Quote from: unk on April 14, 2013, 05:16:55 PM

the problem is that you're responding to a substantive criticism by identifying a formal distinction. to most people making the claim, it doesn't matter whether bitcoin is literally a 'ponzi scheme' in some platonic, classical sense. some even recognize the distinction and point out that it operates as if it were a ponzi scheme, albeit through a new and interesting process. for example, eric posner's article at slate does this: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/04/bitcoin_is_a_ponzi_scheme_the_internet_currency_will_collapse.html

the bitcoin technology is itself not a ponzi scheme or any kind of scam. the promotion of bitcoins with language like 'it always goes up' or 'get in before it's too late' is, as posner argues, essentially indistinguishable from a ponzi scheme even if there is no organized head and even if the beneficiaries are distributed. the speculatory value of a bitcoin depends on the hope of selling it to others at a profit even though the coin itself, unlike a stock or bond, never generates its own productive return or dividend. (for the record, yes, gold is the same way. it doesn't matter.)

Your argument is extremely weak. Basically, you are saying that it is valid for someone to claim that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme if they are uninformed.

The same claims of being a Ponzi scheme could be applied even more accurately to commodity and currency trading. Bitcoin is not and cannot be a Ponzi scheme. Only uninformed people can argue otherwise.

BTW, "in some platonic, classical sense" is funny because the term "Ponzi" does not come from the ancient Greeks. It was invented in the early 20th century, named after a guy named Ponzi. I think "pedantic" is the term you were looking for.