Quote from: imsaguy on July 10, 2012, 05:33:04 AM

Quote from: bitcoinBull on July 10, 2012, 04:40:50 AM

Quote from: imsaguy on July 10, 2012, 03:16:26 AM

There really is no reasoning with you because you flat out see it as a ponzi because of one or many of the following assumptions/premises, even though they may/may not by faulty:

No business can earn 7%+ a week over the course of a long term.
No business would borrow at 7% a week over the course of the long term.
No business would continue to borrow at 7% over the course of the long term, instead opting to use their own funds/profits.
Pirate has an insatiable appetite for more coins.
Pirate won't reveal his day to day business operations.

Have I missed something?

That's a pretty comprehensive list, I think you covered all the bases.

Ok, now that we established the reasons you think its a ponzi, it is much simpler to talk about. Saying 'ponzi ponzi ponzi' doesn't make it one and its hard to rebut.

Now please explain how those items make pirate a ponzi. Don't pull in other stuff, use those items. You said it was a comprehensive list.

Right off the bat, I see items 1,2, and 5 as being patently false and not ponzi behavior, which leaves only 3 and 4, both of which need citation/documentation.

1. "patently false because i can imagine a scenario of 7% profits per week". Why not 10% per week, or 33% per week?
2 & 3. You said it
4. "pirate doesnt always accept new accounts." it makes sense to limit short-term growth, since it increases overall time and therefore overall size.
5. he said it himself. he wont and i dont blame him.

A large percent value for 1 (7%/wk is large) combined with 5 is a ponzi every time. Is there one historical example which turned out to be genuine profits? Because there are countless examples of ponzis. Which makes the claim of non-ponzi an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.