Regarding Ponzi Sites -- Requesting some attention (not another section thread)

[NextPonzi]

Hi everyone.
My name is NextPonzi. Yes, I am a Ponzi Game owner and my thread is in the gambling section. My current trust rating is -17 -3 right now and I run a legitimate, paying ponzi program.
I am also (actually, we are (there is two of us)) a member of bitcointalk with quite a trustworthy account. An account which I will not reveal because, well, look at my trust rating.

I just want to go over the effects you have on this community, especially Default Trust accounts.

When you neg a ponzi site which is completely fine, I want you to monitor that trust. Keep an eye on it. Simply because some sites, like myself and WeeklyPonzi are actually legitimate but with your trust rating, we are flagged as scammers.

having a negative trust rating is NOT what I am complaining about here.

It is the fact that users will not know who is legitimate and who is not. Now it's if you are not fast enough, people are going to invest in the new (potentially scam) site with a 0 trust rating because people will think he is legitimate compared to the -17, legitimate site like myself or Weekly Ponzi's case.

My point being, I want you to remove or monitor your feedback for legitimate sites. If every single ponzi game (or scam) is in negative trust, how will people know if they are truly legitimate or not? They won't.

Along with this, people are getting negative trusts for positive trusting a ponzi. That's another big issue and really expresses my point above.

I already know for a fact a huge amount of default trust users will make me -100+ after this post. and to be frank, i am not actually phased as anyone who wants to use my legitimate ponzi which is running fine, or weekly ponzi's, then they will do so and disregard your trust rating. Anyone who does believe the rating will then move onto a brand new site with 0 trust rating, and then get scammed.

It's something I want you all to think about.

tl;dr: I hope that you do make this Ponzi Game section, but at the same time organise how you will flag the scams and how you will flag legitimate sites. Just like this forum, if everyone has a negative trust rating here no one will know who is a scammer and who is not. Causing mayhem for users and profit in scammers pockets. That is EXACTLY the situation this section will go through if all of these biased and default ratings continue. Some sites don't deserve the negative trust rating like Weekly Ponzi (and to be honest, myself) as both of our sites make it impossible to run with large amounts of funds. The maximum NextPonzi can carry in a wallet at a time is 1.95BTC (max deposit x 1.3 (130% return). As soon as the wallet has funds ready, it sends the BTC automatically to those who need to be paid out. No manual work required.

I hope you guys read this carefully and take a good hard think. What I say makes sense and is true, I would really appreciate it if we used the trust rating to properly rate the sites. THAT WAY if we DO make a ponzi section, it will be very clear who is legitimate and who is not. Right now, it's a dogs breakfast and people are losing money thanks to your biased opinions and disorganised trust ratings.

Best Regards,

-NextPonzi, and a caring bitcointalk member.

[1713905851]

1713905851

[1713905851]

1713905851

[1713905851]

1713905851

[1713905851]

1713905851

[1713905851]

1713905851

[KingZee]

An honest ponzi is still a ponzi. If you google the word ponzi, the keyword scam shows up in every search. Simply because the whole Ponzi scheme system is flawed, and anyone trying to profit off of it, will "eventually" get scammed off of his coins because you can't afford to pay him out. So you may be honest for now, but when your ponzi will fall apart and you take off with X coins, you will be a scammer. So are all the people hosting ponzis.

[Mitchell]

I don't care if you are legit, honest, fair, etc. A ponzi is a ponzi and I warn users for that by marking you red. They can always decide, based on posts, if they want to gamble or not. However, I might change the description added to certain Ponzi's.

[NextPonzi]

I don't care if you are legit, honest, fair, etc. A ponzi is a ponzi and I warn users for that by marking you red. They can always decide, based on posts, if they want to gamble or not.

You are a perfect example of why this section will not work.

How are you going to separate the SCAMS from the PAYING if you think like this and leave you trust ratings based on this state of mind? You won't. You are causing peoples funds to be robbed just as bad as the scammers who intend on doing so. I highly recommend you rethink that state of mind, or else you are going to cause a lot of people to lose their coins

An honest ponzi is still a ponzi. If you google the word ponzi, the keyword scam shows up in every search. Simply because the whol Ponzi scheme system is flawed, and anyone trying to profit off of it, will "eventually" get scammed off of his coins because you can't afford to pay him out. So you may be honest for now, but when your ponzi will fall apart and you take off with X coins, you will be a scammer. So are all the people hosting ponzis.

I label myself as a ponzi, that's how the game works, exactly like a ponzi. I'm not arguing this fact at all.

[Mitchell]

Please see my edited message. Also, if people lose money because they gambled with ponzi's, it's not my fault. It's theirs.

[NextPonzi]

Please see my edited message. Also, if people lose money because they gambled with ponzi's, it's not my fault. It's theirs.

That still does not help anyone out at all. The fact every single ponzi thread will have a negative trust under their name will mean no one will know (unless they dig deep and read descriptions) who is a scam and who isn't.
Again, rethink what you're doing and think about what I am saying. I know you think it's bs that you are being corrected by your nemesis (ponzi games) but you need to think about other people.

I do not want people to lose their coins in scams like everyone is seeing before our eyes, and I'm sure you don't either. So I request that we all reorganise trust ratings and that you start flagging sites that:
1. Hold more than 5BTC at a time
2. Are NOT automatic (whipped together HTML and a transaction logger for the transactions page, a baby can do it)
3. Pay after a certain amount of time (not instant or automatic)
4. Do not pay, obviously this point is to late to take into consideration. First 3 points can easily be distinguished from the first look at their thread or site.

And if anyone loses money in a ponzi because they couldn't tell if it was legitimate or not, that's your fault for posting negative trust ratings on every ponzi you see. Some people won't go and dig deep, some will just look and see every single site has -4 and will pick one and hope for the best. I hope you think about that also. You're proving to everyone why you shouldn't be apart of default trust right now. Glad you are showing your true colors to us all that your trust ratings are biased.

