Ponzi "Game" == Negative Trust?

[rammy2k2]

with the stupidity i see in this topic, no wonder these scams keep showing up daily ... "ponzi is a game" .... jesus christ .... 

[1713452170]

1713452170

[1713452170]

1713452170

[1713452170]

1713452170

[1713452170]

1713452170

[1713452170]

1713452170

[michaeladair]

with the stupidity i see in this topic, no wonder these scams keep showing up daily ... "ponzi is a game" .... jesus christ .... 

Nobody here said that Ponzis are games. We are just talking about the "Ponzi Games", gambling games that tell you the risks involved and have people sending money in hope that people will send after them so they can claim the extra %.

[Grand_Voyageur]

with the stupidity i see in this topic, no wonder these scams keep showing up daily ... "ponzi is a game" .... jesus christ .... 

+1. A ponzi is a fraud, period. Just changing the word scheme in a Ponzi scheme to game is not making it legit.

[rammy2k2]

with the stupidity i see in this topic, no wonder these scams keep showing up daily ... "ponzi is a game" .... jesus christ .... 

+1. A ponzi is a fraud, period. Just changing the word scheme in a Ponzi scheme to game is not making it legit.

+1

The others who claims different, there are 2 options :
1. u're incredible naive ( i tried to be nice)
2. u're behind these scams and try to convince us they are a game (rofl)

[koshgel]

with the stupidity i see in this topic, no wonder these scams keep showing up daily ... "ponzi is a game" .... jesus christ .... 

+1. A ponzi is a fraud, period. Just changing the word scheme in a Ponzi scheme to game is not making it legit.

+1

The others who claims different, there are 2 options :
1. u're incredible naive ( i tried to be nice)
2. u're behind these scams and try to convince us they are a game (rofl)

There is no way to defend ponzis with logical arguments.

How much overwhelming forum support is needed before any action is taken for a different section?

[Grand_Voyageur]

with the stupidity i see in this topic, no wonder these scams keep showing up daily ... "ponzi is a game" .... jesus christ .... 

+1. A ponzi is a fraud, period. Just changing the word scheme in a Ponzi scheme to game is not making it legit.

+1

The others who claims different, there are 2 options :
1. u're incredible naive ( i tried to be nice)
2. u're behind these scams and try to convince us they are a game (rofl)

There is no way to defend ponzis with logical arguments.

How much overwhelming forum support is needed before any action is taken for a different section?

I'm not sure a different section 4 Ponzi would suffice; also, making an ad-hoc section for them seems to be exposing the bitcointalk forum (and its Admins) to legal liability for "supporting" them. I think a better solution is if everyone here hand to Ponzi runners a fair share of -ve trust.

[koshgel]

with the stupidity i see in this topic, no wonder these scams keep showing up daily ... "ponzi is a game" .... jesus christ .... 

+1. A ponzi is a fraud, period. Just changing the word scheme in a Ponzi scheme to game is not making it legit.

+1

The others who claims different, there are 2 options :
1. u're incredible naive ( i tried to be nice)
2. u're behind these scams and try to convince us they are a game (rofl)

There is no way to defend ponzis with logical arguments.

How much overwhelming forum support is needed before any action is taken for a different section?

I'm not sure a different section 4 Ponzi would suffice; also, making an ad-hoc section for them seems to be exposing the bitcointalk forum (and its Admins) to legal liability for "supporting" them. I think a better solution is if everyone here hand to Ponzi runners a fair share of -ve trust.

The negative trust isn't doing anything. The Gambling board, as we speak, is overrun completely even with all the operators carrying red trust. 3/4 threads are hyip related. They scam with a brand new account and then make a new one. If there were some kind of restriction for newbie new posts, it would help. Newbie jail, like the forum had before, would curtail the number of new threads and shill posters.

[Quickseller]

with the stupidity i see in this topic, no wonder these scams keep showing up daily ... "ponzi is a game" .... jesus christ .... 

+1. A ponzi is a fraud, period. Just changing the word scheme in a Ponzi scheme to game is not making it legit.

+1

The others who claims different, there are 2 options :
1. u're incredible naive ( i tried to be nice)
2. u're behind these scams and try to convince us they are a game (rofl)

There is no way to defend ponzis with logical arguments.

How much overwhelming forum support is needed before any action is taken for a different section?

