So which is the first biggest ponzi scheme, he never mentioned that?
It is US dollar after the gold backing is removed 1971, and that ponzi scheme has been running for 42 years
Topic: 2nd biggest ponzi scheme in history (Read 4158 times)
It is US dollar after the gold backing is removed 1971, and that ponzi scheme has been running for 42 years
Ponzi investments also "store money" btw. The utility is not tied to the value or even the ledger (Litcoins, etc..). Also that money isn't directly payed to late early investors is a mere technicality, that there is no middle man does not mean it's not a ponzi.
The only valid distinction is that the cashout/cash in is external on the exchanges.
Biggest pump & dump scheme in history how about that?
Oh and network effect? Well that's the thing where it works the same way like a ponzi.
The only valid distinction is that the cashout/cash in is external on the exchanges.
Biggest pump & dump scheme in history how about that?
Oh and network effect? Well that's the thing where it works the same way like a ponzi.
there should be a system on this board that if more than 100 people have you on ignore you get automatically banned from posting anything.
And lose Chartbuddy?
If people choose to ignore other posters, that's their business, but I prefer to see what other people think or pretend to think.
I don't even ignore obvious trolls like Revans, EM or Walso. I use them as a source of humor.
Why does anyone need to cash out their bitcoins? Bitcoins can be used as currency, so why does anyone need to convert back to dollars? If everyone just stopped doing that, we would eventually end up with a bitcoin-only economy.
Because if nobody did that there would be no way for people to acquire Bitcoins and then whole thing would collapse. Are you really that dumb?
New bitcoins can be mined as well
I think it's important to have people that have a different opinion. I wouldn't want to ignore revans just Coz he is annoying and on the other side.( even if he's wrong).
+1
I don't know exactly what revans wrote/linked (since he is on my ignore all I can see is the title) but there should be a system on this board that if more than 100 people have you on ignore you get automatically banned from posting anything.
I think it's important to have people that have a different opinion. I wouldn't want to ignore revans just Coz he is annoying and on the other side.( even if he's wrong).
You can't build any other ponzi on ponzi basis. .
.You can there is strong evidence that pirate invested in another ponzi with his proceeds.
Etatistic people are just mad about currency they can't control. You can't build any other ponzi on ponzi basis. . The very existing of bitcoin based ponzies and hyip'es proves it's just a mean of payment.
. The very existing of bitcoin based ponzies and hyip'es proves it's just a mean of payment. 
So do you like articles?
Here is one for you...
http://falkvinge.net/2013/11/06/bitcoins-real-revolution-isnt-hard-money-its-economic-panarchy/
Here is one for you...
http://falkvinge.net/2013/11/06/bitcoins-real-revolution-isnt-hard-money-its-economic-panarchy/
And, most of the time, it is a Ponzi scheme. Even the paper currency by itself is one. But governments call it 'inflation', sounds better. Or 'social security'. Or 'taxes'.
A Ponzi scheme is when you hand your money over to someone and they promise to use it to buy an investment, but instead they give your money away to another "investor".
When you buy Bitcoin, you are buying your spot in the blockchain, and when you sell, you're transferring your ownership of that spot. The same as a stock.
When you buy Bitcoin, you are buying your spot in the blockchain, and when you sell, you're transferring your ownership of that spot. The same as a stock.
Quote
People do not buy the investment for the benefits that the investment provides as an investment, in other words, because it is a capital asset. They buy it only because it has gone up in price. They expect this to continue.
All investments are purchased because people expect them to go up in price. If lots of people are piling in, and the price is skyrocketing, that doesn't make it a scam, that means lots of people think it's a good investment. Quote
They were sold on the basis that Bitcoins will be an alternative currency. In other words, this will be the money of the future.
Bitcoins are already an alternative currency. They don't have to be "the money of the future". They can remain an alternative currency, or an investment (a store of value).Quote
The creator literally made what he says is money, or will be money. He made this money out of digits. He made it out of nothing.
Yep. Jealous much?Well said, according to his theory, pretty much every single investment be it stock, assets or commodity is a ponzi scheme.
its hard too know where to start with this guy its so full off errors
here the first one, gov currency is also made up, eg needs to understand FIAT currency and fractional reserve banking.
Peak Month and Rate of Inflation: Nov. 1923, 29,525% Germany, that makes BTC deflation look rather tame.
What is happening now is the Govs just keep printing and taxing, and the whole edifice pumping, while we see cost of living go up while buying power goes down. BTC can now catch all this excess printing
here the first one, gov currency is also made up, eg needs to understand FIAT currency and fractional reserve banking.
Peak Month and Rate of Inflation: Nov. 1923, 29,525% Germany, that makes BTC deflation look rather tame.
What is happening now is the Govs just keep printing and taxing, and the whole edifice pumping, while we see cost of living go up while buying power goes down. BTC can now catch all this excess printing
So which is the first biggest ponzi scheme, he never mentioned that?
The first one is Madoff. It is said (source: wikipedia) that 36 billions dollars had been invested in his fund.
Bitcoin still has a long way to go before being qualified "the biggest ponzi".
Lol at
"On June 29, 2009, he was sentenced to 150 years in prison with restitution of $17 billion."
150 YEARS, I mean seriously? Never heard that before
He was not referring to Madoff. He was referring to Social Security (new contributors fund payments to old contributors. Capital was spent on wars and stuff years ago)
So which is the first biggest ponzi scheme, he never mentioned that?
