What split between Bitcoin and Etherium

Brendan Burgess said:
You are correct.

When it falls to zero, the volatility will be zero.

Brendan
Click to expand...
And when will this BTC = $0 event happen Brendan? Back in 2017 you had an inkling but you don't any longer. Did you make the same prediction re. the dot com era? I ask as you have not uttered ONE single positive re. that wave of innovation. I agree that we have hype cycles - what I don't agree with is this notion that you just ignore an entire wave of innovation on the basis of that. That's moronic.
Tickle said:
Tell us some more about the potential downsides. You seem to have no problems overstating the upsides, and you are completely dismissive of views that you don't agree with.
Click to expand...
What are the potential downsides of any investment that would find itself towards the riskier end of the spectrum? And of course continue to fail to acknowledge the importance of position size within that - which is where all of this started.
I am not 'completely dismissive' of critique. However, critique that is disingenuous or just plain wrong I will challenge. I provide my rationale for anything I challenge - I suggest that you do the same - rather than finding fault with me personally in challenging what you've expressed.

Tickle said:
You are only using the semantics that suit your agenda and you are ignoring the characteristics that are similar.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. What I'm doing is calling you out on a lie! A ponzi scheme is a premeditated and calculated con organised by a central entity. What you're effectively saying is that bitcoin was established as a ponzi scheme. That is factually incorrect - and facts may be an inconvenience to you but they're important to me.

Brendan Burgess said:
The ponzi scheme argument is a non argument.

If you define a ponzi scheme as an organised scheme, then it's not a ponzi scheme.

If you define it as something where people pay a lot of money for nothing in the hope that a greater fool will pay more for it, then it's a ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...
See above, Brendan. Truth and facts matter. Switch on CNBC right now. I don't care at what point you do so but I can guarantee that someone is talking up their book. Yet you wouldn't dare say that they're part of a ponzi scheme. You wouldn't because they would sue the daylights out of you - and rightly so.
There is NO defense for the use of that tar and feathering/labelling because by its very definition, its entirely inaccurate. If there was a degree of honesty in this regard, those claiming ponzi could choose to allege that market participants in the space talk up their book. I don't have any issue with that but of course its entirely different. Labelling bitcoin as a ponzi is an out and out lie - that's the difference.
 
Tickle said:
Woah woah, I never said that.
Click to expand...
Keep tying yourself up in knots. By its very definition, a ponzi scheme is a premeditated con. You stated that bitcoin is the greatest ponzi known to man.
Tickle said:
A fool's argument.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. This is where I've been getting it so wrong. Apparently I'm sooo wrong to insist on accuracy and said accuracy in this instance means that claims that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme get thrown out unceremoniously. But that accuracy you say is 'semantic's' - because it stands directly in the way of your desire to mislead on the subject. For that, you say I've taken up 'a fools argument'. Instructive.
 
Yet you keep refusing to recognise any of the characteristics of a ponzi scheme that exist in bitcoin. Instead you are ducking and diving over semantics. I never once said that bitcoin was established as a ponzi scheme. And for the record, I am not saying exactly that. And you know that but you continue to dance around that fact because it's the basis of your rebuttle.
 
Tickle said:
Yet you keep refusing to recognise any of the characteristics of a ponzi scheme that exist in bitcoin. Instead you are ducking and diving over semantics. I never once said that bitcoin was established as a ponzi scheme. And for the record, I am not saying exactly that. And you know that but you continue to dance around that fact.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. What I'm doing is challenging the lie that you've presented with. You say that facts and truth don't matter - I say that they very much do. Facts and truth are not 'semantics'.
You can choose to do a couple of things -
1. carry on with this ponzi lie
OR
2. you could take the view that your belief is that many bitcoiners talk up their own book.

I don't have any issue with the latter - but in no way will I let you go unchallenged on the former as it's a lie. You think there's no difference but there's a world of difference
 
It is only a Ponzi scheme if you get left holding a bag of hot air :p, but not when you have zero average cost eh?

Tickle is entitled to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme as much as Tecate can rebuke it as a ponzi scheme. Maybe their views are formed by their direct experience with Bitcoin, positive and negative. But neither can concretely prove it either way, although I bet Tecate will give it a good go.

Ponzi schemes only get found out when they fall apart, they can be extremely elaborate or extremely simple.

I don't personally think Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme, but that doesn't mean the value of it won't drop or rise significantly and doesn't stop people being conned out of money.
 
Tickle said:
The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know
Click to expand...
Take a long hard look at what YOU are choosing to conveniently ignore....i.e. that the only way that a ponzi scheme comes to exist is as a direct consequence of a premeditated con. But as I have continually put to you, you want to tar and feather bitcoin negatively - in full knowledge that what you're claiming is a lie. That's the reality.
 
Dublinbay12 said:
Tickle is entitled to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme as much as Tecate can rebuke it as a ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...

Tecate's argument appears to be...

A Ponzi Scheme is defined as A fraudulent scheme where earlier investors are paid with the money taken from new investors, giving the impression that the scheme is a viable investment.

But, because it wasn't designed from the start as a fraud...

It's not a Ponzi Scheme

Therefore anyone who describes it as Ponzi Scheme is wrong on this issue and every other issue to do with BTC.

