4 ms·

The author seems to think that the detractors are accusing Satoshi of devising a Ponzi scheme and goes on to tell us why that's not the case. This is a strawman

The author seems to think that the detractors are accusing Satoshi of devising a Ponzi scheme and goes on to tell us why that's not the case. This is a strawman because the real Ponzi scheme is being perpetuated by financial whales who know full well that Bitcoin is not a "currency" and are pumping it up only to cash out. The "buy the dip" promoters don't want their net worth going down and push that so that they can sell again at the peak

mattwilsonn888 5y ago
A Ponzi scheme is designed internally to reward its creators and early investors. This mechanism is kept a secret for obvious reasons. People who buy an asset to trade it want the price to go up - a not so clever point you've made. People with plans to sell Bitcoin for profit in a fiat currency are no more believers than the skeptics who won't touch blockchains. Your inability to distinguish salesmanship for facts about the network and global economic conditions does not mean they are the same thing. Grifters will use the truth just as they will use a falsehood. All you've done is mistaken everything grifters say as a lie. People with solid opinions on Bitcoin(--anything--) form them on their own, not as an obtuse reaction to noise.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > A Ponzi scheme is designed internally to reward its creators and early investors. Rewarding its creators and early investors is a reason to make a Ponzi scheme but it is not a defining characteristic. The characteristic issue is that there is some negative sum coefficient siphoning out value. In this case, it's the miners. It's a fresh coat of paint, distributing the Ponzi-esque roles across numerous people. The promoters and shills are separate from the value extractors are separate from the scheme operators.
  - mattwilsonn888 5y ago
    The miners are not siphoning value, if that were true the network would not require them and there would be one thousand forked repos running off your imaginary system which secures account balances without the economic deterrent.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Yes they are. When new tokens are created through mining, they have to be sold on the market to pay the electric bills. This inflates the total supply and reduces liquidity. It extracts value. The network requires them because they themselves control the network. It's the reason the block size wasn't increased.
      - mattwilsonn888 5y ago
        > The network requires them because they themselves control the network. It's the reason the block size wasn't increased. Have you heard of this little thing called, Bitcoin Cash? Did the miners prevent that? No, the users put the most value in what they deemed was most valuable. The miners do not have exclusive control over the network - if they did the protocol would be hyper-inflationary by now. By the way, miners selling Bitcoin by definition does not decrease liquidity, it does the opposite, it puts more Bitcoin up for sale. The fact that miners have to sell to pay for electricity does not mean they siphon value, they provide security and are compensated for it you goofball.
- mohanmcgeek 5y ago
  Just to be clear, I don't draw my opinions about Bitcoin, or money for that matter, from crypto detractors. > Your inability to distinguish salesmanship for facts about the network and global economic conditions does not mean they are the same thing. And by calling real money "Fiat currency" you've demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of finance. I was only pointing out that for this to be a Ponzi scheme, it doesn't require any malintent from its creator.
  - mattwilsonn888 5y ago
    > Just to be clear, I don't draw my opinions about Bitcoin, or money for that matter, from crypto detractors. You've misunderstood. Your opinions seem to come from your emotional reaction to seeing grift, then applied broadly to all new things which the grift may be associated. You saying its not true doesn't make it so, which also applies to your comment about my use of the term 'fiat currency,' which I used exactly as I intended in line with the definition of the term. A ponzi with no mal-intent from its creators is irrelevant. If the code is open source and participants understand what they are doing (which they majorly do in much of the space), then it is not a ponzi, users are not being duped. If you're referring to the creation of a totally useless token and speculation on it, then you're talking about something else. Lumping all of crypto into that bucket is a popular, flawed, obnoxious cope.
    - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
      > the code is open source and participants understand what they are doing (which they majorly do in much of the space), then it is not a ponzi, users are not being duped. I don't know how you ended up with this logic. Is it not possible to run Ponzi schemes on a platform that is open source? How's the source being available prevent any pump and dump ponzi from happening? Also, stop trying to do a psychological evaluation on me. If anything, you should be the one getting checked.
      - mattwilsonn888 5y ago
        Then by your own admission the protocol itself is not the ponzi, but the speculation on top of it is. This can be true for anything which has a market price, and you've ceded the point without realizing. Also keep in mind that The Bitcoin Network has a quantifiable measure of value and therefore not all trading of it can be labelled speculation, whether you agree on that value or not.

mattwilsonn888 5y ago

A Ponzi scheme is designed internally to reward its creators and early investors. This mechanism is kept a secret for obvious reasons. People who buy an asset to trade it want the price to go up - a not so clever point you've made. People with plans to sell Bitcoin for profit in a fiat currency are no more believers than the skeptics who won't touch blockchains. Your inability to distinguish salesmanship for facts about the network and global economic conditions does not mean they are the same thing. Grifters will use the truth just as they will use a falsehood. All you've done is mistaken everything grifters say as a lie. People with solid opinions on Bitcoin(--anything--) form them on their own, not as an obtuse reaction to noise.

arcticbull 5y ago
> A Ponzi scheme is designed internally to reward its creators and early investors. Rewarding its creators and early investors is a reason to make a Ponzi scheme but it is not a defining characteristic. The characteristic issue is that there is some negative sum coefficient siphoning out value. In this case, it's the miners. It's a fresh coat of paint, distributing the Ponzi-esque roles across numerous people. The promoters and shills are separate from the value extractors are separate from the scheme operators.
- mattwilsonn888 5y ago
  The miners are not siphoning value, if that were true the network would not require them and there would be one thousand forked repos running off your imaginary system which secures account balances without the economic deterrent.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Yes they are. When new tokens are created through mining, they have to be sold on the market to pay the electric bills. This inflates the total supply and reduces liquidity. It extracts value. The network requires them because they themselves control the network. It's the reason the block size wasn't increased.
    - mattwilsonn888 5y ago
      > The network requires them because they themselves control the network. It's the reason the block size wasn't increased. Have you heard of this little thing called, Bitcoin Cash? Did the miners prevent that? No, the users put the most value in what they deemed was most valuable. The miners do not have exclusive control over the network - if they did the protocol would be hyper-inflationary by now. By the way, miners selling Bitcoin by definition does not decrease liquidity, it does the opposite, it puts more Bitcoin up for sale. The fact that miners have to sell to pay for electricity does not mean they siphon value, they provide security and are compensated for it you goofball.
mohanmcgeek 5y ago
Just to be clear, I don't draw my opinions about Bitcoin, or money for that matter, from crypto detractors. > Your inability to distinguish salesmanship for facts about the network and global economic conditions does not mean they are the same thing. And by calling real money "Fiat currency" you've demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of finance. I was only pointing out that for this to be a Ponzi scheme, it doesn't require any malintent from its creator.
- mattwilsonn888 5y ago
  > Just to be clear, I don't draw my opinions about Bitcoin, or money for that matter, from crypto detractors. You've misunderstood. Your opinions seem to come from your emotional reaction to seeing grift, then applied broadly to all new things which the grift may be associated. You saying its not true doesn't make it so, which also applies to your comment about my use of the term 'fiat currency,' which I used exactly as I intended in line with the definition of the term. A ponzi with no mal-intent from its creators is irrelevant. If the code is open source and participants understand what they are doing (which they majorly do in much of the space), then it is not a ponzi, users are not being duped. If you're referring to the creation of a totally useless token and speculation on it, then you're talking about something else. Lumping all of crypto into that bucket is a popular, flawed, obnoxious cope.
  - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
    > the code is open source and participants understand what they are doing (which they majorly do in much of the space), then it is not a ponzi, users are not being duped. I don't know how you ended up with this logic. Is it not possible to run Ponzi schemes on a platform that is open source? How's the source being available prevent any pump and dump ponzi from happening? Also, stop trying to do a psychological evaluation on me. If anything, you should be the one getting checked.
    - mattwilsonn888 5y ago
      Then by your own admission the protocol itself is not the ponzi, but the speculation on top of it is. This can be true for anything which has a market price, and you've ceded the point without realizing. Also keep in mind that The Bitcoin Network has a quantifiable measure of value and therefore not all trading of it can be labelled speculation, whether you agree on that value or not.