[mywittyname]

Actually, I looked up the literal definition of a pyramid scheme before posting, to ensure I hit all the points.

> Returns (and losses) to all investors, new or old, are equally distributed.

No, old investors can profit while new investors lose money. Or, the new investors paid the old ones. Original BTC investors got them for free, the next generation paid pennies for them, the next paid dollars, then hundreds, and the current generation is paying thousands each.

So should the price collapse, the old generation still stands to make massive profits, at the expense of current investors.

> Simply saying "hey, this could be a good investment" doesn't make something a pyramid scheme, unless Apple is a pyramid because my financial advisor told me and one more client to buy shares of it.

Apple earns a profit, of which a share is provided to owners. That's why it's a good investment.

BTC is a purely speculative investment and literally the only way to earn a profit is to get someone else to buy it for more than you paid. It will never pay you a dividend, it will never generate any revenue.

[SippinLean]

Why were you throwing the term around before you knew what it was? Again, you left out MANY aspects of pyramid schemes--the ones hardest to twist into fitting bitcoin.

And you glossed right over this: the necessity of a purposefully fraudulent bad actor to redistribute the new investors' "investments" to old investors.

>So should the price collapse, the old generation still stands to make massive profits, at the expense of current investors.

Nope, the old generation suffers the same losses as the new if the price crashes. A pyramid scheme is just that, a scheme with a central organization controlling the flow of income. That is impossible with a distributed ledger.

The last part of your answer is a rant about Apple vs Bitcoin, I think you missed my only point: in a pyramid scheme new members are promised a share of the money taken from every additional member that they recruit. "Evangelizing" by itself is not proof of a pyramid scheme.

I suggest you continue to look it up and learn what a pyramid scheme is. It's different than speculation, it is different than a Ponzi scheme.

[mywittyname]

I knew what it was, but looking it up helped ensure my argument was complete. I know what a Volvo P1800 is, but if I saw one on the street, I'd still compare it to a picture on my phone to be certain.

> And you glossed right over this: the necessity of a purposefully fraudulent bad actor to redistribute the new investors' "investments" to old investors.

I did not, but here:

Any person who currently own BTC, and publicly state that it will continue to rise in price indefinitely are bad actors intent on defrauding the public. This applies doubly to individuals with technical or financial backgrounds that claim their are an authority on the subject.

There. You may not agree, but you can't continue to argue that I'm ignoring this point.

> in a pyramid scheme new members are promised a share of the money taken from every additional member that they recruit. "Evangelizing" by itself is not proof of a pyramid scheme.

When evangelizing crosses into market manipulation, then it is.

I feel that people are making claims about the price of BTC can rise, for the purpose of attracting more investors and increasing the price. Thus, attempting to profit from each member they recruit. The margin can be small per recruit, as the audience is literally worldwide.

I do feel that there are evangelists that are primarily motivated by political principals. But I also think nearly every investor is motivated, in some part, by greed.

[SippinLean]

You still skipped over both points. There is no central org which redistributes income. This alone disqualifies it as a pyramid.

Market manipulation is not specific enough to qualify as a pyramid. Pyramids have a central org that promises rewards for recruiting; it's not an abstract idea like "make comments on the internet and maybe someone will believe you."

You also left out many qualifying factors, again because they plainly don't fit Bitcoin or your argument.

If you'd like to deride Bitcoin, you'd do better to call it a generic term like "scam." It weakens your argument to call it something specific like a pyramid scheme, which actually has a real definition.