund itself within a fixed limit of say 5% of GDP annually, then two issues emerge. First, there would be no borrowing so the debts would be about 33% of what they are today meaning that the purchasing power of money right now would be significantly higher. Second, we do not need taxation for it is silly to tax everyone when money is INTANGIBLE. Taxes were necessary ONLY when money was TANGIBLE. We have moved beyond that. If money is INTANGIBLE, then government can also be much smaller for it is pointless to hunt down people to get money in taxes when we create most of that money through borrowing and interest payments anyway. About 70% of all money created is going to bondholders. The higher that rises, the slower the economic growth and the worse the future appears.

The banksters were so afraid of this guy, they tried to murder him in prison. They put him maximum security prison, etc..

The only reason they did not succeed, is he has too many friends. He helped too many people make a lot of money, because his Pi model of economic confidence is always correct. He was earning $33 a minute on consulting in the 1980s.

I've been studying many different sources about monetary theory. Armstrong is correct.

We should fund what we need from debasement.

Bitcoin is the wrong model. It won't scale.

[DataPlumber]

Okay David I'm humbled by your humbleness and motivated by your rationality, so let me step out my war mode and speak to you civil. Apologies, I had gotten war weary in this forum dealing with so many combatants.

I just provided a new answer at the bitcoin SE about transaction fees won't scale. So thus, it adds another reason to support that Bitcoin is designed to not scale for transactions, rather for investment.

Wow, he may actually have a point!  I've wondered about the scaling of transaction fees.  Someone ask him for a link, as I'm on his ignore list.  Where's the emoticon for badge of honor? 

But without transactions, there is nothing to invest in-- no value. Precisely what makes a ponzi scheme.

It is specifically designed to fall off in revenue for miners, as transactions were supposedly going to increase.

This is the main reason it is ponzi. Satoshi separated transactions from blocks. The only point of Bitcoin is to mine blocks, not to process transactions. And the mining was designed to fall off at halving every 4 years.

If that ain't a scam, then tell me why?

Aaaaaand we're back.

[DataPlumber]

Okay David I'm humbled by your humbleness and motivated by your rationality, so let me step out my war mode and speak to you civil. Apologies, I had gotten war weary in this forum dealing with so many combatants.

I just provided a new answer at the bitcoin SE about transaction fees won't scale. So thus, it adds another reason to support that Bitcoin is designed to not scale for transactions, rather for investment.

Wow, he may actually have a point!  I've wondered about the scaling of transaction fees. 

No, seriously, someone ask, please.

[AnonyMint]

That's fine. The problem is that I can't figure out what you're talking about.

Joel, I invite you to read back through the thread, to include the handy summary on Page 5.  You're hardly alone in this sentiment.

Why do you think you can fool and belittle the intelligence one of the developers of Bitcoin:

http://bitcoin.org/en/development

He won't fall for your inane "summary" on page 5.

[DataPlumber]

That's fine. The problem is that I can't figure out what you're talking about.

Joel, I invite you to read back through the thread, to include the handy summary on Page 5.  You're hardly alone in this sentiment.

Why do you think you can fool and belittle the intelligence one of the developers of Bitcoin:

http://bitcoin.org/en/development

He won't fall for your inane "summary" on page 5.

Not my summary.

Edit: Not inane either.  Unless "inane" means "hysterical" to you.

[AnonyMint]

Okay David I'm humbled by your humbleness and motivated by your rationality, so let me step out my war mode and speak to you civil. Apologies, I had gotten war weary in this forum dealing with so many combatants.

I just provided a new answer at the bitcoin SE about transaction fees won't scale. So thus, it adds another reason to support that Bitcoin is designed to not scale for transactions, rather for investment.

Wow, he may actually have a point!  I've wondered about the scaling of transaction fees.  

No, seriously, someone ask, please.

I had already provided the link. I will provide it again. So far, nobody is answering, they are anonymously downvoting:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/876/how-much-will-transaction-fees-eventually-be/8749#8749
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3111/will-bitcoin-suffer-from-a-mining-tragedy-of-the-commons-when-mining-fees-drop-t/8686#8686
http://anonymint.org/#Bitcoins_Transaction_Flaws

[DataPlumber]

Okay David I'm humbled by your humbleness and motivated by your rationality, so let me step out my war mode and speak to you civil. Apologies, I had gotten war weary in this forum dealing with so many combatants.

I just provided a new answer at the bitcoin SE about transaction fees won't scale. So thus, it adds another reason to support that Bitcoin is designed to not scale for transactions, rather for investment.

Wow, he may actually have a point!  I've wondered about the scaling of transaction fees. 

No, seriously, someone ask, please.

I had already provided the link. I will provide it again. So far, nobody is answering, they are anonymously downvoting:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/876/how-much-will-transaction-fees-eventually-be/8749#8749
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3111/will-bitcoin-suffer-from-a-mining-tragedy-of-the-commons-when-mining-fees-drop-t/8686#8686

Thank you for the links.

