On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 11:40:24 PM UTC-6, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 10:13:46 PM UTC, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > On 11/15/2022 11:31 PM, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > With the collapse of crypto exchange FTX, some
> > > investors, seeking a better balance between risk
> > > and security, are pulling their money out of crypto
> > > currencies and switching to Dutch tulip bulbs.
> > >
> > > Peter Wezeman
> > > anti-social Darwinist
> > "FBI is planning to EXTRADITE Sam Bankman-Fried from Bahamas - as crypto
> > contagion from FTX collapse spreads to $20BN BlockFi that is preparing
> > for bankruptcy"
> >
> > https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11433541/FBI-planning-extradite-SBF-crypto-contagion-FTX-collapse-spreads-20BN-BlockFi.html
> >
> > Looks like the whole crypto thing is going down. Looks like a Ponzi
> > scheme to me.
> >
> > Lynn
> I apologise for something that can't be distinguished from hindsight, but it always looked like a Ponzi scheme (or at least a bubble) to me. Shares and unit trusts are actually funding companies to do stuff. Banks are in practice doing the same thing (which is why Bank failures tend to produce recessions). Crypto was sold on nothing except that it would be worth more because more people would want to buy it. That's a bubble, and the problem with bubbles is that, as an example of exponential growth, most people are invested in them when they fail, which means that the chances of you being one of the small number of investors who made money and got out with it are not good.
>
I haven't followed cryptocurrency much but I did not think that the anonymous creator of Bitcoin
got out with a lot of money personally, unless it was through some kind of syndicate.

> ObSF - Point of Dreams, in Scott's Astreiant series, has elements loosely based on the Tulip craze

Damon Knight's 1963 short story _The Big Pat Boom_ involves space aliens who are willing to
pay high prices for a formerly undervalued commodity on Earth. Hilarity ensues.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

peterwezeman@hotmail.com <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 11:40:24 PM UTC-6, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
>> I apologise for something that can't be distinguished from
>>hindsight, but it always looked like a Ponzi scheme (or at least a
>>bubble) to me. Shares and unit trusts are actually funding companies
>>to do stuff. Banks are in practice doing the same thing (which is
>>why Bank failures tend to produce recessions). Crypto was sold on
>>nothing except that it would be worth more because more people would
>>want to buy it. That's a bubble, and the problem with bubbles is
>>that, as an example of exponential growth, most people are invested
>>in them when they fail, which means that the chances of you being
>>one of the small number of investors who made money and got out with
>>it are not good.
>
>I haven't followed cryptocurrency much but I did not think that the
>anonymous creator of Bitcoin got out with a lot of money personally,
>unless it was through some kind of syndicate.

"Satoshi Nakamoto"'s ~1.1 Million bitcoin wallet isn't "a lot"? And
that's assuming he only had ONE wallet which is possible but in no way
guaranteed.

That's over 5% of the TOTAL number of Bitcoins that can ever be
produced - the theoretical supply is 21M bitcoins, of which
~18.9M has currently been "mined".

Even at todays much reduced bitcoin values that wallet corresponds to
more than 18 billion US$ and an older "crypto riches" lists from
Bloomberg lists Satoshi's known wallet at 45.8 billion US$ (Jan
2022)).

Not that a hoard that big it could actually be sold in any kind of
reasonable time-frame without crashing values even if that wallet is
accessible which is questionable. But if the wallet could be accessed
there would be many ways to get vast amount of money out of that.

There's been no movement to/from this wallet since 17 May 2010 (public
ledger remember) and most people think the original inventor is likely
long since dead and all access was lost with his death but it could
also been held fot later cash-out, a number of much smaller
(100-3000B) wallets has cashed-out in the 2020-2022 after being
dormant since sometime in 2010.

These are obviously far smaller than the "known to be owned by
Satoshi" wallet but they're certainly from early miners which very
much included Satoshi. The first coin mined was by Satoshi and went
into the BIG wallet, but it wasn't uncommon to have multiple wallets
because, well, public ledger. And the IRS...

No one knows if Satoshi split his mined coins or not so the real
answer is that we don't KNOW if Satoshi made loads of money out of
this or not, even assuming the big wallet is forever unreachable. If
he did die in late 2010 or 2011 he definitely didn't make much money
for example.

There's people claiming to BE Satoshi with suitably wacky
explainations for why they can't access the wallet, and why they can't
provide any other proof or even hints. IMHO none of them are even
remtely credible.

In more general terms most (all?) cryptocurrencies are either very
easy to mine initially (before they get popular) and/or assigns a
small percentage of the total supply ever! to the original person or
group. Often both, to reward the creator and then reward people for
getting in early to boost the currency.