[Mitchell]

And if anyone loses money in a ponzi because they couldn't tell if it was legitimate or not, that's your fault for posting negative trust ratings on every ponzi you see. Some people won't go and dig deep, some will just look and see every single site has -4 and will pick one and hope for the best. I hope you think about that also.

I have warned them it's a ponzi and not trustworthy by putting up a negative rating which turns your trust red. If they ignore that and/or search for a ponzi with the lowest negative trust and gamble their, it's not my problem if they lost their BTC. They have decided to ignore all the warnings and gambled.

You're proving to everyone why you shouldn't be apart of default trust right now. Glad you are showing your true colors to us all that your trust ratings are biased.

If I'm biased because I give negative ratings to all ponzi's, than so be it.
I will keep in my mind what you said and think about it. I might change my opinion.

[NextPonzi]

And if anyone loses money in a ponzi because they couldn't tell if it was legitimate or not, that's your fault for posting negative trust ratings on every ponzi you see. Some people won't go and dig deep, some will just look and see every single site has -4 and will pick one and hope for the best. I hope you think about that also.

I have warned them it's a ponzi and not trustworthy by putting up a negative rating which turns your trust red. If they ignore that and/or search for a ponzi with the lowest negative trust and gamble their, it's not my problem if they lost their BTC. They have decided to ignore all the warnings and gambled.

You're proving to everyone why you shouldn't be apart of default trust right now. Glad you are showing your true colors to us all that your trust ratings are biased.

If I'm biased because I give negative ratings to all ponzi's, than so be it.

I will keep in my mind what you said and think about it. I might change my opinion.

I hope you do change your opinion. From what I am reading, you think people are as smart as you are. Well the truth is 80% of the people on this forum will not even check trust rating details and will base trust ratings on how small the number is. I'm -17, a new member might be -4/-6 and then the coins have gone to the smaller trust rating and potentially, into the -4's pocket.
I'm urging you leave neutrals on those who are paying out automatically, instantly and legitimately. such as myself. as it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to scam anything more than 1.95btc with my script. I also take my 4% fee which is more than enough to sustain costs and to make profit in the long run. It would be foolish for me to even take 10BTC if I was capable of doing so, as I would make more in say one months time running this site legitimately.

If you want more reasons, I have full ammunition. Right now all I see from you is "i will keep it in mind" or "if its a ponzi hes going red". That does not help the community, nor how i see how it would benefit you.

I want to run this point over you again:
If the whole forum had 0 trust and you weren't allowed to +trust certain members (in this situation, people who +trust or promote ponzi's get red trust) how could you tell who is a scammer and who isn't? You can't. It's impossible and it's biased. Scammers will win, legitimate members will lose.

Take it into consideration, think about it long and hard and get back to us here.

In the meantime I want to see opinions from other Default Trust members.

[Mabsark]

How are you going to separate the SCAMS from the PAYING if you think like this and leave you trust ratings based on this state of mind? You won't. You are causing peoples funds to be robbed just as bad as the scammers who intend on doing so. I highly recommend you rethink that state of mind, or else you are going to cause a lot of people to lose their coins

It doesn't matter whether a ponzi is currently paying out or have already ran away with the money. It's a scam because the goal is to run away with the money.

I label myself as a ponzi, that's how the game works, exactly like a ponzi. I'm not arguing this fact at all.

Then you label yourself a scammer which is fine because that's what you are - a scammer running a ponzi.

[Warren Buffet]

I don't care if you are legit, honest, fair, etc. A ponzi is a ponzi and I warn users for that by marking you red. They can always decide, based on posts, if they want to gamble or not. However, I might change the description added to certain Ponzi's.

I am sorry to say that your reasoning is wrong.

Ponzi is a scheme where investors get an illusion from the Ponzi operator that their investments are being used in proper business for their return, whereas in reality they are getting return from new investor's money. Hence this type of investment schemes are destined to fail by defrauding/scamming the investors. For example PBmining.com, Hashie.co, CryptoMine.io etc.

But, when a Ponzi declares itself that it is a Ponzi, then investors are well aware of the fact that the last person investing will not get paid. In this case, every investor knowingly takes the risk of probability that next investor will invest. Hence it gets categorized under gambling. Gambling is a service where people invest their money knowing that most will lose, but some will get high return depending on probabilistic calculation. For example Just-Dice.com, PrimeDice.com, BitDice.me etc.

So, if you believe gambling is scam, then declared ponzis are as well. In that case, you should leave -ve trust on Stunna, Dooglus etc. as well. Otherwise, you should not leave -ve trust on declared ponzis.

Of course, if they are cheating, i.e. not giving the promised return, then it is a different story, e.g. Dicebitco.in, dice.ninja etc.

[NextPonzi]

How are you going to separate the SCAMS from the PAYING if you think like this and leave you trust ratings based on this state of mind? You won't. You are causing peoples funds to be robbed just as bad as the scammers who intend on doing so. I highly recommend you rethink that state of mind, or else you are going to cause a lot of people to lose their coins

It doesn't matter whether a ponzi is currently paying out or have already ran away with the money. It's a scam because the goal is to run away with the money.

I label myself as a ponzi, that's how the game works, exactly like a ponzi. I'm not arguing this fact at all.

Then you label yourself a scammer which is fine because that's what you are - a scammer running a ponzi.

You obviously did not read the thread at all, thanks for proving that to everyone.
1. My site makes more from fees than what it possibly can scamming (max in wallet is 1.95BTC at a time)
2. The goal is not to run away with the money. Since the site is instant and there is no incline in our balance at all, it's not a confidence scam or anything like that.

You're wrong, sorry.

I don't care if you are legit, honest, fair, etc. A ponzi is a ponzi and I warn users for that by marking you red. They can always decide, based on posts, if they want to gamble or not. However, I might change the description added to certain Ponzi's.

I am sorry to say that your reasoning is wrong.

Ponzi is a scheme where investors get an illusion from the Ponzi operator that their investments are being used in proper business for their return, whereas in reality they are getting return from new investor's money. Hence this type of investment schemes are destined to fail by defrauding/scamming the investors. For example PBmining.com, Hashie.co, CryptoMine.io etc.

