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

[bitponzi.io]

Great effort, but this is NOT a pyramid scheme, this is Ponzi scheme, it's not the same, not the same at all. Pyramids and levels belong to multilevel and affiliate program world, that is people are getting paid for bringing new members, part of their deposits. We do not have any affiliate program.

[1715092988]

1715092988

[1715092988]

1715092988

[1715092988]

1715092988

[allsopfree]

Are the payments automated or you have to wait for them ?

[dooglus]

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.

One thing to note is that as soon as the first person deposits, the scheme already owes more than it has.

If the first depositor sends 1 BTC, he is "owed"* 1.5 BTC, and the scheme is already insolvent to the tune of 0.5 BTC.

Every time anyone deposits, the scheme only gets further into debt, because although their assets increase by X, their liabilities increase by 1.5 times X. Basically half of every new deposit counts as extra unfunded debt.

(*) except he isn't "owed" anything really. He's playing a game, and knows that he might get back less than he put in. That's part of the game. The problem is when the players don't know what game they're playing, like these poor people.

[bitponzi.io]

It's all automated, sent every hour.

Are the payments automated or you have to wait for them ?

[Loocid]

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.

One thing to note is that as soon as the first person deposits, the scheme already owes more than it has.

If the first depositor sends 1 BTC, he is "owed"* 1.5 BTC, and the scheme is already insolvent to the tune of 0.5 BTC.

Every time anyone deposits, the scheme only gets further into debt, because although their assets increase by X, their liabilities increase by 1.5 times X. Basically half of every new deposit counts as extra unfunded debt.

(*) except he isn't "owed" anything really. He's playing a game, and knows that he might get back less than he put in. That's part of the game. The problem is when the players don't know what game they're playing, like these poor people.

I think that is the whole thrill of the idea. With the owner being transparent with their dealings (outside of their end game) everyone should hopefully understand there is literally no way everyone can be paid. The thrill is if you will be in the group of final suckers that will get screwed. While not invested myself, I can definitely see the appeal of such a venture.

[silvestar]

Here's a higher resolution image:

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

It seems you have put the wrong link, that "higher resolution image" doesn't look right. 

[bitponzi.io]

There's no end game actually, or it is very simple. If there's money to pay, payment are processed, if not- the system is waiting for new funds. So it goes on.

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.

One thing to note is that as soon as the first person deposits, the scheme already owes more than it has.

If the first depositor sends 1 BTC, he is "owed"* 1.5 BTC, and the scheme is already insolvent to the tune of 0.5 BTC.

Every time anyone deposits, the scheme only gets further into debt, because although their assets increase by X, their liabilities increase by 1.5 times X. Basically half of every new deposit counts as extra unfunded debt.

(*) except he isn't "owed" anything really. He's playing a game, and knows that he might get back less than he put in. That's part of the game. The problem is when the players don't know what game they're playing, like these poor people.

I think that is the whole thrill of the idea. With the owner being transparent with their dealings (outside of their end game) everyone should hopefully understand there is literally no way everyone can be paid. The thrill is if you will be in the group of final suckers that will get screwed. While not invested myself, I can definitely see the appeal of such a venture.

[thExit]

Great effort, but this is NOT a pyramid scheme, this is Ponzi scheme, it's not the same, not the same at all. Pyramids and levels belong to multilevel and affiliate program world, that is people are getting paid for bringing new members, part of their deposits. We do not have any affiliate program.

I get your point, especially after reading the following bits:

Quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

“A pyramid scheme is a form of fraud similar in some ways to a Ponzi scheme, relying as it does on a mistaken belief in a nonexistent financial reality, including the hope of an extremely high rate of return. However, several characteristics distinguish these schemes from Ponzi schemes:[1]
•   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.)
•   A Ponzi scheme claims to rely on some esoteric investment approach and often attracts well-to-do investors; whereas pyramid schemes explicitly claim that new money will be the source of payout for the initial investments.
•   A pyramid scheme typically collapses much faster because it requires exponential increases in participants to sustain it. By contrast, Ponzi schemes can survive simply by persuading most existing participants to reinvest their money, with a relatively small number of new participants.”


Quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme

“A pyramid scheme is an unsustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public.[1][2]”

XXXXXX

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.

One thing to note is that as soon as the first person deposits, the scheme already owes more than it has.

If the first depositor sends 1 BTC, he is "owed"* 1.5 BTC, and the scheme is already insolvent to the tune of 0.5 BTC.

Every time anyone deposits, the scheme only gets further into debt, because although their assets increase by X, their liabilities increase by 1.5 times X. Basically half of every new deposit counts as extra unfunded debt.

(*) except he isn't "owed" anything really. He's playing a game, and knows that he might get back less than he put in. That's part of the game. The problem is when the players don't know what game they're playing, like these poor people.

That is a good point to make, especially talking about assets increase versus liabilities increase. I didn’t think about it this way.

XXXXXX

It seems you have put the wrong link, that "higher resolution image" doesn't look right. 

You're right, sorry about that, the resolution was the same but the quality was better (I suppose)

[Didldak]

its funny how these two websites are similar, design and code wise =)

http://cloudhashers.net/ http://bitponzi.io/

[bitponzi.io]

Actually we drew inspiration from ponzi.io, now defunct. But we checked other ponzis which don't recognize that they are ponzi's too 

its funny how these two websites are similar, design and code wise =)

http://cloudhashers.net/ http://bitponzi.io/

[spendprofit.biz]

Hey folks.
Trying ★★★ https://spendprofit.biz/ 2.5% Hourly profit - SSL Trusted ★★★

[bitponzi.io]

Picking up steam (balance chart):  https://blockchain.info/charts/balance?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=1PoNzi7PGzRyvc9KWYBcaauS3oeJqa5vFg
Users often ask us how to maximize the chances of getting paid without problems
Such charts can give some indications. You can see that at the moment we receive around 6BTC per day.
It means that you definitely shouldn't deposit an amount comparable to that. 1.5-2 BTC maximum would be optimal. If you want to deposit more do it in several payments, in consecutive days.

[bitponzi.io]

Important: we won't change your payout address on request. We have no way to check that you are the person that made the transaction. The only situation we could do something is when you're not getting paid at all, due to paying from coinbase for example. Even in this case we will need as much information from you as possible.

[blacksmithtm]

...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.

Hi doog, much respect to you for making just-dice and all the work you do on this forum regarding scammers etc.

I just wanted to chime in and say fee is not the only thing provably fair ponzis can compete on. It can be the mechanisms themselves. For example how often payout? How much. Will there be levels for each investor, can you pay more for a bigger return etc.. There are many things to compete on, the idea is to make it fun and rewarding, and this is just the beginning.

[bitponzi.io]

This is correct, there can be very many variations. We chose the most basic one, at the same time giving a nod to the original 150% scheme of Mr. Ponzi.

...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.

Hi doog, much respect to you for making just-dice and all the work you do on this forum regarding scammers etc.

I just wanted to chime in and say fee is not the only thing provably fair ponzis can compete on. It can be the mechanisms themselves. For example how often payout? How much. Will there be levels for each investor, can you pay more for a bigger return etc.. There are many things to compete on, the idea is to make it fun and rewarding, and this is just the beginning.

[thExit]

...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.

Hi doog, much respect to you for making just-dice and all the work you do on this forum regarding scammers etc.

I just wanted to chime in and say fee is not the only thing provably fair ponzis can compete on. It can be the mechanisms themselves. For example how often payout? How much. Will there be levels for each investor, can you pay more for a bigger return etc.. There are many things to compete on, the idea is to make it fun and rewarding, and this is just the beginning.

Giving this a thought, you are right, the fee is not the only factor. Time may be perceived as one factor, but is it so influential? What difference does it make if payments are made every hour or every 10 minutes? If they are made too often, the scheme would get stuck due to lack of funds, and this would discourage new investors. Regarding time, there might be a prompter-like attitude with gradable profit factor- if the scheme is in need of new funds then instead of 150% you will receibe 300% but this would mean that the scheme would go further and deeper into debt, as Dooglus nicely called it an increase in liabilities.

I've spent some time today reading about Ethereum, as a solution (also) suggested by Dooglus, I went through their whitepaper and in terms of security, from the perspective of the people who risk their money, it really seems a good idea to run such a Ponzi operation with the use of their service. It becomes trustless, the only minus being the cost of Ether- of sustaining the operation with the native currency, but I guess it would be comparable to the managment fee/system maintenance. Thus, a good suggestion by Dooglus.

[bitponzi.io]

Once again we'd like to ask user MEM to remove negative trust he gave us. He does not respond to any requests, but still.  Also we'd like users who make money with us to give us positive trust. Forum trust affects the image of the program, and the image of the program affects the stability of your payouts, since we are a Ponzi after all.

[dooglus]

Once again we'd like to ask user MEM to remove negative trust he gave us. He does not respond to any requests, but still.  Also we'd like users who make money with us to give us positive trust. Forum trust affects the image of the program, and the image of the program affects the stability of your payouts, since we are a Ponzi after all.

I just left you positive feedback, for what it's worth.

I've not used your service, but it does appear that you're running it honestly.

[bitponzi.io]

Thank you very much indeed, we really appreciate it, especially from you.

Once again we'd like to ask user MEM to remove negative trust he gave us. He does not respond to any requests, but still.  Also we'd like users who make money with us to give us positive trust. Forum trust affects the image of the program, and the image of the program affects the stability of your payouts, since we are a Ponzi after all.

I just left you positive feedback, for what it's worth.

I've not used your service, but it does appear that you're running it honestly.

[sherbyspark]

This looks promising, would love to see what the end result is.