That does sound a lot like a Ponzi schema, doesn't it?

IMHO Cryptocurrencies do NOT exactly match the normal definition of a
Ponzi-scheme, but I don't think it would be wrong to describe them as
"Ponzi-like". Or even very Ponzi-like. Or even "wannabe Ponzi"
(as in "technical limitation forced a slightly different approach").

On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 14:02:37 -0000 (UTC), Torbjorn Lindgren
<tl@none.invalid> wrote:

>peterwezeman@hotmail.com <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 11:40:24 PM UTC-6, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
>>> I apologise for something that can't be distinguished from
>>>hindsight, but it always looked like a Ponzi scheme (or at least a
>>>bubble) to me. Shares and unit trusts are actually funding companies
>>>to do stuff. Banks are in practice doing the same thing (which is
>>>why Bank failures tend to produce recessions). Crypto was sold on
>>>nothing except that it would be worth more because more people would
>>>want to buy it. That's a bubble, and the problem with bubbles is
>>>that, as an example of exponential growth, most people are invested
>>>in them when they fail, which means that the chances of you being
>>>one of the small number of investors who made money and got out with
>>>it are not good.
>>
>>I haven't followed cryptocurrency much but I did not think that the
>>anonymous creator of Bitcoin got out with a lot of money personally,
>>unless it was through some kind of syndicate.
>
>"Satoshi Nakamoto"'s ~1.1 Million bitcoin wallet isn't "a lot"? And
>that's assuming he only had ONE wallet which is possible but in no way
>guaranteed.
>
>That's over 5% of the TOTAL number of Bitcoins that can ever be
>produced - the theoretical supply is 21M bitcoins, of which
>~18.9M has currently been "mined".

Apparently it's enough to require a LOT of electric power since a big
news item in our area yesterday was that our provincial government
thorugh the electricity commission is suspending licencing of new
crypto "farms" for 18 months given their draw on the power system

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/b-c-halts-electricity-connections-for-crypto-mining-citing-massive-consumption-1.6205530#:~:text=The%20British%20Columbia%20government%20is,climate%20action%20and%20economic%20goals.

It claims the applied for power reflects a need for 1400 megawatts of
power said to be enough to power "about 570,000 homes per year, or 2.1
million electric vehicles"

Clearly this is a much bigger operation than most of us had thought.

>In more general terms most (all?) cryptocurrencies are either very
>easy to mine initially (before they get popular) and/or assigns a
>small percentage of the total supply ever! to the original person or
>group. Often both, to reward the creator and then reward people for
>getting in early to boost the currency.
>
>That does sound a lot like a Ponzi schema, doesn't it?
>
>IMHO Cryptocurrencies do NOT exactly match the normal definition of a
>Ponzi-scheme, but I don't think it would be wrong to describe them as
>"Ponzi-like". Or even very Ponzi-like. Or even "wannabe Ponzi"
>(as in "technical limitation forced a slightly different approach").

Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> wrote in
news:tlt69t$1d4kb$1@dont-email.me:

> IMHO Cryptocurrencies do NOT exactly match the normal definition
> of a Ponzi-scheme, but I don't think it would be wrong to
> describe them as "Ponzi-like". Or even very Ponzi-like. Or even
> "wannabe Ponzi" (as in "technical limitation forced a slightly
> different approach").
>
According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell

"Ponzi schemes are a type of investment fraud in which investors are
promised artificially high rates of return with little or no risk.
Original investors and the perpetrators of the fraud are paid off by
funds from later investors, but there is little or no actual business
activity that produces revenue."

I'm curious where you see crypto currency, particularly Bitcon, as
being different.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 4:06:10 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Torbjorn Lindgren <t...@none.invalid> wrote in
> news:tlt69t$1d4kb$1...@dont-email.me:
> > IMHO Cryptocurrencies do NOT exactly match the normal definition
> > of a Ponzi-scheme, but I don't think it would be wrong to
> > describe them as "Ponzi-like". Or even very Ponzi-like. Or even
> > "wannabe Ponzi" (as in "technical limitation forced a slightly
> > different approach").
> >
> According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell
>
> "Ponzi schemes are a type of investment fraud in which investors are
> promised artificially high rates of return with little or no risk.
> Original investors and the perpetrators of the fraud are paid off by
> funds from later investors, but there is little or no actual business
> activity that produces revenue."
>
> I'm curious where you see crypto currency, particularly Bitcon, as
> being different.

