3 ms·

> That’s not true. Most speculative investment promise revenues if they succeed. That wouldn't be speculative then (at least not completely) > For your last s

by shawnz 6y ago

> That’s not true. Most speculative investment promise revenues if they succeed. That wouldn't be speculative then (at least not completely) > For your last sentence, why would that be true? Because it's not a Ponzi scheme unless you are lying about the origin of the returns which you are giving to investors.

graeme 6y ago
> That wouldn't be speculative then (at least not completely) Can you give an example of non crypto speculative investments which are not expected to produce revenues? That’s how 100% of business promise to eventually provide returns. Even real estate is rents. Collectibles such as sports cards and art are the one exception category I can think of. > Because it's not a Ponzi scheme unless you are lying about the origin of the returns which you are giving to investors. Yes that was my point. Bitcoin could be a distributed Ponzi, where people make representations about bitcoin’s eventual value through network value, but it turns out there is nothing to it. There’s no single agent telling a lie but it has the same effect. To make the limit argument: if bitcoin was run by a single person selling coins and claiming their value would go up because of network value, but this claim was not true, this would be a ponzi correct? Assuming the proferred proof was reported coin value appreciation to date. (I.e. the returns)
- shawnz 6y ago
  > Can you give an example of non crypto speculative investments which are not expected to produce revenues? How about any commodity or foreign currency? Gold, oil, etc. > That’s how 100% of business promise to eventually provide returns. Exactly. Since Bitcoin obviously isn't a business, it couldn't be a Ponzi scheme (because investors in Bitcoin aren't being mislead into believing that the returns are coming from a business activity). > To make the limit argument: if bitcoin was run by a single person selling coins and claiming their value would go up because of network value, but this claim was not true, this would be a ponzi correct? Assuming the proferred proof was reported coin value appreciation to date. (I.e. the returns) No, that couldn't be a Ponzi scheme because the person isn't lying about the origin of the returns. They really do come from other investors. That might be considered a pyramid scheme, though.
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  > where people make representations about bitcoin’s eventual value through network value, but it turns out there is nothing to it. That's not a Ponzi scheme, that's a market bubble. There's nothing gained by misappropriating existing jargon just to try and lend more credence to an assertion that a thing is bad. Imagine if someone were trying to argue that a MacBook's motherboard is just one big integrated circuit because it's a circuit (natch), and solder has been used to integrate it all together. On the one hand, sure I can why someone who isn't a computer techie might see it that way. On the other hand, that's simply not what that term means.

by shawnz 6y ago

graeme 6y ago

> That wouldn't be speculative then (at least not completely) Can you give an example of non crypto speculative investments which are not expected to produce revenues? That’s how 100% of business promise to eventually provide returns. Even real estate is rents. Collectibles such as sports cards and art are the one exception category I can think of. > Because it's not a Ponzi scheme unless you are lying about the origin of the returns which you are giving to investors. Yes that was my point. Bitcoin could be a distributed Ponzi, where people make representations about bitcoin’s eventual value through network value, but it turns out there is nothing to it. There’s no single agent telling a lie but it has the same effect. To make the limit argument: if bitcoin was run by a single person selling coins and claiming their value would go up because of network value, but this claim was not true, this would be a ponzi correct? Assuming the proferred proof was reported coin value appreciation to date. (I.e. the returns)

shawnz 6y ago
> Can you give an example of non crypto speculative investments which are not expected to produce revenues? How about any commodity or foreign currency? Gold, oil, etc. > That’s how 100% of business promise to eventually provide returns. Exactly. Since Bitcoin obviously isn't a business, it couldn't be a Ponzi scheme (because investors in Bitcoin aren't being mislead into believing that the returns are coming from a business activity). > To make the limit argument: if bitcoin was run by a single person selling coins and claiming their value would go up because of network value, but this claim was not true, this would be a ponzi correct? Assuming the proferred proof was reported coin value appreciation to date. (I.e. the returns) No, that couldn't be a Ponzi scheme because the person isn't lying about the origin of the returns. They really do come from other investors. That might be considered a pyramid scheme, though.
mumblemumble 6y ago
> where people make representations about bitcoin’s eventual value through network value, but it turns out there is nothing to it. That's not a Ponzi scheme, that's a market bubble. There's nothing gained by misappropriating existing jargon just to try and lend more credence to an assertion that a thing is bad. Imagine if someone were trying to argue that a MacBook's motherboard is just one big integrated circuit because it's a circuit (natch), and solder has been used to integrate it all together. On the one hand, sure I can why someone who isn't a computer techie might see it that way. On the other hand, that's simply not what that term means.