|
Blade Runner posted:What dictionary definition are you basing this off of? I can find literally none that clearly states it needs intent, or includes the word intent in the definition. If you didn't want to argue about dictionary definitions, you shouldn't have brought it up as the main loving sticking point of your argument. I'm not the one that said "Dictionary says this". You made your argument, live with that. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scam http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scam https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scam https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/scam
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:35 |
|
|
Uranium 235 posted:take your pick. if you're running a confidence game or a fraudulent/deceptive scheme, you have intent to deceive for personal gain. this is the plain meaning of the word and i honestly don't understand why you're fighting this so hard None of those include anything about intent to decieve, just deception. You can decieve someone of something while believing it is true. It took you like two hours to do a basic Google search, and you're still loving wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:None of those include anything about intent to decieve, just deception. You can decieve someone of something while believing it is true. It took you like two hours to do a basic Google search, and you're still loving wrong. Unlike you he was willing to provide the search criteria, not just make up claims as to what was supposedly there. Here's the definition of deceive by the way!: quote:de·ceive Apparently semantic arguments allow one to call anything they want any word they want, and if called on it just kinda keep making stuff up. Cool stuff I think the discourse on bitcoins is absolutely being furthered by your refusal to accept any normal definitions of scam and deceive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Unlike you he was willing to provide the search criteria, not just make up claims as to what was supposedly there. So if I sell you a nonexistent bridge I have deceived you regardless of whether or not I'm aware of that bridge's nonexistence And if I sell you bitcoins based on the promise of instant no-fee transactions that are extremely efficient and will smash the control of the banks, I have deceived you even if I'm unaware of all of those claims being false
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Unlike you he was willing to provide the search criteria, not just make up claims as to what was supposedly there. None of that necessitates you knowing that it's untrue, just that it be untrue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:So if I sell you a nonexistent bridge I have deceived you regardless of whether or not I'm aware of that bridge's nonexistence What is this argument furthering other than being unwilling to cede the simplest of points. Walk me through the scenario where anyone is selling a bridge that they are not sure if it exists or not, but somehow have a mechanism to transfer legal ownership anyway because it is not possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:None of that necessitates you knowing that it's untrue, just that it be untrue. So that means that if your advice about bitcoins turns out to be false, and they become some kind of defacto currency, you were scamming people with everything you said and did? That seems like an odd position to take.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
You're not scamming people by telling them to buy Bitcoins. You're just an unintelligent person giving bad advice. The shoe shine boy is not scamming. If you sell this worthless product, however, you're scamming. I am not selling anti-Bits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:What is this argument furthering other than being unwilling to cede the simplest of points. The scenario was the original one presented: I sell you a deed to a nonexistent bridge and tell you "as the holder of this deed, you definitely own a bridge in Ohio", and you believe it. Then you sell that deed to someone else. The analogy to bitcoin is that I sell you bitcoins with the promise that bitcoin is the currency of the future and offers instant no-fee transactions, and then you sell bitcoins to someone else on the basis of those promises. But those promises are false, and so you and whoever buys your bitcoins have both been deceived.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The scenario was the original one presented: I sell you a deed to a nonexistent bridge and tell you "as the holder of this deed, you definitely own a bridge in Ohio", and you believe it. Then you sell that deed to someone else. You can't because transferring a deed is a real transaction that requires a court and written stuff and someone verifying that the property exists. That was my point. This made up scenario is total nonsense to cede the idea that bridge scams = bitcoins, just like tulips = bitcoins and beanie babies = bitcoins, but that's super, super dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Also, we can switch to the homeopathy analogy. I can 100% admit to that being a better analogy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:You can't because transferring a deed is a real transaction that requires a court and written stuff and someone verifying that the property exists. That was my point. This made up scenario is total nonsense to cede the idea that bridge scams = bitcoins, just like tulips = bitcoins and beanie babies = bitcoins, but that's super, super dumb. But in this scenario, you don't know that. You believe that you have been legally sold a bridge. That's how the scam works. In the homeopathy analogy, everyone participating may believe that a valuable product is being sold and administered. But it's still a scam. Just as you may not realize that bitcoin transactions are not instant, nor are they without fees, nor can the network come anywhere close to handling a country-level volume of financial transactions. So many people bought bitcoins on those promises and only later came to realize that they were sold falsehoods, and many still don't realize the truth
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