Cryptocurrencies don't provide a return
you mine or buy a coin and then hold it until you sell it (theoretically you could buy something with it at the agreed upon value but that's extremely rare)

A ponzi scheme is paying out a return to people while they've bought in using the money of other people who buy in to make those payments.
So if you've offering a 10% return and in year 1 A puts in $100 you pay his 10% by taking it out of his $100, leaving $90
Year 2 B puts in $100, you pay him and A by taking $20 out of B's cash leaving $170
Year 3 C puts in $100, you pay him, A & B by taking $30 out of the cash leaving $240
etc

On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 12:58:49 PM UTC+11, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 14:02:37 -0000 (UTC), Torbjorn Lindgren
> <t...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
> >peterw...@hotmail.com <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 11:40:24 PM UTC-6, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
> >>> I apologise for something that can't be distinguished from
> >>>hindsight, but it always looked like a Ponzi scheme (or at least a
> >>>bubble) to me. Shares and unit trusts are actually funding companies
> >>>to do stuff. Banks are in practice doing the same thing (which is
> >>>why Bank failures tend to produce recessions). Crypto was sold on
> >>>nothing except that it would be worth more because more people would
> >>>want to buy it. That's a bubble, and the problem with bubbles is
> >>>that, as an example of exponential growth, most people are invested
> >>>in them when they fail, which means that the chances of you being
> >>>one of the small number of investors who made money and got out with
> >>>it are not good.
> >>
> >>I haven't followed cryptocurrency much but I did not think that the
> >>anonymous creator of Bitcoin got out with a lot of money personally,
> >>unless it was through some kind of syndicate.
> >
> >"Satoshi Nakamoto"'s ~1.1 Million bitcoin wallet isn't "a lot"? And
> >that's assuming he only had ONE wallet which is possible but in no way
> >guaranteed.
> >
> >That's over 5% of the TOTAL number of Bitcoins that can ever be
> >produced - the theoretical supply is 21M bitcoins, of which
> >~18.9M has currently been "mined".
> Apparently it's enough to require a LOT of electric power since a big
> news item in our area yesterday was that our provincial government
> thorugh the electricity commission is suspending licencing of new
> crypto "farms" for 18 months given their draw on the power system
>
> https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/b-c-halts-electricity-connections-for-crypto-mining-citing-massive-consumption-1.6205530#:~:text=The%20British%20Columbia%20government%20is,climate%20action%20and%20economic%20goals.
>
> It claims the applied for power reflects a need for 1400 megawatts of
> power said to be enough to power "about 570,000 homes per year, or 2.1
> million electric vehicles"
>
> Clearly this is a much bigger operation than most of us had thought.

A single bitcoin transaction uses over 1.4 kWh
If bitcoin mining was a country it would be be in the top 30 countries for electricity consumption
https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/crypto/bitcoin-mining-how-much-electricity-it-takes-and-why-people-are-worried/#:~:text=A%20rig%20with%20three%20GPUs,of%20rigs%20in%20one%20location.

Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5bacdfde-9a37-4e86-9934-66aacfd4e992n@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 4:06:10 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda
> Jibini wrote:
>> Torbjorn Lindgren <t...@none.invalid> wrote in
>> news:tlt69t$1d4kb$1...@dont-email.me:
>> > IMHO Cryptocurrencies do NOT exactly match the normal
>> > definition of a Ponzi-scheme, but I don't think it would be
>> > wrong to describe them as "Ponzi-like". Or even very
>> > Ponzi-like. Or even "wannabe Ponzi" (as in "technical
>> > limitation forced a slightly different approach").
>> >
>> According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell
>>
>> "Ponzi schemes are a type of investment fraud in which
>> investors are promised artificially high rates of return with
>> little or no risk. Original investors and the perpetrators of
>> the fraud are paid off by funds from later investors, but there
>> is little or no actual business activity that produces
>> revenue."
>>
>> I'm curious where you see crypto currency, particularly Bitcon,
>> as being different.
>
> Cryptocurrencies don't provide a return
> you mine or buy a coin and then hold it until you sell it

How is "selling it" not a return?

