The only one 'dodging' here is you. You've tried your best to justify a blatant untruth. You could choose to acknowledge that its simply inaccurate and incorrect to label bitcoin with the term 'ponzi scheme' ...but i guess that doesn't suit your purposes, right?
What split between Bitcoin and Etherium
- Thread starter IndianaJones
- Start date
I don't that is fair. Anyone familiar with @tecate posts know that s/he has acknowledged that bitcoin could, like myself, crash to zero. We have also acknowledged that its meteoric price rise has characteristics of a 'mania', but this is no different to other asset classes such as property for instance.
I see a long future ahead for bitcoin. What price it will be at, no-one knows for certain - except people like yourself who regard it as the largest ponzi scheme known to man and its price will go to zero, or next to. Only you are all shy in forecasting when this will be.
To date, all calls of bitcoins demise over the last decade have been wrong, quite emphatically so.
And in that regard, it would be somewhat refreshing if for once those who call Bitcoin’s demise before now actually acknowledged how wrong they have been.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,194
Excellent idea as it carries the warning to others that they will lose all their money if they get caught by it.
Why stop there? Why not suggest that its the work of the devil?
Tell me, when a VC invests in a startup and that startup fails and they lose all their money, is that then ponzi-like? What of the Lebanese pound - is it a ponzi-like scheme ran by the Lebanese central bank?
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,055
Brendan,
I may be wrong but I don't think all Ponzi schemes have to start out as a Ponzi scheme. Look at probably one of the most famous, the Madoff Ponzi scheme and I'm pretty sure that started out as a legitimate business. I do agree on how you describe Tecates approach at defending his position, he is a master of picking an irrelevant point to deflect answering questions.
Regarding Bitcoin, Tecate can never prove it isn't a Ponzi scheme with certainy. 'Satoshi' could come out of hiding tomorrow and cash in his coins declaring it was a Ponzi Scheme all along. However unlikely Tecate cannot prove this isn't a possibility.
To borrow one of theirs and wolfetones favourite deflection mechanism....
Only time will tell.
I'm not 'defending my position'. I'm calling out a blatant lie. You were corrected on this once - only to restate the same nonsense. By its very definition, a ponzi scheme is an orchestrated con that requires a specific premeditated plan. There is no grey area - the definition of a ponzi scheme is crystal clear. Anyone that continues with this nonsense is declaring black to be white. But hey, maybe its something you and the gals can discuss at the next 'business luncheon'.
Like, Wizard of Oz?
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,055
Tecate, the only thing that is crystal clear is how wrong you are. But this is what I've come to expect, you're credibility reduces with each of your posts.
In fact I'm sure if you decided black was white and white was black you'd argue it until the cows come home.
I've stated a few points on Ponzi schemes and I disagree with how you are applying your 'definition' of a Ponzi scheme but you are so blind to others opinions that you are no longer even able to entertain debate and simply go down the route of insults.
But Tecate you surely can't be blind to the fact that you can't prove with certainty that Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme. This is even more true given the definition of a Ponzi scheme that you are holding everyone to, that is unless you are Satoshi himself? Are we going to have a big reveal?
Lastly, there is no place for discrimination anywhere in this day and age and your comment regarding 'the gals' is inexcusable. So I won't be engaging with anyone who thinks it that way.
I think you should delete that comment.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,194
I must be out of touch as well. It's not an expression I use, but I hadn't realised that it was not PC anymore.
Brendan
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,194
Maybe I am not too far out of touch
Here is an article which wants to use "gals" to replace "girls" when referring to women just as guys refers to men.
Here is an article which wants to use "gals" to replace "girls" when referring to women just as guys refers to men.
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,055
I wasn't referring to use of the word gals as inexcusable. I was referring to the stereotype that was insinuated that females wouldn't be able to discuss complex topics.
No doubt Tecate will argue his way out of it, but it is clear what they were insinuating.
As we well know, all that is of interest to you is to try and contrive to find some sort of ground (anything will do, right?) to demonstrate how 'wrong' I am - and not a genuine, open discussion of the actual subject. Let me be very clear here. I know that your big ego ,has taken a pasting and that's something that you struggle with. That's a personal issue of yours - and not one that I plan on being a problem of mine - in so far as I can help it.
It's not 'my definition'. Check any definition of a ponzi scheme and its as I described it. I challenge you to find a definition that varies. As regards 'insults', the lady doth protest too much, me thinks.
Discrimination is it? I mean in principal, there isn't a discriminatory bone in my body - wait, maybe there's the odd exception. Oh yea, arrogant types - they tend to suffer in my presence. Is that bad?
