Should All Promotions Of Bitcoin "Ponzi" Schemes Be Banned?

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

The idea that having the details available makes something completely voluntary and therefore moral really only works if everyone is highly intelligent.  Despite the fact that intelligent people (like, let's be honest--most of this community) have a tendency to treat intelligence as a measure of human value, the fact is it's not a crime to be born less intelligent.  So yes, I get the joke, and for a well-aware person a voluntary ponzi scheme is essentially a gambling game.  However, I personally don't consider it a crime for a person to be born less intelligent, and I think it's naive to believe that even a full-disclosure ponzi scheme won't snare an increasing portion of innocent victims as bitcoin grows.

I'm not in favour of rules banning the advertising of ponzi schemes because I think that goes too far.  However, I think the applicability of the "in-joke" that is full-disclosure ponzi schemes is naturally drawing to a close, and it's starting to be time for people to voluntarily reduce and eliminate their advertising of it.  If you don't start to pull back from it when there's a good reason to do so, then transparency or no transparency you've been "hooked" by the scheme yourself.  I'll say the same thing to you that I say to any other gambler, and to myself when I do gamble from time to time:  gambling is a type of entertainment that costs money.  Don't spend more on entertainment than your budget allows, and intend from the beginning to let your go of your gambled money graciously, whether you have won or lost.  Chatting around the roulette table and chatting around the ponzi scheme table are both enjoyable past-times, but the conversation ought to supercede the game.  My .02 BTC.

I agree completely. If you gamble to make money you're doing it wrong. If you Ponzi to make money you're doing it wrong. Obviously if you're a professional poker player and you've been making 200k a year for the last decade then you're doing it right but in general it's a bad idea as an investment.

[1714010073]

1714010073

[1714010073]

1714010073

[1714010073]

1714010073

[1714010073]

1714010073

[gigabytecoin]

Ponzi schemes are fun, providing nobody is lying to you about what it is.

It's not worse than lottery or gambling, anyway.

Try explaining that to the general public.

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

Ponzi schemes are fun, providing nobody is lying to you about what it is.

It's not worse than lottery or gambling, anyway.

Try explaining that to the general public.

Doesn't matter what it is trying to change the general public's opinion is going to be tough.
If they get to understand bitcoin then I don't see them having a problem with this specific ponzi.
Now if there is a negative campaign against bitcoin / becomes illegal trying to change the general publics opinion will be a nightmare.

[eMansipater]

...I'm not in favour of rules banning the advertising of ponzi schemes because I think that goes too far.  However, I think the applicability of the "in-joke" that is full-disclosure ponzi schemes is naturally drawing to a close, and it's starting to be time for people to voluntarily reduce and eliminate their advertising of it....

I agree completely...

Care to lead the way?

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

...I'm not in favour of rules banning the advertising of ponzi schemes because I think that goes too far.  However, I think the applicability of the "in-joke" that is full-disclosure ponzi schemes is naturally drawing to a close, and it's starting to be time for people to voluntarily reduce and eliminate their advertising of it....

I agree completely...

Care to lead the way?

I should have been more clear. I was agreeing with the first part up until voluntarily withdrawing. But I'm a fan of this ponzi.
Also I am with you that some people may make stupid decisions regarding it but I don't see that as an excuse.
I also don't feel sorry for the people that didn't even google "adjustable rate mortgage" before they made what is commonly referred to as "the biggest investment you'll make in your life".

I'm actually quite a fan of your posts on here and I enjoy reading them, it seems they're really well thought out and researched.
This time I'm going to disagree on the direction you're going but agree with your overall statement if that makes sense.

[ptd]

The idea that having the details available makes something completely voluntary and therefore moral really only works if everyone is highly intelligent.  Despite the fact that intelligent people (like, let's be honest--most of this community) have a tendency to treat intelligence as a measure of human value, the fact is it's not a crime to be born less intelligent.  So yes, I get the joke, and for a well-aware person a voluntary ponzi scheme is essentially a gambling game.  However, I personally don't consider it a crime for a person to be born less intelligent, and I think it's naive to believe that even a full-disclosure ponzi scheme won't snare an increasing portion of innocent victims as bitcoin grows.

This is not specific to ponzi schemes. It ultimately boils down to "How much should society attempt to protect people from themselves?".

[ryepdx]

I feel like one of the first divisions of the Bitcoin community will be along the lines of late-adopters/mainstream-followers and early-adopters/fringe. Perhaps We Use Coins ought to start a forum for all the late-adopters and other folk who might get offended. Or perhaps the official forums should be the ones with the kid gloves and the ponzi action should be moved elsewhere. However you slice it, if we're going to be courting the general public we're going to have to eventually provide a good-sized range of discussion platforms to cater to all the differing viewpoints that will be springing up. Some people will be offended to no end if we allow NSFW or even gray/black-market posts to be mixed in with the rest. Others will be offended if we separate them. Still others will be offended if we even allow them to exist on the forums, even if they're off in a section of their own.

I guess the question is this: to what audience should the official forums play?

Edit:

This is not specific to ponzi schemes. It ultimately boils down to "How much should society attempt to protect people from themselves?".

Or, perhaps more pragmatically, how much should we cater to those who are used to being protected from themselves? We're hardly big enough yet to be setting the paradigms of society.

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

I feel like one of the first divisions of the Bitcoin community will be along the lines of late-adopters/mainstream-followers and early-adopters/fringe. Perhaps We Use Coins ought to start a forum for all the late-adopters and other folk who might get offended. Or perhaps the official forums should be the ones with the kid gloves and the ponzi action should be moved elsewhere. However you slice it, if we're going to be courting the general public we're going to have to eventually provide a good-sized range of discussion platforms to cater to all the differing viewpoints that will be springing up. Some people will be offended to no end if we allow NSFW or even gray/black-market posts to be mixed in with the rest. Others will be offended if we separate them. Still others will be offended if we even allow them to exist on the forums, even if they're off in a section of their own.

I guess the question is this: to what audience should the official forums play?

Edit:

This is not specific to ponzi schemes. It ultimately boils down to "How much should society attempt to protect people from themselves?".

Or, perhaps more pragmatically, how much should we cater to those who are used to being protected from themselves? We're hardly big enough yet to be setting the paradigms of society.

I honestly don't see why so many people have a problem with putting NSFW / Blackmarket etc etc in their own forums.
I think it solves both.

[eMansipater]

I'm actually quite a fan of your posts on here and I enjoy reading them, it seems they're really well thought out and researched.
This time I'm going to disagree on the direction you're going but agree with your overall statement if that makes sense.

It's your prerogative, just like the gentle nudge was mine .  I've spent a lot of time explaining to friends and family the specifics of pyramid and ponzi schemes, so I have quite a bit of empathy for people who find it hard to understand where the threat in them lies.  It's like word problems--yes, the average person can understand them if they spend long enough working at it with a patient enough tutor, but it doesn't mean they're not frustrating enough that some reasonable people will give up.

I honestly don't see why so many people have a problem with putting NSFW / Blackmarket etc etc in their own forums.
I think it solves both.

I am strongly in favour of this myself.

[ryepdx]

I honestly don't see why so many people have a problem with putting NSFW / Blackmarket etc etc in their own forums.
I think it solves both.

Agreed, provided there's an acknowledgement popup like the one on the 18+ boards on 4chan.

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

It's your prerogative, just like the gentle nudge was mine .  I've spent a lot of time explaining to friends and family the specifics of pyramid and ponzi schemes, so I have quite a bit of empathy for people who find it hard to understand where the threat in them lies.  It's like word problems--yes, the average person can understand them if they spend long enough working at it with a patient enough tutor, but it doesn't mean they're not frustrating enough that some reasonable people will give up.

I think it's funny that when they're relatively simple (like the btc one) and pretty open about how they work people freak out.
Yet extremely complicated derivatives are totally fine and people blindly throw money at them.  
Then we have what happened with the housing / economic crisis and they're still legit  

Not that concerned just think it's ironic. I guess you put a regulating body in charge and license it and it's ok in the public eye.

[Akarbb]

Ponzi schemes are immoral

is it lonely up there?

I'm merely showing you how the rest of the world views Ponzi schemes, like so many have brought up.  A ponzi scheme to the average person isn't fun, it's them being taken advantage of.  Even if it's a voluntary Ponzi scheme, the average person is going to associate the entirety of Bitcoin with it, and it discredits the whole community.

Ponzi schemes are immoral

is it lonely up there?

Hahaha, hey Akarbb I wonder, have you ever bought real estate and then sold it for a higher price? Left someone else holding the bag?

Only when I play Monopoly

[eMansipater]

It's your prerogative, just like the gentle nudge was mine .  I've spent a lot of time explaining to friends and family the specifics of pyramid and ponzi schemes, so I have quite a bit of empathy for people who find it hard to understand where the threat in them lies.  It's like word problems--yes, the average person can understand them if they spend long enough working at it with a patient enough tutor, but it doesn't mean they're not frustrating enough that some reasonable people will give up.

I think it's funny that when they're relatively simple (like the btc one) and pretty open about how they work people freak out.
Yet extremely complicated derivatives are totally fine and people blindly throw money at them.  
Then we have what happened with the housing / economic crisis and they're still legit  

Not that concerned just think it's ironic. I guess you put a regulating body in charge and license it and it's ok in the public eye.

I know, hey?  It's an unfortunate exploitation of a very common simplifying mechanism in human psychology.

[ryepdx]

I guess you put a regulating body in charge and license it and it's ok in the public eye.

You're familiar with the Milgram experiment, right?

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

I guess you put a regulating body in charge and license it and it's ok in the public eye.

You're familiar with the Milgram experiment, right?

Possibly one of the coolest experiments ever.
Not surprising at all either.
I think it's natural human behavior to look for a way to shed responsibility.

[gigabytecoin]

I feel like one of the first divisions of the Bitcoin community will be along the lines of late-adopters/mainstream-followers and early-adopters/fringe. Perhaps We Use Coins ought to start a forum for all the late-adopters and other folk who might get offended. Or perhaps the official forums should be the ones with the kid gloves and the ponzi action should be moved elsewhere. However you slice it, if we're going to be courting the general public we're going to have to eventually provide a good-sized range of discussion platforms to cater to all the differing viewpoints that will be springing up. Some people will be offended to no end if we allow NSFW or even gray/black-market posts to be mixed in with the rest. Others will be offended if we separate them. Still others will be offended if we even allow them to exist on the forums, even if they're off in a section of their own.

I guess the question is this: to what audience should the official forums play?

Edit:

This is not specific to ponzi schemes. It ultimately boils down to "How much should society attempt to protect people from themselves?".

Or, perhaps more pragmatically, how much should we cater to those who are used to being protected from themselves? We're hardly big enough yet to be setting the paradigms of society.

I honestly don't see why so many people have a problem with putting NSFW / Blackmarket etc etc in their own forums.
I think it solves both.

Basically because when the administrators of a website begin openly allowing blackmarket/illegal goods to be sold... Eventually the forum gets shut down.

Trust me on this one, I am an internet marketer at heart. And bitcoin ponzi schemes are going to look bad fucking horrible for our business image. Forget whether it's "just a fun, stupid, inside joke"...

I am really quite disappointed in so many people voting that "no, we should not ban ponzi scheme promotions"... you greedy fucking bastards!

[gigabytecoin]

Ponzi schemes are fun, providing nobody is lying to you about what it is.

It's not worse than lottery or gambling, anyway.

Try explaining that to the general public.

Doesn't matter what it is trying to change the general public's opinion is going to be tough.
If they get to understand bitcoin then I don't see them having a problem with this specific ponzi.
Now if there is a negative campaign against bitcoin / becomes illegal trying to change the general publics opinion will be a nightmare.

How the hell do you think anybody is going to come to understand bitcoin while it is still in it's infancy like it is now?

Nobody is just downloading the client, depositing money through an exchange, and making purchases with bitcoin... not yet at least.

So they come here, see the entire community almost is pushing a ponzi scheme, and never come back.

That is how the general population works. Like robots.

[kiba]

Somebody getting really worked up over this.

In my opinion, we shouldn't be too worried about becoming pussies just because we ban illegal goods/ponzi schemes from the forum. Bitcoin, the technology, will take cares of itself. This will persists as long as we don't make the technology weaker as it is.

What we should be doing is building a strong community that can't be run over by a bunch of government bureaucrats. Yes, we will ban illegal goods and stuff, but that will be as far as it goes. They won't be able to tell us how the money supply is managed, add de-anonymousness feature, and so on.

[eMansipater]

In my opinion, we shouldn't be too worried about becoming pussies just because we ban illegal goods/ponzi schemes from the forum. Bitcoin, the technology, will take cares of itself. This will persists as long as we don't make the technology weaker as it is.

What we should be doing is building a strong community that can't be run over by a bunch of government bureaucrats. Yes, we will ban illegal goods and stuff, but that will be as far as it goes. They won't be able to tell us how the money supply is managed, add de-anonymousness feature, and so on.

+1

I honestly don't see why so many people have a problem with putting NSFW / Blackmarket etc etc in their own forums.
I think it solves both.

Basically because when the administrators of a website begin openly allowing blackmarket/illegal goods to be sold... Eventually the forum gets shut down.

Trust me on this one, I am an internet marketer at heart. And bitcoin ponzi schemes are going to look bad fucking horrible for our business image. Forget whether it's "just a fun, stupid, inside joke"...

I am really quite disappointed in so many people voting that "no, we should not ban ponzi scheme promotions"... you greedy fucking bastards!

Yeah, but...if it's their own forums those ones going down doesn't make any difference for bitcoin.org.  Or was I the only one who meant "on a different website"?

Regarding business image, +5.  Talk to anyone who's built a successful internet project--professionalism in first impressions is very important.  The non-professional image of bitcoin is the primary barrier I've experienced to getting otherwise interested people to adopt it.

[eMansipater]

Another thing for people who want to improve the professionalism of Bitcoin:  go here right now and add your support for the proposal of a professional StackExchange Q&A site for BitCoin.  Having a simple, clean, beautiful get-your-questions-answered website linked right off the main page would be an awesome thing for us, and we have the community to support it effectively!