3 ms·

It fits the flow model of a ponzi scheme: At each future stage a growth of fresh input is required to make up for a growing backlog of past transactions. Since

It fits the flow model of a ponzi scheme: At each future stage a growth of fresh input is required to make up for a growing backlog of past transactions. Since the world is finite, the available growth must come to an end while the back log does not. (A possible disagreement with this is if expected media quality/size is growing in size similar to Moore's law.) The author makes their own distinctions in the article, but I don't see how you could choose a more appropriate title without assuming a lot of pre-existing knowledge in the audience.

giantg2 6y ago
Perhaps you can correct the definition on wikipedia then. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme A more appropriate title could be "Unlimited Data Storage is Dependent on New User Adoption". No reason to use a title that doesn't fit and is just sensationalized marketing.
- foolmeonce 6y ago
  Wikipedia's definition is great but is naturally focused on the social details rather than its nature as an inherently devolving system of resource management. Still it's coverage of how they fall apart is good AFA the system problems. I suppose I should update more wikipedia entries, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_tree References an early example of such a problem article: "Binary Tree". An outrageous use of metaphor that should clearly have been named "Data is in no way an oak".
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Nice strawman argument. The word "binary" is a modifier of the word "tree". Anyone with a basic understanding of English knows that a binary tree is different from an oak tree. The modifier in "ponzi scheme" is "ponzi". The very definition stated that it is a scheme related to financial investment and returns, which doesn't fit the situation in the article. If you compare the binary tree and ponzi scheme examples, you will find them quite similar. You have base word (tree/scheme) and a modifier word (binary/ponzi). So your tree example is actually a great point supporting my argument - this may be a scheme, but it's not a ponzi scheme.
    - foolmeonce 6y ago
      The ponzi scheme was not a scheme to defraud investors it was a scheme to profit from mail regulations that ultimately defrauded investors since there were few consumers of the actual postage stamps. As such the fuller name of what seems to offend you is an intentional ponzi scheme-like fraud. The important modifier would be like, as in simile. Binary tree does not use simile so it is apparently more strongly a tree than something tree-like. The ponzi scheme was very similar to offering unlimited plans despite most users having very little interest in storing much or having the constant but moderate usage pattern that would need to accompany that for it to run on ads. AFA schemes both are marketing gimmicks misrepresenting the market to sell an unlikely profit system as viable, and when it collapses the people sold the system's superiority to reasonable offers end up upset. Both of these gimmicks can be done intentionally or accidentally as described in the wiki entry. Unlimited plans are in fact very similar to THE ponzi scheme, more so than an intentional ponzi-scheme-like fraud. Many even argue that the ponzi scheme is not a good representative of ponzi scheme frauds, rather many are based on fraudsters understanding the original ponzi scheme (ponzi himself probably did not initially understand he was getting into fraud of investors until the scheme already had investors.) At any rate, you seem to understand that there's a lot of room for discussion on how unlimited media is like the ponzi scheme itself or a ponzi scheme fraud. Semantic arguments over who is defrauded and who expects what are pretty pointless as in modern finance the users and investors are all in the mix that is the public and is being uniformly addressed by the company whether in casual media or SEC filings.

giantg2 6y ago

Perhaps you can correct the definition on wikipedia then. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme A more appropriate title could be "Unlimited Data Storage is Dependent on New User Adoption". No reason to use a title that doesn't fit and is just sensationalized marketing.

foolmeonce 6y ago
Wikipedia's definition is great but is naturally focused on the social details rather than its nature as an inherently devolving system of resource management. Still it's coverage of how they fall apart is good AFA the system problems. I suppose I should update more wikipedia entries, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_tree References an early example of such a problem article: "Binary Tree". An outrageous use of metaphor that should clearly have been named "Data is in no way an oak".
- giantg2 6y ago
  Nice strawman argument. The word "binary" is a modifier of the word "tree". Anyone with a basic understanding of English knows that a binary tree is different from an oak tree. The modifier in "ponzi scheme" is "ponzi". The very definition stated that it is a scheme related to financial investment and returns, which doesn't fit the situation in the article. If you compare the binary tree and ponzi scheme examples, you will find them quite similar. You have base word (tree/scheme) and a modifier word (binary/ponzi). So your tree example is actually a great point supporting my argument - this may be a scheme, but it's not a ponzi scheme.
  - foolmeonce 6y ago
    The ponzi scheme was not a scheme to defraud investors it was a scheme to profit from mail regulations that ultimately defrauded investors since there were few consumers of the actual postage stamps. As such the fuller name of what seems to offend you is an intentional ponzi scheme-like fraud. The important modifier would be like, as in simile. Binary tree does not use simile so it is apparently more strongly a tree than something tree-like. The ponzi scheme was very similar to offering unlimited plans despite most users having very little interest in storing much or having the constant but moderate usage pattern that would need to accompany that for it to run on ads. AFA schemes both are marketing gimmicks misrepresenting the market to sell an unlikely profit system as viable, and when it collapses the people sold the system's superiority to reasonable offers end up upset. Both of these gimmicks can be done intentionally or accidentally as described in the wiki entry. Unlimited plans are in fact very similar to THE ponzi scheme, more so than an intentional ponzi-scheme-like fraud. Many even argue that the ponzi scheme is not a good representative of ponzi scheme frauds, rather many are based on fraudsters understanding the original ponzi scheme (ponzi himself probably did not initially understand he was getting into fraud of investors until the scheme already had investors.) At any rate, you seem to understand that there's a lot of room for discussion on how unlimited media is like the ponzi scheme itself or a ponzi scheme fraud. Semantic arguments over who is defrauded and who expects what are pretty pointless as in modern finance the users and investors are all in the mix that is the public and is being uniformly addressed by the company whether in casual media or SEC filings.