I tried to make an edit to the talk page suggesting a change in wording that wouldn't attempt to remove the Ponzi scheme accusation but to clarify the text so that it didn't directly imply that Bitcoin *is* a Ponzi scheme.
But the page is locked so I needed to create an account
Which is a big pain in the butt. It took about 10 times to create an account since not only are duplicate IDs (hard to avoid) disallowed but also "too similar" user IDs.
Then new users don't get to make changes to locked pages unless they appeal (kinda like the newbie whitelist here)
So I appealed.
And I got denied and told to put my requested change on some page which didn't exist.
So I did.
I got blown off and told that I "wouldn't be a newbie long".
So I gave up.
Topic: Wikipedia: "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme..." - page 2. (Read 8596 times)
November 14, 2012, 05:49:44 PM
November 14, 2012, 05:43:38 PM
I think that he has a good IQ, but he is NOT honest, that it's worse.
SudoGhost is simply a coward. He hides behind the "reliable sources" and refuses to allow any intelligent discussion take place.
November 14, 2012, 05:22:28 PM
I don't know why everyone's so upset about what wikipedia says. Everyone knows that site is just a Ponzi scheme.
, thank you sir, for giving me a good laugh.Is there any reasoning given for not adding the fact that bitcoin does not match several properties of a Ponzi scheme?
November 14, 2012, 05:16:51 PM
I don't know why everyone's so upset about what wikipedia says. Everyone knows that site is just a Ponzi scheme.
November 14, 2012, 04:35:03 PM
Well, it is silly for bitcoin too. So if in the bitcoin page there is that phrase, i want it in the gold page too, since bitcoin and gold have tons of similarities
November 14, 2012, 04:32:54 PM
I should add
Some criticize gold, accusing it of being a Ponzi scheme
to the gold page
because it's exactly the same thing.
Some criticize gold, accusing it of being a Ponzi scheme
to the gold page
because it's exactly the same thing.
But you have enough intelligence to know that it would be silly to do right?
November 14, 2012, 04:23:51 PM
I should add
Some criticize gold, accusing it of being a Ponzi scheme
to the gold page
because it's exactly the same thing.
Some criticize gold, accusing it of being a Ponzi scheme
to the gold page
because it's exactly the same thing.
November 14, 2012, 03:31:54 PM
my guess is he just prefers sticking to the rules instead of using logic and common sense.
Not really, because he applies those rules with bias.
November 14, 2012, 03:29:55 PM
After reading that talk page, I have never disliked a person as much as SudoGhost. Wikipedia should make sure their editors have an IQ of at least 80 IMO.
He is not dumb, my guess is he just prefers sticking to the rules instead of using logic and common sense.
Does anybody know if there are well-described criteria for judging if a source is reliable or not to wikipedia? (EDIT: NVM, I should learn to do some more googling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources )
I assumed his lack of logic and common sense was the result of a low IQ.
November 14, 2012, 03:27:48 PM
After reading that talk page, I have never disliked a person as much as SudoGhost. Wikipedia should make sure their editors have an IQ of at least 80 IMO.
I have no doubts that his IQ is at least 80. IQ isn't a measure of intelectual capacity, it's a (poor) metric intended to measure average learning comprehension rates. For the developmentally delayed. Any IQ number over 120 or so has no practical meaning. From what I can see of SudoGhost he is more than capable of quickly learning to rationalize away his critics.
Are we talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence ? (CAUTION: non-RS)
November 14, 2012, 03:21:20 PM
After reading that talk page, I have never disliked a person as much as SudoGhost. Wikipedia should make sure their editors have an IQ of at least 80 IMO.
He is not dumb, my guess is he just prefers sticking to the rules instead of using logic and common sense.
Does anybody know if there are well-described criteria for judging if a source is reliable or not to wikipedia? (EDIT: NVM, I should learn to do some more googling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources )
November 14, 2012, 03:19:32 PM
After reading that talk page, I have never disliked a person as much as SudoGhost. Wikipedia should make sure their editors have an IQ of at least 80 IMO.
I have no doubts that his IQ is at least 80. IQ isn't a measure of intelectual capacity, it's a (poor) metric intended to measure average learning comprehension rates. For the developmentally delayed. Any IQ number over 120 or so has no practical meaning. From what I can see of SudoGhost he is more than capable of quickly learning to rationalize away his critics.
November 14, 2012, 03:15:52 PM
I think that he has a good IQ, but he is NOT honest, that it's worse.
November 14, 2012, 03:00:22 PM
After reading that talk page, I have never disliked a person as much as SudoGhost. Wikipedia should make sure their editors have an IQ of at least 80 IMO.
November 14, 2012, 02:53:53 PM
I hope this whole Ponzi thing goes away so that people will be more likely to jump on the Bitcoin bandwagon and I can make money.
Then jump out of the market before it all crashes.
Then jump out of the market before it all crashes.
November 14, 2012, 01:14:11 PM
"Some have criticized Bitcoin for being a ham and cheese on rye, but a report issued by the owner of a large delicatessen states that Bitcoin lacks three core features of a ham and cheese on rye, namely ham, cheese, and rye."
+1 November 14, 2012, 01:09:25 PM
"Some have criticized Bitcoin for being a ham and cheese on rye, but a report issued by the owner of a large delicatessen states that Bitcoin lacks three core features of a ham and cheese on rye, namely ham, cheese, and rye."
+1
It's a sad world we live in.
November 14, 2012, 12:37:58 PM
"Some have criticized Bitcoin for being a ham and cheese on rye, but a report issued by the owner of a large delicatessen states that Bitcoin lacks three core features of a ham and cheese on rye, namely ham, cheese, and rye."
November 14, 2012, 11:49:08 AM
Added my .02 on the wiki talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bitcoin#Please_add_a_correction_to_the_Ponzi_Scheme_accusation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bitcoin#Please_add_a_correction_to_the_Ponzi_Scheme_accusation
Quote
The ECB report clearly does not see it as a Ponzi, since it does not promise any returns and even major project developers call it "an experiment" and "not an investment". At the very least, to comply with NPOV, the accusation of ponzi should be balanced by a mention of contrary arguments.
See: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf
See: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf
Can you change it to something like that: "Report made by ECB states that Bitcoin doesn't have two core properties of a Ponzi scheme"
While the meaning almost doesn't change it will rebuff the argument that ECB report doesn't state if Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme or not.
November 14, 2012, 10:52:31 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
Bitcoin pays no returns. So it can't be a Ponzi scheme.
Bitcoin has no earnings and no payments to investors. Ditto.
Accusing Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme is a red flag that the accuser doesn't know what a Ponzi scheme is. If you want to accuse Bitcoin of anything, a very good case can be made that it is a bubble. Whether true or not, that at least makes sense. It makes no sense at all - it is a violation of the definition - to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme.
Quote
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors
Bitcoin pays no returns. So it can't be a Ponzi scheme.
Quote
The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments
Bitcoin offers no returns. So it can't be a Ponzi scheme.Quote
The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors.
Bitcoin has no earnings and no payments to investors. Ditto.
Accusing Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme is a red flag that the accuser doesn't know what a Ponzi scheme is. If you want to accuse Bitcoin of anything, a very good case can be made that it is a bubble. Whether true or not, that at least makes sense. It makes no sense at all - it is a violation of the definition - to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme.
Jump to: