I've decided today that I will be applying negative trust to anyone running a ponzi game that does not have the word "Ponzi" in the thread or website title. There's a lot of new ponzi games that are tricking less savvy users into thinking that they are "business games" and somehow sustainable due to their "professional traders" etc etc.
It's been months and nothing has been done about this, I think it's incredibly irresponsible for the admins to let gambling continue to fill up with new scams every day.
Topic: Ponzi "Game" == Negative Trust? - page 2. (Read 8505 times)
#1: It's a game, even though it is based upon "Ponzi Schemes" these are in no way, a Ponzi.
= You cannot win
#2: People know what they get into when they invest on these sites, they realize that if nobody invests after them then they are fucked.
= Mostly, yes.
#3: It's a gamble, like any other site: Poker, Dice, Casino... etc.
Any of those sites have the availability to scam but do not get red flagged.
= They all get flagged.
So tell me why people automatically get red flagged for owning a Ponzi Game Site?
= Because it is a scam.
I believe that if we get rid of this narcissistic negative trusting then the Actual Members behind the sites will come out so that in the case that they do scam, just action can be placed.
= True.
This act just seems kinda stupid in my honest opinion... these sites are games like any other Casino, Dice, or Poker site. I believe that it is the basic name that has been applied to these games that sets off these "Neggers" Alarms; which if they read into the sites they should notice it's just a game.
= It's just a game, but they are making profit from it and you (player) not.
= You cannot win
#2: People know what they get into when they invest on these sites, they realize that if nobody invests after them then they are fucked.
= Mostly, yes.
#3: It's a gamble, like any other site: Poker, Dice, Casino... etc.
Any of those sites have the availability to scam but do not get red flagged.
= They all get flagged.
So tell me why people automatically get red flagged for owning a Ponzi Game Site?
= Because it is a scam.
I believe that if we get rid of this narcissistic negative trusting then the Actual Members behind the sites will come out so that in the case that they do scam, just action can be placed.
= True.
This act just seems kinda stupid in my honest opinion... these sites are games like any other Casino, Dice, or Poker site. I believe that it is the basic name that has been applied to these games that sets off these "Neggers" Alarms; which if they read into the sites they should notice it's just a game.
= It's just a game, but they are making profit from it and you (player) not.
Soon I am planning to start deposit and withdrawal on www.CrazyPonzi.com. Feel free to test it with the 1BTC play money before it starts operating.
Ill look into it.
at a quick glance:
- your faq.php returns: The page you are looking for cannot be found.
FAQ is now updated and the game is live...
The op his ponzi and fake accounts hmmmmm
Well there's certainly something here where the ponzi's are very sensitive because in part of the negative reputation and the fact that some people are also worried about the community.
Attempts at legitimizing the "ponzi" and associating it with BTC via gambling is part of the "silent war" on Bitcoin IMO. This is a "slippery slope" tactic like how "they" push doctor assisted suicide to get their foot in the door to start culling the undesirables in society.
at a quick glance:
- your faq.php returns: The page you are looking for cannot be found.
Ya... FAQ is not written yet. Will be adding before I start accepting deposit & withdrawal.
I was told by a member here that if one promotes a ponzi link in their signature, they will earn negative trust but I don't know the reason as it does not mean that one is a cheat. May be because Ponzis are illegal?
Ponzi schemes are illegal, but honest Ponzi Games have nothing to do with that...
I was told by a member here that if one promotes a ponzi link in their signature, they will earn negative trust but I don't know the reason as it does not mean that one is a cheat. May be because Ponzis are illegal?
-snip-
That is only if there is no other investor except me in raising the initial deposit. If there is any, then I'll lose to them and hence I'm taking equal risk as of them.
-snip-
That is only if there is no other investor except me in raising the initial deposit. If there is any, then I'll lose to them and hence I'm taking equal risk as of them.
-snip-
Make sense, I missed that indeed.
For dice or any other gambling, you dont know this in advance either. For dice and a few other category, you can verify in advance with hashing, which is not possible here as the randomness is coming from real life. But, it is 100% true, that I have no control on this randomness.
I dont know the result yes, but I know the odds (e.g. 49.50 % for 2x) on a dice site. I guess not knowing the odds is part of the charm though.
Soon I am planning to start deposit and withdrawal on www.CrazyPonzi.com. Feel free to test it with the 1BTC play money before it starts operating.
Ill look into it.
at a quick glance:
- your faq.php returns: The page you are looking for cannot be found.
-snip-
Regarding your second Q... No, I can not prove that I'm not playing in the game at any point of time. But, if you look at the operation of the game, you'll discover that it does not matter.
Regarding your second Q... No, I can not prove that I'm not playing in the game at any point of time. But, if you look at the operation of the game, you'll discover that it does not matter.
I have to disagree with you here.
I respect counter opinion.
Because, if I play I'll also take the risk of being the last player, just like everyone else.
Yet, if you are the last you are loosing only to yourself where regular players would lose to you. Thats an advantage for you.
That is only if there is no other investor except me in raising the initial deposit. If there is any, then I'll lose to them and hence I'm taking equal risk as of them.