I'm a little disappointed that the link for "as Satoshi Nakamoto anticipated..." was not to any primary source, but rather your inference of his intentions.  I feel that your link to something other than a primary source is a bit misleading, since the thought that went through my head as I clicked was, "wow, he really said that?  I wonder what the context was."

Perhaps "as I clearly show Satoshi Nakamoto anticipated" would be a better title for the link.  It fits what you're trying to say without being misleading.

<snark off>
Dude, and I hope you can believe this, I really want to help you better communicate.  Which is why I've been all over your semantics the whole time, because if you actually want to have an intelligent discussion on a topic, you have to be crystal clear in your word choices, and use terms in ways that most-everyone can agree with.  It took me eight pages and a good night's sleep to figure out exactly why you believe "ponzi scheme" is more apt than "bubble", and I think you might be more clear (and I apologize again for putting words in your mouth) if you say, "I believe it's better described as a Ponzi scheme than a bubble because I can show beyond any reasonable doubt that Satoshi designed this system to funnel value from late investors to early investors and leave nothing behind.  And it's this malicious intent that separates a Ponzi scheme from a bubble."

Now, don't get me wrong, I still disagree with you on the "intent" part, but I honestly think those phrases better describe what you're trying to convey.

[AnonyMint]

A message to everyone:

The reason I am so warlike in this discussion, is because I understand that the future of our human race is at stake.

When you try to argue definitions, you are falling right into the hands of the people who are manipulating this. They are masters of Double-Speak.

One of the facts of life, is that things are not always what they seem to be from your own perspective.

I am trying to get bitcoin fixed, so that it can be what you think it is.

It is not what you think it is. I wish it was.

You will say, "why should we believe you, you don't even know what a ponzi scheme is".

All I can say to you, is you don't know the technical, monetary, and other issues involved here.

If you knew what I knew, you would understand.

Please stop thinking I am trying to destroy P2P currency.

Indeed, I do think hard-disks for Proof-of-Work would protect us more from the real threat, which is government.

But that is not the main problem with Bitcoin. The main problem is that debasement is dying. You've been hoodwinked into thinking that debasement is bad.

All of you should try to slow down with your reactionary minds, and do some careful reflection and study.

[AnonyMint]

I'm a little disappointed that the link for "as Satoshi Nakamoto anticipated..." was not to any primary source, but rather your inference of his intentions.  I feel that your link to something other than a primary source is a bit misleading, since the thought that went through my head as I clicked was, "wow, he really said that?  I wonder what the context was."

Perhaps "as I clearly show Satoshi Nakamoto anticipated" would be a better title for the link.  It fits what you're trying to say without being misleading.

I don't have time to be a word-smith. People can think a little more slowly and figure it out.

The page I linked to has links somewhere (I can't remember where!) to some of the design decisions or statements by Satoshi.

Satoshi said that he expected mining to become concentrated among a few miners and that it would possibly be free.

Sure sounds to me like he was planning for a govt or fascist-corporation takeover.

You readers go vote and you don't even research all my links. So no wonder you don't see what I see!

[MoonShadow]

I'm a little disappointed that the link for "as Satoshi Nakamoto anticipated..." was not to any primary source, but rather your inference of his intentions.  I feel that your link to something other than a primary source is a bit misleading, since the thought that went through my head as I clicked was, "wow, he really said that?  I wonder what the context was."

Perhaps "as I clearly show Satoshi Nakamoto anticipated" would be a better title for the link.  It fits what you're trying to say without being misleading.

I don't have time to be a word-smith. People can think a little more slowly and figure it out.

The page I linked to has links somewhere (I can't remember where!) to some of the design decisions or statements by Satoshi.

Satoshi said that he expected mining to become concentrated among a few miners and that it would possibly be free.

Sure sounds to me like he was planning for a govt or fascist-corporation takeover.

You readers go vote and you don't even research all my links. So no wonder you don't see what I see!

You didn't understand why he said that.

Here, you're the latest inspiration for this...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=159349.msg1684347#msg1684347

[DataPlumber]

When you try to argue definitions, you are falling right into the hands of the people who are manipulating this. They are masters of Double-Speak.

Not sure if that was directed at me, but I'll be surprised if it wasn't.

<snark off>
The fundamental problem with using language for communication is that EVERY WORD IS A GENERALIZATION.  No word you use has exactly the same meaning to anyone who hears it, so it's of paramount importance to choose words that leave as little "wiggle room" as possible in their meaning, in order to ensure others' inference is the same as your implication.

<snark on>
Now, I'm as big a fan of Orwell as the next guy, but engaging in hyperbole does NOT lead to a better understanding.  But if you're trying to preach instead of educate, and therefore playing fast-and-loose with terminology by finding the most emotionally-charged words instead of words that are the best-fitting for your idea, then YOU are the master of double-speak, not those who are trying to pin down your actual meaning.