They must be because it's just completely incoherent ranting the majority of the time and they seem to have just completely made up what Bitcoin actually is in their own heads. When people talk about Bitcoin being a bubble or a ponzi scheme I always respond or at least think "If it's a ponzi scheme and a scam, why would they make it open source" people who are infinitely more skilled then they are in programming and cryptography have all looked at it and acknowledged it so they really are just talking out of their own arses.
This isn't anything new though, people spread the same kind of bullshit about the internet, heavy metal and computer games which supporters of Bitcoin have rightly pointed out several time and of course everyone who actually looked at what these people were ranting about knew what they were simply either totally ignorant of the subject or just blatantly lying.
A lot of neo-keynesian types are definitely going to come after cryptocurrencies as much as possible, partly because they're going to be put out of business finally.
Topic: Why I see bitcoin as a ponzi scheme - page 3. (Read 4102 times)
If you think bitcoin is a ponzi scheme then you don't understand what a ponzi is.
I wonder if these people are getting paid to post this nonsense?
brand new account, 1 post
quelle surprise....
quelle surprise....
I wonder if these people are getting paid to post this nonsense?
I guess you could argue its not an investment, but would you make that case?
In fact, many goldbugs make that very argument. They stress that gold is a store of value, not an investment.You see, gold is under attack by central banks the world over. They've declared gold to be a "barbarous relic" that's not money. And indeed, the value of gold goes down sometimes, as it's been doing in recent years. So goldbugs are very cautions right now and are eager to not overstate their case.
It's too early to know if bitcoin will be a similar store of value. But the similarity to gold is otherwise striking.
Your title seems to be very misleading as after i read your point of view, it lean more towards addressing the weaknesses in bitcoin rather than a ponzi scheme.
You are right to mention there are limited use for the coin but bear in my we are still at the development stage. The potential for bitcoin is endless.
You are right to mention there are limited use for the coin but bear in my we are still at the development stage. The potential for bitcoin is endless.
brand new account, 1 post
quelle surprise....
quelle surprise....
Are we still on this inherent value stuff again 
You heard some words, you made a list.
You've got some parts pretty good, you've missed some parts badly.
And the result is a big ... s**t, sorry.
You have to read and also understand what a Ponzi is.
With Ponzi you get a promise that you'll get your money back and also some extra.
If people stop "feeding" the Ponzi pyramid, you will get nothing, so you were lied.
Bitcoin is more like speculating on the stock market: you can buy or sell stocks. One day the company may go well, one other day it will go bad or the stock market crashes and you may lose money. But you know the risks in advance.
I know, people will jump and tell that it's a currency. No, it's not yet. It needs to reach much more people to become a currency. And may need - we like that or not - regulations.
In this case USD is also a Ponzi. A bad one. Just read about what you could buy with the same amount of USD 20 years ago.
Capital gain? Do you own USD for gain? No. You own USD because you can't go and work 1 day at the bread factory, 2 days at the shoes factory and so on to get what you need.
BTC is intended to be a currency and to work as one. And it has a chance to become one, sooner or later.
Tangibility? You know that your money is either "records in the bank" (on HDDs) if you work with credit card or, if you prefer cash, that's only paper!! What's the value of that and WHY?
You may tell that I am mixing things, but I only try to follow you. You start with currency and continue with gold, while they are, in the last 100 years, unrelated.
The ones holding BTC do that in the way some hold stocks. They hope that they bought them cheap and sell high. Some do. Some don't.
The interesting thing is that virtually anyone can "produce" such "stocks" (mine) and sell them, which makes the price move more - in any direction.
You are correct in this. The technology and the idea behind it is indeed AMAZING and that's not the one that gives value to BTC.
BTC is given by 2 things:
1. The companies that invested big bucks in mining (especially in the gox bubble) and try to recover that money and also profit.
2. Peoples' hope to get rich someday.
So for now it's "who fools who".
Just take a look at the altcoins. Some of them come with GREAT innovation while still relying on (clone of) bitcoin technology. Some don't even rely on bitcoin technology anymore.
A lot of that innovation can be merged into bitcoin, if "they" want to do so.
The problem is that such change means usually to do a "fork", which will force EVERYBODY to change their programs that work with bitcoin. And this is usually bad/avoided because it weakens the trust in a coin.
