Hello Stefan,
this time as a comment, because it's too complicated for me to summarize this in a separate post.
Re 1(necessity of a constantly growing circle of participants)
Well, that contradicts the actual purpose of Bitcoin. Of course, the payment system or network can be maintained, but if no one buys your transfer units and thus carries out the actual trade, Bitcoin smoulders in its own soup and is unsuitable as a means of transfer. Putin needs roubles, not a coin he can't do anything else with. Don't forget, the trading partner actually wants money in exchange for its goods. As miners also produce more Bitcoin every day and have the ongoing costs for this, they also have to exchange. Nobody can finance electricity or a GPU with bitcoins. You either need people to hold the Bitcoin, and more every day as more Bitcoins are added. If they were not accepted, Bitcoin would fail to fulfill its transfer property and lose trust. As I said, Bitcoin is somehow trying to prevent the loss of trust with the "you make a profit by holding" method. You can compensate for this with a higher number of hodlers, but this is not done to remove transfer units from the system out of charity, but to exchange more money later (where someone new is then needed to pay for it). You can actually only counter this by explaining how you directly generate value by holding Bitcoin (and then directly contradicting the explanation that Satoshi cannot enrich himself by not moving the coins. Good luck
Re (2) Profits
Market movement, yes, there are also some who realize against loss and some at the level that buy in again. That is also in the definition. There is buying at all levels. And no, profits for each asset does not necessarily come from another buyer. Stocks are companies that make profits and also buy back shares, etc. Again, you are confusing that stocks represent value (namely a share in a company that has value), which is not the case with Bitcoin). As usual, that's why I singled out Bitcoin as a non-product. Unless you want to say that companies don't make money (and thus my share becomes more valuable even without a buyer)
Re 3(Missing product)
Well, as linked in the white paper, Bitcoin was meant for something specific and completely missed the mark. Storing value sounds nice now, but where does Bitcoin hold value? As usual, you're confusing value with price and it's really just an attempt to find repeat users who are greedier. This shift towards the "yield miracle bag" makes Bitcoin even more of an empty product, especially since no one can explain how and why Bitcoin creates value. Because you don't gain any by transferring it.
Re 1(incentive)
Of course there is a distribution structure. That is you. And yes, your incentive is to find someone who will buy the coin from you for more than you made, bought or exchanged it for. What else could it be? Otherwise, again, Bitcoin has zero use if you just want to hold it for all eternity. Bitcoin is the transfer unit, so you have to exchange it again at some point.
Re 2(Payments)
The strangest counter. Of course, you benefit directly if you find new participants who pay more and continue to rate. Especially if you can exchange cheap coins for the current "price". Are you saying that Satoshi doesn't profit with coins in the cent range if he finds someone who buys them for 70k? It doesn't matter whether the money comes directly from new users or goes to you as a bonus.
To (3)
It would have been nice if you had read it. The unmoved ones are assigned to Satoshi, which is correct. Doesn't mean he didn't have more. To call the genesis block with 50 bitcoins with 1 million coins that he has "honesty" is grandiose. The fact is that, as the inventor, he has incorporated the cheapest coins for himself and still has 1/20 of all coins. How the top level receives its product (because even a ping pong ball as a transfer unit has to be made in the end) is completely irrelevant for a pyramid scheme yes/no, as long as the top level has received the "product" more cheaply than the following users. That is the case. To say Satoshi has not enriched himself, even though he is how many billions heavier, can only be a bad joke. Or coping.
Re (4)
No bonus, but a more expensive product. As with an MLM, all sales units would be confronted with the same price range, no hierarchy. Snowballing also works if each level sells the product at a higher price. I had written the same thing....
To (5)
A Ponzi scheme would also be a Ponzi scheme before the collapse. Sorry.
Sorry, as in the articles I linked to, your reasoning deals fairly well with Ponzi for the most part, whereas Bitcoin is more likely to be a Ponzi scheme. The central authority would be important in a Ponzi, not a pyramid scheme. That you can't centrally access an authority is a characteristic of a Ponzi scheme, not a criterion for exclusion.
And no, as explained, Bitcoin is failing in its actual task, as it has degenerated into a pure speculative object. The fact that you hold your coins is exactly what it shouldn't be.