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 3:39:12 AM UTC+11, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:5bacdfde-9a37-4e86...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 4:06:10 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda
> > Jibini wrote:
> >> Torbjorn Lindgren <t...@none.invalid> wrote in
> >> news:tlt69t$1d4kb$1...@dont-email.me:
> >> > IMHO Cryptocurrencies do NOT exactly match the normal
> >> > definition of a Ponzi-scheme, but I don't think it would be
> >> > wrong to describe them as "Ponzi-like". Or even very
> >> > Ponzi-like. Or even "wannabe Ponzi" (as in "technical
> >> > limitation forced a slightly different approach").
> >> >
> >> According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell
> >>
> >> "Ponzi schemes are a type of investment fraud in which
> >> investors are promised artificially high rates of return with
> >> little or no risk. Original investors and the perpetrators of
> >> the fraud are paid off by funds from later investors, but there
> >> is little or no actual business activity that produces
> >> revenue."
> >>
> >> I'm curious where you see crypto currency, particularly Bitcon,
> >> as being different.
> >
> > Cryptocurrencies don't provide a return
> > you mine or buy a coin and then hold it until you sell it
> How is "selling it" not a return?
>
ok, let's rephrase that as
"cryptocurrencies don't provide a return until you sell them. So they aren't really ponzi adjacent"

A ponzi scheme is paying out a dividend or other distribution out of investor capital. Cryptocurrencies don't generally pay out a distribution or dividend.
You could have a ponzi scheme that uses cryptocurrency either as the medium of exchange or as the waffle explaining how they're delivering the return but that doesn't make cryptocurrency a ponzi scheme anymore than ones that use cash as the medium of exchange makes cash a ponzi scheme

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 03:07:07 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 3:39:12 AM UTC+11, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:5bacdfde-9a37-4e86...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 4:06:10 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda
>> > Jibini wrote:
>> >> Torbjorn Lindgren <t...@none.invalid> wrote in
>> >> news:tlt69t$1d4kb$1...@dont-email.me:
>> >> > IMHO Cryptocurrencies do NOT exactly match the normal
>> >> > definition of a Ponzi-scheme, but I don't think it would be
>> >> > wrong to describe them as "Ponzi-like". Or even very
>> >> > Ponzi-like. Or even "wannabe Ponzi" (as in "technical
>> >> > limitation forced a slightly different approach").
>> >> >
>> >> According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell
>> >>
>> >> "Ponzi schemes are a type of investment fraud in which
>> >> investors are promised artificially high rates of return with
>> >> little or no risk. Original investors and the perpetrators of
>> >> the fraud are paid off by funds from later investors, but there
>> >> is little or no actual business activity that produces
>> >> revenue."
>> >>
>> >> I'm curious where you see crypto currency, particularly Bitcon,
>> >> as being different.
>> >
>> > Cryptocurrencies don't provide a return
>> > you mine or buy a coin and then hold it until you sell it
>> How is "selling it" not a return?
>>
>ok, let's rephrase that as
>"cryptocurrencies don't provide a return until you sell them. So they aren't really ponzi adjacent"
>
>A ponzi scheme is paying out a dividend or other distribution out of investor capital. Cryptocurrencies don't generally pay out a distribution or dividend.
>You could have a ponzi scheme that uses cryptocurrency either as the medium of exchange or as the waffle explaining how they're delivering the return but that doesn't make cryptocurrency a ponzi scheme anymore than ones that use cash as the medium of exchange makes cash a ponzi scheme

I agree with you on this.

Too bad semantic goo has taken over!
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote in
news:498bc826-0ef3-4580-b8a7-7939f1a02aa4n@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 3:39:12 AM UTC+11, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:5bacdfde-9a37-4e86...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 4:06:10 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda
>> > Jibini wrote:
>> >> Torbjorn Lindgren <t...@none.invalid> wrote in
>> >> news:tlt69t$1d4kb$1...@dont-email.me:
>> >> > IMHO Cryptocurrencies do NOT exactly match the normal
>> >> > definition of a Ponzi-scheme, but I don't think it would
>> >> > be wrong to describe them as "Ponzi-like". Or even very
>> >> > Ponzi-like. Or even "wannabe Ponzi" (as in "technical
>> >> > limitation forced a slightly different approach").
>> >> >
>> >> According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell
>> >>
>> >> "Ponzi schemes are a type of investment fraud in which
>> >> investors are promised artificially high rates of return
>> >> with little or no risk. Original investors and the
>> >> perpetrators of the fraud are paid off by funds from later
>> >> investors, but there is little or no actual business
>> >> activity that produces revenue."
>> >>
>> >> I'm curious where you see crypto currency, particularly
>> >> Bitcon, as being different.
>> >
>> > Cryptocurrencies don't provide a return
>> > you mine or buy a coin and then hold it until you sell it
>> How is "selling it" not a return?
>>
> ok, let's rephrase that as
> "cryptocurrencies don't provide a return until you sell them. So
> they aren't really ponzi adjacent"
>
> A ponzi scheme is paying out a dividend or other distribution
> out of investor capital. Cryptocurrencies don't generally pay
> out a distribution or dividend.