I'm not sure a different section 4 Ponzi would suffice; also, making an ad-hoc section for them seems to be exposing the bitcointalk forum (and its Admins) to legal liability for "supporting" them. I think a better solution is if everyone here hand to Ponzi runners a fair share of -ve trust.

The negative trust isn't doing anything. The Gambling board, as we speak, is overrun completely even with all the operators carrying red trust. 3/4 threads are hyip related. They scam with a brand new account and then make a new one. If there were some kind of restriction for newbie new posts, it would help. Newbie jail, like the forum had before, would curtail the number of new threads and shill posters.

I agree, the giving of negative trust is not stopping people from investing, at least not on some of the ponzis. I have also noticed that ponzis are getting away with negative trust by using two accounts, one to create their OP and others to post from to give updates, this forces people to read entire threads they have no interest in participating in to determine if their "spokesperson" account has negative trust.

I don't think theymos is going to institute any newbie restrictions although I do think it would at least slow down the ponzis. Ironically allowing so many newbies to create crap threads is probably hurting actual newbies who potentially want to participate in some kind of casino and/or gambling game because it is very difficult to navigate the gambling section without having to go past a huge number of ponzi sites/games. As a result they will probably not participate in any bitcoin related ponzis.
I am a big supporter of a "free market" however all these ponzi's really are giving bitcoin a very bad name, and will probably make a "good" number of people lose confidence in bitcoin in general.

I am curious to know if anyone is able to point to a ponzi that has been around for at least two weeks, had at least 50 participants and has not scammed. Does anyone know of any?

This is not cloud mining when 80% of the companies are scams, this is, as far as I can tell a phenomena where all of the sites/games are a scam.

[redsn0w]

with the stupidity i see in this topic, no wonder these scams keep showing up daily ... "ponzi is a game" .... jesus christ .... 

+1. A ponzi is a fraud, period. Just changing the word scheme in a Ponzi scheme to game is not making it legit.

+1

The others who claims different, there are 2 options :
1. u're incredible naive ( i tried to be nice)
2. u're behind these scams and try to convince us they are a game (rofl)

There is no way to defend ponzis with logical arguments.

How much overwhelming forum support is needed before any action is taken for a different section?

I'm not sure a different section 4 Ponzi would suffice; also, making an ad-hoc section for them seems to be exposing the bitcointalk forum (and its Admins) to legal liability for "supporting" them. I think a better solution is if everyone here hand to Ponzi runners a fair share of -ve trust.

The negative trust isn't doing anything. The Gambling board, as we speak, is overrun completely even with all the operators carrying red trust. 3/4 threads are hyip related. They scam with a brand new account and then make a new one. If there were some kind of restriction for newbie new posts, it would help. Newbie jail, like the forum had before, would curtail the number of new threads and shill posters.

Maybe the newbie jail is good only for that section (gambling). What do you think guys ?

[koshgel]

with the stupidity i see in this topic, no wonder these scams keep showing up daily ... "ponzi is a game" .... jesus christ .... 

+1. A ponzi is a fraud, period. Just changing the word scheme in a Ponzi scheme to game is not making it legit.

+1

The others who claims different, there are 2 options :
1. u're incredible naive ( i tried to be nice)
2. u're behind these scams and try to convince us they are a game (rofl)

There is no way to defend ponzis with logical arguments.

How much overwhelming forum support is needed before any action is taken for a different section?

I'm not sure a different section 4 Ponzi would suffice; also, making an ad-hoc section for them seems to be exposing the bitcointalk forum (and its Admins) to legal liability for "supporting" them. I think a better solution is if everyone here hand to Ponzi runners a fair share of -ve trust.

The negative trust isn't doing anything. The Gambling board, as we speak, is overrun completely even with all the operators carrying red trust. 3/4 threads are hyip related. They scam with a brand new account and then make a new one. If there were some kind of restriction for newbie new posts, it would help. Newbie jail, like the forum had before, would curtail the number of new threads and shill posters.

I agree, the giving of negative trust is not stopping people from investing, at least not on some of the ponzis. I have also noticed that ponzis are getting away with negative trust by using two accounts, one to create their OP and others to post from to give updates, this forces people to read entire threads they have no interest in participating in to determine if their "spokesperson" account has negative trust.

I don't think theymos is going to institute any newbie restrictions although I do think it would at least slow down the ponzis. Ironically allowing so many newbies to create crap threads is probably hurting actual newbies who potentially want to participate in some kind of casino and/or gambling game because it is very difficult to navigate the gambling section without having to go past a huge number of ponzi sites/games. As a result they will probably not participate in any bitcoin related ponzis.
I am a big supporter of a "free market" however all these ponzi's really are giving bitcoin a very bad name, and will probably make a "good" number of people lose confidence in bitcoin in general.

I am curious to know if anyone is able to point to a ponzi that has been around for at least two weeks, had at least 50 participants and has not scammed. Does anyone know of any?

This is not cloud mining when 80% of the companies are scams, this is, as far as I can tell a phenomena where all of the sites/games are a scam.

I would wager my wallet there are none. If it's such a profitable venture for operators through fees and high entertainment value for the gamblers, why have there been no long standing ponzi games? These games aren't a novel concept.

Theymos asked if the people posting and visiting the gambling section are irritated. Yes, we are irritated. The gambling section has BECOME the ponzi section. I can't find any sports picks threads. Casinos and other gambling threads have been pushed back several pages. Any other threads are complaining about ponzis, recruiting for ponzis, or supporting ponzis. It's become complete shit.

Please save our section Theymos/Badbear

[Quickseller]

I would wager my wallet there are none. If it's such a profitable venture for operators through fees and high entertainment value for the gamblers, why have there been no long standing ponzi games? These games aren't a novel concept.

As I was writing my previous post I was somewhat contemplating offering a bounty to anyone who can find a ponzi site/game that has not scammed (and has at least 50 players and has been around for at least two weeks).

I agree that people should not have their hands held to protect their money, however the fact that they all eventually scam is somewhat of an argument to make somewhat of an exception to this belief.

[shorena]

-snip-
Maybe the newbie jail is good only for that section (gambling). What do you think guys ?

I dont like the idea of restricting legitimate newbies just to make them a little saver.

Sir Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), author of
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
wrote tellingly of the collapse of Athens, which
was the birthplace of democracy. He judged
that, in the end, more than they wanted free-
dom, the Athenians wanted security. Yet they
lost everything-security, comfort, and freedom.
This was because they wanted not to give to
society, but for society to give to them. The free-
dom they were seeking was freedom from
responsibility. It is no wonder, then, that they
ceased to be free. In the modern world, we
should recall the Athenians' dire fate whenever
we confront demands for increased state
paternalism.

[1]

Not that this is a state, but the principle is still the same.

-snip-
I agree that people should not have their hands held to protect their money, however the fact that they all eventually scam is somewhat of an argument to make somewhat of an exception to this belief.

Have you seen any of the more reputable members that argued here for ponzis create one? I would like to see that. Id like to see them prove us all wrong, yet somehow they dont even try, but keep on creating new accounts[2].


[1] http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/1995_03_Imprimis.pdf
[2] baseless assumption

[MrTeal]

I'm curious how one would go about building a provably fair ponzi. With the majority of the dice sites out there, while you have a net -ve EV at least you can ensure the game is run fairly. With all these ponzis it would seem trivial for the operator to open a round and fund the first block of bets. If the ponzi goes nowhere, no loss to them. If it's a success, they've made a bunch of BTC with no risk to themselves.
It's a little different with these Ponzis than with a dice game, as Stunna could play as many rolls as he wanted to without affecting other players.

[shorena]

I'm curious how one would go about building a provably fair ponzi. With the majority of the dice sites out there, while you have a net -ve EV at least you can ensure the game is run fairly. With all these ponzis it would seem trivial for the operator to open a round and fund the first block of bets. If the ponzi goes nowhere, no loss to them. If it's a success, they've made a bunch of BTC with no risk to themselves.
It's a little different with these Ponzis than with a dice game, as Stunna could play as many rolls as he wanted to without affecting other players.

Exactly this is the point where those in favour of the ponzi usually start to question whether provably fair is fair in the first place instead of confronting the argument. Cant really blame them as its hard to prove you did not do something.

[Shogen]

I'm curious how one would go about building a provably fair ponzi. With the majority of the dice sites out there, while you have a net -ve EV at least you can ensure the game is run fairly. With all these ponzis it would seem trivial for the operator to open a round and fund the first block of bets. If the ponzi goes nowhere, no loss to them. If it's a success, they've made a bunch of BTC with no risk to themselves.
It's a little different with these Ponzis than with a dice game, as Stunna could play as many rolls as he wanted to without affecting other players.

Exactly this is the point where those in favour of the ponzi usually start to question whether provably fair is fair in the first place instead of confronting the argument. Cant really blame them as its hard to prove you did not do something.

