I didn't say you were a Ponzi scheme. I said that your "so far we are still allowing withdrawals" argument is typical of Ponzi schemes.
I know what a Ponzi scheme is, thanks.
I guess so. But at what point? I'm horrible at predicting the future. I thought dicebitco.in and dice.ninja were the good guys, and that PRC wouldn't last 6 months. I was wrong in all 3 cases...
Proof of solvency proves solvency. It's in the name. It doesn't prove anything about trustworthiness. It simply proves that they still have the coins they were entrusted with. Isn't that worth proving? Isn't it alarming if someone who you trusted to look after coins for you refuses to show you that they still have them and makes up weak excuses about why they can't?
How dooglus rolls:
1. "hey! I am not saying they are not trustworty!!"
2. "hey! I am not saying they are a ponzi!!!"
3. "hey! I am not saying they would scam!!!"
4. "hey! I am always wrong at predicting future but I wouldn't give it up, why should I?"
5. "hey! I don't think they will run away with funds but they still could??"
..."I will still leave a negative trust here, eventhough I don't think they are not trustworthy"
http://i.imgur.com/9BvvhNK.png