271–280 of 328 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly a lot of token sales were pump and dumps through VCs, so even this is not true. SEC registering looks like a better filter for now.
But here the VCs are the criminals and the predators not the victim of the scam. VCs are more sophisticated to avoid being the victim
whatsaaaaa whatsaaaaaaappp!!! one of the craziest public performances I have ever seen. and people fell for it. mind boggling.
Hayes of Bitmex recently, now this guy. Sheeeeesh!
Interesting that there is no mention that he has been charged of being involved in a Ponzi scheme in the headline - just "Cryptocurrency Scheme".
It’d be tricky to define criminal criteria based solely on running a Ponzi scheme so there isn’t a “USC Section #” crime called “Ponzi Scheming”. They just charge the various illegal parts of the scheme separately. His charges: Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud—Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1349 Maximum penalty: Twenty years in prison, forfeiture, restitution, and $250,000 fine Wire Fraud—Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1343 Max…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin and Ethereum are scams.
Why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g
Sources and Further Reading:
https://tante.cc/2021/12/17/the-third-web/
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2021/03/11/nfts-crypto-...
https://amycastor.com/2021/03/14/metakovan-the-mystery-beepl...
https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/crypto-absurd.html
https://blog.mollywhite.net/blockchains-are-not-what-they-sa...
https://twitter.com/davetroy/status/1478017698676228099?s=20
https://davidgolumbia.medium.com/cryptocurrency-is-garbage-s...
https://marker.medium.com/fintech-is-a-scam-a-listicle-in-ei...
https://naavik.co/business-breakdowns/axie-infinity/#axie-de...
https://www.gawker.com/culture/the-future-is-useless-expensi...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/nfts-weren...
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-11-05-baseless-n...
https://www.technollama.co.uk/platform-is-law-the-cautionary...
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2021/02/12/libra-shrugg...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Payments are not speech. Find a better argument.
except that sometimes they reduce to speech. especially in cases where there are incidental human rights violations suppressing those payments. the examples why this cannot be left up to arbitrary governments are abundant. so there's nothing wrong with my argument. if you disagree then please show proof. by the way just a heads up I suggest you learn the value of basic human kindness in your manner.
ironic how just a few stories down is an article about how approx 50% of steam payments with bitcoin (when they accepted it) were fraudulent... everyone wanting a quick buck without doing the work
You can make a fake Bitcoin transaction but you can make 2 transactions using the same funds but going to different addresses. Only one of those will end up on the Blockchain. If steam waited for the transaction to appear on the Blockchain instead of just the mempool, they wouldn't have had the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could provide as a store and transpiration means of value in times of crisis. For instance some of the Ukrainian banks are now shutdown. If you had crypto you could access your wealth. Same thing applies for Russian citizens who have nothing to do with the war but will soon have their assets frozen. Did you consider all use cases before posting, or just glee at yet another anti crypto post on HN and thought “yay!…
The operative word here is “could”. There are a number of pie in the sky benefits of crypto that may be supported by small handfuls of anecdotes that don’t and never will generalize to the public at large. When comparing the potential pros to the existing cons, crypto is a gigantic net negative that is being pushed in order to make small pockets of investors very wealthy, nothing more. And yes, I understand the data…
And from which time traveler did you get this information?
The future is pretty hard to predict accurately, especially in such definitely terms like "never".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's grossly untrue to say it's a Ponzi scheme "like stocks" which are part ownership in companies that actually sell things in the real world and are valued by the present value of their future expected cash flows, rather than cryptocurrencies which have no such relationship to the real world, and some would argue are valued entirely on the premise of returns that can only be sustained by finding the next sucker.
Some stocks have no expected cash flows, some cryptocurrencies have expected cash flows. You can't generalize entire asset classes like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s just semantics at this point. I would encourage you to address the statement being made and ignore the technical definition of the phrase. To restate without the offending phrase: [T]he idea that the promotion of crypto thus far has existed to allow early adopters to cash out at the apparent expense of later adopters, while bringing essentially no other utility to any of its backers or the public at large, is…
It is very much not just semantics. Ponzi schemes are illegal so the difference matters.