>Historically the site has taken the stance of moderating content as little as possible and really I do not see that changing.


I guess I'm still not making myself clear: There's a difference between not moderating content & enabling/prompoting/fascilitating it.

Letting Neo-Nazis march down our street: Hands-off approach; freedoms.

Building a clubhouse for Neo-Nazis in our town hall & promoting it in our town newspaper? Fucked up, and makes our town look retarded.

Apologies, Mr. Godwin, but when obvious shit like "promoting ponzis makes Bitcoin look bad" needs to be explained, I'm running out of absurdities to reach for.

>I'd assume theymos wouldn't want the site shut down and/or face other legal issues.
Perhaps, but AFAIK promoting unregistered securities & unlicensed online gambling is not strictly legal in US either, is it?

>Please point out where the forum is being overrun with CP, drugs and guns.
My point precisely. The forum is not being overrun by CP, drug & gun sales, without subforums being created for any of that. Because against forum policy.

Bitcointalk is not about providing a platform for degenerate gamblers, it's about discussion and promotion of Bitcoin. Having Bitcoin associated with ponzis is bad for Bitcoin. Promoting ponzis on Bitcointalk is bad for Bitcoin. This is prima facie shit, the fact that I need to explain this is, frankly, worrying.

This forum is not powerless at policing its policies. Millions of dollars were donated to Bitcointalk (not millions at the time of donation, but thanks to BTC price increase). If you feel that's not enough to pay for forum moderation, I guess I got nothing.

Just how helpless are we? I don't see drugs or CP being sold on this forum, why is that?
Going by your logic, we should create "CP" & "Drugs & Guns" sections, to keep the forum from being overrun.

>I am not an expert in this, so I can't comment.

No, you're not an expert, Muhammed Zakir, which never stopped you from spamming before. Because your shit sig ad makes you a few satoshi each time you post.

If you didn't have mod dick in your mouth, all the time, you would have been banned a long time ago. But mod dick needs sucking, so you're still here.

I'll now politely ask you to stop posting in this thread. Thanks.

^To what end? If ponzis are gambling, why subjugate them to a subforum? AFAIK, dice games don't have a special sub, neither does poker.

And I'm still at a loss re. legacy finance forums not having sections dedicated to promotion of ponzis, or ones selling warez. Could you opine on the matter?

^
No, shorena, you're mistaken, I've never suggested that ponzis are scams.
The nice story about the crackdealer on my stoop describes a fair and decent crack dealer. The kid don't scam, the crackwhores really do give head, so they're providing a service.

My only objection is to all this fairness happening right on my stoop--crackwhores are not the desired demographic of my financial firm. It scares the customers away by allowing them to (unsoundly) assume that my investment firm is, in some way, related to selling rock to whores. "If you got nothing to do with crackwhores, why are they sucking the D, glass and otherwise, right in your lobby, why in the world did you set up a shop for them?" my clients ask me.

And there I stand, shorena, blushing. Unable to explain why I set up a section for promoting ponzis in my forum about Bitcoin (which has nothing to do with ponzis).

Finally, I'm not arguing with you, shorena. I'm just explaining the obvious: that having a gambling section on Bitcointalk is embarrassing enough, but having two gambling sections? Why, ffs?


Unsure about OP, but I don't want to censor anything. On the contrary, there's nothing fair about ghettoizing fair ponzis. They have a right to compete with other fair gambling games, on a level playing field.

Edited for typos

This is a forum about Bitcoin, the revolutionary currency that's changing the world.
As someone has previously mentioned in this thread, ponzi schemes have been around long before Bitcoin, and Bitcoin has no more to do with them than does fiat.

Which begs the question: How is it that fiat financial forums don't have sections dedicated to gambling and ponzis, but we do? What, exactly, are we suggesting here?

Let me give you an analogy.
Let's say I run an investment firm, and a kid's selling crack to crackwhores on my stoop. When I ask him to move along, you appear & tell me that the kid's running a perfectly legitimate business: crackwhores need crack, and he fills that need. I respond by pointing out that, being an overly concerned with appearances shallow banker type, I feel that rockstahs scoring crack on my stoop may cast a somewhat downmarket tint on my otherwise upscale investment firm, and may play a part in the less-than-stellar coverage given my financial institution by the mainstream press.

I further point out that the kid's free to sell his wares anywhere but on my stoop, because I'm superficial enough to believe that appearances count.

Get it?

> its probably best if you post from your main
Don't worry about it.

>The section is not named ponzis go here for a reason.
What's the reason?


Have we shifted the topic to discussing whether Ponzis are bad? Up until now I assumed that we're in agreement on that? If you wish, I could explain why ponzis are illegal in most of the civilized world.

You've suggested that existance of credit card fraud would mean deletion of the digital goods section.
I've pointed out that no, it wouldn't. It would only mean that we must start a "Credit Card Fraud" section.

Existance of ponzi schemes did not mean the end of the end of the digital goods section. On the contrary, it brought about the *creation of ponzi section*.

See the parallels?

In other words, if BADTHING exists, we should accomodate it by starting a new subforum for it.

As far as separating the good ponzis from the bad ponzis? How about we ban the good and the bad, just like they do everywhere else in the world?

This is a Bitcoin forum, about Bitcoin. A privite forum, not obligated to become a platform for every fucking scam that was ousted from the rest of the world.

No, you got that exactly backwards. I'm saying that starting a "Credit Card Fraud" section on Bitcointalk is a bad idea.

According to "let's have a ponzi section" logic, we *should* start a "credit card fraud" section.
That way, all the credit card fraud will be gone from digital goods.
Rinse & repeat for your other points.

If you don't understand why having a section of Bitcointalk dedicated specifically to credit card fraud may not be wise from PR perspective, I can expand on that.

Are you saying that since we have a section dedicated to promoting ponzis, this somehow prevents bad actors from presenting ponzis as legitimate business?
By that logic, we should start a catchall section called "scamming and fraud," so the crooks could post there, and the rest of the forum would become 1000% legit.
Am I missing something?

^^^
That's what de facto owner means, yeah.

Satoshi left this forum, theymos ended up being the de facto owner. If you have other infos please provide.

Other than Bitcointalk.org having a special section for promoting those ponzis, that is
1. Buy a trusted senior account.
2. Start a ponzi on Bitcointalk.
3. ? ? ?
4. Wonder why Bitcoin gets horrible press.