But, when a Ponzi declares itself that it is a Ponzi, then investors are well aware of the fact that the last person investing will not get paid. In this case, every investor knowingly takes the risk of probability that next investor will invest. Hence it gets categorized under gambling. Gambling is a service where people invest their money knowing that most will lose, but some will get high return depending on probabilistic calculation. For example Just-Dice.com, PrimeDice.com, BitDice.me etc.

So, if you believe gambling is scam, then declared ponzis are as well. In that case, you should leave -ve trust on Stunna, Dooglus etc. as well. Otherwise, you should not leave -ve trust on declared ponzis.

Of course, if they are cheating, i.e. not giving the promised return, then it is a different story, e.g. Dicebitco.in, dice.ninja etc.

Exactly right, another point I missed. If you are going to label ponzi's then why haven't you labelled hashie or any current cloud mining scams?

[Warren Buffet]

I don't care if you are legit, honest, fair, etc. A ponzi is a ponzi and I warn users for that by marking you red. They can always decide, based on posts, if they want to gamble or not. However, I might change the description added to certain Ponzi's.

I am sorry to say that your reasoning is wrong.

Ponzi is a scheme where investors get an illusion from the Ponzi operator that their investments are being used in proper business for their return, whereas in reality they are getting return from new investor's money. Hence this type of investment schemes are destined to fail by defrauding/scamming the investors. For example PBmining.com, Hashie.co, CryptoMine.io etc.

But, when a Ponzi declares itself that it is a Ponzi, then investors are well aware of the fact that the last person investing will not get paid. In this case, every investor knowingly takes the risk of probability that next investor will invest. Hence it gets categorized under gambling. Gambling is a service where people invest their money knowing that most will lose, but some will get high return depending on probabilistic calculation. For example Just-Dice.com, PrimeDice.com, BitDice.me etc.

So, if you believe gambling is scam, then declared ponzis are as well. In that case, you should leave -ve trust on Stunna, Dooglus etc. as well. Otherwise, you should not leave -ve trust on declared ponzis.

Of course, if they are cheating, i.e. not giving the promised return, then it is a different story, e.g. Dicebitco.in, dice.ninja etc.

Exactly right, another point I missed. If you are going to label ponzi's then why haven't you labelled hashie or any current cloud mining scams?

Scams are now every single section and I dont think it is possible to cover all for one person. But, when some DefaultTrust linked guy is covering a category, he should cover all. So, asking bitcoininformation about mining is too much IMO. But, unless he gives -ve to other gambling sites, it would be giving undue advantage to them. AFAIK bitcoininformation is a long standing respected member of the community. I believe, he'll understand the logic and change -ve feedbacks to neutral.

[Mabsark]

You obviously did not read the thread at all, thanks for proving that to everyone.
1. My site makes more from fees than what it possibly can scamming (max in wallet is 1.95BTC at a time)
2. The goal is not to run away with the money. Since the site is instant and there is no incline in our balance at all, it's not a confidence scam or anything like that.

You're wrong, sorry.

I've no idea what type of service you run and you provided no information about it in this thread. If you're not running a ponzi, then don't call yourself a ponzi and people might not call you a scammer. Not exactly rocket science is it?

[Nikolai]

@OP You are only half right. You are trying to argue that a ponzi can be legitimate. A ponzi, by definition, cannot be legitimate.

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors to create the false appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate business.

Problem is, you are calling yourself a ponzi when you aren't. Don't act surprised when people leave you negative feedback when you are calling yourself a fraud from the start.

SEC isn't likely to be so enlightened though, so don't be surprised when they bust down your door.

[Warren Buffet]

As I can see, bitcoininformation has removed the -ve feedback, which is a good sign. I hope, other DefaultTrust members will also do the same.

But, if any of those declared ponzis breaks any stated rule of the game, please do not hesitate to make them -ve again.

[NextPonzi]

@OP You are only half right. You are trying to argue that a ponzi can be legitimate. A ponzi, by definition, cannot be legitimate.

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors to create the false appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate business.

Problem is, you are calling yourself a ponzi when you aren't.

SEC isn't likely to be so enlightened though, so don't be surprised when they bust down your door.

I would like to know, what would we should call our program?
I doubt the SEC will confront us as we clearly state people can lose their money therefor this isn't a scam nor is it fraud.

You obviously did not read the thread at all, thanks for proving that to everyone.
1. My site makes more from fees than what it possibly can scamming (max in wallet is 1.95BTC at a time)
2. The goal is not to run away with the money. Since the site is instant and there is no incline in our balance at all, it's not a confidence scam or anything like that.

You're wrong, sorry.

I've no idea what type of service you run and you provided no information about it in this thread. If you're not running a ponzi, then don't call yourself a ponzi and people might not call you a scammer. Not exactly rocket science is it?

No, you're not understanding what we do.
We run a ponzi GAME. We clearly state it is a gamble and take a 4% fee for the game (just like a house edge).
What happens is people deposit their BTC and the first person who invested gets paid the second persons funds ect. We offer 130% (1.3x your deposit) per "bet"
Example:
Person A sends .1BTC
Person B sends .2BTC
Person A gets paid .13BTC as promised instantly, most scams make you wait
Wallet is now at .07BTC
Person B will get paid when more deposits make the wallet reach .26BTC

This cycle continues until the round ends. Rounds are set at specific end times.
Those who remain unpaid at the end of the round lose.

It's a gamble just like any other site.

A Ponzi scheme would do this but not have a set end date and would wait until they collect a large amount of funds and run off. It is not possible for us to do this as the site is 100% automatic, so it isn't possible for us to do if.

[Quickseller]

If you ignore the fact that you are running a ponzi (this is a ponzi), then the negative trust is still appropiate.

Your "game" is not fair to players: there is no way to verify that appropiate players are receiving a payout. I haven't looked real closely at how your "game" works, however I assume it determins who gets paid something similar to the early players profit while the later players get nothing. Even if you used the first blocks that confirmed transactions you could easily use your own money (via mixers) to play early on this would make it so the majority of plays would end up loosing.

There is no real way to "verify" bets. In addition to the above you need to be trusted that appropiate players get payout. Even prime dice, which is arguably the most reputable Bitcoin casino here allows players to verify their bets to prove they received appropiate payments.

You are asking players to trust you with large amounts of money while you have no reputation. Mu believe your first post was creating your game. This is very similar to a brand new user asking to be trusted with a short term loan.

You clearly are not new to the forum based on how quickly you made it to meta and how familar you are with the trust system. This means that you are either a scammer (and should not be trusted) or plan on eventually scamming and want to protect your existing accounts reputation when you eventually run away with investor money. I am sure you knew you would probably get negative trust the hour you started your game however, a reputable member could potentially provide a history of "honesty" with their game to get it removed. I somewhat thing it is the former. I somewhat doubt that badbear will confirm or deny this, however I would speculate that you can be linked to either a scammer or are using An IP masking service like tor or a vpn.

There was recently a ponzi that was "honest" with players for a while (a few weeks) and had over 700 BTC move through their address. This built up a lot of confidence with their game allowing them to quickly accumulate large amounts of Bitcoin very quickly which means if they delayed payouts even a short time then they could run away with large amounts of Bitcoin. The end game in these ponzis is to run away once enough confidence is built up.

[shorena]

If you ignore the fact that you are running a ponzi (this is a ponzi), then the negative trust is still appropiate.

Your "game" is not fair to players: there is no way to verify that appropiate players are receiving a payout. I haven't looked real closely at how your "game" works, however I assume it determins who gets paid something similar to the early players profit while the later players get nothing. Even if you used the first blocks that confirmed transactions you could easily use your own money (via mixers) to play early on this would make it so the majority of plays would end up loosing.

There is no real way to "verify" bets. In addition to the above you need to be trusted that appropiate players get payout. Even prime dice, which is arguably the most reputable Bitcoin casino here allows players to verify their bets to prove they received appropiate payments.

You are asking players to trust you with large amounts of money while you have no reputation. Mu believe your first post was creating your game. This is very similar to a brand new user asking to be trusted with a short term loan.

You clearly are not new to the forum based on how quickly you made it to meta and how familar you are with the trust system. This means that you are either a scammer (and should not be trusted) or plan on eventually scamming and want to protect your existing accounts reputation when you eventually run away with investor money. I am sure you knew you would probably get negative trust the hour you started your game however, a reputable member could potentially provide a history of "honesty" with their game to get it removed. I somewhat thing it is the former. I somewhat doubt that badbear will confirm or deny this, however I would speculate that you can be linked to either a scammer or are using An IP masking service like tor or a vpn.

There was recently a ponzi that was "honest" with players for a while (a few weeks) and had over 700 BTC move through their address. This built up a lot of confidence with their game allowing them to quickly accumulate large amounts of Bitcoin very quickly which means if they delayed payouts even a short time then they could run away with large amounts of Bitcoin. The end game in these ponzis is to run away once enough confidence is built up.

H8HmIEPxaKAU6XR1itlUXfP4FM14+Uj5QrWyql9I11CdKawkiUZpoft76VRTqWH9JdC/7UQ3zbLVBV3wRqyybY4=

^^^^ signed

What can I possibly add after this? Quickseller perfectly summed it up. There is no such thing as a legit ponzi. Same as a thimblerigger you are allways in full control, never is the other party risking their money.

If you actually think that Ponzis are a legit form of gambling, why do you hide behind your alt?

And another question: where do you come from? I wonder if this is some cultural thing.

Edit:

Id like to post some recent quotes your "happy" customers left:

deposits increased from 13x to 148, the remaining btc for next payout reset like 3 times, and the line on the website hasn't moved since around noon... what's up with that?

Also why don't you make this honestly, you will make more money from fees than dishonesty, i.e. payouts it supposed to be equal to deposits unless there
is not enough to cover next payout, I really do not know what is wrong with some people i.e. OP

Remove "Round resets SOON" from front page, for gods sake... there is a timer
you are practically invite investors to not invest...

and last deposit 16ifqeioagCULqdxiHCtky4U3qxZ9i2svp 0.01984432
says "Return paid", but in the blockchain is not paid

And this:

"Your partner" apparently "yelled" at someone and removed the post. You dont even know about this. Strike that, might honestly been faked.

[NextPonzi]

If you ignore the fact that you are running a ponzi (this is a ponzi), then the negative trust is still appropiate.

Your "game" is not fair to players: there is no way to verify that appropiate players are receiving a payout. I haven't looked real closely at how your "game" works, however I assume it determins who gets paid something similar to the early players profit while the later players get nothing. Even if you used the first blocks that confirmed transactions you could easily use your own money (via mixers) to play early on this would make it so the majority of plays would end up loosing.

There is no real way to "verify" bets. In addition to the above you need to be trusted that appropiate players get payout. Even prime dice, which is arguably the most reputable Bitcoin casino here allows players to verify their bets to prove they received appropiate payments.

You are asking players to trust you with large amounts of money while you have no reputation. Mu believe your first post was creating your game. This is very similar to a brand new user asking to be trusted with a short term loan.

You clearly are not new to the forum based on how quickly you made it to meta and how familar you are with the trust system. This means that you are either a scammer (and should not be trusted) or plan on eventually scamming and want to protect your existing accounts reputation when you eventually run away with investor money. I am sure you knew you would probably get negative trust the hour you started your game however, a reputable member could potentially provide a history of "honesty" with their game to get it removed. I somewhat thing it is the former. I somewhat doubt that badbear will confirm or deny this, however I would speculate that you can be linked to either a scammer or are using An IP masking service like tor or a vpn.

There was recently a ponzi that was "honest" with players for a while (a few weeks) and had over 700 BTC move through their address. This built up a lot of confidence with their game allowing them to quickly accumulate large amounts of Bitcoin very quickly which means if they delayed payouts even a short time then they could run away with large amounts of Bitcoin. The end game in these ponzis is to run away once enough confidence is built up.