I think that at some point in the future bitcoin will have to add best of these features (and do a fork) if it wants to remain "the king" of the crypto-currencies.
Mining is so expensive because there are so many miners. I think that without the gox bubble there would have been less than 10% of the miners for this.
Mining is needed. Miners are the hearth for bitcoin. If all miners stop, next BTC transfer will be stuck forever.
But BTC goes down, miners shut down the rigs because "it's not worth it anymore" and there will always be an equilibrium.
You tell about a new coin - there are plenty of new coins, most of them cost near to nothing, the transfer fees are near to 0, they are mined and all is working. Another price level, another equilibrium.
You don't need cash. You need the goods you buy with cash. Cash is just nicely painted paper. Would you buy ruble today? Why not? It's cash!
Like any stocks, gold or BTC, you should buy when price is low and sell when price is high.
If you want something safe to invest, buy land. Earth will not get bigger, population is on a rise and we don't seem to leave this ball of dirt too soon.
The devs got their share long ago. Also anyone wanted to get a good share made a pool or an exchange.
Now most just try to recover the hardware costs - at least that's what I think -. However, it's not a Ponzi. You have to read and understand what Ponzi means.
Yes, it is a risky investment. Even more risky than stock markets. Still, it doesn't make it a Ponzi.
PS: Apologies for typos, I don't have the patience to re-read it.
You've got some parts pretty good, you've missed some parts badly.
And the result is a big ... s**t, sorry.
While not intended to be an investment, BitCoin certainly can be treated as one. In particular, it is a speculative investment. This means if Bitcoin becomes more useful, it's value may increase. If it turns out that the usefulness is overestimated by the investors, then the value may go down. Speculative investments are not Ponzi schemes, though. A speculative investment IS very risky and you could lose a great portion of your investment (even all of it). This does not make it a scam, though.
You have to read and also understand what a Ponzi is.
With Ponzi you get a promise that you'll get your money back and also some extra.
If people stop "feeding" the Ponzi pyramid, you will get nothing, so you were lied.
Bitcoin is more like speculating on the stock market: you can buy or sell stocks. One day the company may go well, one other day it will go bad or the stock market crashes and you may lose money. But you know the risks in advance.
I know, people will jump and tell that it's a currency. No, it's not yet. It needs to reach much more people to become a currency. And may need - we like that or not - regulations.
I'm inclined to think that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme for a number of reasons:
1. Quality of a currency - It fails this for me in terms of lacking the tangibility of gold. Now people will say that gold or fiat is not 'tangible', but the guns that enforce currencies are, and the fact that millions of ignorant people want to adorn themselves with gold, makes it a value for at least the next 100 years. I guess you could argue its not an investment, but would you make that case? You're expecting/hoping the price to go up aren't you? Capital gain anyone? That makes it at least the illusion of an investment, if not an actual one. This makes it ripe for a 'dump & dump'. Now, I look at efforts by some people to avoid the liquidity problem like the bros in NY who are setting up a listed fund. Such efforts strike me as great ways to increase one's liquidity at other's expense. These are Harvard guys.
1. Quality of a currency - It fails this for me in terms of lacking the tangibility of gold. Now people will say that gold or fiat is not 'tangible', but the guns that enforce currencies are, and the fact that millions of ignorant people want to adorn themselves with gold, makes it a value for at least the next 100 years. I guess you could argue its not an investment, but would you make that case? You're expecting/hoping the price to go up aren't you? Capital gain anyone? That makes it at least the illusion of an investment, if not an actual one. This makes it ripe for a 'dump & dump'. Now, I look at efforts by some people to avoid the liquidity problem like the bros in NY who are setting up a listed fund. Such efforts strike me as great ways to increase one's liquidity at other's expense. These are Harvard guys.
In this case USD is also a Ponzi. A bad one. Just read about what you could buy with the same amount of USD 20 years ago.
Capital gain? Do you own USD for gain? No. You own USD because you can't go and work 1 day at the bread factory, 2 days at the shoes factory and so on to get what you need.
BTC is intended to be a currency and to work as one. And it has a chance to become one, sooner or later.
Tangibility? You know that your money is either "records in the bank" (on HDDs) if you work with credit card or, if you prefer cash, that's only paper!! What's the value of that and WHY?
You may tell that I am mixing things, but I only try to follow you. You start with currency and continue with gold, while they are, in the last 100 years, unrelated.
The ones holding BTC do that in the way some hold stocks. They hope that they bought them cheap and sell high. Some do. Some don't.
The interesting thing is that virtually anyone can "produce" such "stocks" (mine) and sell them, which makes the price move more - in any direction.
2. Bitcoin's usefulness - I've just been to a bitcoin conference in NZ. Unquestionably cryptocurrencies are 'useful'. The technology is amazing. This however does not mean 'coins' are valuable; only that the technology is useful. People will say the technology is the coin, but actually, one of its appeals is that it is scalable, open source, but that just means to be that it will be duplicated.
You are correct in this. The technology and the idea behind it is indeed AMAZING and that's not the one that gives value to BTC.
BTC is given by 2 things:
1. The companies that invested big bucks in mining (especially in the gox bubble) and try to recover that money and also profit.
2. Peoples' hope to get rich someday.
So for now it's "who fools who".
3. Bitcoin's evolution - Some critics to me at the conference told me that bitcoin can develop insofar as the protocol can be changed. I'd like to know more about this. How a consensus can be reached to change it, because it strikes me as a rubbery problem. My understanding talking to everyone was that 'all parties' (miners, developers, users, et al) have to be satisfied to make changes. I was also told that architecture-wise, some changes are very hard to make. I was told this by developers.
Just take a look at the altcoins. Some of them come with GREAT innovation while still relying on (clone of) bitcoin technology. Some don't even rely on bitcoin technology anymore.
A lot of that innovation can be merged into bitcoin, if "they" want to do so.
The problem is that such change means usually to do a "fork", which will force EVERYBODY to change their programs that work with bitcoin. And this is usually bad/avoided because it weakens the trust in a coin.
I think that at some point in the future bitcoin will have to add best of these features (and do a fork) if it wants to remain "the king" of the crypto-currencies.
4. Inflation from mining - Bitcoin is limited to 21 million BTC. The implication is that there is 42% of inflation to arise over the next 10 years. That is plenty of timer for a new coin to develop without inflation. Why? No mining. Mining is a cost. I'm told that mining adds a cost of 10% to each coin, but that seems too high. Maybe they mean something else. Ultimately the cost is 42% over 10 years.
Mining is so expensive because there are so many miners. I think that without the gox bubble there would have been less than 10% of the miners for this.
Mining is needed. Miners are the hearth for bitcoin. If all miners stop, next BTC transfer will be stuck forever.
But BTC goes down, miners shut down the rigs because "it's not worth it anymore" and there will always be an equilibrium.
You tell about a new coin - there are plenty of new coins, most of them cost near to nothing, the transfer fees are near to 0, they are mined and all is working. Another price level, another equilibrium.
5. Redemption - There is a problem getting bitcoins into something I really need - cash. I've heard that its hard to get the currency you want; which strikes me as a liquidity issue. It seems likely that banks will create their own coins, and that these will get far greater credibility. They have 10 years before the inflation of mining expires with bitcoin.
You don't need cash. You need the goods you buy with cash. Cash is just nicely painted paper. Would you buy ruble today? Why not? It's cash!
I'm inclined to have more trust in a scheme like Bitreserve, though again I don't hold that because the price of gold is falling and because rather than buy ounces of gold, I can get shares in a stock with millions of ounces of gold valued at nothing, trading at less than their cash holding. Now, the gold price is $1200/oz, the mining cost if $800/oz, so I'm looking at upside of 300/25=1200% in a few years. Scope for better of worse of course. They have a 2nd great project, they might get nationalised, they might strike very high grade intersections. Like bitcoin, you need a technical understanding to have confidence.
Like any stocks, gold or BTC, you should buy when price is low and sell when price is high.
If you want something safe to invest, buy land. Earth will not get bigger, population is on a rise and we don't seem to leave this ball of dirt too soon.
The reason I think its a ponzi scheme is that I think developers, having invested in the development of their coin, they want a pay-out. I think anarcho-capitalists, as many are, ethically believe 'market rules', so if you can make money on this 'unregulated market', then why not. Ethically, I think it eases their conscience not to consider the negatives. Its only after I got to the after-party of the bitcoin conference did people seem to agree with me. Everyone at the conference was saying 'you're not a programmer'. True, but I'm more of a generalist than them. They conveyed little understanding of markets and psychology.
Feedback please.
Feedback please.
The devs got their share long ago. Also anyone wanted to get a good share made a pool or an exchange.
Now most just try to recover the hardware costs - at least that's what I think -. However, it's not a Ponzi. You have to read and understand what Ponzi means.
Yes, it is a risky investment. Even more risky than stock markets. Still, it doesn't make it a Ponzi.
PS: Apologies for typos, I don't have the patience to re-read it.
A stateless currency is a huge benefit to the world. The separation of state + currency is soon to come, much like the separation of state + religion. It's just part of the evolution of society and bitcoin is a really important part of that.
Bitcoin Myths:
It's a giant ponzi scheme
In a Ponzi Scheme, the founders persuade investors that they’ll profit. Bitcoin does not make such a guarantee. There is no central entity, just individuals building an economy.
A ponzi scheme is a zero sum game. In a ponzi scheme, early adopters can only profit at the expense of late adopters, and the late adopters always lose. Bitcoin can have a win-win outcome. Earlier adopters profit from the rise in value as Bitcoin becomes better understood and in turn demanded by the public at large. All adopters benefit from the usefulness of a reliable and widely-accepted decentralized peer-to-peer currency.
It is also important to note that Satoshi Nakamoto, creator of bitcoin, has never spent a bitcoin (other than giving them away when they were worthless) which we can verify by checking the blockchain.
It's a giant ponzi scheme
In a Ponzi Scheme, the founders persuade investors that they’ll profit. Bitcoin does not make such a guarantee. There is no central entity, just individuals building an economy.
A ponzi scheme is a zero sum game. In a ponzi scheme, early adopters can only profit at the expense of late adopters, and the late adopters always lose. Bitcoin can have a win-win outcome. Earlier adopters profit from the rise in value as Bitcoin becomes better understood and in turn demanded by the public at large. All adopters benefit from the usefulness of a reliable and widely-accepted decentralized peer-to-peer currency.
It is also important to note that Satoshi Nakamoto, creator of bitcoin, has never spent a bitcoin (other than giving them away when they were worthless) which we can verify by checking the blockchain.
I'm inclined to think that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme for a number of reasons:
1. Quality of a currency - It fails this for me in terms of lacking the tangibility of gold. Now people will say that gold or fiat is not 'tangible', but the guns that enforce currencies are, and the fact that millions of ignorant people want to adorn themselves with gold, makes it a value for at least the next 100 years.
1. Quality of a currency - It fails this for me in terms of lacking the tangibility of gold. Now people will say that gold or fiat is not 'tangible', but the guns that enforce currencies are, and the fact that millions of ignorant people want to adorn themselves with gold, makes it a value for at least the next 100 years.
Maybe millions of ignorant people will one day want to adorn themselves with gold bitcoins instead? Regardless of everything else you said, no, bitcoin isn't a ponzi. The value lies in it's usefulness as a currency and payment system and people can see the potential power and future value of that.
I'm inclined to think that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme for a number of reasons:
Actually, there is only one reason to think that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, and that is that people are paying its inventor who promises to invest those monies profitably, but instead he is merely using the money to pay out earlier investors. But this is plainly not even remotely true of Bitcoin, therefore it is not a Ponzi scheme. It may overvalued, a speculative bubble, or any number of other things, but not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a specific type of scam which Bitcoin is not.1. Quality of a currency - It fails this for me in terms of lacking the tangibility of gold. Now people will say that gold or fiat is not 'tangible', but the guns that enforce currencies are, and the fact that millions of ignorant people want to adorn themselves with gold, makes it a value for at least the next 100 years.
So, something is only valuable if you can force people to accept it? Funny, I thought thought something was only valuable if people are willing to accept it without being forced to. And I guarantee that very few of the people who use gold as money do so because they want to adorn themselves with it.2. Bitcoin's usefulness - I've just been to a bitcoin conference in NZ. Unquestionably cryptocurrencies are 'useful'. The technology is amazing. This however does not mean 'coins' are valuable; only that the technology is useful. People will say the technology is the coin, but actually, one of its appeals is that it is scalable, open source, but that just means to be that it will be duplicated.
It has been duplicated. Many times. The duplicates are, without exception, almost entirely worthless. If you want to separate the coin from the technology, go ahead and try. Let us know how that works out for you.3. Bitcoin's evolution - Some critics to me at the conference told me that bitcoin can develop insofar as the protocol can be changed. I'd like to know more about this. How a consensus can be reached to change it, because it strikes me as a rubbery problem. My understanding talking to everyone was that 'all parties' (miners, developers, users, et al) have to be satisfied to make changes. I was also told that architecture-wise, some changes are very hard to make. I was told this by developers.
And the problem is?4. Inflation from mining - Bitcoin is limited to 21 million BTC. The implication is that there is 42% of inflation to arise over the next 10 years. That is plenty of timer for a new coin to develop without inflation. Why? No mining. Mining is a cost. I'm told that mining adds a cost of 10% to each coin, but that seems too high. Maybe they mean something else. Ultimately the cost is 42% over 10 years.
Without mining, how will you incentivise the security of the blockchain? Oh right, you were going to separate the coin from the technology. Carry on.5. Redemption - There is a problem getting bitcoins into something I really need - cash. I've heard that its hard to get the currency you want; which strikes me as a liquidity issue.
You've heard wrong.It seems likely that banks will create their own coins, and that these will get far greater credibility.
Really? Every bank using its own currency? How will you pay people who use a different bank? Will you have to exchange your currency every time you go to the store? That doesn't seem very credible to me.They have 10 years before the inflation of mining expires with bitcoin.
Why 10 years?The reason I think its a ponzi scheme is that I think developers, having invested in the development of their coin, they want a pay-out.
How does that make it a Ponzi scheme? In fact, how does that make it different from any other business?I think anarcho-capitalists, as many are, ethically believe 'market rules', so if you can make money on this 'unregulated market', then why not. Ethically, I think it eases their conscience not to consider the negatives.
Elaborate. What are the negatives? You can only make money in a free market by selling something people want to buy. You can't force people to buy something they don't want. Seller gets money, buyer gets something they want. What's the problem? 
Welcome to Bitcoin!
I suggest you read the white paper:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
*misses the newbie jail*
But wait, the staff thinks that the newbie jail isn't helpful.. sigh.I suggest you read the white paper:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
*misses the newbie jail*
Mods please delete this FUD.
+1
I don't think you've quite got some of this right.
You are correct that bitcoin isn't tangible in the same way gold is. However, it's just as scarce. It's the non-artificial scarcity of gold that (in part) makes it a useful store of value. Bitcoin is also scarce. People usually say that a currency is supposed to have the qualities of "store of value" and "medium of exchange". Scarcity is a necessary condition for store of value.
On the usefulness point you make, you seem to be addressing the "medium of exchange" part. Isn't it obvious that an electronic medium of exchange is useful? The "coins" are just this.
On the evolution, it's important to remember that bitcoin is an open-source, decentralized network of participants. No one is coerced to participate, people can do what they want. If half the miners want to change the protocol, they can try this. The result might be a fork, or who knows? In part, miners, users, etc don't try radical changes without talking to each other because most parties in the network have a good-faith dedication to building the network and making it stronger. So, they try to work together and build consensus. However, it's important to realize that no on enforces this attitude.
I think I'm missing something about your point on inflation from mining. The fact that bitcoin total is capped seems to me to make bitcoin deflationary. Mining is necessary in order to confirm transactions. Miners will continue to be paid for their work.
You're right that at the moment, buying and selling bitcoin for fiat isn't super-easy. But this will (hopefully) change.
I guess that's my best attempt at addressing your points, but what I don't see in your post is anything related to a ponzy scheme. How do these points youre making relate to ponzis?
You are correct that bitcoin isn't tangible in the same way gold is. However, it's just as scarce. It's the non-artificial scarcity of gold that (in part) makes it a useful store of value. Bitcoin is also scarce. People usually say that a currency is supposed to have the qualities of "store of value" and "medium of exchange". Scarcity is a necessary condition for store of value.
On the usefulness point you make, you seem to be addressing the "medium of exchange" part. Isn't it obvious that an electronic medium of exchange is useful? The "coins" are just this.
On the evolution, it's important to remember that bitcoin is an open-source, decentralized network of participants. No one is coerced to participate, people can do what they want. If half the miners want to change the protocol, they can try this. The result might be a fork, or who knows? In part, miners, users, etc don't try radical changes without talking to each other because most parties in the network have a good-faith dedication to building the network and making it stronger. So, they try to work together and build consensus. However, it's important to realize that no on enforces this attitude.
