If you know what a "car" and a "bicycle" are, it's obvious that a bicycle is not a car. It would be silly for anyone to waste their time by explaining you the difference between the two.
Same applies here.
> Saying "you don't understand something" is not an argument
It's a statement of fact.
Edit: I can't reply below due to HN ratelimits, so I will do so here.
>Saying "it's not" is not an argument, particularly when a good argument has just been laid out in front of you.
It's pretty clear that you haven't actually read the article we're discussing, it does not at any point attempt to explain how cryptocurrencies would meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
The part which comes closest is this, but you'd be delusional to call it a "good argument"
>There's already substantial evidence that the crypto space is infested with frauds, scams and ponzis. But I would go further. The entire crypto ecosystem is ponzi. The whole thing depends on ever more people parting with their savings and wages to pay the lunatic returns promised by the platforms to people who can provide the liquidity they so desperately need.
Hi, welcome to HN. BTW there are a lot of smart people here who have dug into the mechanics of crypto extensively.
I look forward to a good argument debunking the ponzi scheme thesis. Saying "it's not" is not an argument, particularly when a good argument has just been laid out in front of you.
Edited to add:
> It's pretty clear that you haven't actually read the article we're discussing, it does not at any point attempt to explain how cryptocurrencies would meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
Yeah that's not a good argument either. Since I did actually read it -- and it does.
Same applies here.
> Saying "you don't understand something" is not an argument
It's a statement of fact.
Edit: I can't reply below due to HN ratelimits, so I will do so here.
>Saying "it's not" is not an argument, particularly when a good argument has just been laid out in front of you.
It's pretty clear that you haven't actually read the article we're discussing, it does not at any point attempt to explain how cryptocurrencies would meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
The part which comes closest is this, but you'd be delusional to call it a "good argument"
>There's already substantial evidence that the crypto space is infested with frauds, scams and ponzis. But I would go further. The entire crypto ecosystem is ponzi. The whole thing depends on ever more people parting with their savings and wages to pay the lunatic returns promised by the platforms to people who can provide the liquidity they so desperately need.
That's just not what a Ponzi scheme is!