Pages:
Author

Topic: Is Bitcoin a Pyramid or Ponzi scheme & what are the ramifications? - page 3. (Read 10974 times)

hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
Outlawing debt and usury can't work.

I'd agree with this statement only because you have the word debt in it, as debt is fundamental to any reciprocity and division of labor which results in temporal displacement of an individuals production and consumption (like farming), individual must be able give and receive debt from the rest of society to make that work.

But Usury is separate from Debt, it is a parasitic layer placed on top of debt.  It is to Debt what co-dependency is to marriage.  I argue that Usury can be eliminated from Debt with Demurrage and this is the best strategy to adopt.

There has to be an illusion of usury, else the 3% will buy feudal (middle ages) armies instead of loans (because they are selfish and ignorant/denial of the fact that capital can't grow exponentially forever). So we need to be clever about how we do it, so that only those who are large enough (the 0.01%) to control the nation-state (soon to be NWO) armies are thwarted, so we retain those 3% who want to buy bonds. Demurrage might be one way perhaps.

If we can remove the public-backstop from loans and remove insurance (that ends up as public-backstop), then they can loan at higher interest than the debasement/demurrage and still they will not grow exponentially forever, because they will pay for their failures in lending to those who can't repay.

Thus in my opinion, the key is removing the ability for the collective to tax and confiscate. That is the only way to end the public backstop and force the selfish hoarders to be subject to the free market.

This is why anonymity is the most important feature in my opinion. But this will only be realistic for the new virtual economy. Yet I expect that to be the main economy now or for sure by 2033 when a recent Oxford study predicts 45% of all current jobs will have been replaced by automation.

This is why I make a point about prosperity has always been facilitated by small government, not by lack of debasement.

Sort the following global data on Govt Spending and you can see why the future of the world is transferring from the developed countries to the emerging markets (although emerging markets will crash hard first in 2016 - 2020 period):

http://www.heritage.org/index/explore
sr. member
Activity: 826
Merit: 250
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
Outlawing debt and usury can't work.

I'd agree with this statement only because you have the word debt in it, as debt is fundamental to any reciprocity and division of labor which results in temporal displacement of an individuals production and consumption (like farming), individual must be able give and receive debt from the rest of society to make that work.

But Usury is separate from Debt, it is a parasitic layer placed on top of debt.  It is to Debt what co-dependency is to marriage.  I argue that Usury can be eliminated from Debt with Demurrage and this is the best strategy to adopt.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521

The historic norm is a non-collectivist, self-sufficient life where the only thing that has any intrinsic value was drinking water, shelter, food and hunting tools. That's still the situation in territories, where the state is absent.

All other things later got their value by collectivism (labor division) beyond Dunbars Numbers. Your arguments are the arguments of a collectivist.


Your statement on historical norms is incontrovertibly FALSE, an archaic hunter-gathering society is explicitly collectivist.  The collective is VERY SMALL, literately a band of 20-30 individuals but the reciprocal sharing of all the resources is the norm, usually with a close-kin social obligations over the whole thing which significantly constrain the individuals behavior....

And the Dunbar limit meant that such tribes only functioned well in small sizes. Where everyone could watch the reputation of everyone. This is why humans still follow the herd and base their logic on reputation instead of analysis.

But as the collective grows large, then it is subject to takeover by vested interests which can hide behind propaganda, because of the former trait that humans rely on reputation not analysis.

The move to greater scale interaction and maximum division-of-labor is more efficient, so the trend can't be denied.

Society has only two choices to avoid the monetary gridlock where all wealth concentrates to the 3% via usury, which I have outlined in great detail in my November posts:

1. Government redistributes from the 3% to the 97%. The vested interests control it. Keynesian.

2. A decentralized, algorithmic debasement, that Bitcoin is not.

Outlawing debt and usury can't work.
sr. member
Activity: 826
Merit: 250
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

The historic norm is a non-collectivist, self-sufficient life where the only thing that has any intrinsic value was drinking water, shelter, food and hunting tools. That's still the situation in territories, where the state is absent.

All other things later got their value by collectivism (labor division) beyond Dunbars Numbers. Your arguments are the arguments of a collectivist.


Your statement on historical norms is incontrovertibly FALSE, an archaic hunter-gathering society is explicitly collectivist.  The collective is VERY SMALL, literately a band of 20-30 individuals but the reciprocal sharing of all the resources is the norm, usually with a close-kin social obligations over the whole thing which significantly constrain the individuals behavior.  And we can know this by anthropological study of the few remaining indigenous groups still at this level.  They do not conform to a libertarian 'self-sufficient' 'rugged individualist' John Galt fantasy, rather then as wrapped in family and cultural obligations as any modern individual would find himself wrapped by law.  The existence of organized governments and written laws largely replace the amorphous constraints of custom of earlier times, they do not rob man of some kind of 'original innocence', in fact we allow everyone to challenge, change and often flout the laws far more then any ancient society would have allowed it's culture and customs to be challenged or broken.

Your appeal to some kind of 'original innocence' marks you as a right-libertarian to me a person who defines freedom exclusively as freedom from law.  A left-libertarian knows that mans original state is not one of freedom and they share with liberals the belief that a regression of society to more ancient forms would reduce freedom.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
Since when do gold, silver jewels etc have any intrinsic value?

The only thing that has any intrinsic value to me is drinking water, shelter, food and bullets.

That is the case when the world sinks into a Madmax dark age. But that is not the norm.

The historic norm is a non-collectivist, self-sufficient life where the only thing that has any intrinsic value was drinking water, shelter, food and hunting tools. That's still the situation in territories, where the state is absent.

All other things later got their value by collectivism (labor division) beyond Dunbars Numbers. Your arguments are the arguments of a collectivist.

The minimization of division-of-labor is economic retardation.

The end of division-of-labor is the end of the economy, which is a collectivist event. The end of the economy (collectivism) is the beginning of self-sufficiency, et vice versa.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
Is not, its money over web, hence BITCOIN, bit for bits, coin for money...
if u read how it works, u will know how good is it, and why is not pyramid or ponzi scheme, + there is tons of uses, the best of all is the easyest way to send money over web, and secure too!
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
 Huh Maximum division-of-labor is the optimum, because each person can maximize the focus and effectiveness of their learning and skills. That is the antithesis of multi-talented.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
Since when do gold, silver jewels etc have any intrinsic value?

The only thing that has any intrinsic value to me is drinking water, shelter, food and bullets.

That is the case when the world sinks into a Madmax dark age. But that is not the norm.

The historic norm is a non-collectivist, self-sufficient life where the only thing that has any intrinsic value was drinking water, shelter, food and hunting tools. That's still the situation in territories, where the state is absent.

All other things later got their value by collectivism (labor division) beyond Dunbars Numbers. Your arguments are the arguments of a collectivist.

The minimization of division-of-labor is economic retardation.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
Since when do gold, silver jewels etc have any intrinsic value?

The only thing that has any intrinsic value to me is drinking water, shelter, food and bullets.

That is the case when the world sinks into a Madmax dark age. But that is not the norm.

The historic norm is a non-collectivist, self-sufficient life where the only thing that has any intrinsic value was drinking water, shelter, food and hunting tools. That's still the situation in territories, where the state is absent.

All other things later got their value by collectivism (labor division) beyond Dunbars Numbers. Your arguments are the arguments of a collectivist.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
Since when do gold, silver jewels etc have any intrinsic value?

The only thing that has any intrinsic value to me is drinking water, shelter, food and bullets.

That is the case when the world sinks into a Madmax dark age. But that is not the norm. Indeed only rice was money in Japan for 600 years, but God help us if we end up in that Madmax outcome.

Well put.

In the meantime however I don't see any need to put my resources into something that has no value to me personally.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
Since when do gold, silver jewels etc have any intrinsic value?

The only thing that has any intrinsic value to me is drinking water, shelter, food and bullets.

That is the case when the world sinks into a Madmax dark age. But that is not the norm. Indeed only rice was money in Japan for 600 years, but God help us if we end up in that Madmax outcome.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
Since when do gold, silver jewels etc have any intrinsic value?

The only thing that has any intrinsic value to me is drinking water, shelter, food and bullets.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
Whether or not the pyramid or ponzi scheme terms are misused by pedantic definitions does not provide an argument against bitcoin being a * scheme. It is a "bitcoin scheme" which closely resembles a pyramid scheme but has a few twists.

28%. Wow we are making headway in the consciousness of the audience.

The key characteristics of anything that resembles a ponzi or pyramid scheme are:

1. No intrinsic value, it is all a willful delusion of the participants.

2. Viral adoption as deluded participants scurry to induce greater fools by word-of-mouth.


Physical gold investment most certainly has an intrinsic value and you will always have that rarity and tangible value (that you can hold in your hand) and thus it can't go to 0. Bitcoins are not rare, because anyone can create an altcoin, and the only thing holding people into Bitcoin is a) the poor quality of the competitors thus far, b) the delusion that Bitcoin is something that it isn't (it isn't a currency), c) the delusion that the limited network effects thus far are a barrier to a great altcoin, d) the delusion that Bitcoin doesn't have technological flaws which doom it, e.g. Transactions Withholding Attack and the Spiraling Transactions Fees.

Shares on major markets usually have intrinsic value and they almost never have the ability to sell like a virus, because most people are inherently skeptical of pink sheets shares because they have many examples of failure.

Whereas, "this is new, it has never happened before, this is the greatest new innovation" is what spreads like a virus.

I see so many of these schemes, such as "this health system will restore your vitality" pyramid schemes, and there is no intrinsic value. It is just herbs you could buy for 1/1000 the price in bulk.

If you want to defeat this logic of mine, your only chance is to argue that Bitcoin has an intrinsic value and justify your willful, collective (what I strongly believe to be) delusion.

Arguing for pedantic, narrow definitions of such schemes makes you look desperate. Actually argue the point.

You can try to argue against:

Quote
Physical gold investment most certainly has an intrinsic value and you will always have that rarity and tangible value (that you can hold in your hand) and thus it can't go to 0. Bitcoins are not rare, because anyone can create an altcoin, and the only thing holding people into Bitcoin is a) the poor quality of the competitors thus far, b) the delusion that Bitcoin is something that it isn't (it isn't a currency), c) the delusion that the limited network effects thus far are a barrier to a great altcoin, d) the delusion that Bitcoin doesn't have technological flaws which doom it, e.g. Transactions Withholding Attack and the Spiraling Transactions Fees.

Read this entire thread:

Problem With Altcoins
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
hmmm give me 1 reason why this would be true. Like all other currencies you can only spend them once. Just because some ppl hold 10K+ BTC doesn't mean they will do that forever, they will spend them at some point, or sell them for dollars and this give the btc a new owner. Just because they don't spend now (because price is still going to get higher according to them) doesn't mean they will not spend them ever. Same as billionaires today hold a large chunk of all cash, there will be people who will hold a big bunch of btc, but like i said, they can only spend them once and when they do btc will be more deconcentrated and dispersed.

Spending and FX conversion have different effects, especially on the market valuation of Bitcoin Wink Think it out. I already wrote enough on the subject. I don't want to repeat myself again.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
...snip...

The notion that women are irrational all the time while men are only "like that" over money.  Is that your belief?

Not exactly. I am just saying that men will turn real nasty when they don't have money for that is their entire identity these days. They don't get women without it also.

I was using the irrationality of women as an example of how men will behave when they are really pissed off. Women tend to get pissed off about daily things such as when you don't give them some of your time. Men tend to get pissed off about dick strategy things. Being poor is going to be very hard on western men. They are not used to it.

I am used to it. I lived in Nipa hut and ate only rice and bananas when I wrote coolpage.com for million users. No problem for me. I can code any where.

You aren't helping yourself here.  Really, not helping yourself at all.

Women are rational within their home-community building goals. But their priorities seem quite irrational to a man at times, because our priorities are more competitive.

However, I probably don't speak for westerners any more, as men have become women there in some cases. We joke about that in the developing world where men are still men.

The women are happier here, because we let them be women. Not like all the birth control, abortion, equal crap in the west.

Sorry I am not a socialist. We will not agree.

If the belief that women are as capable of rational behaviour as men is your definition of socialism, you have every reason to apologise for not being a socialist.

We completely disagree.

Women are women. And men are men.

Women are rational yes, but not strategically rational. They base their decisions more on emotions of the small group centered around home and family which is very rational in terms of their evolutionary strategy.

If you deny this, you deny nature. Which most westerners do now deny nature. But the payback is coming 2016ish. Western civilization will collapse.

All civilizations do collapse, because to be civilized (enslaved) is against human nature, and therefore all civilized (collectivized, monogamized, taxed by the state mafia) men are not men anymore.  You even don't know such simple anthropologic facts. You are a story telling collectivist who knows nothing about nature, systems and money.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
I can speculate on whether Branson as a member of the elite (Bilderberger, CFR member, etc) is playing ball as he has been perhaps told to. Or perhaps he really believes in Bitcoin. But he isn't here in these forums down in the trenches. And he doesn't see what I see technically.

So let him end up as another Bitcoin idiot. Fine with me. I'd love to slay his ass if he puts his net worth in Bitcoin. But of course he isn't that stupid and so isn't endorsing it for himself, rather encouraging the greater fools who I am about to teach a lesson in market dynamics.

The thread was closed because all the key arguments had been made and argued. I am one man against 100+ butt hurt Bitcoin zealots who are unable to read the thread before they post and were posting either redundant arguments or spamming the thread with "you are wrong, because you are wrong" 0-information non-arguments.

I will go post a link from that thread to this one, so all your posts are acknowledged.

Ain't No Future In Yo Frontin, "Shine it up good".

Is this guy for real?

Sounds to me like he is tripping on Ritalin.

He might be, but only because he's really 14 years old, pretending to be some uber coder trying to convince everyone he alone has discovered the Great Bitcoin Flaw (tm).
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
I can speculate on whether Branson as a member of the elite (Bilderberger, CFR member, etc) is playing ball as he has been perhaps told to. Or perhaps he really believes in Bitcoin. But he isn't here in these forums down in the trenches. And he doesn't see what I see technically.

So let him end up as another Bitcoin idiot. Fine with me. I'd love to slay his ass if he puts his net worth in Bitcoin. But of course he isn't that stupid and so isn't endorsing it for himself, rather encouraging the greater fools who I am about to teach a lesson in market dynamics.

The thread was closed because all the key arguments had been made and argued. I am one man against 100+ butt hurt Bitcoin zealots who are unable to read the thread before they post and were posting either redundant arguments or spamming the thread with "you are wrong, because you are wrong" 0-information non-arguments.

I will go post a link from that thread to this one, so all your posts are acknowledged.

Ain't No Future In Yo Frontin, "Shine it up good".

Is this guy for real?

Sounds to me like he is tripping on Ritalin.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
Right, I'm off now to cook up a nice humble pie and your going to eat in right in front of us.  Cheesy

I'm pretty sure the Union of Government FUDders has a clause against eating humble pie while at work.
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
those at the top of pyramid schemes usually stay there. in bitcoin you can step down from the top in trade for fiat and someone else takes your place.

There is always a motivation to climb the ladder to reach the top, even totally unnecessary  Grin
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1008
those at the top of pyramid schemes usually stay there. in bitcoin you can step down from the top in trade for fiat and someone else takes your place.
Pages:
Jump to: