I find this stuff interesting, that is all

Block #597,273 was mined 119 minutes after its parent.

This happened only 10 times in Bitcoin's history, last time in May of 2014.

Assuming blocks come in 10 minutes in average, this interblock time has a 0.000679% chance of occurring.

Your proposed metrics show that you don't understand what a ponzi is. Neither of those metrics relate to, or disprove, whether something is a ponzi scheme.

Bernie Madoff was convicted of operating a giant ponzi scheme. It's believed that fraud went on for approx. 20 yrs, and was valued at 65 billion.

I came up with a phrase for lack of a better term I call a "reverse euphemism". I see it a lot on the internet (whether inadvertent or on purpose) where people include in their argument certain words that have an intrinsic/implied meaning (ie loaded) but if you (force them to) unpack the implied definition behind the word then their argument falls apart and is shown to be self-inconsistent (I see people like peterson, stefan molyneux, southern, etc using this technique very often in their work).

Wiki isn't THE authority on words but here is a starting point:
We don't mean to call a stock offering by a company a ponzi right? That just because the early investors need to cash out to the latter ones that indicates a ponzi? No, its more nuanced.

If you buy and hold bitcoin you are receiving the asset that you are purported to own. You are not promised interest. Bitcoin has many real usecases for "black market" purchases and this includes such transactions that are sanctioned by the US gov.

None of these traits apply to bitcoin. A ponzi scheme is a very weak comparison that sounds better when you don't look at the definition:
When you put your investment into bitcoin there is no operator promising you to invest that capital and to pay you interest.

A dysphemism?

So if a ponzi conman gives you an ownership certificate in return for your "investment", it's not a ponzi?
You're promised returns by the current holders/people who will profit if you buy. How many losers in this very thread said bitcoin is certain to be $100K in a year, two years ago as it was peaking in 2017? How many late buyers bought in on the hype? How many people have lost heaps of money from these lies?

The core of the bitcoin bull thesis is not dividends, future profits, or anything else. It's that other people - people lower in the pyramid - will buy in after you, sending the price higher. That's it. There's no other bull case.

90+% of the people in this thread would not buy and hold bitcoin if had no chance of people lower in the pyramid buying in later (if it was a stablecoin for example) and sending the price rocketing.

Yes, which is why I say the price is "mostly" ponzi waves on top of a much smaller illegal/gray economy.

It's a very strong comparison:

- There is no dividend, income, or business activity that you're buying into; no revenue stream. In fact bitcoin has a negative revenue stream, paid out to miners.
- The asset has no inherent worth...it can't be used for anything except within the ponzi bounds. It is not backed by anything either (such as legal and military force or a promise on economic output).
- It's pumped dishonestly by current holders and people who will profit if a larger number of later ponzi participants enter. People go as far as promising they will "eat their own dick" on TV if there isn't 10,000% return by 2020.

So yeah it's just like a ponzi scheme in every way that matters. And if confidence is lost in future ponzi returns there is no inherent worth or revenue stream and it will collapse just like a ponzi scheme.

We've been down this road so many times there's really no point in going down it again.

You should give your "early investors in stock offerings" comparison some additional thought. The stock offering value doesn't come from later investors, the value comes from product creation, company growth, and revenue.

Why would you say "purported" to own when describing the purchase of btc?

My only point was that the metrics being proposed to disprove btc is a ponzi, pyramid, some hybrid, or whatever, are totally useless and don't in any way disprove anything.

Happy to a learn a new word but no that misses the point. For many peoples arguements when you take the word they are using and insert the definition their argument becomes incoherent. The word covers up the logical inconsistency.

The wiki definition suggests that a ponzi involves not owning the asset you were promised. This is not true with bitcoin.

This doesn't denote a ponzi anymore than if a mob did it with apple stocks imo.

Thats called a speculative investment and again does not denote a ponzi

Its true if it were to be more stable (ie in the future) then it would be less enticing as a speculative investement. This does not at all denote a ponzi and the vast majority of bitcoiners are investing because they see bitcoin can bring great efficiency to our global economy.

