Topic: Any counter-proof that Satoshi Nakamoto did not design a ponzi scheme on purpose - page 7. (Read 7693 times)

... says the person who thinks that an economic bubble is a Ponzi scheme.

christop, you are conflating too many things. I will just let you think you won.

You are being herded to provide liquidity for the insiders to take profits (but they also want to control  it long-term as they do facebook).

This is the way it always works. Same sh8t, same smell. Nothing changes.

Facebook's underwriters were short.

Don't try to be free! Or if you are going to, then never expect it to be with a mass phenomeon. Needs to be smaller. They don't have time to swat all the flies.

You're right; it's not sufficient by itself. Economic bubbles (which unarguably are not Ponzi schemes) also involve early investors taking the money and running. The gold rush of the mid-1800's resulted in many early miners becoming rich while many later miners losing out. Producers of mining equipment also made out quite well. Was that gold rush a Ponzi scheme?

Do you equate economic bubbles with Ponzi schemes? It seems that you do.

It's only a ponzi if the majority of bitcoin "users" behave the following way:
1. Aqquire bicoin.
2. ??
3. Profit.

..come on people it's a currency, ment to be used. Theres nothing wrong with saving, but if you dont even consder using bitcoin in any way all you are buying in to is a bubble.

Don't y'all know that no mass movement occurs without the Banksters owning it.

Don't be naive.

As he said, "get the bitcoin out of your ass" and be objective.

Yeah just like selling FB stock. And FB has a velocity of 1.5 every 3 months. Bitcoin does not. 60+% does not move at all. We don't the actual figure, we only know the lower-bound.

And even FB was much better velocity, it still sold off like a ponzi scheme, because the insiders were making white lies on the ipo to pump up the value.

I am an anarchist. You conflated some things which lead to your wrong conclusion.

I never said to give it away equally. I said to make the playing field level, so everyone can compete fairly. A meritocracy instead of a scam.

The hard-disk space is something everyone can run the mining client on in my design. But I am not stopping anyone from buying more hard disks. It just means the users are also a huge mass of miners, which will put a stop to these threat of the banksters using their 50% of the money supply to buy ASICs and enslave us.


Is the supply of ASICs sufficiently diversified? Can you buy one any where? What about hard disks?

Go read my immediately prior post again. I don't know if you can grasp it?

You are entirely missing the point, which just shows how clever Satoshi's scheme is. When they can make you believe that something isn't what it is, then you've fucked yourself. Rothschild has been doing this for centuries. People are dumb. Even you goldbugs are dumb. Very easy to herd you.


No. You try to move the discussion to non-important words, because you don't grasp the importance of the issue which has nothing to do with whatever name you would like to agree upon. As I said, name it "zozozo" if you want. I don't care, as long as you understand the issue. There is no exact term, bcz he cleverly invented a new way of doing a ponzi scheme. It is still a ponzi scheme, if you look at the generative essence of it.

I suppose you need about 130 - 140 abstract IQ. You can test yourself here on the abstract:

http://iqtest.dk



B has nothing to do with it, except that 50% of the coins were generated in the first 4 years if I am not mistake. And 75% by 2016. He took the money and ran. That is a characteristic of a ponzi scheme, but not sufficient by itself.

A is not a problem if the scheme itself is not designed with a white lie to deceive investors and cause them to make this egregious overvaluation.

The white lie was the whole bit about we will make a better gold. That was just a cover for the fact these BANKSTERS were stealing 50% of the money supply in the first 4 years.



I refuted those in what I wrote above.

We must give out oil rationally!!! I want my share of oil in a bucket delivered weekly.

If Joe buys a bitcoin for 10 dollars, and then sells it to Steve for 15 dollars, Joe has made 5 dollars profit, but that was not 5 dollars from bitcoins, it was 5 dollars from trading bitcoins. Trading bitcoins is more like trading a commodity than trading a stock. You do not get dividends from holding oil, you make money by selling the oil for more than you paid for it. Is oil a ponzi scheme?

Communism! Must... force... everyone... to be equal! Let the government hand out the bitcoins. We can't trust any other way!!!

Ponzi schemes have no inherent value.

Bitcoin has inherent value as a transaction processing system.

Therefore, Bitcoin != Ponzi.

You seem very deeply emotionally invested in the phrase "ponzi scheme", which is just hyperbole, and your dogged refusal to move toward a more semantically accurate term does no favors to your credibility.

Why not couch your argument in semantically correct terms?  If you'll pardon my presumption, it looks to me like you're trying to say:
(A) "I believe Bitcoin is overvalued, as the growth in its current value as a currency/exchange system doesn't match the growth in its trading price."
(B) "Satoshi could singlehandedly crash the economy if he attempted to cash out all of the 3mil BTC he's suspected of controlling."

The first is an opinion based on a fact, and the second is just fact.

To those points I would say:

(A) People who assign a higher value to BTC than you do, are doing so with full understanding that it's overvalued for the real-world transaction processing happening right now, but they perceive a higher future value than you do.  This is where the term "speculation" comes from, which is the first half of "speculative bubble", which may very well be happening right now.  And "speculative bubble" a much more accurate description than "Ponzi scheme", where there is no actual value underlying.  What we have here is a question of how much actual value underlies, not whether-or-not any does.

(B) Yup.  But by doing so, we'd be able to follow the money to where he/they live, and that could raise a lot of legal problems for them.  Besides, doing so would be short-sighted and foolish, and I expect anyone as smart as Satoshi has proven to be would also recognize this.

In my dreams, it would belong to those who create the system that has the long-term staying power, but it may be too late. Bitcoin can't be changed now drastically (the debasement schedule is non-negotiable according to the wiki) and it has too much inertia and no one is going to like something that appreciates more sanely because everybody prefers "to get rich quick", rather than a methodical approach.


The problem as I see it, is he designed the debasement to be so short in duration and to feed into the delusion that goldbugs have that gold was a better currency in the past (it wasn't! go study history, it was same sh8t.).  But this is really twisted because it doesn't even have the similar type of gradual debasement that gold and silver have, it is more like palladium or some rare earth metal that was just discovered.

There is a reason we don't use these for money, it is because the debasement is too rapid. Go read Dr. Fekete, I am sure many of you goldbugs know of him. He explained this to me in email long ago. I was writing on gold-eagle.com since 2007. Go read my articles. Some were lost. I used to write on financialsense.com too, but they lost my articles. Ditto Lewrockell who deleted my articles because I disagreed with him.

It sort of analogous to Russia dumping palladium, then hoarding all production, but in this case they speed up the debasement in the beginning to get an inordinate share, then they slow it down inordinately too rapid, to create false scarcity which helps no one but the early adopters. It kills the long-term of the currency. Bitcoin will never survive long-term I can guarantee you that. It will run way up in price, and then it will fail. The govt will step in, then they have their digital currency. They will then modify it to fluctuate debasement.

You can't deny from the market what it needs. Debasement must fluctuate. Either you do it, or govt will later. Do you want me to explain why?

So what he accomplished is the psychology that we are doing something good, yet he compressed it so it is really bad. Nothing like stable money at all. Clever trick but I saw it immediately because I am so well studied since 2007 on monetary theory.

I would love for him to come forward now and say "we need to fix the debasement, I was wrong", then I would have no problem with the coins he already owns. And I would respect him much more. I would work on it, if anyone needs me (which they don't, there are good programmers here).

If we can't fluctuate the debasement rate, then we can't have it auto-adjust to abnormally high levels of dormancy, which are indicating froth and ponzi-like nature. But simply removing that goldbug delusion attribute, might be enough by itself. Debase it over 100 years at least, so the early adopters don't get 50% of the money supply. Giving them all the incentive to pump, pump, pump.

The reason it hurts us is because an unstable currency has many problems. I explained in a prior link that it opens a scenario for the govt to apply deposit insurance or otherwise regulate bcz dumb fool investors will complain when they lose their shirts. Also a volatile currency will not be adopted as a unit-of-account by businesses. They have fixed costs in USD, so they will go bankrupt from the volatility. So they will have real problems with meshing with the currency due to levels of FX risk.

There are many monetary reasons. Do you want to have a serious discussion?
  

We need the seniorage forever to keep all miners on our side. We would be better off if every user can mine with his hard disk space, no need ASICs.

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8671/any-counter-proof-that-satoshi-nakamoto-did-not-design-a-ponzi-scheme-on-purpose/8697?noredirect=1#comment11345_8671

There is a value with the potential you see. And value wants to belong to somebody.

What is your problem with Satoshi and other early adopters getting insanely rich for taking Paypal/VISA/MC market share? 

That is the whole point: money now might be coming from new investors as in all start-ups, but if this works as I think it can, there will be real money for the senioriage of the currency for a while and modest money supply for processing transactions in a highly competitive market.

Even Forrest Gump got rich unexpectedly and he didn't even take an informed decision.

there are some other issues too.

IMHO, the computational Proof-of-work is not democratic. We need to make it hard-disk space, everybody has one of those (so we have a lot of capital to fight with collectively). I already explained how to do it technically. Otherwise we lose any way:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/could-1000-price-lead-to-a-government-takeover-via-clamor-for-insurance-158106

But I don't care who builds it. I just wish someone would and pronto!

vqp I also love the potential of Bitcoin.

I hate to see it ruined by a ridiculous debasement curve that favors the original creator who mined first.

It is causing insane levels of valuation at such an early stage.

We need to build it out rationally.

The man got his bitcoins saved up from the get-go, has a ton I'm sure, cashes out now and again and is living a dream life while his invention gets huge and he basks in his anonymous glory.
Oh, and who wouldn't want to be anonymous of the creator of such a thing if gov. got involved?

GCInc. et al, ok I may be naive on NSA.

Can you all carry it from here without totally trashing my points in my absence?

I need to go back to work. Programming is what I do.

Thanks to all for the opportunity to share my idea.