3 ms·

My comment clearly explains the distinctions, and if you fail to notice them you're either being willfully stubborn or just don't understand basic reasoning. O

My comment clearly explains the distinctions, and if you fail to notice them you're either being willfully stubborn or just don't understand basic reasoning. One more time but even simpler: Bitcoin's structure is not designed with willful deception in mind. There is risk and some organizations working in the ecosystem are indeed fraudulent but the BTC blockchain itself is not. That alone makes it very different from a ponzi scheme. Secondly: Earlier investors investments may grow or shrink in value depending on a number of factors. They're not dependent on new investors by default, and no transfer is taking place. Previous investors hold their same bitcoin and new investors hold their own, with their respective returns depending on market price of their assets subsequent to purchase, not literal transfers of cash/assets from new investors to previous ones to maintain a fraudulent picture of high returns. This latter process is how a ponzi scheme works, and The difference between these two things is obvious. By your absurd definition of bitcoin as a ponzi scheme, much of the stock market and especially many high performing stocks with market caps way in excess of their book value could also be called ponzi schemes.

Kbelicius 5y ago
> My comment clearly explains the distinctions I first wrote: "Earlier investors are payed[paid] with funds from more recent investors.". Those are the economics of a ponzi scheme. In you previous post you just reiterated that point using different words. Go back and quote where you showed that that claim isn't true for bitcoin. > One more time but even simpler: Bitcoin's structure is not designed with willful deception in mind. There is risk and some organizations working in the ecosystem are indeed fraudulent but the BTC blockchain itself is not. That alone makes it very different from a ponzi scheme. This has no relation to anything I wrote. > Secondly: Earlier investors investments may grow or shrink in value depending on a number of factors. What are those factors for bitcoin? > They're not dependent on new investors by default, and no transfer is taking place. Previous investors hold their same bitcoin and new investors hold their own, with their respective returns depending on market price of their assets subsequent to purchase, not literal transfers of cash/assets from new investors to previous ones to maintain a fraudulent picture of high returns. This latter process is how a ponzi scheme works, and The difference between these two things is obvious. From where do the new investors get their bitcoins if not from earlier investors and how do they get them if there is no transfer of cash/assets? > By your absurd definition of bitcoin as a ponzi scheme Never did that. > much of the stock market and especially many high performing stocks with market caps way in excess of their book value could also be called ponzi schemes. Yes, some stock at some point in time can have a similar behavior to a ponzi scheme. That doesn't make them a pozni scheme.

Kbelicius 5y ago

> My comment clearly explains the distinctions I first wrote: "Earlier investors are payed[paid] with funds from more recent investors.". Those are the economics of a ponzi scheme. In you previous post you just reiterated that point using different words. Go back and quote where you showed that that claim isn't true for bitcoin. > One more time but even simpler: Bitcoin's structure is not designed with willful deception in mind. There is risk and some organizations working in the ecosystem are indeed fraudulent but the BTC blockchain itself is not. That alone makes it very different from a ponzi scheme. This has no relation to anything I wrote. > Secondly: Earlier investors investments may grow or shrink in value depending on a number of factors. What are those factors for bitcoin? > They're not dependent on new investors by default, and no transfer is taking place. Previous investors hold their same bitcoin and new investors hold their own, with their respective returns depending on market price of their assets subsequent to purchase, not literal transfers of cash/assets from new investors to previous ones to maintain a fraudulent picture of high returns. This latter process is how a ponzi scheme works, and The difference between these two things is obvious. From where do the new investors get their bitcoins if not from earlier investors and how do they get them if there is no transfer of cash/assets? > By your absurd definition of bitcoin as a ponzi scheme Never did that. > much of the stock market and especially many high performing stocks with market caps way in excess of their book value could also be called ponzi schemes. Yes, some stock at some point in time can have a similar behavior to a ponzi scheme. That doesn't make them a pozni scheme.