It's just that we don't have a word for a scheme like BTC which was not set up as a fraud, but which has all the other characteristics of a Ponzi Scheme.

People like tecate and Wolfie believe that something which is completely worthless has value.
The people who get out on time will make lots of money
But the later entrants will lose a lot.

Brendan
 
Tickle said:
The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know
Click to expand...

Aha! A cryptic clue... I love a good riddle.

In the mean time, how was the largest ponzi scheme known to man established, if it was never established as a Ponzi scheme to begin with?
 
Dublinbay12 said:
Tickle is entitled to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme as much as Tecate can rebuke it as a ponzi scheme. Maybe their views are formed by their direct experience with Bitcoin, positive and negative. But neither can concretely prove it either way, although I bet Tecate will give it a good go.
Click to expand...
I agree that he can make any crazy claim he wants. However, as regards nobody being able to definitively prove or disprove either way, on that I disagree. There's a definition for the term 'ponzi scheme'. Central to that definition is a recognition that a ponzi scheme is a premeditated, calculated con. Tickle can claim that such definitive detail is 'semantics' all he wants - but he's factually incorrect to do so. There is no grey area here.
 
Last edited:
Brendan Burgess said:
It's just that we don't have a word for a scheme like BTC which was not set up as a fraud, but which has all the other characteristics of a Ponzi Scheme.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes Brendan! So the term 'Ponzi Scheme' in NO WAY fits in this instance. And apparently accuracy here is just such an inconvenience - semantics no less. Tell you what, we know that people conjure up the most negative of images when presented with the phrase 'ponzi scheme' - and I really want to double and triple down on the hating here. So why shouldn't we be disingenuous and lie to people - its for the greater good here given that bitcoin and decentralised crypto is pure evil.:rolleyes:

Still waiting for a response on the dot com era, Brendan. I'm sure at any moment now you're going to acknowledge that wave of life changing innovation, right? And tell me, there was no way to invest in that innovative wave in any safe manner - that's what you've been telling us all these years, right?
 
Dublinbay12 said:
Ponzi schemes only get found out when they fall apart, they can be extremely elaborate or extremely simple.
Click to expand...

But it has been found out. @Tickle says its the largest ponzi scheme known to man. He just won't/can't explain how or why it is a Ponzi scheme. In fact he throws some doubt on his assertion that it is a ponzi scheme

Tickle said:
I never once said that bitcoin was established as a ponzi scheme. And for the record, I am not saying exactly that.
Click to expand...

So it wasn't established as a ponzi scheme but morphed into a ponzi scheme? How?
 
tecate said:
I agree that he can make any crazy claim he wants. However, as regards nobody being able to definitively prove or disprove either way, on that I disagree. There's a definition for the term 'ponzi scheme'. Central to that definition is a recognition that a ponzi scheme is a premediated, calculated con. Tickle can claim that such definitive detail is 'semantics' all he wants - but he's factually incorrect to do so. There is no grey area here.
Click to expand...

tecate said:
Ah, yes Brendan! So the term 'Ponzi Scheme' in NO WAY fits in this instance. And apparently accuracy here is just such an inconvenience - semantics no less. Tell you what, we know that people conjure up the most negative of images when presented with the phrase 'ponzi scheme' - and I really want to double and triple down on the hating here. So why shouldn't we be disingenuous and lie to people - its for the greater good here given that bitcoin and decentralised crypto is pure evil.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Incorrigible, ignorant and insular comments. You refuse to see and acknowledge the similarities with a Ponzi scheme. You are only here to push a one-sided pro-scheme view. I've asked you what the disadvantages are specifically and you fobbed it off. Calling it as one sees it is not a lie. Your absolute refusal is downright dangerous.


You sound like you would be content with it being called a "Ponzi-like" scheme.
 
Last edited:
Tickle said:
Incorrigible, ignorant and insular comments. You refuse to see and acknowledge the similarities with a Ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...
Again with the lies. You didn't stop at saying that bitcoin was similar to a ponzi scheme (which is also completely inaccurate). You said that bitcoin IS a ponzi. Anyone that's capable of using a dictionary will be able to figure out your lie in no time.

Tickle said:
You are only here to push a one-sided pro-scheme view.
Click to expand...

I've acknowledged a whole host of shortcomings relative to bitcoin and decentralised crypto here over the course of 4 years. You on the other hand couldn't point to ONE single positive. Ergo, you know what I think of your wayward claim.



Tickle said:
I've asked you what the disadvantages are specifically and you fobbed it off.
Click to expand...
Do we have to endure more lies? You asked and I answered. I don't give a fiddlers if you're displeased with that answer.

Tickle said:
Calling it as one sees it is not a lie.
Click to expand...
Purposefully labeling something with a term that is definitively incorrect is a blatant lie and disception.


Tickle said:
Your absolute refusal is downright dangerous.
Click to expand...
My refusal to be complicit in a lie is dangerous? Every day is a school day but I won't be backing you up in your lie - thanks all the same.
 
The dodging and dancing around here would give Michael Flatley a run for his money. Thread has descended into farce. Come for the financial advice and stay for the comedy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top