Proclaiming that your intellectual opponents are ignorant without pointing out where they're wrong is a pretty common response from bitcoin maximalists these days.
A part from the fact the he cited eth, that makes him not Bitcoin maximalist: he’s right.
Also because the arguments are always the same and in this same thread we have one of the most voted comments saying that the idea behind Bitcoin is “stupid”. Just that.
But it’s fine since we’re in HN, isn’t it?
As I said the arguments are always the same, and saying that he’s a maximalist (without any prove) just makes you classic people that won’t change idea.
So why even bothering, man.
Maybe the post was edited? I don't see the clear explanation.
Here's an exercise, I'll replace a bunch of words with their opposites, and present it as my counter argument:
"This is a great argument, and not clickbait. Obvious enough to anyone who actually understands how bitcoin, or eth work, it fits the definition of a ponzi scheme."
Are you convinced? Do you know where you got it wrong?
Cryptocurrency in general is not an investment promising profits, but a tool for payments (or a smart contract platform, whatever).
A Ponzi scheme is a fraud which takes money from investors, pretends to invest it in something profit-generating, but only pays out profits to earlier investors using funds from more recent investors.
Cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, ethereum or monero are nothing like a ponzi scheme. There's zero pretence that it would be a profitable investment. Who would even be paying you these ponzi-dividends?
It's utterly stupid to make me spell this out, presumably anyone making the claim that "The entire crypto ecosystem is a ponzi" should know what those things are.
You're still not convincing me here. But you should be rewarded for making an argument I guess -- your snark aside.
I'll use the wikipedia definition for a ponzi scheme because it's simpler.
> A Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒnzi/, Italian: [ˈpontsi]) is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors.
It doesn't say dividends. It just says "pays profits". Those profits in dollars could be realized by the early investors selling their stake. No dividends needed -- though some would say "mining" is a dividend producing activity -- I'm not sure I would though.
Cryptocurrencies generally don't pay profits. Ethereum sort of does if you're staking, but that's out of reach for "normal people".
You always have exactly the same amount of cryptocurrency, with no serious claim made by the authors as to why you should profit by merely owning some.
(Of course, it's a bit silly of me to use "cryptocurrency" as a general term when there certainly are cryptocurrencies which are ponzis. But I'm referring to the "serious" projects like Bitcoin, Ethereum or Monero)
Also, you forgot a crucial bit from the wikipedia page:
> Named after Italian businessman Charles Ponzi, the scheme leads victims to believe that profits are coming from legitimate business activity (e.g., product sales or successful investments), and they remain unaware that other investors are the source of funds.
> leads victims to believe that profits are coming from legitimate business activity
I don't think this is true of any of the big cryptocurrencies.
> and they remain unaware that other investors are the source of funds
I don't believe I did. And he doesn't. The article is pretty clear in it's thesis and argumentation. Saying "you don't understand something" is not an argument.
If you know what a "car" and a "bicycle" are, it's obvious that a bicycle is not a car. It would be silly for anyone to waste their time by explaining you the difference between the two.
Same applies here.
> Saying "you don't understand something" is not an argument
It's a statement of fact.
Edit: I can't reply below due to HN ratelimits, so I will do so here.
>Saying "it's not" is not an argument, particularly when a good argument has just been laid out in front of you.
It's pretty clear that you haven't actually read the article we're discussing, it does not at any point attempt to explain how cryptocurrencies would meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
The part which comes closest is this, but you'd be delusional to call it a "good argument"
>There's already substantial evidence that the crypto space is infested with frauds, scams and ponzis. But I would go further. The entire crypto ecosystem is ponzi. The whole thing depends on ever more people parting with their savings and wages to pay the lunatic returns promised by the platforms to people who can provide the liquidity they so desperately need.
Hi, welcome to HN. BTW there are a lot of smart people here who have dug into the mechanics of crypto extensively.
I look forward to a good argument debunking the ponzi scheme thesis. Saying "it's not" is not an argument, particularly when a good argument has just been laid out in front of you.
Edited to add:
> It's pretty clear that you haven't actually read the article we're discussing, it does not at any point attempt to explain how cryptocurrencies would meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
Yeah that's not a good argument either. Since I did actually read it -- and it does.