H8HmIEPxaKAU6XR1itlUXfP4FM14+Uj5QrWyql9I11CdKawkiUZpoft76VRTqWH9JdC/7UQ3zbLVBV3wRqyybY4=

^^^^ signed

What can I possibly add after this? Quickseller perfectly summed it up. There is no such thing as a legit ponzi. Same as a thimblerigger you are allways in full control, never is the other party risking their money.

If you actually think that Ponzis are a legit form of gambling, why do you hide behind your alt?

And another question: where do you come from? I wonder if this is some cultural thing.

Edit:

Id like to post some recent quotes your "happy" customers left:

deposits increased from 13x to 148, the remaining btc for next payout reset like 3 times, and the line on the website hasn't moved since around noon... what's up with that?

Also why don't you make this honestly, you will make more money from fees than dishonesty, i.e. payouts it supposed to be equal to deposits unless there
is not enough to cover next payout, I really do not know what is wrong with some people i.e. OP

Remove "Round resets SOON" from front page, for gods sake... there is a timer
you are practically invite investors to not invest...

and last deposit 16ifqeioagCULqdxiHCtky4U3qxZ9i2svp 0.01984432
says "Return paid", but in the blockchain is not paid

And this:

"Your partner" apparently "yelled" at someone and removed the post. You dont even know about this. Strike that, might honestly been faked.

You are both missing the point
Again: if Bitcointalk were all on 0 trust how would we know who are scammers and who are not?
Same thing with the ponzi section.
Secondly we can't hold more than 1.95btc at a time on our site I've said this time and time again
That's why myself and weekly ponzi do not deserve these ratings.

As for those quotes, this is what happened when you don't have a self moderated thread. People FUD and trash the shit out of it. That's not our fault and we can't do anything about it sadly. bt234 is a FUD,and in all honesty I don't know what the other two quotes are talking about (I've been asleep so maybe my dev edited the site to fix those errors)

Either way, you better read this thread properly you are both missing my point

[koshgel]

If you ignore the fact that you are running a ponzi (this is a ponzi), then the negative trust is still appropiate.

Your "game" is not fair to players: there is no way to verify that appropiate players are receiving a payout. I haven't looked real closely at how your "game" works, however I assume it determins who gets paid something similar to the early players profit while the later players get nothing. Even if you used the first blocks that confirmed transactions you could easily use your own money (via mixers) to play early on this would make it so the majority of plays would end up loosing.

There is no real way to "verify" bets. In addition to the above you need to be trusted that appropiate players get payout. Even prime dice, which is arguably the most reputable Bitcoin casino here allows players to verify their bets to prove they received appropiate payments.

You are asking players to trust you with large amounts of money while you have no reputation. Mu believe your first post was creating your game. This is very similar to a brand new user asking to be trusted with a short term loan.

You clearly are not new to the forum based on how quickly you made it to meta and how familar you are with the trust system. This means that you are either a scammer (and should not be trusted) or plan on eventually scamming and want to protect your existing accounts reputation when you eventually run away with investor money. I am sure you knew you would probably get negative trust the hour you started your game however, a reputable member could potentially provide a history of "honesty" with their game to get it removed. I somewhat thing it is the former. I somewhat doubt that badbear will confirm or deny this, however I would speculate that you can be linked to either a scammer or are using An IP masking service like tor or a vpn.

There was recently a ponzi that was "honest" with players for a while (a few weeks) and had over 700 BTC move through their address. This built up a lot of confidence with their game allowing them to quickly accumulate large amounts of Bitcoin very quickly which means if they delayed payouts even a short time then they could run away with large amounts of Bitcoin. The end game in these ponzis is to run away once enough confidence is built up.

H8HmIEPxaKAU6XR1itlUXfP4FM14+Uj5QrWyql9I11CdKawkiUZpoft76VRTqWH9JdC/7UQ3zbLVBV3wRqyybY4=

^^^^ signed

What can I possibly add after this? Quickseller perfectly summed it up. There is no such thing as a legit ponzi. Same as a thimblerigger you are allways in full control, never is the other party risking their money.

If you actually think that Ponzis are a legit form of gambling, why do you hide behind your alt?

And another question: where do you come from? I wonder if this is some cultural thing.

Edit:

Id like to post some recent quotes your "happy" customers left:

deposits increased from 13x to 148, the remaining btc for next payout reset like 3 times, and the line on the website hasn't moved since around noon... what's up with that?

Also why don't you make this honestly, you will make more money from fees than dishonesty, i.e. payouts it supposed to be equal to deposits unless there
is not enough to cover next payout, I really do not know what is wrong with some people i.e. OP

Remove "Round resets SOON" from front page, for gods sake... there is a timer
you are practically invite investors to not invest...

and last deposit 16ifqeioagCULqdxiHCtky4U3qxZ9i2svp 0.01984432
says "Return paid", but in the blockchain is not paid

And this:

"Your partner" apparently "yelled" at someone and removed the post. You dont even know about this. Strike that, might honestly been faked.

You are both missing the point
Again: if Bitcointalk were all on 0 trust how would we know who are scammers and who are not?
Same thing with the ponzi section.
Secondly we can't hold more than 1.95btc at a time on our site I've said this time and time again
That's why myself and weekly ponzi do not deserve these ratings.

As for those quotes, this is what happened when you don't have a self moderated thread. People FUD and trash the shit out of it. That's not our fault and we can't do anything about it sadly. bt234 is a FUD,and in all honesty I don't know what the other two quotes are talking about (I've been asleep so maybe my dev edited the site to fix those errors)

Either way, you better read this thread properly you are both missing my point

You didn't respond to any of his arguments. All you keep saying is that everybody is missing the point. I think you are missing the point and deluding yourself into thinking what you are doing is responsible gambling when in fact it is a large scam. Find another way to make BTC besides scamming people.

[shorena]

I received a PM today, here is my answer. I dont like to repeat myself and as I did not see any new arguments, it fits well here.

subject: [Ponzi warning doesn't need the lie]

Hi,

nice of you to drop in. I like how you take the time to tell me what this is about.

