Ponzi "Game" == Negative Trust?

[michaeladair]

Okay, so I am confused... I have seen many of these Ponzi "Games" come out that instantaneously gather loads of negative trust. Most of this negative trust is usually given from Quickseller/Redsn0w just to name a few of the major people. I am confused as to why these games are given negative trust?

#1: It's a game, even though it is based upon "Ponzi Schemes" these are in no way, a Ponzi.
#2: People know what they get into when they invest on these sites, they realize that if nobody invests after them then they are fucked.
#3: It's a gamble, like any other site: Poker, Dice, Casino... etc.
      Any of those sites have the availability to scam but do not get red flagged.

So tell me why people automatically get red flagged for owning a Ponzi Game Site? I believe that if we get rid of this narcissistic negative trusting then the Actual Members behind the sites will come out so that in the case that they do scam, just action can be placed.

This act just seems kinda stupid in my honest opinion... these sites are games like any other Casino, Dice, or Poker site. I believe that it is the basic name that has been applied to these games that sets off these "Neggers" Alarms; which if they read into the sites they should notice it's just a game.

[1713572589]

1713572589

[CrazyJoker]

I am actually developing a Ponzi Game and hence asked How can we create a provably fair Ponzi Game ?

- Surprisingly, almost no one is reading what I wrote. They are only just blindly saying Ponzi = Scam !!! I dont know why they are not getting the fact that this is only a game where every investor know that if they are the last then they'll lose. Being an early investor is the game here. How come that be a scam ?

- A few people said that Ponzi Game owners may run off with money. But same is true for Dice game operators, especially those who are accepting invetment. Do you people turn them red as soon as they launch ?

- Some are saying Ponzi operators may invest themselves. I agree. But again, dice operators may play themselve as well. Moreover, even if operator invest himself, what is wrong there as long as he returns the money as per rule ? He is also taking the chance. This is not scam either !!!

I think, there should be a clear resolution of this issue by the forum authorities as it seems those who are leaving the -ve feedback have some extra power given by the forum. I have not yet launched my game, but I am afraid that as soon as I launch, they'll stamp me a scammer !!!

[michaeladair]

I am actually developing a Ponzi Game and hence asked How can we create a provably fair Ponzi Game ?

- Surprisingly, almost no one is reading what I wrote. They are only just blindly saying Ponzi = Scam !!! I dont know why they are not getting the fact that this is only a game where every investor know that if they are the last then they'll lose. Being an early investor is the game here. How come that be a scam ?

- A few people said that Ponzi Game owners may run off with money. But same is true for Dice game operators, especially those who are accepting invetment. Do you people turn them red as soon as they launch ?

- Some are saying Ponzi operators may invest themselves. I agree. But again, dice operators may play themselve as well. Moreover, even if operator invest himself, what is wrong there as long as he returns the money as per rule ? He is also taking the chance. This is not scam either !!!

I think, there should be a clear resolution of this issue by the forum authorities as it seems those who are leaving the -ve feedback have some extra power given by the forum. I have not yet launched my game, but I am afraid that as soon as I launch, they'll stamp me a scammer !!!

Are you developing it for a different account to launch, because this account of yours may lead people to be weary. Also, provably fair with a ponzi game is just the matter of watching the blockchain. It's as simple as that, there's nothing else you can do.

[Blazr]

I don't understand why people hate the honest ponzi games so much. It's gambling and not a scam as the owners are being truthful about what it is.

Why are people upset about them so much? yes they need their own section, preferrably a subsection in gambling, but how can a website be "untrustworthy" when they are being upfront and truthful about everything? and if people want to risk their money playing them knowing what they are, why do you care?

I don't play the ponzi games, but I don't care if others want to.


Argument #1: Ponzi sites are illegal
So are gambling websites that don't have the proper gambling licenses.
So are Bitcoin exchanges that do not have the proper money transmitter licenses or AML procedures.
So are lenders that don't abide by payday loan laws.
So are public performances of the song "Happy birthday to you" which is copyrighted by Warner/Chappell Music.

Argument #2: All ponzi sites are a scam

If the ponzi site fulfills their side of the deal and does exactly what they promise and both parties are willingly trading, where did the scam occur?

Argument #3: Ponzi's should be banned because they make Bitcoin look "bad"
Instead of banning ponzi's, why don't we make things a bit better and form a mining cartel, make a blacklist of bitcoin addresses known to be used by ponzi sites and never confirm any ponzi site payments?