I think I'm missing something about your point on inflation from mining. The fact that bitcoin total is capped seems to me to make bitcoin deflationary. Mining is necessary in order to confirm transactions. Miners will continue to be paid for their work.
You're right that at the moment, buying and selling bitcoin for fiat isn't super-easy. But this will (hopefully) change.
I guess that's my best attempt at addressing your points, but what I don't see in your post is anything related to a ponzy scheme. How do these points youre making relate to ponzis?
Welcome to Bitcoin!
I suggest you read the white paper:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
*misses the newbie jail*
I suggest you read the white paper:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
*misses the newbie jail*
Bitcoin is currency, did you mean all currencies are ponzi?
Mods please delete this FUD.
Then the money you have in your bank is a ponzi.
While not intended to be an investment, BitCoin certainly can be treated as one. In particular, it is a speculative investment. This means if Bitcoin becomes more useful, it's value may increase. If it turns out that the usefulness is overestimated by the investors, then the value may go down. Speculative investments are not Ponzi schemes, though. A speculative investment IS very risky and you could lose a great portion of your investment (even all of it). This does not make it a scam, though.
I'm inclined to think that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme for a number of reasons:1. Quality of a currency - It fails this for me in terms of lacking the tangibility of gold. Now people will say that gold or fiat is not 'tangible', but the guns that enforce currencies are, and the fact that millions of ignorant people want to adorn themselves with gold, makes it a value for at least the next 100 years. I guess you could argue its not an investment, but would you make that case? You're expecting/hoping the price to go up aren't you? Capital gain anyone? That makes it at least the illusion of an investment, if not an actual one. This makes it ripe for a 'dump & dump'. Now, I look at efforts by some people to avoid the liquidity problem like the bros in NY who are setting up a listed fund. Such efforts strike me as great ways to increase one's liquidity at other's expense. These are Harvard guys.
2. Bitcoin's usefulness - I've just been to a bitcoin conference in NZ. Unquestionably cryptocurrencies are 'useful'. The technology is amazing. This however does not mean 'coins' are valuable; only that the technology is useful. People will say the technology is the coin, but actually, one of its appeals is that it is scalable, open source, but that just means to be that it will be duplicated.
3. Bitcoin's evolution - Some critics to me at the conference told me that bitcoin can develop insofar as the protocol can be changed. I'd like to know more about this. How a consensus can be reached to change it, because it strikes me as a rubbery problem. My understanding talking to everyone was that 'all parties' (miners, developers, users, et al) have to be satisfied to make changes. I was also told that architecture-wise, some changes are very hard to make. I was told this by developers.
4. Inflation from mining - Bitcoin is limited to 21 million BTC. The implication is that there is 42% of inflation to arise over the next 10 years. That is plenty of timer for a new coin to develop without inflation. Why? No mining. Mining is a cost. I'm told that mining adds a cost of 10% to each coin, but that seems too high. Maybe they mean something else. Ultimately the cost is 42% over 10 years.
5. Redemption - There is a problem getting bitcoins into something I really need - cash. I've heard that its hard to get the currency you want; which strikes me as a liquidity issue. It seems likely that banks will create their own coins, and that these will get far greater credibility. They have 10 years before the inflation of mining expires with bitcoin.
I'm inclined to have more trust in a scheme like Bitreserve, though again I don't hold that because the price of gold is falling and because rather than buy ounces of gold, I can get shares in a stock with millions of ounces of gold valued at nothing, trading at less than their cash holding. Now, the gold price is $1200/oz, the mining cost if $800/oz, so I'm looking at upside of 300/25=1200% in a few years. Scope for better of worse of course. They have a 2nd great project, they might get nationalised, they might strike very high grade intersections. Like bitcoin, you need a technical understanding to have confidence.
The reason I think its a ponzi scheme is that I think developers, having invested in the development of their coin, they want a pay-out. I think anarcho-capitalists, as many are, ethically believe 'market rules', so if you can make money on this 'unregulated market', then why not. Ethically, I think it eases their conscience not to consider the negatives. Its only after I got to the after-party of the bitcoin conference did people seem to agree with me. Everyone at the conference was saying 'you're not a programmer'. True, but I'm more of a generalist than them. They conveyed little understanding of markets and psychology.
Feedback please.
Jump to: