I see.
You actually have no background in economy.
So you don’t even understand what I’m talking about.
Because “supposed to” actually has a very specific meaning.
I suggest you learn about economics before trying to discuss any topic related to it.
The opposite : there is no objective value, only relative value.
The market only shows how people seem to value a good, on average, at a given place and time.
Sure dude, keep making personal attacks.
I gave facts and you give insults. Nice way to show you can’t bear a serious discussion.
Yes it is. Just because you accept to have your wage divided by 10 arbitrarily, does not mean that is what most people accept. Does not mean that it is acceptable for the society.
None of this : it’s because they are created by the way the society works.
You’re assuming the demand is decreasing ; it’s not. The automation is not helping either in that case.
The human activity is production. That’s economy_101 .
Someone who does box can’t stop making box unless he stops living. You’re actually suggesting that people stop living. No wonder you don’t mind promoting a ponzi.
No I don’t, I have a background in computer science.
Yeah, is this discussion now reduced to economics semantics I don’t get right. Was it really so hard to read and interpret what the meaning is of what I actually wrote?
Everything you have described about how Bitcoin works is just factually wrong. It’s not an insult, it’s a fact.
Again, you are using the current volatility of Bitcoin as an argument of why it can never be money for everyday use because the unit of account is not stable. I agree that this is currently the case but I assume that this will change in the future where it will be only slightly deflationary.
I assume no such thing. I said where is the additional production coming from. Your example had 10 boxes and then suddenly 20. That’s an increase in supply, not a decrease in demand.
You make less and less sense. Maybe change the batteries or something.
I’m still hoping you have suddenly something interesting to say that makes the discussion worthwhile. So far nothing.
Depends on what you are talking about.
There is “economics” as a way of making money, and “economics” as a way of understanding the circulation of goods and services.
The first one is “accounting tricks” science and they are paid the most.
Economics (the second part) is too important to be left to the banks so they are paid the least.
It requires mathematics, logic, social, psychology, political geography knowledge.
And yes, many theorems are demonstrated under invalid assumptions : infinite resource, perfect match on value and price, instant effect, all the economical agents know the whole system, etc. But all models are wrong, some are more useful than others. Most economical papers actually expose those invalid assumptions, they are not trying to fool anyone.
On the opposite of “hard sciences”, social sciences can’t have the luxury of having easy-to-reproduce experiments to validate their hypothesis. They are still required to make choices that impact everybody, starting with “how do we distribute the value that is generated by the society ?” and “What can we use that amount of money on in order to improve society the most ?” (Those are really two distinct questions).
I agree though that applied economy may try to force reality to match the theorem axioms in order to (theoretically) obtain the theorem result, which may … or may not… be an effective way to apply science. “If everybody has 1 leg then we can increase A by reducing B” - "ok then let’s cut people’s legs "
The English language is a Ponzi scheme. If they ever can’t get more people to learn it, then it will become worthless.
Food is a Ponzi scheme. It is only worth a lot because people keep buying it. If the demand were to dry up, so would its high price.
Fiat currency is a Ponzi scheme. If governments stopped charging taxes, there wouldn’t be nearly so much demand for it.
Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. If the nerds aren’t able to transition the major activity from “mining” and “speculative acquisition” into actually “using” then it is just a silly piece of software.
That should cover it, I think.
Maybe thermodynamics isn’t a Ponzi scheme, but there is something Ponzi-like about entropy ALWAYS increasing. Are we sure that is sustainable long-term?
It’s already being used. The retailer I send the BTC to may exchange it for cash immediately and pay the crypto exchange a small fee for this service. In the example the crypto was used for privacy where the retailer and customer were happy to pay a fee to the crypto exchange, the customer pays the BTC buying fee, and the retailer pays the BTC selling fee to transfer it back to fiat, the last few BTC network fees on my personal £50 to £60 transactions were something like £0.15p worth of BTC.
Now, the current BTC value accounts for this as there are a considerable amount of people using BTC in this way, also they wont ever be affected by the fluctuations in the value of BTC because they are able to change it back to cash quickly. Lets say the value of the transaction was £50 If the BTC price is low then they can still get the same £50 value by requesting slightly more BTC.
Below is a great website which can help people get an idea of what’s going on, The page I linked shows you some BTC recent transactions and as you can see there lots happening every second. Many of these transactions will include buy and sell fees because they have recently brought or sold the BTC which crypto exchanges earn good money from.
So can we stop this ponzi scheme nonsense this clearly isn’t one, since no ponzi scheme would ever be published online so that the entire world can access it.
Censorship takes many form.
You can hide the information, you can disguise it, you can drown it under useless information.
You can use people who genuinely believe in it spread the propaganda.
So yes, some part of a ponzi scheme can be published online.