The first one is Madoff. It is said (source: wikipedia) that 36 billions dollars had been invested in his fund.
Bitcoin still has a long way to go before being qualified "the biggest ponzi".
Lol at
"On June 29, 2009, he was sentenced to 150 years in prison with restitution of $17 billion."
150 YEARS, I mean seriously? Never heard that before
So which is the first biggest ponzi scheme, he never mentioned that?
He actually argues for Bitcoin.
Here is the central fact of money. Money is the product of the market process. It arises out of an unplanned, decentralized process. This takes time. It takes a lot of time. It spreads slowly, as new people discover it as a tool of production, because it increases the size of the market for all goods and services. No one says, "I think I'll invent a new form of money."
This is what is happening now with Bitcoin. "Money arises out of an unplanned." Bitcoin is largely an unplanned decentralized medium. "Money arises out of the market process". The markets are being developed now for bitcoin. "Money takes time and spreads slowly." The same is happening with Bitcoin. It will take a long time for adoption. So his point about Bitcoin not being money is correct. But the next question is will it ever be considered money? It's possible, if a majority of people in a region use it to conduct business. If we look at it in that sense, I think one could argue that Bitcoin is money in the BTC end user mining market. All mining devices can be purchased with BTC. BTC is a tool of production in the end user mining market.
Here is the central fact of money. Money is the product of the market process. It arises out of an unplanned, decentralized process. This takes time. It takes a lot of time. It spreads slowly, as new people discover it as a tool of production, because it increases the size of the market for all goods and services. No one says, "I think I'll invent a new form of money."
This is what is happening now with Bitcoin. "Money arises out of an unplanned." Bitcoin is largely an unplanned decentralized medium. "Money arises out of the market process". The markets are being developed now for bitcoin. "Money takes time and spreads slowly." The same is happening with Bitcoin. It will take a long time for adoption. So his point about Bitcoin not being money is correct. But the next question is will it ever be considered money? It's possible, if a majority of people in a region use it to conduct business. If we look at it in that sense, I think one could argue that Bitcoin is money in the BTC end user mining market. All mining devices can be purchased with BTC. BTC is a tool of production in the end user mining market.
Rubbish, if it was a ponzi scheme you wouldn't have Millions of dollars worth of investments pouring into infrastructure projects. If it was a ponzi scheme it wouldn't been over already with the few ultra rich cashing out their hundreds of millions and Bitcoin dies..Bitcoin is here to stay.
Here is just the thing: What kind of money is really needed for Bitcoin infrastructure? BitPay for instance, they run the website, so a handful of webdevs, and then some journalists for PR, and then that's it. (Besides server and office costs that's it).
So what might happen with the VC money in the end? I'll tell you, most of it is sent to the exchange to buy Bitcoins.
Then you are all ignoring the most important argument: Bitcoins are no money because they do not have a "predictable" exchange rate. In practical terms that means nobody prices things in Bitcoins.
Everybody prices things in USD, EUR in the end, even when they produce the product.
Darpa and the NSA started bitcoin so no need to worry about it failing. Its the NSA's wet dream to track all that money floating around and since they invented the crypto for it, dont you think they know how to break it. So bring on the waves of ups and downs and get this S-curve moving up. And someone on here Please give Revans some f$cking bitcoin so he will shut the f$ck up.
He would just sell.
Rubbish, if it was a ponzi scheme you wouldn't have Millions of dollars worth of investments pouring into infrastructure projects. If it was a ponzi scheme it wouldn't been over already with the few ultra rich cashing out their hundreds of millions and Bitcoin dies..Bitcoin is here to stay.
Here is just the thing: What kind of money is really needed for Bitcoin infrastructure? BitPay for instance, they run the website, so a handful of webdevs, and then some journalists for PR, and then that's it. (Besides server and office costs that's it).
So what might happen with the VC money in the end? I'll tell you, most of it is sent to the exchange to buy Bitcoins.
Then you are all ignoring the most important argument: Bitcoins are no money because they do not have a "predictable" exchange rate. In practical terms that means nobody prices things in Bitcoins.
Everybody prices things in USD, EUR in the end, even when they produce the product.
Darpa and the NSA started bitcoin so no need to worry about it failing. Its the NSA's wet dream to track all that money floating around and since they invented the crypto for it, dont you think they know how to break it. So bring on the waves of ups and downs and get this S-curve moving up. And someone on here Please give Revans some f$cking bitcoin so he will shut the f$ck up.
Gary North is a bright guy and he is right that social security is a Ponzi (the money that is paid in now is used to pay benefits to previous contributors - the capital is long gone).
However, he is wrong about bitcoin (as are many, though by no means all Austrian economists). If you read the article, his main objection is the lack of a stable value. But a period of hyper-monetisation is inevitable during the transition from non-money to money. During that period, volatility is inevitable. It could not be otherwise because nothing appreciates in value smoothly.
The reality is that there is no historical precedent for bitcoin. Analogies with the monetisation of gold and silver hundreds or thousands of years ago are of limited use.
However, he is wrong about bitcoin (as are many, though by no means all Austrian economists). If you read the article, his main objection is the lack of a stable value. But a period of hyper-monetisation is inevitable during the transition from non-money to money. During that period, volatility is inevitable. It could not be otherwise because nothing appreciates in value smoothly.
The reality is that there is no historical precedent for bitcoin. Analogies with the monetisation of gold and silver hundreds or thousands of years ago are of limited use.
Jump to: