LOL, your grossly dishonest argument reminds me of QS. A lot. He employs exactly the same bullshit responses that you do.
Let's look at what you actually said:
Firstly you chose to ignore the consistent use of the word 'illegal' in the third link provided so kindly by shefchenko and tried to run with claiming there was substance to the fact that specific word was not used in the first two citations. I subsequently demolished that dishonest spin by pointing out that, in place of the word 'illegal' both articles used 'fraudulent' instead. Which is still illegal. Everywhere.
Secondly, having been torn a new one over your first asinine distraction attempt you tried this:
And I still assert that there does not exist a service for which it can be established 100% that all participants would fully understand what they were sending money to.
Which would be fine and dandy if it applied only to Ponzi schemes, because we are very much insistent that ALL ponzi schemes are scams because of that very same reason. You, however, appear to be trying to imply there is mileage in claiming that there cannot exist a service for which it is guaranteed 100% that all participants would understand what they were sending money to, as though that would magically render your illegal and immoral 'Honest' ponzi to be a just and righteous thing.
Except, of course, your assertion is beyond fucking nonsense because the issue concerns only those services which are dependent on socially engineering other people to send money to them, namely, Ponzi schemes! If you send money to a casino site but have no real understanding of the odds when it comes to a spin of the roulette table, it makes no fucking difference as to whether you win or not. The odds will still be *exactly* the same if you bet on red 13 and are too dumb to know the mathematical likelihood of red 13 being the winning selection or if you are a card-sharp casino-veteran who calculates odds in your sleep and bets on red 13.
Come on QS-Jr, you can do better than that, can't you?
Can't you?
No. You can't.
Twat. <=--- There, I gift you another of your favourite (and QS's favourite, too) tone complaint escape routes you can take. Because I know you've got shit all else to offer in rebuttal.