SudoGhost is reading this thread, so I am going to address my reply directly to him.
I've been reading this discussion, and it should come as no surprise that when you attack and insult others like that they aren't exactly eager to help. Calling me "SudoDouche" and creating subpages on your websites attacking me doesn't do you any good; it works towards damaging the credibility you would have otherwise had and you're shooting yourself in the foot with that behavior. I say this in part because readers do occasionally visit the talk pages and will see these discussions and may impact how they view Bitcoin; when you resort to petty name-calling when you don't immediately get your way, you don't exactly make Bitcoin look like something used by a mature crowd that should be embraced and taken seriously.
This is just a general threat that you can't back up, I heard it in almost identical form on several completely unrelated forums where the word "Bitcoin" was replaced with something else to fit context.
As for the article and this talk page being locked, that has nothing to do with this discussion; you can thank HowardStrong for that one, he decided that he should vandalize the page (and that's pretty much one of the only diffs you can see, the rest inserted pornographic images and vulgarity on the page to the point that the diffs had to be revdel'd).
Not sure why you had to state the obvious.
With that said, I can see where "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme" can be assumed to have an issue. On the one hand, it is a factual sentence; there are sources that criticize it for this reason, that does not imply that it is a Ponzi scheme, that would be jumping to a conclusion not given by the text. It has been criticized for this, and that's something that is sourced, you can't "un-source" that; no matter what sources you present, it's going to somehow un-criticize Bitcoin, the criticisms are still there, it doesn't matter if you can "prove" with your personal logic and with sources that don't actually support your argument that it isn't one; you're disproving something not relevant.
The "Ponzi scheme" argument was born right after bubble collapse in June 2011, a lot of people lost there money and were very angry. I can list forum threads with literally thousands of post where word Ponzi appears in every second post. The argument was picked up by media in form of poorly combined articles, I can prove it by pinpointing incorrect statements in
the article you referenced. The argument died down since then and no matter how much time you are going to spend looking for a more fresh reference you won't find one. Therefore I argue that the article you listed is not reliable source. To be more specific:
the developers who wrote the first bitcoin mining software probably paid themselves by having the first crack at generating bitcoins with almost no competition.
This is their
only argument why Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, the word "probably" is a nice touch ascertain credibility.
Given the fact that there will still be demand for an anonymous currency transfer scheme and people will still want to gamble online and buy illicit drugs online, it’s quite possible that bitcoins (or some derivative technology) can survive after a massive bubble correction.
The article contradicts to itself, because by definition a Ponzi scheme can not recover after collapse.
On the other hand, that multiple Bitcoin enthusiasts have misread this sentence thereby repeating the same flawed arguments over and over does indicate that a clarification would help. Perhaps the statement can be clarified to read "Some criticize Bitcoin, accusing it of being a Ponzi scheme." or something similar. - SudoGhost 04:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[
Sure, but if you want to include such a controversial statement then you have to mention the opposite point of view e.g. ECB explains how Bitcoin does not fit the definition of Ponzi scheme and Coding in my sleep blog gives more detailed explanation.
If you have to infer it, then it doesn't "clearly" say it. Inferring a conclusion not given by the document is synthesis, and that's not sufficient. Especially if you're trying to say that the document says this, when it does not. - SudoGhost 03:53, 13 November 2012
That is incorrect, Wikipedia defines Synthesis as
If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.
It does not state or gives an example where a conclusion based on a single article is Synthesis. Moreover, to understand even a simple statement formed with a natural language a person has to apply "common sense" because it always has an ambiguity.
But seriously, that's a great comparison. But oddly enough, neither of those "criticisms" found its way into Obama's wikipedia page. 