Bitponzi.io - fair ponzi with automated hourly payments, 150% in 150 hours.

[bitponzi.io]

Thank you for your comments. We have a way to handle such situations. Payments are made fully automatically every hour, if there's not enough funds to pay the script just waits, when new funds arrive it continues paying. Situation is also mitigated by the fact that we pay out 1% of the user deposit every hour, that is hourly payments are rather small, which makes cashflows more smooth and prevents the system from getting stuck.

Wow! You don't see an honest Ponzi very often.

Well done.

Yes, we've all been given a chance to get extra rich extra fast, and are stupid not to give it a shot.

BTW Dooglus, best wishes to you, I'm not a player nor an investor (yet), I was researching how Bitcoin is used for gambling and I run into Just-Dice thread, just a day after you decided to halt the operation. I am impressed with your work, happy to see you back in the game. Good luck

There's a difference between running a Ponzi scheme honestly and running a Ponzi scheme that is worth playing.

Most people running Ponzi schemes tell their victims that they are investing the money somewhere that makes amazing returns; they're mining, or daytrading, or in some other way putting your coins to work to make the returns they promise. They're almost always lying. They just use new deposits to fund the returns of older depositors.

OP here isn't lying. He openly says that he's not investing the deposits at all, and is simply running a classic Ponzi.

That's better than what most Ponzi operators do.

I still wouldn't play, or recommend playing. But it's good that OP is being honest about his scheme.

One criticism I would make is that he's not clear about the end game. What happens when it comes to be payout time and he only has 75% of the amount he needs to make a payout?

Does he:

1) shut down, and keep the remaining funds for himself?
2) shut down, and make a final 75% payout?
3) skip this payout, wait for new deposits, then continue business as usual whenever there's enough to make a full hourly payout?
4) something else?

It would be good to have that clearly specified.

In fact it would be good to have the whole thing written up as an Ethereum contract! It could take no fee at all and be clear to everyone that it was as fair as possible. It's the next evolutionary step. We have transparency through the blockchain, we have automatic payments, and next Etherium will give us absolute certainty that OP isn't going to run with the coins, since OP is an Ethereum contract that blindly follows his own rules.

[bitponzi.io]

As for Etherium and other crypto 2.0 - sure there will be a way to make it fully automated there, without human participation at all. This is the future of Ponzi schemes

[C.Steven]

As for Etherium and other crypto 2.0 - sure there will be a way to make it fully automated there, without human participation at all. This is the future of Ponzi schemes

Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
Those who like ponzi an play with fully automated ones.
Those who don't like ponzi won't see any ponzi thread in this section (as they will be in the altcoin section).

[mem]

We pay hourly which reduces the chances of the system getting stuck.

What do you mean?  A ponzi scheme is guaranteed to become 'stuck' when the number of suckers drawn into the system isn't enough to pay out the early adopters.

I look forward to the numerous 'umm, the payments have slowed and then stopped, you guys sure it's still working, I haven't got my investment back yet' posts.

well said sir

This is a gamble in the same way leaving your wallet on the bus and hoping to come back, find it and also have another $100 stuffed in it.

This is not a gamble in the form of a casino game, a wager or a bet.

This is a scam, a grift and most of all a tax on the gullible.

[bitponzi.io]

Please remove your negative trust you gave us. We won't let it stand. All your comments were responded to several times in this thread already. Once again, we definitely will give you negative trust back, for not taking the time to read and think.

We pay hourly which reduces the chances of the system getting stuck.

What do you mean?  A ponzi scheme is guaranteed to become 'stuck' when the number of suckers drawn into the system isn't enough to pay out the early adopters.

I look forward to the numerous 'umm, the payments have slowed and then stopped, you guys sure it's still working, I haven't got my investment back yet' posts.

well said sir

This is a gamble in the same way leaving your wallet on the bus and hoping to come back, find it and also have another $100 stuffed in it.

This is not a gamble in the form of a casino game, a wager or a bet.

This is a scam, a grift and most of all a tax on the gullible.

[thExit]

BTW, you're a hazard to this thread:) saying there's no need for an OP taking 1%. But I guess this is how evolution manifests itself through the block chain.

and hopefully to Ponzis in general. If you were to make an Etherium Ponzi with a 1% fee, someone would just clone it but change the fee to 0.5%, and so on. Since it's trustless the only thing you can compete on is fee, and so it's a race to the bottom. The fee would have to end up at zero.

See also: dice sites, exchanges, and anything else currently taking a fee for a service that can be decentralised and made trust-less.

Hopefully. Yes, I've noticed that at some point various services started competing through lowering fees. Seems a natural consequence when all of them run on similar principles in terms of functionality. The big question is how to get cryptocurrency-backed gambling services mainstream, how to compete with already established casinos. Will those casinos adopt such services by themselves, giving up their huge edge? No. Their edge allows them to make astonishing profits, if you are a kebab booth owner and you put two slot machines in your booth for people to play while waiting for their food, the "company" that owns the machines shares the profit with you, the profit can be equal to what the owner of the kebab booth makes monthly:)

Is it possible to battle them? No, they are run by mafia, supported by governments. If you try to battle them, you'll end up either in jail or at the bottom of a river. I don't know how things look in different countries, but this is how it looks in my country.

EDIT:

Please remove your negative trust you gave us. We won't let it stand. All your comments were responded to several times in this thread already. Once again, we definitely will give you negative trust back, for not taking the time to read and think.

We pay hourly which reduces the chances of the system getting stuck.

What do you mean?  A ponzi scheme is guaranteed to become 'stuck' when the number of suckers drawn into the system isn't enough to pay out the early adopters.

I look forward to the numerous 'umm, the payments have slowed and then stopped, you guys sure it's still working, I haven't got my investment back yet' posts.

well said sir

This is a gamble in the same way leaving your wallet on the bus and hoping to come back, find it and also have another $100 stuffed in it.

This is not a gamble in the form of a casino game, a wager or a bet.

This is a scam, a grift and most of all a tax on the gullible.

Mem won't get scared of getting a negative trust from you, here's the reason

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75883.0

[bitponzi.io]

He maintains a list of scam sites? Great effort. We just don't belong there.

Mem won't get scared of getting a negative trust from you, here's the reason

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75883.0

[thExit]

He maintains a list of scam sites? Great effort. We just don't belong there.

Mem won't get scared of getting a negative trust from you, here's the reason

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75883.0

I hope so. I'm not here to judge whether you belong there or not, time and your deeds will tell, I'm only saying that Mem's got "some" reputation compared to you. I’m sure you will agree that each new enterprise that surfaces on this forum needs to take great effort to prove their trustworthiness, your enterprise automatically gets -1 for standing so close to Charles Ponzi. No wonder people will dislike the idea and try to warn others. Don't get upset, don't get angry at them and don't run with the money. That's all you need to do to sustain your operation:)

[bitponzi.io]

Oh well, you just don't get it.
What we should run away with, 1.7 BTC (current balance)?
The balance does not grow much, I think it's easy to understand, you pay back 24% of the user deposit back to him daily.

He maintains a list of scam sites? Great effort. We just don't belong there.

Mem won't get scared of getting a negative trust from you, here's the reason

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75883.0

I hope so. I'm not here to judge whether you belong there or not, time and your deeds will tell, I'm only saying that Mem's got "some" reputation compared to you. I’m sure you will agree that each new enterprise that surfaces on this forum needs to take great effort to prove their trustworthiness, your enterprise automatically gets -1 for standing so close to Charles Ponzi. No wonder people will dislike the idea and try to warn others. Don't get upset, don't get angry at them and don't run with the money. That's all you need to do to sustain your operation:)

[dooglus]

This is a gamble in the same way leaving your wallet on the bus and hoping to come back, find it and also have another $100 stuffed in it.

This is not a gamble in the form of a casino game, a wager or a bet.

This is a scam, a grift and most of all a tax on the gullible.

I don't think that's fair.

If someone runs a Ponzi and claims they are making profits by mining, day-trading, robbing old ladies of their pension, or whatever else then that's a scam. Investors think they're making money in one way and it turns out they're being paid only from new deposits. One day it all stops and investors are surprised to find that they are out of pocket.

One the other hand, if a Ponzi is advertised as a Ponzi where the operator is up front about how it runs, and warns that payments will pause if new deposits dry up then everyone knows what they are getting into.

"scam" is defined as "a dishonest scheme; a fraud". This doesn't fit that definition. There's nothing dishonest about it.

"grift" is defined as "a petty swindle"; "swindle" as "a fraudulent scheme or action", and "fraudulent" as "obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception". Again, there's no deception here. Everything is out in the open.  Deception; deceit, deceitfulness, duplicity, double-dealing, fraud, cheating, trickery, chicanery, deviousness, slyness, wiliness, guile, bluff, lying, pretense, treachery. There's none of that stuff.

Leaving negative trust feedback for someone running such a scheme doesn't seem appropriate to me.

Edit: Your trust feedback says:

Gambling that a ponzi operator will not run off with your funds IS NOT a gambling game.

That isn't the game. Every gambling site you play has a risk that the operator will run off with the funds, the same with every other service you entrust with your coins such as exchanges.

The game is whether you think the Ponzi will survive long enough for you to get paid back in full.

Edit2: also, you wrote that you risked "21,000.00000000" BTC with this guy. That's clearly not true, and is an abuse of the trust system. You are on the DefaultTrust list and so have a duty to use that power responsibly.

[thExit]

Oh well, you just don't get it.
What we should run away with, 1.7 BTC (current balance)?
The balance does not grow much, I think it's easy to understand, you pay back 24% of the user deposit back to him daily.

He maintains a list of scam sites? Great effort. We just don't belong there.

Mem won't get scared of getting a negative trust from you, here's the reason

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75883.0

I hope so. I'm not here to judge whether you belong there or not, time and your deeds will tell, I'm only saying that Mem's got "some" reputation compared to you. I’m sure you will agree that each new enterprise that surfaces on this forum needs to take great effort to prove their trustworthiness, your enterprise automatically gets -1 for standing so close to Charles Ponzi. No wonder people will dislike the idea and try to warn others. Don't get upset, don't get angry at them and don't run with the money. That's all you need to do to sustain your operation:)

You're seriously asking for me to stop being mr. nice guy by saying s*** like that, but I'm not provoked that easily. I've tried to warn people, I've also tried to give you some credit, but you don't seem to appreciate that. Let's wait till (if ever) your balance grows to a more serious amount, now it's just candy, and if you are a true Fair Ponzi, please give us your company details, so we know who is behind this operation. Would be great to learn who we are dealing with. I bet this would help to boost your balance.

Edit:

Without much enthusiasm, as I'm about to stop being mr. nice guy, I need to agree with Dooglus, at a first glance giving a negative trust seemed to me as a warning for other members, but I guess this feature is not designed to work this way. As in a court of law, a person is not guilty unless proven otherwise. Although Bitponzi.io has some problems with understanding what they're really trying to do and how others view it, they haven't done anything wrong to deserve a negative trust. I vote that an open discussion in this thread is enough to make people aware of the dangers. I'm used to swimming against the current, so I would love a scheme like this to succeed, perhaps the use of Ethereum, as suggested earlier, would be a good choice for all the enthusiasts of Ponzi.

Edit:

http://s30.postimg.org/esac10qch/dawm.jpg


This makes me laugh

[bitponzi.io]

Many thanks for your support, especially to Dooglus, we couldn't have explained it better than you did.
We hope that Mem changes his attitude towards us. Please reconsider. We understand that you protect people from getting scammed but we are normal gambling operation, nothing more and nothing less.

[ml73]

I received 144 payments and now it has stopped??
I should have 150...am I right ??

[dooglus]

Dooglus, how do you know there's no deception here? Usually these things end with the site operator running away with the bank when it gets large enough.

I don't know that the operator isn't going to run away with the funds, but I don't know that about any site that accepts coins. CoinBase, BitStamp, whatever dice sites are still running - they all have that risk.

The problem I have with most Ponzi schemes is that the operator lies about where the "profits" are coming from. They tell you you're investing in mining equipment, or funding their day trading on exchanges, investing in oil rigs, or whatever else they can think of, when in fact it is just a Ponzi.

This guy says "I'm not investing in anything. I'm going to use new deposits to pay out old investors, I'm going to take 1% of each new deposit for myself, and if new desposits dry up, you're out of luck".

That's not a good thing to get involved in, but I don't see how it's any worse than rolling dice against a 1% house edge.

There are 3 risks:

1) the game's odds are stacked against you. You're likely to lose
2) the site operator may abscond with the bankroll before the game is over
3) the site operator may be lying about how the game works

1 and 2 are risks with any game
3 is the risk that isn't present here, and it's the absence of that risk that I commend him for.

[Bizmark13]

One criticism I would make is that he's not clear about the end game. What happens when it comes to be payout time and he only has 75% of the amount he needs to make a payout?

Does he:

1) shut down, and keep the remaining funds for himself?
2) shut down, and make a final 75% payout?
3) skip this payout, wait for new deposits, then continue business as usual whenever there's enough to make a full hourly payout?
4) something else?

It would be good to have that clearly specified.

If my understanding of ponzis is correct, I would think that if new deposits slowed down, payouts would simply take longer and longer to fulfill.

[dooglus]

One criticism I would make is that he's not clear about the end game. What happens when it comes to be payout time and he only has 75% of the amount he needs to make a payout?

Does he:

1) shut down, and keep the remaining funds for himself?
2) shut down, and make a final 75% payout?
3) skip this payout, wait for new deposits, then continue business as usual whenever there's enough to make a full hourly payout?
4) something else?

It would be good to have that clearly specified.

If my understanding of ponzis is correct, I would think that if new deposits slowed down, payouts would simply take longer and longer to fulfill.

It really depends on the operator.

"Bent" operators may decide to close the scheme as soon as the rate of new deposits slows to below the rate of outgoing payments. If their aim is to run off with the coins then it makes sense to stop when the available "haul" is as big as possible.

Even a legit operator may decide to close the scheme as soon as there are not enough coins available to make a regular payout. So long as that is announced up front I think that's OK. We just need to know what the rules are.

In this case I think he has said that he will run the scheme indefinitely, just skipping hourly payouts if he doesn't have enough to make a full payout.

[bitponzi.io]

Yes, this is correct. If there's not enough funds, well, that's it. Let's wait for some new funds.
Actually it can be seen that this shouldn't be the case for quite a while

One criticism I would make is that he's not clear about the end game. What happens when it comes to be payout time and he only has 75% of the amount he needs to make a payout?

Does he:

1) shut down, and keep the remaining funds for himself?
2) shut down, and make a final 75% payout?
3) skip this payout, wait for new deposits, then continue business as usual whenever there's enough to make a full hourly payout?
4) something else?

It would be good to have that clearly specified.

If my understanding of ponzis is correct, I would think that if new deposits slowed down, payouts would simply take longer and longer to fulfill.

It really depends on the operator.

"Bent" operators may decide to close the scheme as soon as the rate of new deposits slows to below the rate of outgoing payments. If their aim is to run off with the coins then it makes sense to stop when the available "haul" is as big as possible.

Even a legit operator may decide to close the scheme as soon as there are not enough coins available to make a regular payout. So long as that is announced up front I think that's OK. We just need to know what the rules are.

In this case I think he has said that he will run the scheme indefinitely, just skipping hourly payouts if he doesn't have enough to make a full payout.

[dooglus]

Yes, this is correct. If there's not enough funds, well, that's it. Let's wait for some new funds.
Actually it can be seen that this shouldn't be the case for quite a while

The chart of the balance at the fund's address is interesting.

It looks like you're about 24 hours from ruin all the time if no new funds are deposited.

Look at the steepness of the drops, and how soon they would hit the zero line if nobody deposited:

[bitponzi.io]

Sure, this is really interesting indeed, all ponzi mechanics is open for everyone to see.
When considering the sustainability one should also take into account cash flows, not only the balance chart. If you look at this plot (number of transactions per day) https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=1PoNzi7PGzRyvc9KWYBcaauS3oeJqa5vFg you can see that the number of transactions grows, which actually stabilizes the program.

Yes, this is correct. If there's not enough funds, well, that's it. Let's wait for some new funds.
Actually it can be seen that this shouldn't be the case for quite a while

The chart of the balance at the fund's address is interesting.

It looks like you're about 24 hours from ruin all the time if no new funds are deposited.

Look at the steepness of the drops, and how soon they would hit the zero line if nobody deposited:

https://i.imgur.com/5c21nJo.png

[thExit]

One criticism I would make is that he's not clear about the end game. What happens when it comes to be payout time and he only has 75% of the amount he needs to make a payout?

Does he:

1) shut down, and keep the remaining funds for himself?
2) shut down, and make a final 75% payout?
3) skip this payout, wait for new deposits, then continue business as usual whenever there's enough to make a full hourly payout?
4) something else?

It would be good to have that clearly specified.

If my understanding of ponzis is correct, I would think that if new deposits slowed down, payouts would simply take longer and longer to fulfill.

It really depends on the operator.

"Bent" operators may decide to close the scheme as soon as the rate of new deposits slows to below the rate of outgoing payments. If their aim is to run off with the coins then it makes sense to stop when the available "haul" is as big as possible.

Even a legit operator may decide to close the scheme as soon as there are not enough coins available to make a regular payout. So long as that is announced up front I think that's OK. We just need to know what the rules are.

In this case I think he has said that he will run the scheme indefinitely, just skipping hourly payouts if he doesn't have enough to make a full payout.

@Dooglus, your comments, including the previous post, are very true, it's a good description/analysis of how this scheme operates and what could be the possible consequences, without adopting a positive or a negative bias towards the scheme.

I've taken some time to do some calculation, to see, at least hypothetically, what the numbers tell. I assumed that one User would put in 1 BTC and receive 1,5 BTC in 6 days. Obviously the “real” scheme operates in a different manner, with various Users putting different amounts of money, but it evens out over time. Also, the “real” scheme uses hourly payments and I’ve only considered a full 6-day cycle per member.

One more thing that is worth noticing is that the simulation assumes that every User would withdraw his Bitcoins, would not send them again into the scheme. I guess a lot of present Users of the “real” scheme are willing to reinvest what they have received, thus creating a case as we have with banks, where the amount owed by the banks to their customers is higher than the bank’s real holdings.

After level 3, to sustain the operation, for every User there is a need of two more Users to "donate" their deposits (a part of them). I calculated it only for 10 levels as I've run out of paper (using 4xA4) doing an Excel sheet would take me more time. It was kind of fun, I hope the operation doesn't get stuck at the same point as I did Those are my best wishes towards people who put in the money.

If you can see any flaws in the calculations or in my reasoning as to the simulation, I’d be happy to hear about it. I’ll take some time later to review my assumptions to examine if there are no mistakes, or if it can be done better to suit the "real" operation. Maybe anyone knows a “Ponzi for Dummies” book, I bet there is a lesson to be learned here.

http://s12.postimg.org/ymagrwogt/10_Level_Pyramid_v22.jpg



Here's a higher resolution image:

http://s30.postimg.org/s3ryiwuy9/10_Level_Pyramid_v1.jpg


The address chart balance is a great source of information, I would still consider this operation an interesting experiment.

Sure, this is really interesting indeed, all ponzi mechanics is open for everyone to see.
When considering the sustainability one should also take into account cash flows, not only the balance chart. If you look at this plot (number of transactions per day) https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=1PoNzi7PGzRyvc9KWYBcaauS3oeJqa5vFg you can see that the number of transactions grows, which actually stabilizes the program.

Yes, this is correct. If there's not enough funds, well, that's it. Let's wait for some new funds.
Actually it can be seen that this shouldn't be the case for quite a while

The chart of the balance at the fund's address is interesting.

It looks like you're about 24 hours from ruin all the time if no new funds are deposited.

Look at the steepness of the drops, and how soon they would hit the zero line if nobody deposited:

https://i.imgur.com/5c21nJo.png