In the first place people choose to gamble, no one is forcing anyone to gamble here.   Secondly, a true Ponzi is based on deception, so I'm not even sure what a Ponzi without deception should be called.    That being said I haven't looked into the details to see if each site is honest, but a couple I checked seem to be completely above board.   

It is not possible for a ponzi to be honest as a ponzi can never prove they do not play themselves against the players. While the transactions on the blockchain can be seen by everyone they are pseudonymous and its very easy to get a new pseudonym (address). This is where these ponzis deceive. They use the deception the blockchain offers them to manipulate people into sending them money. Lets for one second assume that a ponzi does not do this. There is no way for a player to distinguish this ponzi from the others.

When someone wins in the deception free Ponzi games it isn't stealing and claiming that it is stealing is a lie.

No, not when if a player should win, the money comes from those that have been convinced they have a fair chance of winning themselves. Yet there is no fair chance. Its not a gamble its a ponzi. A paying ponzi is no different from one that does not pay from the start, only that what you consider "honest" ponzis run longer and scam more people. Just because you received a payment to further feed the greed of others does not mean you are not used to manipulate them. I assume for your sake that you are not running a ponzi yourself but just play and there is still hope that you will understand this. 

Frankly I don't see much difference between stealing and lying.   There isn't anything wrong with warning people how a Ponzi scheme works.   However there is something very wrong about lying about it.   

How am I lying? Please give me a way that someone running a ponzi can prove they are not cheating, that they are not doing the first or 13th transaction themselves in order to convince others. Only if you can find a way to prove(!) this you have a provably fair gamble and I will gladly participate in Ponzis myself. I am a gambler, I understand that sending money to a casino is a risk as well. But there are honest casinos where you play against them and have a chance to win. Those running a ponzi can manipulate the game to their pleasing and the players have no way to figure this out. This is not gambling, it is not a chance its arbitrariness.

Yes the people that get paid get paid with other players money and the players that don't get paid lose their money.   That is true, but since people choose to play there isn't any stealing.

They choose to play because they are convinced by people like you that there is a fair chance. I fully understand that I am no ones custodian and its their own decision to play. Yet all you who run and play the ponzi, whine about me and others. Thus I conclude what I do is working and people start to understand that a ponzi is in fact not a gamble.

So go ahead and warn people if you feel that is your duty, but stop lying about it.   Calling people a thief when they aren't is a lie.   If you can't see that you have a worse problem than the people that create the sites and play the games.     

Thank you for considering this.  By repeating the lie you completely devalue your warning.   

Dont worry I stopped posting that message anyway. IIRC I posted it two or three times, but I started to understand that it is only helping those running the ponzi. Its not that I think its wrong, but its a free bump for the thread every time I post it and I dont want to spam the forum with the same message over and over again. There is enough ponzi related spam already.

[shorena]

I have received more PMs and will again answer in public as I think this should be discussed openly. On the other hand I also understand that some people might want to stay in the shadows for now.


---
Subject: Re: Ponzi warning doesn't need the lie

Thank you for your organized reply. 

It turns out that the nextponzi may not have been ran fairly.   I don't know for sure as I didn't play, but I also saw your posting on other threads.   I only posted on the nextpozni thread and then PM'ed you because I was fed up would seeing you call *everyone* that ever was paid out by a Ponzi a thief.    It wasn't a well thought out action.

Yes. I did not think long about it. Its my opinion though and every post here should been seen as such. An opinion someone posts. You argued that I lie by expressing my opinion, well thats your opinion. It certainly was exaggerated.

I do not run a Ponzi and have not set up a site, but I could setup a Ponzi that is 100% fair, I have the skills.   Some people setting up these don't really seem to know what they are really doing.   A few sites look pretty good, but most are just poor copies of the better sites.   However, many sites are using the blockchain and that does leave a record. 

Sure, the blockchain leaves a record, but it is not personal. A 100% fair ponzi would require you to prove that you do not play yourself. Proving you did not do something is impossible in this case. If you find a way around this, Id be curious to hear how you do it, among others.

Your valid concern seems to be that the owner of the Ponzi is putting there funds in ahead of everyone else.   If that were done it wouldn't be honest, on that I agree.   However your posts have called everyone that gets a payout from a Ponzi a thief.   That is not true.   Saying something that isn't true over and over is a lie. 

Saying something that is not true is not always a lie. You say there exist honest ponzis. By the definition of the words thats not possible. I know you talk about something different when you say honest ponzi, but this something has no name. Maybe you can figure one out. Anyway, a joke is not true either, but telling a joke is usually not considered lying.

Think about this, Ponzi schemes are everywhere.

Sorry, I could not resist.

If you are an American and you have family members that collect social security, are they thieves?   FICA taxes are enforced by the government and most people have no choice in the matter.   That is a far worst injustice than people willfully gambling.    If you or I set up a social security system, it would be branded a Ponzi.  There can be little doubt of that.   

Im not going to argue this for several reasons. First it makes no difference. Lets agree its a ponzi, this does not make the ponzis here any better. Second I dont want to argue politics, especially not american politics, this would easily derail the conversation.

Finally, there are many people that have played these Ponzi sites and have posted they have been paid.  There postings are all over the crypto web sites.  These people have gambled and have succeeded.   They may have been lucky to play when they did, but they claimed they did play and win.   Many provide transaction ID's and I have looked at the block chain transactions.   

They should leave positive feedback. My negative feedback does not mean much if others give different feedback. Yet, all those running the ponzis have newbie accounts that can not build a solid feedback.

At least the one I looked at in detail appeared to be completely legit.   The owner actually booked a 5% fee there and made over 30 BTC in two days, far more that he could have by gaming his own game and those deductions were on the blockchain.   The winners of that Ponzi game were not thieves.   There are also some posts by people that have lost.  I would assume most choose not to post about that.  Your standard post was on that sites thread, but I didn't look to see if you posted it. 

