Hacker News Reader

Comment by shuckles | Hacker News Reader

Isn’t the ponzi designation entirely correct? Nobody gets rich holding USD - it’s a medium of exchange. People get rich holding Bitcoin iff they can generate more future demand. This sounds like stocks, except with equities you also can get rich by claiming your stake of cash flows (ie dividends or buybacks), but there’s nothing of the sort with Bitcoin. What am I missing?

View on HN

No, because a Ponzi scheme is one in which early investors are fraudulently paid "returns" out of the contribution of later investors. This is just speculation or a bubble (which I guess you could call "open Ponzi scheme", but that's a self contradicting term.)

I think pyramid scheme is what he means

It is not a pyramid scheme either. Nobody promises "payments or services for enrolling others into the scheme".

Tulip Bulb then

No, not that either. Anyone can plant more Tulips. There's no way to dilute the supply of Bitcoin.

I mean, miners could agree on a different set of rules to apply and increase the supply.

It's harder/unlikely, but its not "no way to".

You're describing a fork. Bitcoin has already been forked uncountable times. They don't carry over the users, so they don't carry over the network effects either.

Planting tulips isn't an instant thing. It takes a season to grow. Not that different from mining? And not really part of the tulip thing; that was all about the bubble.

I see, but if we are responding to NTT’s accusation, is that addressing the substance of the argument? Seems like there is a small change in terminology and everything else holds.

You are missing the definition of Ponzi scheme, which Bitcoin simply does not fit. Satoshi was not luring anyone into Bitcoin by promising gains.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com