Stop misrepresenting my posts. Donât be such an ass.
So youâve chosen to prove you are an ass. Good Job.
I donât need to say so, youâve done it your self.
Just keep digging that hole.
Those are not Ponzi schemes but social redistribution everybody is subject to, at least where I live. Tax money that goes to retired people that have achieved age when they can take retirement money.
To call it Ponzi scheme they would have to actually say they dont redistribute those money they take, but hide the fact that everybody is paying for the retirement program with their money. Majority wants actually to have some retirement program, so they do that without people protesting. Of course if the amount of paying people will not change, the people will have retirement program in future.
Its a tax, here you have to work to pay it. More you earn, more you pay this tax, and in future they will give you more money, from the amount they will be able to gather in tax.
Not ideal, but good enough. Everyone can also gather money on its own for future retirement, savings.
Except that the systems will fail at some point, leaving a bunch of people with nothing for their money.
Only when fundamental things will change, people will stop working or being born. Assuming they will still be working in future and being born, nothing fundamental will change.
How many people are in a Bunch?
They donât. Most of it gets eaten away by inflation. Furthemore, that same money invested by the individual would gain more than the government program.
And if these programs are so good, why then are they not voluntary?
Except those are not theoretical.
The theory in relation to this is another story.
Those real life factual actual numbers are only past data which you could or would have done if you did invest.
Turns out my co-worker also mines those with the other man that started Dogecoin in 2013 and so happens to still have the server and systems running it, and,
offered me to mine them with him too,
even if he went to Rome,
and works in tech news 24/7 and gets copyright from his work,
and works in Media with Media pass and all kinds of other civilian things with it.
â
Ponzi Scheme
The US court charged Charles Ponzi for his actions in that scheme or fraud, or conspiracy and so on.
He also didnât have an army like the US Army to protect it,
and,
even if he did work for the Italian Army in WWII for it,
or not,
he didnât protect it with that Army either.
So, while some people claim that the US Dollar or the US government are Ponzi scheme(s), it is not so.
Ponzi Scheme(s) also donât work according to the rule of law,
and neither are they part of that rule of law.
It is in itself a legal definition with cases prosecuted under case law with set rules for punishment depending on negotiation and severity and so on.
It also includes those who make false accusations about it, whether by misinterpretation of threats by amplifying threats with false hopes of either preventing damage which does not exist, could not happen, and so on.
Those same false suggestions presented as potential damage may in fact also be made to divert from other past , present, or , future activity which is instead what damage is required to be prevented, either due to abuse or other related illegal activity which sought protection to be a complete action.
This is actually true or false depending on how someone invests, or to what government program its actually compared to. I think there are different solutions in different countries.
No you could not.
Thatâs why itâs only a more practical set of data than theoretical.
The only theoretical part of it is that itâs data.
They can be, it depends.
Ponzi scheme implies selling a service or product which doesnât exist.
In other words, the data of the crypto-currency would not be mined and have no records of it.
That would be a Ponzi Scheme, to get something in the future that doesnât exist.
Stocks Futures can be Ponzi Scheme, as are speculations which are false.
â
Bre-Xâs gold resource at Busang was a massive fraud. ⌠The salting of crushed core samples with gold constitutes the most elaborate fraud in the history of mining. In 1997, Bre-X collapsed and its shares became worthless in one of the biggest stock scandals in Canadian history, and the biggest mining scandal of all time.
â
Itâs related to Trial Balloons.
However, Trial Balloons have more analysis is them, and, can be done from prototypes, which prototypes can be actual real life operating systems which needs to be modified to be meeting the end-results requirement.
1 prototype or multiple prototypes can be used to generate many products from, if not all a companyâs products and services.
lol, yeah, you can say that.
However, business do have lawyers too.
They need to prove they are not a Ponzi Scheme when prosecuted by law.
If they are wrongly prosecuted, they can claim damage from the court which indicted them for it too!
â
Itâs called attacks and damages against their reputation, which reputation they analyze the value of and bring that value to other courts and appeals courts.
Apple is doing that right now for a few of their cases including patent trolls who would make such claims against them.
In other words, they get patents to interfere against the right of Apple to design products similar, but, have no real income of money related to it.
So, a court in Texas ruled that Apple infringed intellectual property right, which may be true, however, they want the right to be able to get similar patents, even though they have to prove they actually do the research on their own without infringing on the business rights and incomes of the other party that had their intellectual property violated as ruled by the Texas court.
So, Apple is going to an appeal court, but, had to pay $360 million in damages to the other company for it, which made no money from it, which is a lot of money and yes, if their rights to income was interfered by Apple, they would be right.
Itâs like if someone attacked you and you claimed damage from them against them, which damages were caused to you from accusations of Ponzi Scheme, to try to sell things you didnât have and would never have, and so on.
Youâd have to prove you didnât, such as Charles Ponzi was accused of by the FBI and so on.
Once he was found and proven guilty of it, he could no longer meet the demand and his plan failed.
However, in his case, it was not even possible for him to ever get what he sold.
In other words, he would have had to have been more honest and ask for charity or do some other business fund raising to organize a business with enough integrity to meet legal requirements.
Either that or get money from Crypto-Currency or some other work or business, such as for merger or affiliation and so on.
Itâs like partnership of some sort for funding.
Well, if you ever study encryption, you will find that it is a business, and that it is being used for diplomacy, so yes, not only a business, but, also, government work too.
They work from PGP which is from MIT.
Also, there is an anonymous guy from dogecoin which I know who it is cause heâs my co-worker and offers me to mine it with him (not for free).
There are also security issues involved with it, in the sense that, it must meet demand of security.
In other words, if it gets attacked, it needs structure to report and so on.
Also, the other Bitcoin guy maybe Kai from Japan who worked with Bill Gates, who just announced a divorce then too, so, that can be a possibility, or, someone related.
It would fall in the scope of the Trade Secret and values.
â
Mind you, that is a vague reference, since, anyone using Windows is somehow related though, to lesser extent.
If nobody buys gold it can then be a Ponzi scheme, the same in war, when the attacker decide to economically boycott the party they attack in expectance of result.
Attrition and war of attrition also works like that.
You starve the buyer, so that no-one else can buy.
In business, during a Bull or Bear Market, when no one else has money, they also canât buy, and lose their possession as another owner takes over their property for being unable to pay their operating business costs to maintain their property.
Someone forgot to pay their Corporation or Alliance Assets costs and lost it in EVE Online like this.
Of course, itâs not because they didnât have enough money , but, in their case, time and focus was the essence of the problem.
There was no way for them to delegate powers to do it from another source in time for it to function and keep the business operating properly as required.
â
Ponzi scheme is a fraud because of the way it misrepresent what it sells.
Itâs like making false charge for info or a service or a product that doesnât exist, because itâs false.
The reason it doesnât exist is because is falsely represented as existing, while it is a fraud.
There is no way to prove it is true.
In some ways, false accusations against someone is a Ponzi Scheme, even if that person gets accused of Ponzi Scheme, because, if itâs not true, they offer a false service (to society), when they in fact take services and benefit to them, from the source of the service, by trying to credit themselves of it, by making accusations against others that others are responsible for the Ponzi Scheme that they themselves cause.
Itâs like Chauvin trying to blame someone else for his own actions, as if law worked like that.
Well, law does work like that, yes, however, it doesnât mean that the law is right to do that.
In fact, that is not right unless warranted.
Itâs also not right when the conditions in which it is applied as rule of law are not the conditions required for the actions to be of benefit to society.
Itâs also a falsification of report in the way that it present a report of the facts and the truth in ways which are falsified from the truth.
In some ways, itâs related to logic where as fallacies are presented as true but each are false.
No, it is just a technology, business may use encryption but it is a tool, nothing more. Everything after that is â â â â â â â â to be feed to investors.
This is just another example of technology looking for a purpose. Reminiscent of many dot coms and I have been on dozens of software projects where some unneeded technology has been attached to the project like a virus.
Itâs not even a great technology to purpose match because of the gross lack of record keeping. All of these companies are going to be just crushed in court and the IRS.
Yes, it is a technology, however, it is a technology which is used for business, and there, a business.
To say that a business selling encryption as business is not a business is encryption of that business to make it seem as if it was now business by encrypting the business as if it was not business, which requires a mean to decipher that it is a businessâŚ
Additionally , diplomacy used by ambassador using encryption is not a business, it is more diplomatic , even though related to business in the sense that business also does use that for diplomatic reasons.
The fact the ambassador can work for both business , in relation to business, to develop business relation, or, not for business, and, for other diplomatic relation, means that itâs not business, however , it can be.