Topic: Any counter-proof that Satoshi Nakamoto did not design a ponzi scheme on purpose - page 10. (Read 7693 times)

Yes, it does matter what you call it. Don't call it a Ponzi scheme if it's not one.

You haven't shown how there is a central operator. That is a key ingredient in a Ponzi scheme. Are you claiming that Satoshi is somehow that central operator simply because he is one of many early adopters?

If Satoshi or some other early adopter did own a large number of Bitcoin, he could cash them out and this so-called "scheme" would continue to function without him. There is strong evidence that many early adopters actually have been dumping their stashes of Bitcoins onto the market. A Ponzi scheme, in contrast, would collapse if this were to happen.

Whereas a Ponzi scheme is organized like a pyramid, Bitcoin is organized like a network of buyers and sellers.

Very different than fiat because of the debasement rate relative to the market cap.

This is why we are seeing $1 billion valuation expectations.

Enumerate what you think are the assumptions, then I will clarify your misunderstandings.

I don't care what you call it, I described the reality above. Name it what ever you want. You can call it "ZOOZOO" for all I care.

Ponzi scheme has a very specific structure and what we're seeing here, especially the appreciation and depreciation cycle of the BTC as an element of valuation and tradeability itself, makes BTC an element that COULD be part of a ponzi scheme the same way that fiat can, but no different than fiat in that regard.

You can't be serious?  Read your post out loud to yourself.  Listen critically.
You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.

The long-term and short-term expectations polls, both show extreme ponzi valuations. And interestingly bitcoiners aren't as interested in the short-term 2017 time-frame. Their expectations skew is Bitcoin will overtake the world long-term. Speculative investments shouldn't be valued extremely long-term— too many variables change. Any seasoned investor knows this.

What you have here, is Satoshi cleverly hoodwinked goldbugs (knowing their psychological weakness) think that Bitcoin  has the properties of gold (but it does not!), and so these naive investors pile in long-term thinking it changes the world. This has NSA finger prints all over it.

Besides gold has never been a superior currency nor investment over long-term. Go dig into my links, I have all the historical data to proof of that claim.

REALITY CHECK!

Does it make any difference what you call it, if you've got a majority of predicting $100,000+ prices and the FX price is being driven by later investors without sufficient fundamental matching value in transactions velocity for goods & services?

I don't care what you call it, it is the characteristics of an exponential bubble that matter to the point I am making.

Playing semantic games as Satoshi did will fool the bitcoiners though.


Good to see someone is astute here.

I suspect the skepticism stems from an obvious misunderstanding of what a Ponzi scheme is and seeing an apparent "bubble" forming. While it is true that Bitcoin value could come crashing down (whether that is likely or not is a separate discussion), it would be due to demand dropping relative to its supply. Remember, it doesn't have to be a Ponzi scheme for it to crash. Tulip mania, for example, wasn't a Ponzi scheme (there was no central operator).

After reading this thread, I have come to the conclusion that the OP has no idea what a Ponzi Scheme entails.

To quote an apt answer from the Bitcoin StackExchange:


And as I'm sure you've already seen, there's an even more detailed answer provided on Brock Tice's blog.

So what's with the continued skepticism?

Proof: Speculation ≠ Ponzi.

My point is that the "speculative fever" has its genesis in the mind of the user. But in a free market that must be allowed and we will see builds and corrections in BTCs formative years until market depth stills the waters somewhat and speculation diminishes. But speculation is not the dirty thing you assume, it is a positive thing, an optimistic thing.

Besides all that, stick this in your Occam pipe and smoke it:


bolded can NOT happen with BTC. however you could create a protocol layer on top of BTC that would allow such shennanigins to happen.

@yucca, if you say Occam's Razor can't apply then you don't understand its utility.

If you think compressing a millenia of gold debasement into 2 decades can't drive speculative fever, then what can I say except I think you have no clue.

You could read this:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1674264

@remotemass, what do you think puzzles me? I think I have it figured out.

Yes, ant it being a very well thought out cryptocurrency will get much greater.

Also this matter is subjective and so occams razor does not and can not apply.

If we were to walk down the crazy paved path of logic that you propose then we MUST assume that ANY finite infomation/matter used for storage of wealth is a ponzi scheme. So were screwed and might as well go back to the caves and forage from day to day.

I know infinitely more about money and minds than you, that is not hard as you seem to know zero.

It seems to me that you blame rampant speculation on BTC or its creator when in reality it is created and lives in the mind of the user. But in this weak consumer society the end user is never to blame, like an eternal baby.

BTC is a currency, that is all. If you think it is a ponzi scheme then you'd better get out and return to the safehaven of fiat money and fractional reserve banking, which in case you hadn't realised is a true pyramid scheme and it having a MUCH larger impact on our lives should perhaps be the subject of concern.

Anything that threatens the existing pyramid scheme (fiat & fractional) will be badmouthed, hence you are either creating or relaying this asinine FUD.

I think you actually mean 'puzzle scheme'
You sound very puzzled 

But the linked document is not arguing against that. It is stating the fact that the relative ratios of utility for transactional goods & sevices is the vast minority compared to holding for appreciation in FX value.

@DataPlumber

You hit many good points. Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify.

Occam's Razor says to choose an explanation for any phenomenon that has the least number of assumptions.

I have stated what I believe are the facts with the least assumptions, based on the data and evidence.

I am asking if someone can provide an alternative theory or explanation that has less assumptions. Count your assumptions.

Mine has no assumptions.  

1. It is a ponzi scheme (whether transparent or not), unless the rate of price appreciatioin slows to be not so many multiples of the rate of REAL transaction growth.

2. He chose the design that maximizes this outcome, because the debasement is declining and fixed, this pushing people into all sorts of emotion valuations and it can encourages "the price can only go up" and reinforcing BUY BUY BUY effects. If you try to argue that he was emulating gold, then why did he make the duration of the geometric decline nothing like gold's millenia? Surely he knows the ponzi effect of compressing that into 2 decades. He even says this will appeal to the gold community, so it was a marketing ploy.

3. He was well aware, very sophisticated, very thorough, and the design is complex, so no choices would have been random.

4. Nobody had heard of him, he changes the entire P2P encryption research, then he disappears. THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED. The statistical chance is 0 (winning the lottery). Besides, programmers never do this to a successful baby. Also does he not have any teachers, relatives, friends, parents? Who can keep someone so secret other than the NSA?

No assumptions at all in my statement of the facts.

Thus it is irrefutable as far as I can see. But you can try.

IMO already has great utility.

Not sure if you're asking to refute "Ponzi scheme" or intentions?

Your question seems to assume it's a Ponzi scheme and then ask about intentions.

Try asking just one question at a time?

If it's a Ponzi scheme, it's the world's most transparent one.