Kind regards
Harald
this time as a comment, because it's too complicated for me to summarize this in a separate post.
Re 1(necessity of a constantly growing circle of participants)
Well, that contradicts the actual purpose of Bitcoin. Of course, the payment system or network can be maintained, but if no one buys your transfer units and thus carries out the actual trade, Bitcoin smoulders in its own soup and is unsuitable as a means of transfer. Putin needs roubles, not a coin he can't do anything else with. Don't forget, the trading partner actually wants money in exchange for its goods. As miners also produce more Bitcoin every day and have the ongoing costs for this, they also have to exchange. Nobody can finance electricity or a GPU with bitcoins. You either need people to hold the Bitcoin, and more every day as more Bitcoins are added. If they were not accepted, Bitcoin would fail to fulfill its transfer property and lose trust. As I said, Bitcoin is somehow trying to prevent the loss of trust with the "you make a profit by holding" method. You can compensate for this with a higher number of hodlers, but this is not done to remove transfer units from the system out of charity, but to exchange more money later (where someone new is then needed to pay for it). You can actually only counter this by explaining how you directly generate value by holding Bitcoin (and then directly contradicting the explanation that Satoshi cannot enrich himself by not moving the coins. Good luck
Re (2) Profits
Market movement, yes, there are also some who realize against loss and some at the level that buy in again. That is also in the definition. There is buying at all levels. And no, profits for each asset does not necessarily come from another buyer. Stocks are companies that make profits and also buy back shares, etc. Again, you are confusing that stocks represent value (namely a share in a company that has value), which is not the case with Bitcoin). As usual, that's why I singled out Bitcoin as a non-product. Unless you want to say that companies don't make money (and thus my share becomes more valuable even without a buyer)
Re 3(Missing product)
Well, as linked in the white paper, Bitcoin was meant for something specific and completely missed the mark. Storing value sounds nice now, but where does Bitcoin hold value? As usual, you're confusing value with price and it's really just an attempt to find repeat users who are greedier. This shift towards the "yield miracle bag" makes Bitcoin even more of an empty product, especially since no one can explain how and why Bitcoin creates value. Because you don't gain any by transferring it.
Re 1(incentive)
Of course there is a distribution structure. That is you. And yes, your incentive is to find someone who will buy the coin from you for more than you made, bought or exchanged it for. What else could it be? Otherwise, again, Bitcoin has zero use if you just want to hold it for all eternity. Bitcoin is the transfer unit, so you have to exchange it again at some point.
Re 2(Payments)
The strangest counter. Of course, you benefit directly if you find new participants who pay more and continue to rate. Especially if you can exchange cheap coins for the current "price". Are you saying that Satoshi doesn't profit with coins in the cent range if he finds someone who buys them for 70k? It doesn't matter whether the money comes directly from new users or goes to you as a bonus.
To (3)
It would have been nice if you had read it. The unmoved ones are assigned to Satoshi, which is correct. Doesn't mean he didn't have more. To call the genesis block with 50 bitcoins with 1 million coins that he has "honesty" is grandiose. The fact is that, as the inventor, he has incorporated the cheapest coins for himself and still has 1/20 of all coins. How the top level receives its product (because even a ping pong ball as a transfer unit has to be made in the end) is completely irrelevant for a pyramid scheme yes/no, as long as the top level has received the "product" more cheaply than the following users. That is the case. To say Satoshi has not enriched himself, even though he is how many billions heavier, can only be a bad joke. Or coping.
Re (4)
No bonus, but a more expensive product. As with an MLM, all sales units would be confronted with the same price range, no hierarchy. Snowballing also works if each level sells the product at a higher price. I had written the same thing....
To (5)
A Ponzi scheme would also be a Ponzi scheme before the collapse. Sorry.
Sorry, as in the articles I linked to, your reasoning deals fairly well with Ponzi for the most part, whereas Bitcoin is more likely to be a Ponzi scheme. The central authority would be important in a Ponzi, not a pyramid scheme. That you can't centrally access an authority is a characteristic of a Ponzi scheme, not a criterion for exclusion.
And no, as explained, Bitcoin is failing in its actual task, as it has degenerated into a pure speculative object. The fact that you hold your coins is exactly what it shouldn't be.
Kind regards
Harald
••
@Madhatter5566
Well, to (1) - the original purpose of Bitcoin is completely irrelevant. Bitcoin is a free protocol that has been further developed by many people. Bitcoin is what people make of it. If one of the participants - be it Putin - does not want Bitcoin for his goods, there will be no trade. Just like if he doesn't want euros. But if people produce something and want Bitcoin, a trade can very well come about.
Re:
"As additional miners produce more Bitcoin every day and have the ongoing costs for it, they also have to exchange. Nobody can finance electricity or a GPU with Bitcoins. You either need people to hold the Bitcoin, and more every day as more Bitcoins are added. If they weren't accepted, Bitcoin would lose its transfer properties and lose trust."
I agree with you, but not completely. As I said, the miner is a service provider. If people no longer attributed any value to Bitcoin and no one could use Bitcoin to pay for the electricity that has to be used, then no one would mine it anymore. In this case, Bitcoin would have failed. However, as long as there are people who attribute value to Bitcoin and want something from it, this is not the case and the network regulates itself accordingly.
A Ponzi scheme would collapse without a constant influx of new members. This is not the case with Bitcoin. If the difficulty adjustment in mining did not exist, I would completely agree with you.
Re (2)
The share price is the result of supply and demand. The company behind it generates profits, that's correct - which is why the share price is far from reflecting the "intrinsic value" of the company. The more demand there is and the more buyers come in, the more my share will be worth.
Re (3)
Well, as explained, people assign a value to things. Also on the basis of characteristics. Just as we ascribe a value to gold that is far higher than its industrial use. And again: Bitcoin doesn't have to be what the white paper says it is. Satoshi has relinquished control and the network continues to evolve. But at a fundamental level, it is still just that: a P2P cash system. I can transact trustlessly without a third party.
Since you don't see a use case in Bitcoin, Bitcoin has no value for you. As described, value is subjective.
For me and other people, it has a real use and therefore also a value. And no, there is no distribution structure. It is completely normal for people to talk about something when they are enthusiastic about it. If I buy a kebab and am enthusiastic about it - and tell others about it, then that doesn't make me a sales representative of the kebab store :)
Re 2 (payments)
Of course Satoshi would benefit if he sold coins. But he also took a much higher risk than I did, for example. It was not foreseeable at the beginning that Bitcoin would become something.
Early gold investors also profited more than late investors. Early NVIDIA, Apple investors and the like did the same.
But the thing is: the newbies' money doesn't go to the earlier investors like in a Ponzi scheme. Instead, the price rises and falls based on supply and demand. There is no one who distributes money centrally.
Re(3)
Don't worry, I've read it. But the fact that he bought the cheapest coins is factually incorrect. He only mined together with others, which is why he did not profit more than these other early participants. And as I said, your assertion that he has enriched himself remains an assertion.
I don't even know what your problem is in this regard. He took an extremely high risk and was rewarded for it. Just like an entrepreneur is rewarded for founding a successful company and holding the most shares. However, you cannot accuse Satoshi of intending to enrich himself, as you cannot prove that he sold coins. And even if he were to sell coins at some point, Bitcoin would still not be a Ponzi scheme because the other points do not apply either. The founder's intention to enrich himself is not even a characteristic of a Ponzi scheme - even if it is of course a conclusion.
Re (4)
Nobody has to buy someone else's "product" at a higher price. After all, enough people have already sold their "product" at a loss. Why? Because Bitcoin is traded openly on the market.
Re (5)
As written, the network adapts dynamically to the number of users and miners. No exponential user growth is required, which is why this does not apply to Bitcoin either.
Thank you again for your contribution. I'm glad that we were able to have a constructive discussion at eye level after all - even if the topic is getting on my nerves by now😂 but you have to get through it. At least now people here can form their own opinions
Well, to (1) - the original purpose of Bitcoin is completely irrelevant. Bitcoin is a free protocol that has been further developed by many people. Bitcoin is what people make of it. If one of the participants - be it Putin - does not want Bitcoin for his goods, there will be no trade. Just like if he doesn't want euros. But if people produce something and want Bitcoin, a trade can very well come about.
