Bitcoin has aspects of a Ponzi scheme, in that, during the runup phase, those getting money out were getting it from people who put it in earlier, and much of the gain accrued to the people who set the thing up. Some early proponents wrote about Bitcoin as if it generated revenue, which is why I used the term "Ponzi scheme". The important point is that Bitcoin speculation is a zero-sum game. There's no revenue being generated. It's a variant on a pyramid scheme, or, as someone else wrote, "technically it's a pump and dump". There are many variations on this theme; check out "High Yield Investment Programs". The common elements are 1) it's zero-sum, and 2) the early adopters make money at the expense of the later ones.
Dollar is a ponzi scheme, euro is a ponzi scheme, gold is a ponzi scheme, your dog is a ponzi scheme.
Bitcoin is a revolutionary secure protocol.
Bitcoin, as a technology, does solve one problem - irrevocable unidirectional money transfer between remote anonymous parties. The Bitcoin world then shows how a financial system based on irrevocable unidirectional money transfer between remote anonymous parties fails. That's what interests me.
Not more, not less. So stop bashing and be positive.
The Bitcoin ecosystem requires centralized trusted parties to operate - exchanges, "online wallet" services, payment processors, and such. The idea behind Bitcoin was supposed to be that no central services were required. But the Bitcoin technology doesn't solve enough of the problem to allow that.
No centralized system is mandatory, only convenient to develop new services.
Because Bitcoin transfers can be anonymous, the community assumed that trusted services could also be anonymous. That has not worked out well. Many of the services have turned out to be run by people who took the money and ran. Even the services that are still around are on the flaky side. That's why I take a hard line on due diligence.
Agreed, due dilligence is always needed.
The interesting technical question is whether an anonymous system that doesn't require centralized trusted parties can be developed. It has to do more than support simple money transfer. It needs a way to guarantee that, before the transaction becomes irrevocable, both sides have received whatever they agreed to receive. That's hard, but may not be impossible.
You call it escrow ? Anyway, for every scam, there is thousands of successful transactions.
That's all I'm going to say in response to "cypherdoc", other than Parker Posey's line from "Party Girl": "Get a last name and we'll talk".
Irrelevant and arrogant.
