I'm not angry.. the mere existence of exploiting-worldwide-user's google anger me, losing money doesnt: I'm used to it. Crypto is just so absurd and damaging.. at least NTF pretend to be art, and defining art is just another can of worms. Dont we all agree, that Satoshi is that french engineer turned mobster who is in jail since 2009? Or he would have cashed out long ago. 2nd counter argument from the article : A definition of "TV" a few decades ago could be "a device that converts electrical signals into an image on a cathode ray tube (CRT) screen." But when flat screen TVs appeared, it would have been silly to say "those are not TVs,because they have no CRT." Instead, people would have seen that the mention of CRT in that definition was spurious, and that a useful definition should capture the effect of the device, regardless of the technology. The point stay: the only value of BTC is from flux of new investor.... oh! and the service of anonymously buying drugs. THAT might be the thing that let crypto stay relevant for so long. Any business model based around some type of physical addiction, is always a good idea. Still a scam But "Satoshi Nakamoto" has been sitting on 1.1m BTC since like 2009
here's what a Ponzi scheme actually is:
That is not the definition of ponzi from source X. Indeed there are many variants of the definition, and they may include other spurious requirements (see below). But those requirements were incidental features of almost all ponzis before bitcoin, not essential features. They are not the reason why investing in a ponzi is a very bad idea, nor the reason why ponzis are frauds rather than just bad investments.