For this we can understand what you mean by ponzi waves, but it hides the fact that the non mostly part precludes bitcoin from fitting the definition of a ponzi


Ponzi's have promised revenue bitcoin doesn't.

You have already admitted it is useful for black market transactions, nonetheless, you aren't speaking to the definition of a ponzi here. There is nothing about a ponzi definition that suggests an asset that is unbacked by force or promise is or isn't a ponzie


again just because people get over exuberant does not destroy the efficiency it brings to the table any more than doing that same for a successful business stock.

That would be subjective. But you have definitely admitted that its nowhere near a perfect comparison. Once we unpack the actual definition of ponzi and compare it to your complaints I think its obvious the comparison is very weak. "I don't see how bitcoin is useful therefore its a ponzi"

thats a simile its not actually speaking to the definition of ponzi. Like when a house of cards collapses (not a ponzi) or the price of gold collapses because the speculation was unfounded (not a ponzi).

I think maybe "speculative asset/investment bubble" is more what toothsayer is trying to paint as the definition of ponzi. I think there is definitely a component of this to bitcoin's price and this could have easily have been foreseen. I think then we might talk about what happens if the speculative market gets saturated (hype is gone) and the momentum slows.

What happens if the price is widely understood to be leveling off and there is a well accepted view that the early investors stood to gain the most?

Who would use bitcoin if the value/price/purchasing power wasn't expected to rise dramatically anymore?

Provided it's value was enough for miners to cover their costs/make a small profit in order to properly secure the network, I think many would continue to use it even if it's value wasn't expected to rise. It's a very easy way to make near instantaneous cross border payments very cheaply.

This would be a tweet that would seem to make toothersayers point and I would agree if this represented what bitcoin is however its widely known that song has very little understanding of economics. But I'd agree this is a terrible way to represent bitcoin and unbeknownst to jimmy he is treating and proffessing bitcoin as a ponzi. So perhaps this is a re-solving point that balances my/toothersayers views: https://twitter.com/jimmysong/status...62107812220928

(bah no idea how to embed)


I think so to. And your caveat is covered and implemented by the difficulty adjustment algorithm that lowers the cost of security if there is not enough demand for it.

I think there are two interesting points that come about from such a scenario.

First that the argument that bitcoin lacks a stabilization mechanism becomes less relevant as the speculative component wouldn't threaten the volatility. Bitcoin would be more money like than today in this sense.

Secondly we can think/talk about how the future prospect of leveling off would cause earlier speculators to think cautiously in regard to look for a big payoff. This I think could have a domino effect where the new entries have less interested in a risky home run and are thinking more long term or hoping for a more stable medium of exchange.

Such an unfolding scenario I think could happen relatively quickly once that change starts to happen.

Here's the thing - you wouldn't have a problem with me calling it a ponzi if it wasn't mostly a ponzi. The term stings because of it contains a lot of truth. There have been plenty of ponzis built around a legitimate business; an element of legitimate use far below its price doesn't negate that it's a ponzi.

Here's how it's just like a ponzi: regular people bought in in a frenzied rush because holders of bitcoin urged them to get in, that they were guaranteed to make lots of money and that they'd miss out if they didn't buy now. How many kids (some in this thread) said that to their parents, pressuring them to buy? Then the early holders dumped on these ponzi buyers for their own gain.

That's just like a ponzi - promise of amazing returns for no work on something that's a zero sum game which has no revenue or income.

I think we could say its LIKE ponzi in this context (carved away from its legitimate usefuleness) but still not a ponzi by (for example) the wiki definition.

And yes that is definitely "ponzi-like" behavior but again that doesn't destroy its actual usefulness so there is an implication I think that is not there. (I am watching for example the we-work bond market news of its crashing as a similar example but again its not a ponzi just because the speculating crumbled and the hype was misplaced).

What I would rather want to encourage, since I think the word ponzi here is hiding the intended and true meaning of what is being said, is to replace the word ponzi with the actual definition you mean to invoke.

So "Bitcoin is a ponzi" turns to "Bitcoin is a [ ]" and replace the '[ ]' with what you mean to reference with the word ponzi.

Then I think your argument won't seem so sound to anyone.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

What I mean is "bitcoin is [like a ponzi] therefore it's ultimate fate is that of a ponzi" implying bitcoin is nothing but a scam and therefore will crash to zero is not a proper extension of reason based on the simile

Replace the word ponzi with the intended meaning/definition and then state your conclusion don't imply it.

When you do that then the argument falls apart. The word covers up a fallacious argument

So, yes then.

Lol @ trying to split hairs. Almost everyone that refers to BTC as a ponzi doesn't literally mean there's a guy named Charles Bitcoin behind the curtain running the scam.

Bitcoin is closer to a pyramid scheme than anything. A mix of affiliate links and the Greater Fool theory while shilling something with no (or hugely limited) usefulness. But saying that every time is annoying, so just saying "Ponzi" is close enough for government work.

^^ that doesn't speak to my point...

That is what you imply.

This is all great.

But is there a certain point where you won't call Bitcoin a ponzi/pyramid anymore?

This thread started 9 years ago with someone laughing that they were priced at 70 cents.

The price was at $10k recently and a bear ITT said "he hopes bitcoin works out" for those of us invested.

These guys are very dumb and/or disingenuous, they will never admit anything, they are too entrenched in their idiocy to change now.

ponzi waves tho

I was a strong bull at $250 (when I first looked into bitcoin), cautious at $1500, and a bear at $17.5K 2 years ago and $13.8K recently.

The Madoff ponzi ran for decades against all odds and got to $50 billion before collapsing. A Chinese ponzi where people were given ant farm boxes and told to feed them cake in order to create erection pills ran to billions of dollars. There is a lot of extremely stupid money out there and it's congregated around bitcoin, which has a far larger reach than other ponzis.

The proof that the bears are wrong will be in a meaningful level of bitcoin use as a mainstream currency or store of value. That still hasn't happened - it's risen as a black/gray market coin at its base with 90+% of the price being speculation during successive ponzi waves, but it fails horribly as a currency and a store of value.

Proof that a ponzi can get that large? In 2017 useless shitcoins ran up to a market cap larger than bitcoin has now. That's hard, irrefutable proof of how much stupid money there is out there chasing ponzi returns for an underlying with zero value. Bitcoin is just a slower version of the same thing.

If you want to use "price bro" then I'll use "price bro" to prove that shitcoins collectively are the future of money - after all, they were worth more than bitcoin is now. Price, bro.

Price is immaterial. As people have said for years, there have been scams that ran for decades and were worth billions.

In year 10 of Madoff's scam, declaring that "It's obviously not a scam, it's been around 10 years!!" would've been "irrefutable" at the time...and hilariously wrong 10 years later.

Show me major retailers accepting bitcoin and using it along their supply chains and we can talk (and no, point-of-sale conversion to USD doesn't count). Until then, it's just the equivalent of digital baseball cards. As long as you can convince people it will moon some day, it may hold it's value. Once it becomes clear it won't be adopted, people will cash out and the value will crash.

disagree, i use it all the time and have had great success with its price vs the USD... its been an amazing store of value, its been gaining value..

well i used it to furnish my apartment when bitcoin was at 17k on overstock

lol at the price being immaterial.... uh, ok, if you say so

A "great store of value" loses 17% in two hours? Are you high?
And there is it. You got in earlier in a pyramid/ponzi so now you say the pyramid/ponzi is wonderful. The bulk who bought at $10K+ certainly think it's an awful store of value. That's how pyramids and ponzis work - the earlier holders get nice returns and then evangelize to the later bagholders in a zero sum game.

TS, you are currently shorting? Would like your actions on record. Please confirm.

I have never bought, sold held or traded bitcoin. Despite having made juicy "strong buy" and "great sell" calls on bitcoin, I make far better return in the stock market than anyone can in bitcoin these days.