This thread is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:But in this scenario, you don't know that. You believe that you have been legally sold a bridge. That's how the scam works. No you can't be legally sold a bridge the person doesn't own because transfer of property goes through a third party. I am not aware of any modern bridge scams and I am certainly not aware of any bridge scams where the victim was unwittingly reselling a recently bought bridge to $5 for someone, and I bet you don't either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
SubG posted:Similarly, Charles Ponzi wasn't a scammer because international reply coupons weren't created with malicious intent and Ponzi's initial plan was to actually engage in arbitrage. if satoshi nakamoto intended to defraud people when he developed bitcoins, then bitcoins are a scam.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:No you can't be legally sold a bridge the person doesn't own because transfer of property goes through a third party. I Right, that's the point. You can't actually legally sell someone a bridge by just handing them a deed. But if you're unaware of that fact, you could fall for the scam, and you could unwittingly cause others to fall for the same scam when you resell that fake deed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Right, that's the point. You can't actually legally sell someone a bridge by just handing them a deed. But if you're unaware of that fact, you could fall for the scam, and you could unwittingly cause others to fall for the same scam when you resell that fake deed. Bitcoins are a scam because someone could unknowingly resell a bridge they didn't know the owner couldn't actually sell, meaning that it's equivalent. That's what you're arguing. I disagree and I think your argument is vapid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:Also, we can switch to the homeopathy analogy. I can 100% admit to that being a better analogy. So when you say "Scam" you mean "Pejorative word for something I believe is without merit but other people do believe has merit and can buy and sell legally so I will heap scorn on them from my position of rightness" and suddenly I guess I understand what you meant by scam, but that's also not generally the definition most people use and it's not what scams really are
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Oh Homeopathy is now the analogy we're all agreeing to? Ok so the claim is: "This medically dubious thing without any measurable components inside the medication and without a medically accepted method of action, and little to no verified efficacy" is totally like "Digital coins that people use for local and international transactions, that can be measured, observed, transferred and verified but I personally am suspicious of"
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Bitcoins are a scam because someone could unknowingly resell a bridge they didn't know the owner couldn't actually sell, meaning that it's equivalent. That's what you're arguing. I disagree and I think your argument is vapid. Bitcoins are a scam because someone could knowingly or unknowingly resell a promise of bitcoins being used to handle worldwide transaction volume instantly and without fees. These are fake promises that are repeated by bitcoin's believers. The technology doesn't support these promises.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:So when you say "Scam" you mean "Pejorative word for something I believe is without merit but other people do believe has merit and can buy and sell legally so I will heap scorn on them from my position of rightness" The dictionary definition of scam is right up there on this page, and every one of them fits what I have decided the Butts as, hope that helps
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:But he thinks that he legally owns the bridge. So there's no malicious intent when he sells the bridge to someone else for $5 more than what he paid for it. That means it's not a scam anymore, right? so far i haven't seen any of you present a good argument for why bitcoin should be considered a scam.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Oh Homeopathy is now the analogy we're all agreeing to? "Water that is promised to cure what ails you, no matter what it is, but definitely can't" "Digital coins that are promised to handle the entire world's transaction volume instantly and with no fees, but definitely can't"
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Uranium 235 posted:your argument brings us back to what i was saying originally: if the developer of bitcoin was sincere in producing something he thought would solve problems and have utility, then bitcoin itself is not a scam. bridges are not scams just because a scammer uses the promise of bridge ownership to defraud people. international reply coupons are not scams because ponzi defrauded people after his arbitrage scheme failed. Homeopathy is also a scam even if a homeopathic doctor and his patients think that it isn't. The creator of homeopathy probably wasn't trying to scam people and just wound up having wrong ideas about medicine, but today it's entirely just scammers scamming scammees, knowingly or unknowingly
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Uranium 235 posted:your argument brings us back to what i was saying originally: if the developer of bitcoin was sincere in producing something he thought would solve problems and have utility, then bitcoin itself is not a scam. bridges are not scams just because a scammer uses the promise of bridge ownership to defraud people. international reply coupons are not scams because ponzi defrauded people after his arbitrage scheme failed. Intent is not important to whether or not something is a scam. You posted your dictionary entry, it disagreed with you. Live with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:"Water that is promised to cure what ails you, no matter what it is, but definitely can't" The issue with homeopathy is nobody can find the supposed benefits nor the method and it turns out that finding the molecules at that concentration is difficult. The second part is 100% nonsense you made up. Bitcoins can be measured, we know what they do, and so far the transaction scaling being an issue in the future has not stopped them from being eminently useful now to the people using them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Oh Homeopathy is now the analogy we're all agreeing to? The analogy is useful to demonstrate how the definition of a 'scam' can encompass a variety of levels of awareness of the nature of the scam, by the perpetrators of the scam in question. If you stretch the analogy too far, it will break, as with any other analogy between two things which are different things. Rather than trying to twist it out of shape, try to understand the point - you obviously agree on the definition of homeopathy as basically a rip-off. I am making the point that not everyone involved in homeopathy knows it is a rip-off, but that doesn't change the fact that it is, even in those transactions where the guy giving and the guy receiving the magic potion both believe in magic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:Intent is not important to whether or not something is a scam. You posted your dictionary entry, it disagreed with you. Live with that. It requires stating something that is not true or deception, are you ignoring that we went through several posts establishing that? What is not true about Bitcoin? It exists, today. People are trading them, today, and using them as currency in transactions. They can verify that this transaction is happening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Bitcoins are a scam because someone could knowingly or unknowingly resell a promise of bitcoins being used to handle worldwide transaction volume instantly and without fees. quote:These are fake promises that are repeated by bitcoin's believers. The technology doesn't support these promises. if i go to someone who knows nothing about bitcoin and tell them lies about how great bitcoin is to get them to buy some from me, i am scamming them. that does not mean that bitcoins themselves are a scam. it's analogous to selling multivitamins by misrepresenting what they will do
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Chadzok posted:The analogy is useful to demonstrate how the definition of a 'scam' can encompass a variety of levels of awareness of the nature of the scam, by the perpetrators of the scam in question. If you stretch the analogy too far, it will break, as with any other analogy between two things which are different. It's a rip off because nobody can find any effect of what it does. Not because of any other reason. That part is totally inapplicable to bitcoin and you know it and are trying to avoid coming to that conclusion. Homeopathy is magic water nobody can measure or find any efficacy around. Bitcoins are digital coins people can 100% trade and use for things and those things all work and can be measured and verified.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:The issue with homeopathy is nobody can find the supposed benefits nor the method and it turns out that finding the molecules at that concentration is difficult. If you believe that bitcoins can handle the entire world's transaction volume using instant no-fee transactions then I have some bad news for you
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:It requires stating something that is not true or deception, are you ignoring that we went through several posts establishing that? What is not true about Bitcoin? It exists, today. People are trading them, today, and using them as currency in transactions. They can verify that this transaction is happening. That they're worth anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Uranium 235 posted:he was a scammer because he started paying out money that other people had invested to cover up the fact that his arbitrage plan couldn't work and that he couldn't deliver on the promises he made. he knowingly committed acts of deception to prop up his failed scheme. notably, his scam did not make international reply coupons a scam. if someone commits fraud using bitcoins, that doesn't make bitcoin itself a scam.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If you believe that bitcoins can handle the entire world's transaction volume using instant no-fee transactions then I have some bad news for you I absolutely hate the whole logical fallacy thing but "making up arguments that people are not making and claiming that they are false" is a technique people have tried, and it is generally received poorly. Bitcoins are a way to do transactions. They may be useful to you if there's something you want to do with them. Period. That's about it. The no fee and instant and world's transactions are encumbrances you are putting on there that have nothing to do with "hey, digital currency is kinda useful for lots of poo poo which is real different from fake bridges, beanie babies, flowers that die, and magic water"
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:That they're worth anything. Because you say so. Clearly people find worth and value in using these coins for transactions, and they are doing so. Please don't confuse your own subjective opinion with what's happening out there in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Because you say so. Clearly people find worth and value in using these coins for transactions, and they are doing so. Please don't confuse your own subjective opinion with what's happening out there in the real world. People found subjective worth in Beanie Babies, tulips, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Can I buy this thread a bridge to the gas chamber perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Blade Runner posted:People found subjective worth in Beanie Babies, tulips, etc. No those did not have utility other than the inflated valuation of the item. Those items did not facilitate other transactions, they were simply a means to an end. Bitcoins have a real use that people are using them for, and the fact that you don't find that use compelling doesn't mean it's not a real use and it can't be measured and verified.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:No those did not have utility other than the inflated valuation of the item. Those items did not facilitate other transactions, they were simply a means to an end. Absolutely untrue wrt tulips. People exchanged tulip bulbs in the same way they exchange BTC today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:35 |
|
|
COMRADES posted:Absolutely untrue wrt tulips. Apparently they were not compelling enough as a value proposition from an aesthetic standpoint and given the maintenance and short lifespan of the flowers whereas bitcoins seem to be working quite well so far as a way of doing transactions, guy that one past ago was going "lol gas" but is now here to nitpick with the best of them. Oh yeah? They sent them digitally to China and Japan?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 00:05
|
|