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?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 refuse to see and acknowledge the similarities with a Ponzi scheme
You sound like you would be content with it being called a "Ponzi-like" scheme.
Why stop there? Why not suggest that its the work of the devil?Excellent idea as it carries the warning to others that they will lose all their money if they get caught by it.
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
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'.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.
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.
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'.
there is no place for discrimination anywhere in this day and age and your comment regarding 'the gals' is inexcusable.
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
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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 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.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.
So for the last time, can you prove Bitcoin won't turn out to be a Ponzi scheme?
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.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.
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."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.
A Ponzi scheme is where a central operator commits fraud by lying about where the source of returns come from.can you prove Bitcoin won't turn out to be a Ponzi scheme?
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.Satoshi' could come out of hiding tomorrow and cash in his coins declaring it was a Ponzi Scheme all along.
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.
but can admit there are Ponzi like qualities.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?