Re:
"As additional miners produce more Bitcoin every day and have the ongoing costs for it, they also have to exchange. Nobody can finance electricity or a GPU with Bitcoins. You either need people to hold the Bitcoin, and more every day as more Bitcoins are added. If they weren't accepted, Bitcoin would lose its transfer properties and lose trust."
I agree with you, but not completely. As I said, the miner is a service provider. If people no longer attributed any value to Bitcoin and no one could use Bitcoin to pay for the electricity that has to be used, then no one would mine it anymore. In this case, Bitcoin would have failed. However, as long as there are people who attribute value to Bitcoin and want something from it, this is not the case and the network regulates itself accordingly.
A Ponzi scheme would collapse without a constant influx of new members. This is not the case with Bitcoin. If the difficulty adjustment in mining did not exist, I would completely agree with you.
Re (2)
The share price is the result of supply and demand. The company behind it generates profits, that's correct - which is why the share price is far from reflecting the "intrinsic value" of the company. The more demand there is and the more buyers come in, the more my share will be worth.
Re (3)
Well, as explained, people assign a value to things. Also on the basis of characteristics. Just as we ascribe a value to gold that is far higher than its industrial use. And again: Bitcoin doesn't have to be what the white paper says it is. Satoshi has relinquished control and the network continues to evolve. But at a fundamental level, it is still just that: a P2P cash system. I can transact trustlessly without a third party.
Since you don't see a use case in Bitcoin, Bitcoin has no value for you. As described, value is subjective.
For me and other people, it has a real use and therefore also a value. And no, there is no distribution structure. It is completely normal for people to talk about something when they are enthusiastic about it. If I buy a kebab and am enthusiastic about it - and tell others about it, then that doesn't make me a sales representative of the kebab store :)
Re 2 (payments)
Of course Satoshi would benefit if he sold coins. But he also took a much higher risk than I did, for example. It was not foreseeable at the beginning that Bitcoin would become something.
Early gold investors also profited more than late investors. Early NVIDIA, Apple investors and the like did the same.
But the thing is: the newbies' money doesn't go to the earlier investors like in a Ponzi scheme. Instead, the price rises and falls based on supply and demand. There is no one who distributes money centrally.
Re(3)
Don't worry, I've read it. But the fact that he bought the cheapest coins is factually incorrect. He only mined together with others, which is why he did not profit more than these other early participants. And as I said, your assertion that he has enriched himself remains an assertion.
I don't even know what your problem is in this regard. He took an extremely high risk and was rewarded for it. Just like an entrepreneur is rewarded for founding a successful company and holding the most shares. However, you cannot accuse Satoshi of intending to enrich himself, as you cannot prove that he sold coins. And even if he were to sell coins at some point, Bitcoin would still not be a Ponzi scheme because the other points do not apply either. The founder's intention to enrich himself is not even a characteristic of a Ponzi scheme - even if it is of course a conclusion.
Re (4)
Nobody has to buy someone else's "product" at a higher price. After all, enough people have already sold their "product" at a loss. Why? Because Bitcoin is traded openly on the market.
Re (5)
As written, the network adapts dynamically to the number of users and miners. No exponential user growth is required, which is why this does not apply to Bitcoin either.
Thank you again for your contribution. I'm glad that we were able to have a constructive discussion at eye level after all - even if the topic is getting on my nerves by now😂 but you have to get through it. At least now people here can form their own opinions
•
33
•@stefan_21 Hello Stefan, I'm sorry that the topic is getting on your nerves. It happens when you have to deal with it and, I have the feeling, you have to bend a lot for your argumentation. I think you're going sideways anyway. It was important to me whether the actual system was a Ponzi scheme, that was my task.
Whether you have now found a user case, which I still doubt, does not detract from that.
Regarding your first point: The only thing that is important for the assessment of a pyramid scheme is whether there is a real product. The fact that the next levels have come up with a new function with their inherently worthless transfer units makes it at best an initial pyramid scheme that the users have modified.
The point about miners is also slightly wrong. For the western world, the electricity price for mining is already higher than the trading price of Bitcoin. This is where the idea of making a profit in the long term by holding (aka finding an exchange partner) comes into play again. This is exactly where I say the actual purpose of Bitcoin that was propagated has failed or was a failure from the outset. That this is their problem, of course. Anyone who gets bounced in a scheme is to blame themselves. No question about it.
On your second point: slightly wrong. But that's not the point. In fact, a traded company share is a product. A product that can create value. This is not the case with Bitcoin, especially since you repeatedly fail to explain how Bitcoin creates value. If you don't address the points at all, we're just passing the ball back and forth. And yes, an MLM and pyramid scheme thrives on the lower levels getting excited and selling the product. Maybe you should read up on a pyramid scheme before you try to use evidence for a pyramid scheme/MLM as a counter-argument. As usual, this is also the case with the great articles and fails to recognize what a pyramid scheme actually is. You are the distribution partner of all those who hold cheap bitcoins and make yourself the beadle. Just like in any Ponzi scheme. You can call that enthusiasm if you like...
Thirdly, in a Ponzi scheme, value is also attributed to a worthless product.
Secondly: Irrelevant and wrong. The first exchange rate on the first trading platforms was 0.08 cents per Bitcoin. The first million were actually already through in 2009. So Satoshi's maximum risk was 80000 euros. What a risk against today's valuation of over 60 billion. Don't you feel funny yourself when you make statements like that? And enriching the founder is not a characteristic of a Ponzi scheme. Ok, interesting opinion on your part.
Regarding (5) For the assessment of Ponzi scheme yes/no, what happens today is completely irrelevant.
Best regards
Harald
Whether you have now found a user case, which I still doubt, does not detract from that.
Regarding your first point: The only thing that is important for the assessment of a pyramid scheme is whether there is a real product. The fact that the next levels have come up with a new function with their inherently worthless transfer units makes it at best an initial pyramid scheme that the users have modified.
The point about miners is also slightly wrong. For the western world, the electricity price for mining is already higher than the trading price of Bitcoin. This is where the idea of making a profit in the long term by holding (aka finding an exchange partner) comes into play again. This is exactly where I say the actual purpose of Bitcoin that was propagated has failed or was a failure from the outset. That this is their problem, of course. Anyone who gets bounced in a scheme is to blame themselves. No question about it.
On your second point: slightly wrong. But that's not the point. In fact, a traded company share is a product. A product that can create value. This is not the case with Bitcoin, especially since you repeatedly fail to explain how Bitcoin creates value. If you don't address the points at all, we're just passing the ball back and forth. And yes, an MLM and pyramid scheme thrives on the lower levels getting excited and selling the product. Maybe you should read up on a pyramid scheme before you try to use evidence for a pyramid scheme/MLM as a counter-argument. As usual, this is also the case with the great articles and fails to recognize what a pyramid scheme actually is. You are the distribution partner of all those who hold cheap bitcoins and make yourself the beadle. Just like in any Ponzi scheme. You can call that enthusiasm if you like...
Thirdly, in a Ponzi scheme, value is also attributed to a worthless product.
Secondly: Irrelevant and wrong. The first exchange rate on the first trading platforms was 0.08 cents per Bitcoin. The first million were actually already through in 2009. So Satoshi's maximum risk was 80000 euros. What a risk against today's valuation of over 60 billion. Don't you feel funny yourself when you make statements like that? And enriching the founder is not a characteristic of a Ponzi scheme. Ok, interesting opinion on your part.
Regarding (5) For the assessment of Ponzi scheme yes/no, what happens today is completely irrelevant.
Best regards
Harald
••
@Madhatter5566 Well, I put every characteristic of a Ponzi scheme on Bitcoin in the post and then argued accordingly why that doesn't fit. I don't know where I would go sideways.
The actual system, see my post, is not a Ponzi scheme because it doesn't fulfill the core elements or the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme.
Now people here have two opinions and can decide for themselves what they think. It's clear that you and I are no longer on the same page on this topic. If you like, I can address your other points later, but unfortunately I don't have time now.
Regards zurück🙋♂️
The actual system, see my post, is not a Ponzi scheme because it doesn't fulfill the core elements or the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme.
Now people here have two opinions and can decide for themselves what they think. It's clear that you and I are no longer on the same page on this topic. If you like, I can address your other points later, but unfortunately I don't have time now.
