Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History • Hacker News Board

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#221

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Dec 01, 2013, 5:30 PM UTC

pyalot2 wrote: post #206

lmg643 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's no question that the author of this article wrote it with linkbait in mind - calling bitcoin a ponzi scheme. having thought about it - the argument that bitcoin is going to be worth a lot "because there are only 21 million" - we have to consider that bitcoin is just one of "n" virtual currencies. while bitcoin may be limited, we already have 37 alternatives (at least) and there's no reason another hundred can…

> So, i see there will be a lot of virtual currency flying around, all of it as qualified as bitcoin (sharing similar source code) and the idea that it will all be worth 1,000 a unit (or more) forever just doesn't make sense. Do you remember the time when twitter was the new hotness? And like everybody and his aunt where building a twitter clone. I mean, it's so simple, just a list of teensy messages, how hard can it…

[deleted]

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#222

Post by darkstar999 » Sun, Dec 01, 2013, 5:30 PM UTC

nmarley wrote: post #184

hendzen wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article itself is not badly written. Keep in mind many people on this forum have a significant financial incentive to ensure that people don't think this way about BTC.

> ...many people on this forum have a significant financial incentive to ensure that people don't think this way about BTC. How can you make an assertion like that with no facts? Do you know that for sure? Do you have data to back that up?

Based on the daily pro-bitcoin articles and comments here, I agree.

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#223

Post by nakedrobot2 » Sun, Dec 01, 2013, 5:32 PM UTC

pyalot2 wrote: post #42

> In this sense, Bitcoins is not a Ponzi scheme. It is simply a supermoney scheme. Admits that bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme in his own article. > The money was siphoned off from the beginning. Somebody owned a good percentage of the original digits. Implies that most bitcoins are owned by satoshi nakamoto, without substantiating this claim by any number to quantify the impact. The estimated stash of satoshi is about…

WHO is Satoshi?

The fact that he owns between 4-9% of all bitcoins that will ever exist... This fact is frankly outrageously frightening. We have no idea who this person or group is. They might end up being the wealthiest person in the world, by a large margin.

When I tell someone about Bitcoin for the first time, and that it is developed by some mysterious person who is completely unknown... the reaction without exception is "WTF!"

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#224

Post by parasubvert » Sun, Dec 01, 2013, 5:34 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #202

parasubvert wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin does not stick to that norm. The supply is completely inelastic. Whereas a money supply typically requires different rates of creation or even destruction to respond to the market demand, partiularly in a time of currency hoarding (such as we are experiencing now in the real global economy). There is also a strong argument for multiple currencies with different supplies of money rather than a single global su…

Well we also have litecoin, peercoin, and a variety of ideas for future currencies. So we might end up with a pretty nice system of competing currencies, rather than one giant deflationary one.

That, I agree.

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#225

Post by shawnz » Sun, Dec 01, 2013, 5:35 PM UTC

migrantgeek wrote: post #216

shawnz wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this point of view. Is there some expectation that once bitcoin goes down it will never go up again? Why is there going to be a "last buyer"? We have already seen a couple of significant drops in the value of bitcoin and it has not deterred people from using it.

I think the point is that people aren't buying bitcoins like I might exchange my money for South African Rand. When I exchange Dollars for Rand, I can more easily use the Rand to purchase goods and services in South Africa. I'm not speculating the Rand will be worth more in 2 weeks time. I just want something more fungible. It seems people who are buying bitcoins now aren't doing so to purchase goods/services. They a…

> Bitcoin may recover after a future crash but because nothing is really backing it, it's likely it'll fade into history.

When bitcoin was first brought into existence it was worth nothing, and people invested anyway for mostly speculative reasons. Lets assume that at some point in the future it will be worth zero again, once the current batch of investors cash out. Why will it suddenly not have the speculative value it did before? If anything, it should have more, since it will have a more complete infrastructure and more momentum than it did when it was first created.

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#226

Post by tlrobinson » Sun, Dec 01, 2013, 5:38 PM UTC

Perseids wrote: post #132

pyalot2 wrote: post #42

> In this sense, Bitcoins is not a Ponzi scheme. It is simply a supermoney scheme. Admits that bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme in his own article. > The money was siphoned off from the beginning. Somebody owned a good percentage of the original digits. Implies that most bitcoins are owned by satoshi nakamoto, without substantiating this claim by any number to quantify the impact. The estimated stash of satoshi is about…

> There will be an eventual cap at 21 million bitcoins, so satoshis stash is somewhere between 9% to 4% of all bitcoins. Btw: As the rules and mechanics of the Bitcoin network are enforced by the majority of clients it would be pretty simple to invalidate these bitcoins if the majority of the Bitcoin software authors would agree to do so. Just ignore any transaction regarding these old addresses.

> majority of the Bitcoin software authors would agree to do so

The majority of miners would need to adopt the new software, and in theory the "economic majority" would too: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#227

Post by khyryk » Sun, Dec 01, 2013, 5:40 PM UTC

hendzen wrote: post #98

berrypicker wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I checked out the comments before reading the article since it had a 'sensational' headline which usually follows up with a crappy article, glad I didn't waste my time. I'm wondering where all the up votes came from though.

The article itself is not badly written. Keep in mind many people on this forum have a significant financial incentive to ensure that people don't think this way about BTC.

Yep, half the people here are executives at American Express. rolls eyes

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#228

Post by em70 » Sun, Dec 01, 2013, 5:41 PM UTC

Even if Bitcoins may very well crash as some point (even soon), this point is so poorly argued that it was a pain to read.

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#229

Post by fat0wl » Sun, Dec 01, 2013, 5:41 PM UTC

pyalot2 wrote: post #206

lmg643 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's no question that the author of this article wrote it with linkbait in mind - calling bitcoin a ponzi scheme. having thought about it - the argument that bitcoin is going to be worth a lot "because there are only 21 million" - we have to consider that bitcoin is just one of "n" virtual currencies. while bitcoin may be limited, we already have 37 alternatives (at least) and there's no reason another hundred can…

> So, i see there will be a lot of virtual currency flying around, all of it as qualified as bitcoin (sharing similar source code) and the idea that it will all be worth 1,000 a unit (or more) forever just doesn't make sense. Do you remember the time when twitter was the new hotness? And like everybody and his aunt where building a twitter clone. I mean, it's so simple, just a list of teensy messages, how hard can it…

i don't think network effect applies here the way many have been claiming. twitter & the like 1) were not open source 2) kept a significant user base early on

while bitcoin does have a big user base, currency is a more personal thing and if people see too much volatility they'll just pick the one that is most stable, meaning without this flawed crazy dispersement scheme

i, for one, do think Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme but it's a more complex one with a lot of Game Theory involved. That's whats unique about the scheme -- it guarantees the founder and early adopters a ridiculous amount of wealth, while still having the ability to satiate the greed/hope of new buyers

Also people need to stop comparing this to company/stock valuations. Those are more like an estimate of a company's worth whereas in Bitcoin the figures given are always a supposed value of currency unit.

Consider this -- when companies sell stock it is to fuel more work and production within the company. When a Bitcoin is sold for $600, it is so some dude can by a Playstation 4. It's not attached to lifestyle in the same way as stock/investment in companies.

Re: Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

#230

Post by eof » Sun, Dec 01, 2013, 5:47 PM UTC

Everything you need to know about this author and article can be summed up by this:

> In other words, bitcoins cannot possibly fulfill their supposed purpose: to serve as an unregulated currency unit.

Oh that's funny, because for many years they have been doing exactly that with no end in site. Again , I say, the mental dissonance of bitcoin's naysayers is becoming more comedic by the blog post.