|
Bettors can try to touch their winnings at any time, by reselling their cryptos. If they keep their cryptos, it amounts to keeping lottery tickets for the following draws. Earnings depend on the existence of new buyers who must pay the earnings of previous buyers. If no buyer shows up, the price of a crypto drops to zero and the win is zero, the bet is lost. The holders of cryptos are therefore bettors who play a lottery whose winnings are paid by the continual arrival of new bettors, who agree to pay the winnings of previous bettors, who withdraw from the game. It is a question of betting on the existence of new bettors to pay the winnings of old bettors who want to withdraw. If there are no more new bettors, there are no more winnings and all the old bettors have lost everything.
If people stop buying cryptos, their price will drop to zero. Hundreds of billions of dollars in bitcoins will disappear at the same time. How is it possible ? How can hundreds of billions of dollars disappear with the snap of a finger? Where will the hundreds of billions of dollars in bitcoins invested by savers go? They will have been used to pay the energy bill, the construction of the factories, the computers that produced the bitcoins, and all the winners who withdrew from the game in time, reselling their bitcoins with a profit. The money earned by the winners so far has already been banked. They are no longer in danger of losing it. It was paid for by today's bitcoin holders.
Such a point of view is neutral, isn't it? TD (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- No, that's just your personal analysis of the subject. It doesn't matter if you're right or not; please WP:CITE your sources and write in an encyclopedic tone. Don't lecture the reader; just report what experts have said. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- OK. You know Wikipedia rules better than me. I tried to give a neutral point of view, but I can't quote any reliable source, except me. So, I won't try to participate to this page any more. For the record, my point of view is not neutral at all. Here is what I deleted, to look neutral : Crypto buyers, you enrich the crooks. Crypto sellers, you are crooks and you incite fools to become crooks in turn. Crypto proponents, you deserve jail time, because you have ruined savers for a trillion dollars. Cryptos are like a sports bet, except it's about betting on the victory of the powers of evil. When you buy cryptos, you pay to have the right to become a seller of cryptos, therefore a scammer. The gains of cryptos depend on the arrival of new buyers, therefore on the arrival of new scammers. To bet on cryptos is to bet on the will of human beings to become crooks, so it is to bet on the increase of the powers of evil. TD (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- See WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles are for established science. But Talk pages, are they ? For example, I think it is a civic duty to warn crypto buyers that cryptos are a scam. Savers should be warned, because they don't know that by buying cryptos, they are not investing their money, they are just paying for the winnings of a stupid gambling game. Crypto buyers are betting on the coming of fools, so fools they want to pay the scammers' winnings. I Think Wikipedia readers should be warned of this scam. Aren't Talk pages a good place to discuss it ? TD (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing concrete suggestions for improving the article. They are not a venue to expose scams or otherwise right wrongs. This is an encyclopedia, not a web forum. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Do you think that when wikipedians write about scammers, they don't have the right to write they are scammers? If a wikipedian knows a reference I don't know to expose the crypto scam, it would be a concrete suggestion to improve the article. I know references who say or write that cryptos are not anchored to any rel wealth, that they are a speculative bubble and a fraud (see references 267-282), but I don't know any reference, except me, who explain why it is a scam. TD (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- As it says at the head of this page:
- This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cryptocurrency article.
- This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
- If you want to include material in the article about cryptocurrency being a scam, find some reliable sources and cite them in support of some relevant article text. Just by googling the search term 'cryptocurrency is a scam' I found a number of such sources with things to say about this issue. That's how Wikipedia works, not by setting out editors' personal opinions as fact.Sbishop (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't give my opinions, I gave proofs, I gave science. If you have good references about this scam, why don't you give them? Aren't you worried about savers who will be ruined by scammers? TD (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- 'Because I said so' is not proof or science. If you want to add this material, it is up to you to source it. Asking other people to do the hard work for you rarely works. MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please read. I gave proofs. TD (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have read your attempted insertion, and I honestly do not think many people would agree that it amounts to 'proof' of any kind in the proper sense of that word. But that isn't the point anyway. Let's suppose there is a Wikipedia article on some obscure and complicated scientific subject, with citations from Wikipedia reliable sources; and the world's leading expert on that subject happened to read it one day and significantly disagreed with it. It would not be sufficient for him or her to then simply amend the article to say what he thought about it even if he or she was right; rather, he would have to amend it quoting reliable sources. Those sources would preferably be from more than one place, but might even include his own work, but only if they were published in reputable scientific journals, for example, so that readers could see that they can be relied on. That is why personal blogs for example are not regarded as reliable sources for WP even if written by people very knowledgeable about a subject.Sbishop (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't this a proof that cryptos are a scam?
- If people stop buying cryptos, their price will drop to zero. Hundreds of billions of dollars in bitcoins will disappear at the same time. How is it possible ? How can hundreds of billions of dollars disappear with the snap of a finger? Where will the hundreds of billions of dollars in bitcoins invested by savers go? They will have been used to pay the energy bill, the construction of the factories, the computers that produced the bitcoins, and all the winners who withdrew from the game in time, reselling their bitcoins with a profit. The money earned by the winners so far has already been banked. They are no longer in danger of losing it. It was paid for by today's bitcoin holders. TD (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- The only 'proof' on Wikipedia is citations to reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is why I write on this talk page. I hope another wikipedian (not me) will quote a reliable source. TD (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- So you merely express your opinion, which is against the policy. This is not a forum to share your opinion. Retimuko (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Learn to make the difference between an opinion and a proof. Wikipedia is for science, not for opinions. TD (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Your "proof" without reliable sources is your opinion. Wikipedia is not for publishing your research. See WP:OR. Retimuko (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Did you never think? Can't you think by yourself? Do you need a Nobel Prize to realize what a proof is? TD (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Am I guilty for telling the truth and proving it? TD (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
|