Regards zurück🙋♂️
•
11
•@stefan_21 Well... if you write it's not one because you're just enthusiastic and advertise it, you've just done the exact opposite. You have proven that Bitcoin fulfills a core aspect of the Ponzi scheme. I just wanted to point out that your counterargument fits the scheme perfectly. And yes, I also think 80,000 euros max is an enormous risk for 1 million Bitcoin. That's almost a whole Bitcoin today. I tremble at this willingness to take risks. But you're right, I think everything has been said for now. It's also quite interesting to think about it and formulate your thoughts.
••
@Madhatter5566 There is a big difference between bringing people closer to a topic out of enthusiasm and trying to push something on people because you profit from it yourself through commissions or similar :)
•
44
•@stefan_21 Won't you profit if you sell your bitcoins for more money at some point?
Again: Since it is only a transfer unit, you have to sell the Bitcoin at some point. Or hope that it becomes a global currency. But then you also exchange it for something else at some point. A coffee, for example. If you simply keep the Bitcoin now, you won't get anything out of it.
My point was that all the crypto enthusiasts are just fulfilling a point in the Ponzi scheme with their enthusiasm. MLM people are also always very enthusiastic when they want to sell you something.
Again: Since it is only a transfer unit, you have to sell the Bitcoin at some point. Or hope that it becomes a global currency. But then you also exchange it for something else at some point. A coffee, for example. If you simply keep the Bitcoin now, you won't get anything out of it.
My point was that all the crypto enthusiasts are just fulfilling a point in the Ponzi scheme with their enthusiasm. MLM people are also always very enthusiastic when they want to sell you something.
••
@Madhatter5566 Does the Gold Bug profit from presenting gold as better money and then selling it later at a higher price? Yes.
Does he profit because he has explained the advantages of gold? No.
I don't have to do anything at first.
It's my individual decision whether I buy, sell or hold Bitcoin.
I don't have to hope/wait for it to become a global currency either. It's enough if I find another trading partner who wants Bitcoin. I don't care what they do with it. That is his individual decision.
Does he profit because he has explained the advantages of gold? No.
I don't have to do anything at first.
It's my individual decision whether I buy, sell or hold Bitcoin.
I don't have to hope/wait for it to become a global currency either. It's enough if I find another trading partner who wants Bitcoin. I don't care what they do with it. That is his individual decision.
•
11
•@stefan_21 Gold has an intrinsic value and a use. Precious metal, jewelry. Industry. In its function and given its non-artificial rarity, the price is perfectly OK and actually only rises with inflation. Otherwise gold would have to be somewhere else. What's more, the inventor of gold who pocketed all the gold beforehand is still missing here. Apples and oranges.
Again, and I honestly don't know why you're being so evasive: will you profit if you exchange Bitcoin for a currency again at some point? That's a simple yes/no question where you don't actually have to bend...
The trading partner who takes Bitcoin off your hands. Correct! The money doesn't magically appear. That means you need someone to buy it from you. So why do you deny that you have to look for a subsequent user?
Best regards
Harald
Again, and I honestly don't know why you're being so evasive: will you profit if you exchange Bitcoin for a currency again at some point? That's a simple yes/no question where you don't actually have to bend...
The trading partner who takes Bitcoin off your hands. Correct! The money doesn't magically appear. That means you need someone to buy it from you. So why do you deny that you have to look for a subsequent user?
Best regards
Harald
••
@Madhatter5566 However, the "subsequent user" does not have to be a new person that you have to acquire, otherwise Bitcoin will collapse. If you want to spend Bitcoin, you have to find someone who wants it. It's the same with euros, by the way.
You can take my first two sentences as an answer to your question. I used gold as an example because it would be 1:1 the same.
But you can also apply that to any share
You can take my first two sentences as an answer to your question. I used gold as an example because it would be 1:1 the same.
But you can also apply that to any share
•
11
•@stefan_21 Nope. I answered you what the difference is. You can't equate a transfer unit that doesn't generate value with a company share or a rare metal.
Your trading partner is the new user of the product. Whether he is recruited from the level or is new is irrelevant when valuing snow.
Your trading partner is the new user of the product. Whether he is recruited from the level or is new is irrelevant when valuing snow.
••