Have a word with the powers that be - maybe you can have me silenced permanently. However, given as I once told you - I wouldn't send you down the shops - I doubt I'm going to start taking advice on my postings from you today if that's all the same to you.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,194
Guys
I know we are on Page 4 so it's descended into the usual sort of stuff, but try not to personalise the attacks. And if you are attacked personally, don't respond in kind, just ignore it.
Brendan
I know we are on Page 4 so it's descended into the usual sort of stuff, but try not to personalise the attacks. And if you are attacked personally, don't respond in kind, just ignore it.
Brendan
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,055
As we well know, all that is of interest to you is to try and contrive to find some sort of ground (anything will do, right?) to demonstrate how 'wrong' I am - and not a genuine, open discussion of the actual subject. Let me be very clear here. I know that your big ego ,has taken a pasting and that's something that you struggle with. That's a personal issue of yours - and not one that I plan on being a problem of mine - in so far as I can help it.
It's not 'my definition'. Check any definition of a ponzi scheme and its as I described it. I challenge you to find a definition that varies. As regards 'insults', the lady doth protest too much, me thinks.
Discrimination is it? I mean in principal, there isn't a discriminatory bone in my body - wait, maybe there's the odd exception. Oh yea, arrogant types - they tend to suffer in my presence. Is that bad?
Have a word with the powers that be - maybe you can have me silenced permanently. However, given as I once told you - I wouldn't send you down the shops - I doubt I'm going to start taking advice on my postings from you today if that's all the same to you.
I honestly have no idea where you come up with this stuff Tecate. Everytime I try and engage in a conversation about cryptocurrency you descend into personal attacks.
Personally I think you ruin Cryptocurrency discussion on this forum, we are four pages into another echo chamber. Brendan summed up your approach to discourse on the subject perfectly.
for the last three pages you've done nothing to engage in a debt but instead personally attacked and badgered people in an attempt to silence them.
i stated I don't think Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme but have rightly said that others can have that opinion and that can be motivated by their own personal experience. That's their right and ultimately you can't prove that Bitcoin won't end up being a Ponzi scheme.
So for the last time, can you prove Bitcoin won't turn out to be a Ponzi scheme?
This is an internet forum, I have no ego when it comes to cryptocurrency, so feel free to continue with your insults, sticks and stones and all that.
Actually don't waste your time responding you've already, this thread has already descended into the usual echo chamber and there is no point continuing.
Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Over the course of the past 7 months, every utterance from you in my direction was precisely that - a personal attack. Well, if those are the rules of engagement on AAM, on we go.
Personally, I think YOU ruin crypto discussion on this forum. Delighted you've found a friend - maybe you can call on him to censor me when you can't handle the discussion any longer as you did in December 2020.
Such is your immature approach to discussion. Recently you naively instructed us that you would arrive at the one truth. Unlike you, I have no issue in disagreement. However, the whole point of an exchange of ideas is that participants take the opportunity to expand on their thoughts on the subject. If I don't agree, I'll say so and I'll expand on precisely why I don't. You on the other hand talk of a need to 'concede' - it betrays a 'need to win' mentality where discussion is concerned. That's not in any way conducive to learning or developing the discussion.
Let me get this straight. You have no evidence to your claim and feel that because there is no evidence to the contrary, then its ok to tar and feather bitcoin with the 'ponzi' label. Yeah, that's incredibly equitable alright - NOT.
I beg to differ. In 2020 - mid discussion, you informed me that yours was the one truth as you 'worked in the industry' or some such and I didn't. If that's the sort of nonsense you have to resort to in a discussion, I pity you.
Oh no - you goaded me into responses between your deliberate mis-interpretation of what I stated, other various complaints about why I wouldn't engage in discussion with you - along with ongoing and sustained personal attacks. Well, congratuations - you have my complete and utter attention from here on in. On deliberate misinterpretation, we had this gem yesterday - "I wasn't referring to use of the word gals as inexcusable. I was referring to the stereotype that was insinuated that females wouldn't be able to discuss complex topics."
The lengths you will go to. There is nobody else on the planet that could read what I stated and take up such an interpretation. It's telling as to where your mind is at. I guess I shouldn't be expecting a crimbo card from you this year.
Other than that, you have an interesting assessment of what makes for an 'echo-chamber'. AAM has been majority crypto-naysayer in approach from the outset. Of course, being a special individual, you installed yourself as a 'neutral' who reckons he holds btc - and yet over the course of your entire engagement here, never once have you obliged in providing any of us with an insight into why you (allegedly) hold bitcoin. You can ask that of others and they've obliged but when others have asked that of you, you say its not relevant. Go figure.
Last edited:
DazedInPontoon
Registered User
- Messages
- 357
A Ponzi scheme is where a central operator commits fraud by lying about where the source of returns come from.
Bitcoin has no central operator, no lies (since the code is open source) and it doesn't generate returns to lie about anyway.
DazedInPontoon
Registered User
- Messages
- 357
Satoshi could come out of hiding and cash in any coins they mined or bought, but it would be no different than anyone else doing so (except that presumably Satoshi has a large holding). That doesn't make it a scam (and still nothing like a Ponzi) as Satoshi is the same as any other participant in the system, they didn't get coins for free they either mined or bought them just like any one else.
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,055
Bitcoin has a creator....can you prove they haven't set this out as an elaborate Ponzi Scheme?
I've already stated I don't think it is a ponzi scheme, but can admit there are Ponzi like qualities. I am illustrating that Tickle had the right to call it a ponzi scheme, as much as those who believe it not to be. Neither can prove it to certainty, only time will tell.
DazedInPontoon
Registered User
- Messages
- 357
A creator is not the same as a central operator
As I've said, it's zero for three on the things needed for a Ponzi scheme, so no.
If you really want to continue with arguments from 2014, you'd do better with "iT's TuLiPs" as at least that was a marketplace of people buying, holding and selling, which is what the bitcoin market is too.
As I've said, it's zero for three on the things needed for a Ponzi scheme, so no.
If you really want to continue with arguments from 2014, you'd do better with "iT's TuLiPs" as at least that was a marketplace of people buying, holding and selling, which is what the bitcoin market is too.
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,055
Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Over the course of the past 7 months, every utterance from you in my direction was precisely that - a personal attack. Well, if those are the rules of engagement on AAM, on we go.
Personally, I think YOU ruin crypto discussion on this forum. Delighted you've found a friend - maybe you can call on him to censor me when you can't handle the discussion any longer as you did in December 2020.
Such is your immature approach to discussion. Recently you naively instructed us that you would arrive at the one truth. Unlike you, I have no issue in disagreement. However, the whole point of an exchange of ideas is that participants take the opportunity to expand on their thoughts on the subject. If I don't agree, I'll say so and I'll expand on precisely why I don't. You on the other hand talk of a need to 'concede' - it betrays a 'need to win' mentality where discussion is concerned. That's not in any way conducive to learning or developing the discussion.
Let me get this straight. You have no evidence to your claim and feel that because there is no evidence to the contrary, then its ok to tar and feather bitcoin with the 'ponzi' label. Yeah, that's incredibly equitable alright - NOT.
I beg to differ. In 2020 - mid discussion, you informed me that yours was the one truth as you 'worked in the industry' or some such and I didn't. If that's the sort of nonsense you have to resort to in a discussion, I pity you.
Oh no - you goaded me into responses between your deliberate mis-interpretation of what I stated, other various complaints about why I wouldn't engage in discussion with you - along with ongoing and sustained personal attacks. Well, congratuations - you have my complete and utter attention from here on in. On deliberate misinterpretation, we had this gem yesterday - "I wasn't referring to use of the word gals as inexcusable. I was referring to the stereotype that was insinuated that females wouldn't be able to discuss complex topics."
The lengths you will go to. There is nobody else on the planet that could read what I stated and take up such an interpretation. It's telling as to where your mind is at. I guess I shouldn't be expecting a crimbo card from you this year.
Tecate, you have a great memory, so don't you remember when I specifically outlined my stance on BTC at your behest in 2020? I can't remember everything I wrote on an internet forum 18 months ago, and my opinion may have changed now and I'll accept it if I made incorrect statements historically.
You are right, I have worked in the industry, and I have spent time in academic research on cryptocurrencies, so I apologize if the tone in which I expel sounds arrogant when it comes to my knowledge. What is of my annoyance is that you say you want to debate but you only want to debate on your terms. For example, this is a thread about splitting an investment between Ethereum and Bitcoin, there are those that have said it is gambling, there are those called it a ponzi scheme and there are those that say it isn't a ponzi scheme. You have got hung up on somebodys 'attack' of the ponzi scheme specifically on the definition of a ponzi scheme for 4 pages. That is not a sign of somebody willing to engage in a debate.
My case in point I said it isn't a ponzi scheme, but I am not blind that people can perceive it that way either from the media they read or their own negative experiences with Bitcoin. Yet you choose personal attacks, using inexcusable discriminatory remarks to try and discredit my opinion completely bypassing the topic at hand.
So if that is want you want to do....I'll ask you....why should people not listen to my opinion on Bitcoin?