I don't think a ponzi can be made provably fair at all. How can you stop the ponzi operator to make a bunch of early deposits in each round?

[GrandmaJean]

I'm curious how one would go about building a provably fair ponzi. With the majority of the dice sites out there, while you have a net -ve EV at least you can ensure the game is run fairly. With all these ponzis it would seem trivial for the operator to open a round and fund the first block of bets. If the ponzi goes nowhere, no loss to them. If it's a success, they've made a bunch of BTC with no risk to themselves.
It's a little different with these Ponzis than with a dice game, as Stunna could play as many rolls as he wanted to without affecting other players.

Exactly this is the point where those in favour of the ponzi usually start to question whether provably fair is fair in the first place instead of confronting the argument. Cant really blame them as its hard to prove you did not do something.

I don't think a ponzi can be made provably fair at all. How can you stop the ponzi operator to make a bunch of early deposits in each round?

You can't and that is the problem. The ponzi operator is going to know the exact time when a round opens so he can easily have transactions prepared to send to his deposit address while others would need to stumble across an advertisement for the ponzi and send funds to it

[tmfp]

I'm curious how one would go about building a provably fair ponzi. With the majority of the dice sites out there, while you have a net -ve EV at least you can ensure the game is run fairly. With all these ponzis it would seem trivial for the operator to open a round and fund the first block of bets. If the ponzi goes nowhere, no loss to them. If it's a success, they've made a bunch of BTC with no risk to themselves.
It's a little different with these Ponzis than with a dice game, as Stunna could play as many rolls as he wanted to without affecting other players.

Exactly this is the point where those in favour of the ponzi usually start to question whether provably fair is fair in the first place instead of confronting the argument. Cant really blame them as its hard to prove you did not do something.

I don't think a ponzi can be made provably fair at all. How can you stop the ponzi operator to make a bunch of early deposits in each round?

You can't and that is the problem. The ponzi operator is going to know the exact time when a round opens so he can easily have transactions prepared to send to his deposit address while others would need to stumble across an advertisement for the ponzi and send funds to it

my bolds.

These +++

Until someone can address this without strawmanning off into irrelevant comparisons with dice, poker, sports bets etc., the fact remains that, even without the risk of the operator just running off with huge deposits, there is no way any "ponzi games" are better or more trustworthy than out and out Ponzi schemes.

[redsn0w]

Have you seen what is happened to williamj2543 ? Here the thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=930008.0



The Ponzi schemes aren't safe ....

[tmfp]

Have you seen what is happened to williamj2543 ?

He has been caught red handed in lies and subterfuge with a known scammer and is still in denial about it.
He doesn't even address the above fatal flaw in his argument for a "fair ponzi".
If it wasn't in his own original game plan to rig the game, I'm sure it was in moreia's, else what was the need for the "investors" moreia said he had in place in the Skype call? He wasn't referring to gamblers, he was referring to alts to be tipped off and organized to keep the scam running whilst being paid thru early placement of their rigged bets, with williamj2543 directly personally benefiting thru his share of the 5%.

williamj2543's original motivation was pure greed and his reaction since he was unmasked as a liar has been to cover his ass.
He deserves all the negative trust he gets.

[shorena]

I'm curious how one would go about building a provably fair ponzi. With the majority of the dice sites out there, while you have a net -ve EV at least you can ensure the game is run fairly. With all these ponzis it would seem trivial for the operator to open a round and fund the first block of bets. If the ponzi goes nowhere, no loss to them. If it's a success, they've made a bunch of BTC with no risk to themselves.
It's a little different with these Ponzis than with a dice game, as Stunna could play as many rolls as he wanted to without affecting other players.

Exactly this is the point where those in favour of the ponzi usually start to question whether provably fair is fair in the first place instead of confronting the argument. Cant really blame them as its hard to prove you did not do something.

I don't think a ponzi can be made provably fair at all. How can you stop the ponzi operator to make a bunch of early deposits in each round?

You can't and that is the problem. The ponzi operator is going to know the exact time when a round opens so he can easily have transactions prepared to send to his deposit address while others would need to stumble across an advertisement for the ponzi and send funds to it

Well I cant, but I am willing to believe that someone smarter than me could invest heavily into the idea and come up with a solution. Yes, its impossible to prove that the operator is not playing, but it might be possible to remove the operator from the game. Thus the person in charge (operator) would be able to play, but be at risk of losing the same way everyone else does.