 

The general ethos of Bitcoin is for free market trade and against regulation. How can you actually believe that and at the same time be trying to ban people from using Bitcoin because it makes Bitcoin look bad?

Argument #4: Most ponzi sites aren't provably fair so they are scams
There is probably a way to make ponzi sites provably fair using tx scripts. But if ponzi sites are a scam due to the lack of provably fair, then so are all gambling sites that don't have provably fair, such as poker sites and sportsbook websites.

Argument #5: Ponzi's arent entertainment
People have different opinions on what entertainment is. It may not be entertaining for you, but I'm sure its entertaining for others.

Argument #6: Ponzi's are scams because people will lose money
There will always be people who lose money on any gambling website. Otherwise the website would be losing money.

Thats all the arguments I can think of right now.

[michaeladair]

I don't understand why people hate the honest ponzi games so much. It's gambling and not a scam as the owners are being truthful about what it is.

Why are people upset about them so much? yes they need their own section, preferably a subsection in gambling, but how can a website be "untrustworthy" when they are being upfront and truthful about everything? and if people want to risk their money playing them knowing what they are, why do you care?

I don't play the ponzi games, but I don't care if others want to.

Exactly, so do you consider it "just" or "right" for them to give negative trust to these Honest games?

[Blazr]

I don't understand why people hate the honest ponzi games so much. It's gambling and not a scam as the owners are being truthful about what it is.

Why are people upset about them so much? yes they need their own section, preferably a subsection in gambling, but how can a website be "untrustworthy" when they are being upfront and truthful about everything? and if people want to risk their money playing them knowing what they are, why do you care?

I don't play the ponzi games, but I don't care if others want to.

Exactly, so do you consider it "just" or "right" for them to give negative trust to these Honest games?

Absolutely not.

Say I made the following post:

Send BTC to 16EJ8oEeFpGU6TcQKHMBedZTbVGRwHCWaZ and you will get nothing back

Does that make me untrustworthy? No, because I'd be fulfilling the "contract".

The same applies with the ponzi's, at least the "honest" ones that let the gamblers know it is actually a ponzi, the "this-is-totally-not-a-ponzi" ponzi's is a different story, those could warrant negative trust if the owner was lying and saying it wasn't a ponzi. I don't see how you can call it scamming when the other person fulfills his/her side of the deal.

[michaeladair]

I don't understand why people hate the honest ponzi games so much. It's gambling and not a scam as the owners are being truthful about what it is.

Why are people upset about them so much? yes they need their own section, preferably a subsection in gambling, but how can a website be "untrustworthy" when they are being upfront and truthful about everything? and if people want to risk their money playing them knowing what they are, why do you care?

I don't play the ponzi games, but I don't care if others want to.

Exactly, so do you consider it "just" or "right" for them to give negative trust to these Honest games?

Absolutely not.

Say I made the following post:

Send BTC to 16EJ8oEeFpGU6TcQKHMBedZTbVGRwHCWaZ and you will get nothing back

Does that make me untrustworthy? No, because I'd be fulfilling the "contract".

The same applies with the ponzi's, at least the "honest" ones that let the gamblers know it is actually a ponzi, the "this-is-totally-not-a-ponzi" ponzi's is a different story, those could warrant negative trust if the owner was lying and saying it wasn't a ponzi. I don't see how you can call it scamming when the other person fulfills his/her side of the deal.

Well, I negative trusted Quickseller for all this... I think they need to learn and fix their actions.

[tmfp]

This idea of an "honest" ponzi needs to be buried.
Until it can be proved that the operator of the scheme or his alts are not in the queue for payment, a queue that they can both anticipate and manipulate, then players in the "game" cannot possibly know that the returns that are promised are achievable.
As for leaving trust on the basis of opinion, this has been flogged to death recently.

[michaeladair]

This idea of an "honest" ponzi needs to be buried.
Until it can be proved that the operator of the scheme or his alts are not in the queue for payment, a queue that they can both anticipate and manipulate, then players in the "game" cannot possibly know that the returns that are promised are achievable.
As for leaving trust on the basis of opinion, this has been flogged to death recently.

The people can check the blockchain, and we're talking about Ponzi Games...

[tmfp]

This idea of an "honest" ponzi needs to be buried.
Until it can be proved that the operator of the scheme or his alts are not in the queue for payment, a queue that they can both anticipate and manipulate, then players in the "game" cannot possibly know that the returns that are promised are achievable.
As for leaving trust on the basis of opinion, this has been flogged to death recently.

The people can check the blockchain, and we're talking about Ponzi Games...

So what if they can check the blockchain?
That's what I'm talking about too.

[michaeladair]

This idea of an "honest" ponzi needs to be buried.
Until it can be proved that the operator of the scheme or his alts are not in the queue for payment, a queue that they can both anticipate and manipulate, then players in the "game" cannot possibly know that the returns that are promised are achievable.
As for leaving trust on the basis of opinion, this has been flogged to death recently.

The people can check the blockchain, and we're talking about Ponzi Games...

So what if they can check the blockchain?
That's what I'm talking about too.

What does it matter if the owner has accounts in the payment queue? That's like saying that it'd be bad if Casino owners didn't have people playing poker for them or something... Do the game owners say that they don't participate in them themselves? If they do, then you got a problem... but all that I have seen don't say they don't play.

[Blazr]

Until it can be proved that the operator of the scheme or his alts are not in the queue for payment, a queue that they can both anticipate and manipulate, then players in the "game" cannot possibly know that the returns that are promised are achievable.

In an honest ponzi, the returns should not be guaranteed.

It is up to the players to figure out if the operator is in the queue. Being able to detect such schemes is a skill a good ponzi player should have. If the operator promised he wasn't in the payment queue and later on it was found that he was, then he would be untrustworthy, but if no such promise was made then thats a risk the players take when playing the ponzi.

[tmfp]

What does it matter if the owner has accounts in the payment queue? That's like saying that it'd be bad if Casino owners didn't have people playing poker for them or something... Do the game owners say that they don't participate in them themselves? If they do, then you got a problem... but all that I have seen don't say they don't play.

Let's say a 50% ponzi "game" runs out of steam at 450BTC and ends. The first 300BTC owners get their stake back plus 50% i.e. the balance.
The last 150BTC owners get jack shit.

You are seriously telling me that if the operator of the "game" owns 200 of those first 300BTC then the "game" is in any conceivable way fair?
What do casinos have to do with it?

I think this thread is more to do with your own feedback than anything else.

 

In an honest ponzi, the returns should not be guaranteed.

It is up to the players to figure out if the operator is in the queue. Being able to detect such schemes is a skill a good ponzi player should have. If the operator promised he wasn't in the payment queue and later on it was found that he was, then he would be untrustworthy, but if no such promise was made then thats a risk the players take when playing the ponzi.

In an honest game of chance the odds should estimatable by the player, yes.

How could anyone figure out if the operator or his alts was in the queue?
"If the operator promised..........."..lol

 

[Blazr]

In an honest game of chance the odds should estimatable by the player, yes.

A ponzi isn't a game of chance, it is more skill based like poker. You need to know which ponzi to "invest" in, get in early and get out at the first sign of trouble and know how to spot signs of trouble too.

How could anyone figure out if the operator or his alts was in the queue?
If the operator promised.............lol

Thats like saying how can you figure out your opponents hand in a game of poker. A good ponzi player will use things like blockchain analysis and his experience to try and figure that out, similar to how a poker player uses 'tells' to try and figure out his opponents hand.

[tmfp]

In an honest game of chance the odds should estimatable by the player, yes.

A ponzi isn't a game of chance, it is more skill based like poker. You need to know which ponzi to "invest" in, get in early and get out at the first sign of trouble and know how to spot signs of trouble too.

How could anyone figure out if the operator or his alts was in the queue?
If the operator promised.............lol

Thats like saying how can you figure out your opponents hand in a game of poker.

I bow to your superior knowledge lol, but if I were to play poker with you then it wouldn't be with a deck you (nothing personal) provided and later turned out to have another set of aces living up your sleeve.

[SureLockLoans]

aren't ponzi schemes illegal anyway?

[michaeladair]

aren't ponzi schemes illegal anyway?

Yes but that is in no way the point of this thread. We are talking about the new Ponzi "Games"... simply based off the style of a Ponzi. People send money to an address and get paid out with a % as new investments come in.

[Quickseller]

Well Michael, this is the 2nd time you have used your position on the default trust list to try to censor my actions.

Okay, so I am confused... I have seen many of these Ponzi "Games" come out that instantaneously gather loads of negative trust. Most of this negative trust is usually given from Quickseller/Redsn0w just to name a few of the major people. I am confused as to why these games are given negative trust?

If you bothered to read my comment, it is because they are running a ponzi

#1: It's a game, even though it is based upon "Ponzi Schemes" these are in no way, a Ponzi.

A ponzi is a ponzi. The game is based on building up trust. It works like this, the ponzi operator first either buys up or creates a bunch of newbie accounts to act as their shills. Then then use a mixing service to spread out their own money into various addresses to make it look like each address is coming from a different person. When they start the ponzi game few other people will "invest" however the shills will push the ponzi game and will vouch when they end up winning. This makes it appear that they are trustworthy. The next round a few more people will play along with the shills. The shills will obviously all win and the "real" people will sometimes win but at a lower then expected rate. Their trust is now built up a little more. The process continues until the ponzi "game" operator is trusted by various "players" enough so that they control a very large amount of bitcoin at one time.

This is very similar to loan confidence scammers as they first take out a .1 BTC loan, then a .2BTC loan when people see they repaid the first loan without problems, the process continues until they can get a very large loan from a sucker and they abandon the account. The difference is that in a ponzi "game" the amounts a user is trusted with will grow much quicker.

#2: People know what they get into when they invest on these sites, they realize that if nobody invests after them then they are fucked.

Not true. They can also get screwed if the operator of the game decides he has enough money to make it worth his while to run away with investor money.

#3: It's a gamble, like any other site: Poker, Dice, Casino... etc.
      Any of those sites have the availability to scam but do not get red flagged.

it is very rare that a dice casino will be created by a brand new user. Also, again their business is generally not one that will be trusted with an massively growing amount of money.

So tell me why people automatically get red flagged for owning a Ponzi Game Site? I believe that if we get rid of this narcissistic negative trusting then the Actual Members behind the sites will come out so that in the case that they do scam, just action can be placed.

See above.

This act just seems kinda stupid in my honest opinion... these sites are games like any other Casino, Dice, or Poker site. I believe that it is the basic name that has been applied to these games that sets off these "Neggers" Alarms; which if they read into the sites they should notice it's just a game.

Duly noted. Thank you.

[Blazr]

aren't ponzi schemes illegal anyway?

So are gambling websites that don't have the proper gambling licenses, so are Bitcoin exchanges that do not have the proper money transmitter licenses or AML procedures and so are lenders that don't abide by payday loan laws.

[michaeladair]

Well Michael, this is the 2nd time you have used your position on the default trust list to try to censor my actions.

Okay, so I am confused... I have seen many of these Ponzi "Games" come out that instantaneously gather loads of negative trust. Most of this negative trust is usually given from Quickseller/Redsn0w just to name a few of the major people. I am confused as to why these games are given negative trust?

If you bothered to read my comment, it is because they are running a ponzi

#1: It's a game, even though it is based upon "Ponzi Schemes" these are in no way, a Ponzi.

A ponzi is a ponzi. The game is based on building up trust. It works like this, the ponzi operator first either buys up or creates a bunch of newbie accounts to act as their shills. Then then use a mixing service to spread out their own money into various addresses to make it look like each address is coming from a different person. When they start the ponzi game few other people will "invest" however the shills will push the ponzi game and will vouch when they end up winning. This makes it appear that they are trustworthy. The next round a few more people will play along with the shills. The shills will obviously all win and the "real" people will sometimes win but at a lower then expected rate. Their trust is now built up a little more. The process continues until the ponzi "game" operator is trusted by various "players" enough so that they control a very large amount of bitcoin at one time.

This is very similar to loan confidence scammers as they first take out a .1 BTC loan, then a .2BTC loan when people see they repaid the first loan without problems, the process continues until they can get a very large loan from a sucker and they abandon the account. The difference is that in a ponzi "game" the amounts a user is trusted with will grow much quicker.

#2: People know what they get into when they invest on these sites, they realize that if nobody invests after them then they are fucked.

Not true. They can also get screwed if the operator of the game decides he has enough money to make it worth his while to run away with investor money.

#3: It's a gamble, like any other site: Poker, Dice, Casino... etc.
      Any of those sites have the availability to scam but do not get red flagged.

it is very rare that a dice casino will be created by a brand new user. Also, again their business is generally not one that will be trusted with an massively growing amount of money.

So tell me why people automatically get red flagged for owning a Ponzi Game Site? I believe that if we get rid of this narcissistic negative trusting then the Actual Members behind the sites will come out so that in the case that they do scam, just action can be placed.

See above.

This act just seems kinda stupid in my honest opinion... these sites are games like any other Casino, Dice, or Poker site. I believe that it is the basic name that has been applied to these games that sets off these "Neggers" Alarms; which if they read into the sites they should notice it's just a game.

Duly noted. Thank you.

Any gambling site can run with the money and these sites are just games that are based off ponzis...