Instead, you sell it (especially after maniuplating the price).
Which provides the return. No functional difference.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 12/24/2022 5:07 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 3:39:12 AM UTC+11, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:5bacdfde-9a37-4e86...@googlegroups.com:
>>> On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 4:06:10 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda
>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>> Torbjorn Lindgren <t...@none.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:tlt69t$1d4kb$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>> IMHO Cryptocurrencies do NOT exactly match the normal
>>>>> definition of a Ponzi-scheme, but I don't think it would be
>>>>> wrong to describe them as "Ponzi-like". Or even very
>>>>> Ponzi-like. Or even "wannabe Ponzi" (as in "technical
>>>>> limitation forced a slightly different approach").
>>>>>
>>>> According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell
>>>>
>>>> "Ponzi schemes are a type of investment fraud in which
>>>> investors are promised artificially high rates of return with
>>>> little or no risk. Original investors and the perpetrators of
>>>> the fraud are paid off by funds from later investors, but there
>>>> is little or no actual business activity that produces
>>>> revenue."
>>>>
>>>> I'm curious where you see crypto currency, particularly Bitcon,
>>>> as being different.
>>>
>>> Cryptocurrencies don't provide a return
>>> you mine or buy a coin and then hold it until you sell it
>> How is "selling it" not a return?
>>
> ok, let's rephrase that as
> "cryptocurrencies don't provide a return until you sell them. So they aren't really ponzi adjacent"
>
> A ponzi scheme is paying out a dividend or other distribution out of investor capital. Cryptocurrencies don't generally pay out a distribution or dividend.
> You could have a ponzi scheme that uses cryptocurrency either as the medium of exchange or as the waffle explaining how they're delivering the return but that doesn't make cryptocurrency a ponzi scheme anymore than ones that use cash as the medium of exchange makes cash a ponzi scheme

SBF apparently used the owners money to to support the price of his
crypto coin. That is a Ponzi scheme.

Lynn

On Friday, 23 December 2022 at 01:58:49 UTC, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 14:02:37 -0000 (UTC), Torbjorn Lindgren
> <t...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
> >peterw...@hotmail.com <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 11:40:24 PM UTC-6, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
> >>> I apologise for something that can't be distinguished from
> >>>hindsight, but it always looked like a Ponzi scheme (or at least a
> >>>bubble) to me. Shares and unit trusts are actually funding companies
> >>>to do stuff. Banks are in practice doing the same thing (which is
> >>>why Bank failures tend to produce recessions). Crypto was sold on
> >>>nothing except that it would be worth more because more people would
> >>>want to buy it. That's a bubble, and the problem with bubbles is
> >>>that, as an example of exponential growth, most people are invested
> >>>in them when they fail, which means that the chances of you being
> >>>one of the small number of investors who made money and got out with
> >>>it are not good.
> >>
> >>I haven't followed cryptocurrency much but I did not think that the
> >>anonymous creator of Bitcoin got out with a lot of money personally,
> >>unless it was through some kind of syndicate.
> >
> >"Satoshi Nakamoto"'s ~1.1 Million bitcoin wallet isn't "a lot"? And
> >that's assuming he only had ONE wallet which is possible but in no way
> >guaranteed.
> >
> >That's over 5% of the TOTAL number of Bitcoins that can ever be
> >produced - the theoretical supply is 21M bitcoins, of which
> >~18.9M has currently been "mined".
> Apparently it's enough to require a LOT of electric power since a big
> news item in our area yesterday was that our provincial government
> thorugh the electricity commission is suspending licencing of new
> crypto "farms" for 18 months given their draw on the power system
>
> https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/b-c-halts-electricity-connections-for-crypto-mining-citing-massive-consumption-1.6205530#:~:text=The%20British%20Columbia%20government%20is,climate%20action%20and%20economic%20goals.
>
> It claims the applied for power reflects a need for 1400 megawatts of
> power said to be enough to power "about 570,000 homes per year, or 2.1
> million electric vehicles"
>
> Clearly this is a much bigger operation than most of us had thought.

Isn't it useful for heating, this time of year?

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
news:525171b8-694c-4975-ae04-4a1e3fae3a3dn@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, 23 December 2022 at 01:58:49 UTC, The Horny Goat
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 14:02:37 -0000 (UTC), Torbjorn Lindgren
>> <t...@none.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >peterw...@hotmail.com <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 11:40:24 PM UTC-6,
>> >>mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
>> >>> I apologise for something that can't be distinguished from
>> >>>hindsight, but it always looked like a Ponzi scheme (or at
>> >>>least a bubble) to me. Shares and unit trusts are actually
>> >>>funding companies to do stuff. Banks are in practice doing
>> >>>the same thing (which is why Bank failures tend to produce
>> >>>recessions). Crypto was sold on nothing except that it would
>> >>>be worth more because more people would want to buy it.
>> >>>That's a bubble, and the problem with bubbles is that, as an
>> >>>example of exponential growth, most people are invested
>> >>>in them when they fail, which means that the chances of you
>> >>>being one of the small number of investors who made money
>> >>>and got out with it are not good.
>> >>
>> >>I haven't followed cryptocurrency much but I did not think
>> >>that the anonymous creator of Bitcoin got out with a lot of
>> >>money personally, unless it was through some kind of
>> >>syndicate.
>> >
>> >"Satoshi Nakamoto"'s ~1.1 Million bitcoin wallet isn't "a
>> >lot"? And that's assuming he only had ONE wallet which is
>> >possible but in no way guaranteed.
>> >
>> >That's over 5% of the TOTAL number of Bitcoins that can ever
>> >be produced - the theoretical supply is 21M bitcoins, of which
>> >~18.9M has currently been "mined".
>> Apparently it's enough to require a LOT of electric power since
>> a big news item in our area yesterday was that our provincial
>> government thorugh the electricity commission is suspending
>> licencing of new crypto "farms" for 18 months given their draw
>> on the power system
>>
>> https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/b-c-halts-electricity-connect
>> ions-for-crypto-mining-citing-massive-consumption-1.6205530#:~:t
>> ext=The%20British%20Columbia%20government%20is,climate%20action%
>> 20and%20economic%20goals.
>>
>> It claims the applied for power reflects a need for 1400
>> megawatts of power said to be enough to power "about 570,000
>> homes per year, or 2.1 million electric vehicles"
>>
>> Clearly this is a much bigger operation than most of us had
>> thought.
>
> Isn't it useful for heating, this time of year?
>
Heating isn't really a desirable goal in a data center.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 7:13:50 AM UTC+11, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:498bc826-0ef3-4580...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 3:39:12 AM UTC+11, Jibini Kula
> > Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:5bacdfde-9a37-4e86...@googlegroups.com:
> >> > On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 4:06:10 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda
> >> > Jibini wrote:
> >> >> Torbjorn Lindgren <t...@none.invalid> wrote in
> >> >> news:tlt69t$1d4kb$1...@dont-email.me:
> >> >> > IMHO Cryptocurrencies do NOT exactly match the normal
> >> >> > definition of a Ponzi-scheme, but I don't think it would
> >> >> > be wrong to describe them as "Ponzi-like". Or even very
> >> >> > Ponzi-like. Or even "wannabe Ponzi" (as in "technical
> >> >> > limitation forced a slightly different approach").
> >> >> >
> >> >> According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell
> >> >>
> >> >> "Ponzi schemes are a type of investment fraud in which
> >> >> investors are promised artificially high rates of return
> >> >> with little or no risk. Original investors and the
> >> >> perpetrators of the fraud are paid off by funds from later
> >> >> investors, but there is little or no actual business
> >> >> activity that produces revenue."
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm curious where you see crypto currency, particularly
> >> >> Bitcon, as being different.
> >> >
> >> > Cryptocurrencies don't provide a return
> >> > you mine or buy a coin and then hold it until you sell it
> >> How is "selling it" not a return?
> >>
> > ok, let's rephrase that as
> > "cryptocurrencies don't provide a return until you sell them. So
> > they aren't really ponzi adjacent"
> >
> > A ponzi scheme is paying out a dividend or other distribution
> > out of investor capital. Cryptocurrencies don't generally pay
> > out a distribution or dividend.
> Instead, you sell it (especially after maniuplating the price).
> Which provides the return. No functional difference.

It's a very big difference, if you manipulate the price illegally that's a fraudulent pump and dump, it's not a ponzi scheme
The signs to watch out for and the impacts are very different.

and again just because somebody pumps and dumps crypto it doesn't make crypto fraudulent any more than pump and dumping shares makes shares fraudulent

I think crypto is rubbish as it's implemented but not necessarily fraudulent in itself

Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c0de6a0c-a82d-4855-b0e6-4d45488e77c7n@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 7:13:50 AM UTC+11, Ninapenda
> Jibini wrote:
>> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:498bc826-0ef3-4580...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 3:39:12 AM UTC+11, Jibini
>> > Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:5bacdfde-9a37-4e86...@googlegroups.com:
>> >> > On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 4:06:10 PM UTC+11,
>> >> > Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> >> >> Torbjorn Lindgren <t...@none.invalid> wrote in
>> >> >> news:tlt69t$1d4kb$1...@dont-email.me:
>> >> >> > IMHO Cryptocurrencies do NOT exactly match the normal
>> >> >> > definition of a Ponzi-scheme, but I don't think it
>> >> >> > would be wrong to describe them as "Ponzi-like". Or
>> >> >> > even very Ponzi-like. Or even "wannabe Ponzi" (as in
>> >> >> > "technical limitation forced a slightly different
>> >> >> > approach").
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Ponzi schemes are a type of investment fraud in which
>> >> >> investors are promised artificially high rates of return
>> >> >> with little or no risk. Original investors and the
>> >> >> perpetrators of the fraud are paid off by funds from
>> >> >> later investors, but there is little or no actual
>> >> >> business activity that produces revenue."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm curious where you see crypto currency, particularly
>> >> >> Bitcon, as being different.
>> >> >
>> >> > Cryptocurrencies don't provide a return
>> >> > you mine or buy a coin and then hold it until you sell it
>> >> How is "selling it" not a return?
>> >>
>> > ok, let's rephrase that as
>> > "cryptocurrencies don't provide a return until you sell them.
>> > So they aren't really ponzi adjacent"
>> >
>> > A ponzi scheme is paying out a dividend or other distribution
>> > out of investor capital. Cryptocurrencies don't generally pay
>> > out a distribution or dividend.
>> Instead, you sell it (especially after maniuplating the price).
>> Which provides the return. No functional difference.
>
> It's a very big difference,

Only in your imagination.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 7:41:02 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 12/24/2022 5:07 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 3:39:12 AM UTC+11, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:5bacdfde-9a37-4e86...@googlegroups.com:
> >>> On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 4:06:10 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda
> >>> Jibini wrote:
> >>>> Torbjorn Lindgren <t...@none.invalid> wrote in
> >>>> news:tlt69t$1d4kb$1...@dont-email.me:
> >>>>> IMHO Cryptocurrencies do NOT exactly match the normal
> >>>>> definition of a Ponzi-scheme, but I don't think it would be
> >>>>> wrong to describe them as "Ponzi-like". Or even very
> >>>>> Ponzi-like. Or even "wannabe Ponzi" (as in "technical
> >>>>> limitation forced a slightly different approach").
> >>>>>
> >>>> According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell
> >>>>
> >>>> "Ponzi schemes are a type of investment fraud in which
> >>>> investors are promised artificially high rates of return with
> >>>> little or no risk. Original investors and the perpetrators of
> >>>> the fraud are paid off by funds from later investors, but there
> >>>> is little or no actual business activity that produces
> >>>> revenue."
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm curious where you see crypto currency, particularly Bitcon,
> >>>> as being different.
> >>>
> >>> Cryptocurrencies don't provide a return
> >>> you mine or buy a coin and then hold it until you sell it
> >> How is "selling it" not a return?
> >>
> > ok, let's rephrase that as
> > "cryptocurrencies don't provide a return until you sell them. So they aren't really ponzi adjacent"
> >
> > A ponzi scheme is paying out a dividend or other distribution out of investor capital. Cryptocurrencies don't generally pay out a distribution or dividend.
> > You could have a ponzi scheme that uses cryptocurrency either as the medium of exchange or as the waffle explaining how they're delivering the return but that doesn't make cryptocurrency a ponzi scheme anymore than ones that use cash as the medium of exchange makes cash a ponzi scheme
> SBF apparently used the owners money to to support the price of his
> crypto coin. That is a Ponzi scheme.
>
I don't think it is, it's not making payouts to investors out of new investors' money
As I understand it it's a breach of the agreement so it's almost certainly fraudulent (and probably illegal in other ways I'm not up with as it involved a lot of shifting money between different companies to make their balance sheets look better) but not a ponzi scheme

In article <to7o4q$1r2h$2@gioia.aioe.org>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/24/2022 5:07 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 3:39:12 AM UTC+11, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> > Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:5bacdfde-9a37-4e86...@googlegroups.com:
> >>> On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 4:06:10 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda
> >>> Jibini wrote:
> >>>> Torbjorn Lindgren <t...@none.invalid> wrote in
> >>>> news:tlt69t$1d4kb$1...@dont-email.me:
> >>>>> IMHO Cryptocurrencies do NOT exactly match the normal
> >>>>> definition of a Ponzi-scheme, but I don't think it would be
> >>>>> wrong to describe them as "Ponzi-like". Or even very
> >>>>> Ponzi-like. Or even "wannabe Ponzi" (as in "technical
> >>>>> limitation forced a slightly different approach").
> >>>>>
> >>>> According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell
> >>>>
> >>>> "Ponzi schemes are a type of investment fraud in which
> >>>> investors are promised artificially high rates of return with
> >>>> little or no risk. Original investors and the perpetrators of
> >>>> the fraud are paid off by funds from later investors, but there
> >>>> is little or no actual business activity that produces
> >>>> revenue."
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm curious where you see crypto currency, particularly Bitcon,
> >>>> as being different.
> >>>
> >>> Cryptocurrencies don't provide a return
> >>> you mine or buy a coin and then hold it until you sell it
> >> How is "selling it" not a return?
> >>
> > ok, let's rephrase that as
> > "cryptocurrencies don't provide a return until you sell them. So they
> > aren't really ponzi adjacent"
> >
> > A ponzi scheme is paying out a dividend or other distribution out of
> > investor capital. Cryptocurrencies don't generally pay out a distribution
> > or dividend.
> > You could have a ponzi scheme that uses cryptocurrency either as the medium
> > of exchange or as the waffle explaining how they're delivering the return
> > but that doesn't make cryptocurrency a ponzi scheme anymore than ones that
> > use cash as the medium of exchange makes cash a ponzi scheme
>
> SBF apparently used the owners money to to support the price of his
> crypto coin. That is a Ponzi scheme.
>

That is not a Ponzi scheme. FTX was basically an unregulated bank, whose
officials did a substantial amount of (almost certainly illegal)
self-dealing with the depositors money.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 9:45:35 PM UTC-5, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 7:41:02 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > On 12/24/2022 5:07 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 3:39:12 AM UTC+11, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> > >> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >> news:5bacdfde-9a37-4e86...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>> On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 4:06:10 PM UTC+11, Ninapenda
> > >>> Jibini wrote:
> > >>>> Torbjorn Lindgren <t...@none.invalid> wrote in
> > >>>> news:tlt69t$1d4kb$1...@dont-email.me:
> > >>>>> IMHO Cryptocurrencies do NOT exactly match the normal
> > >>>>> definition of a Ponzi-scheme, but I don't think it would be
> > >>>>> wrong to describe them as "Ponzi-like". Or even very
> > >>>>> Ponzi-like. Or even "wannabe Ponzi" (as in "technical
> > >>>>> limitation forced a slightly different approach").
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "Ponzi schemes are a type of investment fraud in which
> > >>>> investors are promised artificially high rates of return with
> > >>>> little or no risk. Original investors and the perpetrators of
> > >>>> the fraud are paid off by funds from later investors, but there
> > >>>> is little or no actual business activity that produces
> > >>>> revenue."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm curious where you see crypto currency, particularly Bitcon,
> > >>>> as being different.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cryptocurrencies don't provide a return
> > >>> you mine or buy a coin and then hold it until you sell it
> > >> How is "selling it" not a return?
> > >>
> > > ok, let's rephrase that as
> > > "cryptocurrencies don't provide a return until you sell them. So they aren't really ponzi adjacent"
> > >
> > > A ponzi scheme is paying out a dividend or other distribution out of investor capital. Cryptocurrencies don't generally pay out a distribution or dividend.
> > > You could have a ponzi scheme that uses cryptocurrency either as the medium of exchange or as the waffle explaining how they're delivering the return but that doesn't make cryptocurrency a ponzi scheme anymore than ones that use cash as the medium of exchange makes cash a ponzi scheme
> > SBF apparently used the owners money to to support the price of his
> > crypto coin. That is a Ponzi scheme.
> >
> I don't think it is, it's not making payouts to investors out of new investors' money
> As I understand it it's a breach of the agreement so it's almost certainly fraudulent
> (and probably illegal in other ways I'm not up with as it involved a lot of shifting
> money between different companies to make their balance sheets look better)
> but not a ponzi scheme

I never had a problem with alternatives to fiat money generated by a government
central bank, with "legal tender" laws effectively castrating payment in specie and
making gold clauses in contracts a nullity. I would have expected digital currency
to be backed by _some_ commodity: even a quantity of computer processing power

https://medium.com/swazm/why-computing-power-should-be-a-currency-238a5c2758f8

The blockchain is supposed to make counterfeiting cryptocurrency extremely difficult.,
though I never bought that it would be impossible. Forbes reported ~ half of trades in
this stuff were bogus.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/javierpaz/2022/08/26/more-than-half-of-all-bitcoin-trades-are-fake/

--
Kevin R