There was at least one person blindly posting it everywhere. Even in threads that are not ponzis. Anyway, yes I have to admit I did next to no research about the nature of the ponzi when I left the feedback or posted the warning. This is mainly because while I find it hard to believe that someone would willingly play a ponzi there seem to be people that do this. Like you. My warning and my rating however is not directed at those that inform themselves. Anyone that informs themselves would see my rating only confirms they are playing a ponzi. Well if they came for a ponzi, how would that make a difference. The only people I could possibly scare away are those that are not aware how a ponzi works and frankly they should not play a ponzi.

Now if you want to point out that it is risky and probably unintelligent to play one of these Ponzi games, I really couldn't disagree.  The only bone I have to pick is your widespread labeling large amounts of people as thieves.   

Let me dig them up for the conversation.
#1 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=922591.msg10128470#msg10128470
"TruthfulPonzi"
1 received, never paid
https://blockchain.info/address/16KFMBDRAhP5gGgzWBZ2zz5zMHe8HBrNpA

#2 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=921221.msg10118175#msg10118175
"endponzi.com"
5 received, 3 paid
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/address/1CTx8GoX2DUpWpUvcjFSquiTwdH7KFdUTk/transactions
Payment/payout structure suggest scam. As they are not 150%

#3 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920052.msg10115533#msg10115533
"CryptoInvest"
Edited OP, they had a homepage (see my quote)
54 received, 66 paid
old address (8 months), hard to say what is ponzi and what not.
Id say almost nothing came out of the thread as most of the TX are older.

#4 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920592.msg10113452#msg10113452
"24HourPonzzi"
0 received, 0 paid
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/address/1BkyicQt4MhKBa4fzNYuguj2CcvLvUu9Vh/transactions

Frankly you seriously hurt your message and image by doing that.   Most people easily see how absurd the statement is.  If you really care about what you are saying and want to have impact, stick to the truth.   That is the way to raise doubts in peoples minds.

Again, I stoped posting the message as I agree it does not help my cause. Its better to educate people in a more calm manner. Blatant posts will not change anything.

Thank you and I do wish you success. 

 xxx (name removed from quote)

Same to you.

-Sho
---

Another message, from someone else. This message is refering a third person which I will label "zzz" and forth person which I will label "aaa".

---
subject: Hi!

Hey shorena, I was referred to you by zzz (name removed from the quote) after I messaged him regarding this topic. I hope you read carefully and let me know your thoughts

Hi,

I will do my very best.

I am not saying I am going to do this unless trusted members approve, but what would your opinion be on a small maximum (like .5btc), automatic and instant ponzi game ran by a member like myself and another semi-trusted member on this forum? Myself and another bitcointalk member really want to run an official and trustworthy game on this forum but since so many new sites get their trust ratings ruined from running them it has prevented us greatly.

Honestly? If I see a thread like this I would rate it as any other. I have yet to be convinced that a ponzi can be honest, but I have argued that. I am sure you read it.

It would work so that we can't cheat out users (everything on blockchain and only one transaction at a time, everything is instant even if there aren't any confirmations) and of course we'd be able to give everyone realtime support.

Both of us have positive trust here.

One issue risen by zzz was this:

Well the biggest problem you need to solve is that you and your partner can't send anything to the ponzi to keep it alone. Which is, well, impossible. I stopped giving new ratings but it would be smart to contact aaa and shorena what they think about this.

Personally, I wouldn't do it for profit but rather to keep the program activity up.
What I would do to avoid this flaw is continue reinvesting a portion of my profit (like 20%) until the program dies that way the ending loss doesn't hit members as hard as what it would if i didn't invest.
I wouldn't do it for my own personal gain but yes he is right it is a flaw that is un-preventable even if we wanted to prevent it. There is always that possibility. That's where the trust comes in I suppose.

As I wrote the other person above and as zzz wrote: You would have to prove that you are not participating, which is impossible. I do however support that you refrain from the usual alt accounts which only live as long as the ponzi does.

I want to run it by trusted members before we do anything hence I contacted yourself and zzz. I don't want to piss people off I just want to end the scams and have a place where people can play the ponzi game if they choose to play it, and do it safely.

I hope theymos implements the subboard that was discussed. It could have a sticky that would contain all the information people need to understand what the "games" (sorry for this, but I just dont see it as a game) in this section are about.

Just let me know your opinion. I'm just asking around because I think it would be a good idea to get a site like this going by a semi-trusted/established member rather than a newbie.

Thanks for reading, very much looking forward to your response.

I support the established member approach, but the main problem still exists. Its not provably fair and AFAIK it cant be.

I also dont really see the issue with my ratings. I understand that blatant posts in the ponzi threads might piss some people off. I stopped that. My rating pretty much confirms that you are running a ponzi (if/when you do) and if people are scared away by the red number, frankly they should be as they are apparently unable to click the trust link and see what is behind it. If they cant do that, how do you think could they judge the risks involved in a ponzi? I dont patronize anyone, they are free to send you or any other ponzi as many coins as they want.
If it helps: If theymos creates the new section[1] I will stay away from it.

-Sho

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920696.msg10135486#msg10135486
erm no I think it was this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=923229.msg10135115#msg10135115

[dyask]

Saying something that is not true is not always a lie. You say there exist honest ponzis. By the definition of the words thats not possible. I know you talk about something different when you say honest ponzi, but this something has no name. Maybe you can figure one out. Anyway, a joke is not true either, but telling a joke is usually not considered lying.

You are thinking deeply about things, that is to be commended.   Still what you present is a loophole.   The posts were basically calling everyone that played a Ponzi a thief if they were paid by the Ponzi.   That wasn't a joke or even a piece of fiction.   However it is a moot point since you have stop making those posts.  For the record, the only problem I had with your posts was that blanket labeling all winners (even if they end up losing) as thieves.   

I also understand your position is limited by your accepted definition of what a Ponzi is.   I think that is a little blind, but I also realize I'm probably blind to many of my own ways of thinking.   

