[xqyf]

> yes, to a mild extent and indeed they do

Thank you for agreeing. So your definition is so bad Apple qualifies as a pyramid scheme under it. That makes it appear that you have no idea what a pyramid scheme is.

> so the owners don’t have much extent

...but "to a mild extent" they do, so your definition calls this a pyramid scheme. The no true Scotsman fallacy doesn’t work here.

> [BTC] is structurally a pyramid scheme

The decentralized blockchain? You haven't posted a specific reason to say this that isn't abstract, despite two desperate tries. There are no recruiters, there's no one actively distributing funds for getting new recruits.

Just curious, do you know the difference between market manipulation and pyramid schemes? Pyramid schemes and Ponzi schemes? Pyramid schemes and other MLM schemes?

Or you just use them all interchangeably because you have no idea what they mean?

[zepto]

> Thank you for agreeing. So your definition is so bad Apple qualifies as a pyramid scheme under it. That makes it appear that you have no idea what a pyramid scheme is.

If you weren’t misrepresenting me, you’d be able to quote where I agreed AAPL qualified as a pyramid scheme.

I understand that what people think of Bitcoin is of great importance to you, but it’s easier to discuss this if you stay away from ad hominem and misrepresentation.

[xqyf]

> you’d be able to quote where I agreed AAPL qualified as a pyramid scheme.

Sure thing, here ya go (it's right there if you scroll up):

> > So Apple is a "pyramid scheme" right?

> Yes, to a mild extent

...you qualify it with "the owners don’t have much extent" unfortunately the no true Scotsman fallacy doesn’t work here.

> I understand that what people think of Bitcoin is of great importance to you

Sure isn't. Weird shift to a personal attack, but what else do you have left after failing so badly?

It’s easier to discuss this if you stay away from ad hominem.

[zepto]

Ah. I was just agreeing to the part about incentives. Not to the claim that it was a pyramid scheme. Sorry for my part in not clearing up the ambiguity present in your question. I shouldn’t have quoted the whole paragraph. This would have gone better if you had asked for clarification instead of making that assumption.

>> I understand that what people think of Bitcoin is of great importance to you

> Sure isn't.

Ok.

> Weird shift to a personal attack, but what else do you have left after failing so badly?

You seemed to care about what people think of Bitcoin. Now you say you don’t. I’m surprised given the level of zeal you are displaying.

I’m curious why would you take it as a personal attack to point out that you care about Bitcoin?

[xqyf]

Everyone that owns (is "enrolled" in) AAPL is "incentivized to get other people to buy" Apple products, just like BTC. These were the only 2 reasons you've ever given for why BTC is a "pyramid scheme".

You've said that both apply to Apple. So Apple is a "pyramid scheme" right? Or does the No True Pyramid Scheme fallacy mean Apple is excluded?

Is there a reason you can't explain the difference between pyramid schemes, Ponzi schemes, other MLM schemes and market manipulation? The most reasonable guess would be that you don't understand the difference.

This is not an argumentum ad hominiem, it's an explanation for why you're so wrong, and why BTC's not a pyramid scheme.

> I’m curious why would you take it as a personal attack

We're discussing BTC, not me. It’s easier to discuss this if you stay away from ad hominem.