I personally think that reason and proof that there should be written something different is still the way to go. We shouldn't argue, that Bitcoin is not a Ponzi, but that the sole statement "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme" is just not enough information.
In the English wiki there is stated:
Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme in that it rewards early adopters through early Bitcoin mining and increasing exchange rates.[46]
While for Example the German Wiki States:
Aufgrund der seit etwa Oktober 2010 real beobachteten starken Kurssteigerungen wird gelegentlich kritisiert, dass Bitcoin Eigenschaften eines Schneeballsystems habe. Begründet wird dies mit der Erwartung eines Kursverlustes nach Platzen einer Spekulationsblase. Personen im Besitz von Bitcoins konnten bisher sehr große Kursgewinne realisieren. Da jedoch nahezu unvermeidlich sei, dass die Spekulationsblase platzt, würde im Endeffekt ein Transfer von etablierten Währungen, wie Euro und US-Dollar, von den späten Käufern an die frühen Besitzer stattfinden.[78][79]
Befürworter von Bitcoin entgegnen dem, dass die Währung aufgrund ihrer Eigenschaften von Teilbarkeit, Konvertierbarkeit, Knappheit und eindeutigen Erkennbarkeit, sowie aufgrund ihrer Handhabungsvorteile einen realen Nutzen darstelle[80] und dass die Kurssteigerung mit Netzwerkeffekten begründbar sei. Die Kursgewinne (welche aus einer schnellen Ausweitung der Nachfrage bei nur langsam wachsendem Angebot resultieren) würden für die früh einsteigenden Beteiligten aufgrund des hohen Risikos eines Misserfolges eine Kompensation darstellen. Mit der Zeit würde die Einheit aufgrund von Sättigungseffekten wahrscheinlich einen stabileren Kurs erreichen.[81]
(Rough) Translation:
Due to the huge advance in Price since 2010, Bitcoin is sometimes criticized to have the characteristics of a pyramid scheme. This is based on the expectation of exchange rate losses after the burst of a speculative bubble. Holders of Bitcoin where able to make huge exchange profits, but due to the nearly inevitability of a speculative bubble burst, a transfer of monetary value, manly in US-Dollar and Euro from later adopters to early adopters takes place.
On the other hand, Supporter of the System argue, that due to the scalability, convertibility, scarcity and the clear recognizably, as well as its benefits in usability it provides a tangible benefit and therefore the advance in Price can be explained through network effects. The Price advancement (which result of a imbalance of the growth of supply and demand) are a compensation for the early involved parties for the high risk of failure in the beginning of the system. In time the curse may stabilize due to a saturation effect.
This whole part is already a approved part of the German wiki page and everything has it's reliable sources added. I'm sure that every Wikipedian would listen to such an argumentation.
My English is far from perfect, so someone would have to look over it.
If someone would be willing to overwork it and add it as a suggestion to Wikipedia, I'm happy to add the sources, they are mostly in English.
But I fear, with the insults and argumentation I have seen so far that we already have taken this discussion to a level where it has become to emotional to reason with the wikipedians.
If this is the case, well:
Thank you very much.
). Maybe I should edit some 3 more pages logged in? Are we that short in WP-users here?
You are my new hero! 