If I am the #1 & #2 I'm just raising the value of initial deposit, which does not impact the way other users play the game, because they already know at any point of time anyone can be part of the game.
You raise the amount they have to risk in order to play, thats exactly the point I was so confused about. "Only one person" can lose, yes but the amount they lose is higher than everyone else previously risked.
True indeed. Everyone can raise the amount while only one will lose.
Some rounds may have multiple investors, while some rounds may not have any... that is the luck factor everyone is playing against. Even if I assume that I'll play, then I have to play against the same luck factor.
Which is not known in advance, but thats probably just me. Id like to know my odds.
For dice or any other gambling, you dont know this in advance either. For dice and a few other category, you can verify in advance with hashing, which is not possible here as the randomness is coming from real life. But, it is 100% true, that I have no control on this randomness.
Soon I am planning to start deposit and withdrawal on www.CrazyPonzi.com. Feel free to test it with the 1BTC play money before it starts operating.
-snip-
Regarding your second Q... No, I can not prove that I'm not playing in the game at any point of time. But, if you look at the operation of the game, you'll discover that it does not matter.
Regarding your second Q... No, I can not prove that I'm not playing in the game at any point of time. But, if you look at the operation of the game, you'll discover that it does not matter.
I have to disagree with you here.
Because, if I play I'll also take the risk of being the last player, just like everyone else.
Yet, if you are the last you are loosing only to yourself where regular players would lose to you. Thats an advantage for you.
If I am the #1 & #2 I'm just raising the value of initial deposit, which does not impact the way other users play the game, because they already know at any point of time anyone can be part of the game.
You raise the amount they have to risk in order to play, thats exactly the point I was so confused about. "Only one person" can lose, yes but the amount they lose is higher than everyone else previously risked.
Some rounds may have multiple investors, while some rounds may not have any... that is the luck factor everyone is playing against. Even if I assume that I'll play, then I have to play against the same luck factor.
Which is not known in advance, but thats probably just me. Id like to know my odds.
4. Every next player's invest will payout its previous investor and hence only the last person looses....
Example with 200% return will look like as follows...
#1 invests 1 - bankroll is 1
#2 invests 2 - bankroll is 2, #1 gets paid 2
#3 invests 4 - bankroll is 4, #2 gets paid 4
This is a ridiculous claim, "only the last person loses."
Only true if every
Simple question for you CrazyJoker....in your example above, could you prove that you or your alts are not #1, even #2, manipulating the 'game' and ripping off everyone else without them knowing?
You can't = there is no such thing as a "provably fair ponzi" and anyone pretending that there is should get negative trust.
Sorry to say, this is not a ridiculous claim. This is rather correct in www.crazyponzi.com. You are confused because you are assuming that it works the same way like other Ponzi Games, which is simply untrue.
The investor/player/person, however you identify an entity participating in the game, will have to pay double of the previous player, if the round return is 200%. Please note that, this return % will vary between 110% to 200% from round to round. If you still do not understand, I'd request you to give it a try for free at the site, where you'll get 1BTC non-withdrawable play money for testing.
Regarding your second Q... No, I can not prove that I'm not playing in the game at any point of time. But, if you look at the operation of the game, you'll discover that it does not matter. Because, if I play I'll also take the risk of being the last player, just like everyone else. If I am the #1 & #2 I'm just raising the value of initial deposit, which does not impact the way other users play the game, because they already know at any point of time anyone can be part of the game. Some rounds may have multiple investors, while some rounds may not have any... that is the luck factor everyone is playing against. Even if I assume that I'll play, then I have to play against the same luck factor.
The classical concept of Provably Fair does not apply here, because the whole luck concept is different here than normal dice games. I have also read somewhere that the Provably Fair concept is different for Poker sites as well.
The only attack vector I can see here is that I can run away with the money, which also exists in all dice sites that accepts investment in the bankroll. But, to reduce that risk, I am acceting daily withdrawal which is possible evn before a round is over.
Feel free to ask any more Q if you may have...
4. Every next player's invest will payout its previous investor and hence only the last person looses....
Example with 200% return will look like as follows...
#1 invests 1 - bankroll is 1
#2 invests 2 - bankroll is 2, #1 gets paid 2
#3 invests 4 - bankroll is 4, #2 gets paid 4
This is a ridiculous claim, "only the last person loses."
Only true if every
Simple question for you CrazyJoker....in your example above, could you prove that you or your alts are not #1, even #2, manipulating the 'game' and ripping off everyone else without them knowing?
You can't = there is no such thing as a "provably fair ponzi" and anyone pretending that there is should get negative trust.
Because its a Ponzi something destined to fail that's why.
I'm curious how one would go about building a provably fair ponzi. With the majority of the dice sites out there, while you have a net -ve EV at least you can ensure the game is run fairly. With all these ponzis it would seem trivial for the operator to open a round and fund the first block of bets. If the ponzi goes nowhere, no loss to them. If it's a success, they've made a bunch of BTC with no risk to themselves.
It's a little different with these Ponzis than with a dice game, as Stunna could play as many rolls as he wanted to without affecting other players.