I think the topic of Ponzi scheme is emotional to many since we often forced to contribute to Ponzi schemes.   No point is debating politics, but I think it is very safe to say that many if not most governments around the world routinely force people into very large schemes that while not considered a Ponzi scheme they have all the same attributes of a classical Ponzi scheme with the added injustice that if you don't play you face penalties.  It is easy to see the end results, just look at the massive debts many modern governments have.   From Japan where I live, to the US to the UK to Russia the problems are everywhere.   You are correct with your humor.  Ponzi schemes are everywhere. 

[shorena]

Saying something that is not true is not always a lie. You say there exist honest ponzis. By the definition of the words thats not possible. I know you talk about something different when you say honest ponzi, but this something has no name. Maybe you can figure one out. Anyway, a joke is not true either, but telling a joke is usually not considered lying.

You are thinking deeply about things, that is to be commended.   Still what you present is a loophole.   The posts were basically calling everyone that played a Ponzi a thief if they were paid by the Ponzi.   That wasn't a joke or even a piece of fiction.   However it is a moot point since you have stop making those posts.  For the record, the only problem I had with your posts was that blanket labeling all winners (even if they end up losing) as thieves.   

Think about it like Peta's pictures[1]. Sometime you have to exaggerate to get peoples attention.

I also understand your position is limited by your accepted definition of what a Ponzi is.   I think that is a little blind, but I also realize I'm probably blind to many of my own ways of thinking.   
-politics-

I certainly am, we all are formed but what we experienced and by the stories that have been told to us. This is why I suggest that it is a cultural thing. I can only guess, but I suspect that plenty of those in support of ponzis are from east europe/russia. A different background results in a different view of the world. On the other hand I think live would be boring if we all agreed on everything.

IMHO the best solution for both sides is a seperate section as theymos suggested. This results in a seperation of gambling and ponzis/hyip and I can reasonably assume that those still participating do understand the difference as well as the risks involved in ponzi/hyip games.

[1] possibly NSFW: http://www.toxel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/meat05.jpg

[tmfp]

+1
It was good to read a couple of thoughtful posts on this subject, without red 48 point font or "I get payed out my .00000001 is be good sceme live long time" contributions.
Just a couple of points:
"Ponzi games" cannot be considered legit (overused word) imo until there is some way of proving that the early (profitable) deposits in a round do not come from the operator of the scheme. I can't see how this can happen, so they cannot be compared to conventional gambling with 'provably fair' and house edge systems.
The comparison with governments providing social benefits by kicking the deficit can down the road in the form of future unfunded liabilities is not valid.
I am no lover of the world's current financial system which is why I am interested in possible alternatives like bitcoin, but there is a huge difference between political decisions taken with few socially acceptable alternatives and deliberately engineered fraud designed to benefit the perpetrator only.

[CrazyJoker]

I have started a discussion here about How can we create a provably fair Ponzi Game ? If anyone of you have any constructive suggestion, please do drop by...

[dyask]

+1
It was good to read a couple of thoughtful posts on this subject, without red 48 point font or "I get payed out my .00000001 is be good sceme live long time" contributions.
Just a couple of points:
"Ponzi games" cannot be considered legit (overused word) imo until there is some way of proving that the early (profitable) deposits in a round do not come from the operator of the scheme. I can't see how this can happen, so they cannot be compared to conventional gambling with 'provably fair' and house edge systems.
The comparison with governments providing social benefits by kicking the deficit can down the road in the form of future unfunded liabilities is not valid.
I am no lover of the world's current financial system which is why I am interested in possible alternatives like bitcoin, but there is a huge difference between political decisions taken with few socially acceptable alternatives and deliberately engineered fraud designed to benefit the perpetrator only.

You are correct that proving the operator of a Ponzi site hasn't put his own deposits in first could be hard to prove.   I agree completely that is an issue.   It wouldn't be in their long term best interest, but most scammers are not long term thinkers.   

However, at the same time, many of the so call proofs accepted for things like dice games could be cooked by a skilled programmer.   Open source isn't a protection either as it may not be the actual source for the program running.   There are many backdoors.   However that type of exploit takes a lot more skill than a Ponzi operator stacking the deck.   The counter point is I don't see how any gambling game can be really made provable fair.   

[shorena]

-snip-
However, at the same time, many of the so call proofs accepted for things like dice games could be cooked by a skilled programmer.  

Only if the hash function behind it is broken. The basic principle that makes the rolls (not the site !) proveably fair is that the server can provide a hash of the seed used to generate the rolls. Once the full seed (or the servers part) has been revealed the player can check that its indeed the correct seed and that the rolls had to be like this.

Open source isn't a protection either as it may not be the actual source for the program running.   There are many backdoors.   However that type of exploit takes a lot more skill than a Ponzi operator stacking the deck.   The counter point is I don't see how any gambling game can be really made provable fair.  

It is of course still possible that the operator of a site itself is not honest and runs with the wallet (e.g. dice.ninja), but this is true for all Bitcoin services that do not work directly on the blockchain. Even those running directly on the blockchain coud run, at least with parts of the funds, by stalling the payout for a bit.

I have started a discussion here about How can we create a provably fair Ponzi Game ? If anyone of you have any constructive suggestion, please do drop by...

Thanks, Ill drop in

[dyask]

-snip-
However, at the same time, many of the so call proofs accepted for things like dice games could be cooked by a skilled programmer.  

Only if the hash function behind it is broken. The basic principle that makes the rolls (not the site !) proveably fair is that the server can provide a hash of the seed used to generate the rolls. Once the full seed (or the servers part) has been revealed the player can check that its indeed the correct seed and that the rolls had to be like this.

Just a couple points, from a programming point of view.

1) The seeds are not meaningful unless you can actually exercise the code and produce the same throws.   Unless you know for certain the exact bytes running on the server, you can't be sure what you are seeing.   There are many possible cheats here, but they are complex in nature for an unskilled programmer.    I won't say more, but there are many possibilities.

2) You can still cheat without mucking with the random numbers by favorable rounding of the thresholds, etc.   A ton of little nicks can add up and if caught ... "Thank you for finding a bug!"

The problem is proof in the crypto world is only hash deep.   You can wrap a cheat in proof and it would still cheat.