Ponzis can only be investments. So in your list only BTC is good.
What’s more, requiring investment is not the issue(because investments … require investments), so your list makes no sense anyhow. The issue is, when the return is the investment of the next people (greater fool)
Seems like the people who liked your post also have no idea what an ponzi actually is.
Then they claim I am the one who can’t differentiate what is and what is not one… the irony. There is no more ignorant people than the fool who is proud of his ignorance.
Yes correct, A person would start one by purchasing the names and addresses of people who have shown interest in certain types of marketing, the names and addresses are usually people who reply to junk letter prize draws and such.
A Letter is sent to all the people on the purchased list and they are given instructions to send a £1.00 coin to the only name on the list and then add their name to the top of the list and send it to another group of people, those people will repeat the process and all names on the list will slowly receive a £1.00 from people who forward the list.
This is what a ponzi scheme is, nothing like BTC.
When you buy £1.00 worth of BTC you actually get that and you can put it in your own wallet and use it at a later time, with a ponzi scheme you pay your money and get info on how to get the same money you paid from other people.
You said other people pay for me which makes BTC services cheap, this is false and would make systems like Visa, Amex and mastercard ponzi schemes since investors paid for the payment system infrastructure and any other associated cost related to making debit/credit cards possible.
BTC miners do what they do because they believed the cost of generating BTC would be cheaper than the BTC generated, It is a solid business plan because they are aware many people use BTC as a currency and exchanges would buy their BTC to sell to such people. This is a business scheme where everyone understands. There is no way massive reputable retail companies in the UK and US would consider employing a ponzi scheme for their payment system, It is 100% fact that companies like Starbucks and Costa are seriously considering accepting BTC.
So again can we finish with this ponzi scheme chat?
Bitcoin could potentially be called a “pyramid” - because the early adopters had a way easier time than later arrivals. One of the fundamental characteristics of a “Ponzi” is that there is a central con-man using a fake set of books showing imaginary gains. He then gets in trouble because it is difficult to manage the cash flow of the people trying to withdraw huge gains that don’t exist. I don’t see a clear parallel between Bitcoin and Charles Ponzi. Although, I think, Charles would have been very impressed with Bitcoin.
All this does is water down this definitions that are supposed to describe actual fraud, with the effect that if people actually encounter a real fraud they can’t recognize it anymore.
It’s pretty obvious to any intellectually honest person that Bitcoin is neither a ponzi nor a pyramid scheme. They just use this accusations in a cheap attempt to discredit it without actually having to do the work and analyze the actual system and what it does.
I can understand that Bitcoin causes a certain knee jerk reaction with economists, because they got told for years now that only the credit based money we have today is real money and has the properties money actually requires, which are conveniently all the properties of credit based money. And now suddenly we have this new thing that doesn’t fit into any of their models, so clearly it can’t be money and if it claims to be it has to be a scam.
In reality we simply discovered a new technology which let us create a new form of money with different properties than what we had until now. If that is of any use we don’t know. I think it is, but I’m just guessing. Even the economists are guessing , because they don’t seem to have the tools to analyze this properly, (with the exception of the Austrian school maybe) so they are completely clueless too.
In the end the market will decide if it has any value. The longer it survives the more confident people will be that it works and isn’t just a fad. The more the fiat system fails, the more demand will be for an alternative.
Bitcoin isn’t actually a revolution, it’s not attacking the current system. It simply offers everyone a peaceful exit out of the current system governed by rulers into a new system governed by clear unchangeable rules, that are the same for everyone and is completely independent.
Well, only when the scam is centralized.
If you can make a decentralized scam, the “central” does not need to work - believers actually do the work for him.
That’s why it’s much more efficient on internet, because with a small amount of techno BS you can make the masses learn and love your dogma.
Ponzi schemes don’t need to be started as a conscious fraud. Many times people are just ignorant of the facts, and believe “as soon as my wallet goes up it’s good”.
You seem to have a good idea, and people board on the hype train, and invest. And you think, well there is so much money, if I give back a bit it’s like a loan except I don’t need the administration. You are not luring people yet. Then later you are in the red, you realize how bad things actually are, and you do what you can - it’s already too late.
That is, when there is ONE person in the middle. When there are more, it is even blurrier.
In a pyramid your benefits are only those of the people you recruit. The recruitement is the process that generates money.
It’s a greater fool but the difference with a ponzi, is that in a pyramid the recruiters are in competition and must recruit, while in a ponzi everyone seems to passively benefiting from the system until nobody does.
The investment that brings money in and is required to pay miners is luring investers with high profits from re-selling it. Those profits are the result of more people investing in it, and nothing else because BTC is worse at any function it’s supposed to be used for compared to other existing products. It’s a ponzi in that sense.
"