Re: HONEST BITCOIN: DOUBLE YOUR BITCOINS. YES IT IS A PONZI.
EVERYONE SAVE YOUR COINS IF YOU DONT WANNA LOSE
and don't go outside your house if you don't wanna die 
kkkkk
outside the home has police and if he dies the person who killed him will be held accountable in court, but if it is stolen your bitcoins no one will blame the thief. kkkk
Save your bitcoins
I find it slightly disturbing that your username is slow death...
I already answered your puerile questions. Either you are intentionally trolling, which makes you dishonest, or you suffer some sort of autistic-spectrum-disorder which prevents you from engaging at the required level of intellectual honesty needed to properly evaluate the argument and accept your defeat. Either way you're still the one being dishonest.
As long as there is a chance that the operator will knowingly take money from participants who might not properly understand the system then those who operate the scheme and those who willingly accept a share of the money from this inherently flawed process are doing so dishonestly when they claim it is an 'honest' ponzi.
If you cannot ensure 100% fully-informed participation, which you cannot as already proven, then you cannot claim your ponzi to be an honest system because it may contain funds from people who would otherwise not have sent them, had they actually fully understood what the scheme was.
If you cannot ensure 100% fully-informed participation, which you cannot as already proven, then you cannot claim your ponzi to be an honest system because it may contain funds from people who would otherwise not have sent them, had they actually fully understood what the scheme was.
This means that money which would otherwise not have been deposited becomes part of the system and is taken by the operator and those participants who also know that their share could be coming from somebody who would otherwise not consent.
Fully informed consent is the ultimate basis for secular morality, after all, 'Honestbit'. So one cannot claim a system to be 'honest' if it transgresses the boundaries of fully informed consent.
Fully informed consent is the ultimate basis for secular morality, after all, 'Honestbit'. So one cannot claim a system to be 'honest' if it transgresses the boundaries of fully informed consent.
This is your opinion. Dooglus has another one. So, I know that I am trying to make it as easy as possible for all to understand the risks, therefore I am being honest. If you keep insisting that I'm not being clear, either elaborate on where I could clarity more or you're the troll here.