It's a little different with these Ponzis than with a dice game, as Stunna could play as many rolls as he wanted to without affecting other players.
Exactly this is the point where those in favour of the ponzi usually start to question whether provably fair is fair in the first place instead of confronting the argument. Cant really blame them as its hard to prove you did not do something.
I don't think a ponzi can be made provably fair at all. How can you stop the ponzi operator to make a bunch of early deposits in each round?
Well I cant, but I am willing to believe that someone smarter than me could invest heavily into the idea and come up with a solution. Yes, its impossible to prove that the operator is not playing, but it might be possible to remove the operator from the game. Thus the person in charge (operator) would be able to play, but be at risk of losing the same way everyone else does.
I don't think you're able to remove the operator from the game, as, especially with bitcoin, everyone obviously can participate and you don't know which wallet belongs to who.
"Thus the person in charge (operator) would be able to play, but be at risk of losing the same way everyone else does". Indeed. The only solution for that is script the game / system in such way that it organizes completely random rounds, or atleast creates random rounds. (However, I think most operators are in such situation able to somehow get a message when a new round has started).
I'm curious how one would go about building a provably fair ponzi. With the majority of the dice sites out there, while you have a net -ve EV at least you can ensure the game is run fairly. With all these ponzis it would seem trivial for the operator to open a round and fund the first block of bets. If the ponzi goes nowhere, no loss to them. If it's a success, they've made a bunch of BTC with no risk to themselves.
It's a little different with these Ponzis than with a dice game, as Stunna could play as many rolls as he wanted to without affecting other players.
It's a little different with these Ponzis than with a dice game, as Stunna could play as many rolls as he wanted to without affecting other players.
Exactly this is the point where those in favour of the ponzi usually start to question whether provably fair is fair in the first place instead of confronting the argument. Cant really blame them as its hard to prove you did not do something.
I don't think a ponzi can be made provably fair at all. How can you stop the ponzi operator to make a bunch of early deposits in each round?
Well I cant, but I am willing to believe that someone smarter than me could invest heavily into the idea and come up with a solution. Yes, its impossible to prove that the operator is not playing, but it might be possible to remove the operator from the game. Thus the person in charge (operator) would be able to play, but be at risk of losing the same way everyone else does.
Have you seen what is happened to williamj2543 ?
He has been caught red handed in lies and subterfuge with a known scammer and is still in denial about it.
He doesn't even address the above fatal flaw in his argument for a "fair ponzi".
If it wasn't in his own original game plan to rig the game, I'm sure it was in moreia's, else what was the need for the "investors" moreia said he had in place in the Skype call? He wasn't referring to gamblers, he was referring to alts to be tipped off and organized to keep the scam running whilst being paid thru early placement of their rigged bets, with williamj2543 directly personally benefiting thru his share of the 5%.
williamj2543's original motivation was pure greed and his reaction since he was unmasked as a liar has been to cover his ass.
He deserves all the negative trust he gets.
Have you seen what is happened to williamj2543 ? Here the thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-accusation-against-myself-and-my-partner-930008
The Ponzi schemes aren't safe ....
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-accusation-against-myself-and-my-partner-930008
The Ponzi schemes aren't safe ....
I'm curious how one would go about building a provably fair ponzi. With the majority of the dice sites out there, while you have a net -ve EV at least you can ensure the game is run fairly. With all these ponzis it would seem trivial for the operator to open a round and fund the first block of bets. If the ponzi goes nowhere, no loss to them. If it's a success, they've made a bunch of BTC with no risk to themselves.
It's a little different with these Ponzis than with a dice game, as Stunna could play as many rolls as he wanted to without affecting other players.
It's a little different with these Ponzis than with a dice game, as Stunna could play as many rolls as he wanted to without affecting other players.
Exactly this is the point where those in favour of the ponzi usually start to question whether provably fair is fair in the first place instead of confronting the argument. Cant really blame them as its hard to prove you did not do something.
I don't think a ponzi can be made provably fair at all. How can you stop the ponzi operator to make a bunch of early deposits in each round?
These +++
Until someone can address this without strawmanning off into irrelevant comparisons with dice, poker, sports bets etc., the fact remains that, even without the risk of the operator just running off with huge deposits, there is no way any "ponzi games" are better or more trustworthy than out and out Ponzi schemes.
I'm curious how one would go about building a provably fair ponzi. With the majority of the dice sites out there, while you have a net -ve EV at least you can ensure the game is run fairly. With all these ponzis it would seem trivial for the operator to open a round and fund the first block of bets. If the ponzi goes nowhere, no loss to them. If it's a success, they've made a bunch of BTC with no risk to themselves.
It's a little different with these Ponzis than with a dice game, as Stunna could play as many rolls as he wanted to without affecting other players.
It's a little different with these Ponzis than with a dice game, as Stunna could play as many rolls as he wanted to without affecting other players.
Exactly this is the point where those in favour of the ponzi usually start to question whether provably fair is fair in the first place instead of confronting the argument. Cant really blame them as its hard to prove you did not do something.
I don't think a ponzi can be made provably fair at all. How can you stop the ponzi operator to make a bunch of early deposits in each round?
Jump to: