Does Bitcoin see the definition of a Ponzi scheme? This is the bailiwick of the latest Cointelegraph Crypto Duel, where Bitcoin strategist at Kraken meets professor of informatics at the University of Campinas, Jorge Stolfi.

Similar to other Bitcoin skeptics, Stolfi repeatedly defined Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. The cadre of his argument is that Bitcoin doesn't produce whatever cash flows and the money with which Bitcoin investors are paid comes exclusively from new investors buying Bitcoin.

"Every fourth dimension you invest in Bitcoin, the coin that you invest goes to the previous investors or to the miners and disappears", Stolfi said.

Responding to Stolfi'southward argument, Rochard pointed out that Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer cash system and, like other forms of money, it is not supposed to produce a cash menses.

"It's simply a general holding of money because information technology is greenbacks. So it doesn't have cash flows and that doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme.", Rochard said.

Rochard too pointed out that Bitcoin is different from Ponzi schemes in that information technology does not guarantee fixed returns, and is well known to be a highly risky asset.

"Bitcoin'due south promoters repeatedly emphasize that there is a gamble of loss and that if nosotros look at the empirical information, this take chances has repeatedly been realized", said Rochard. "That'south not how Ponzi schemes work", he added.

Stolfi, yet, is convinced that effective Ponzi schemes do not promise return since that would be "a expressionless giveaway." "The S.Eastward.C. would come knocking at your door the adjacent mean solar day", he argued.

As an case, the computer scientist mentioned the notorious Madoff's Ponzi scheme, which defrauded thousands of investors for $65 billion. "He didn't hope anything. [...] The reason why people invested in it is that he was paying everybody who wanted to greenbacks out".

Pick your side and watch the total argue on Cointelegraph'southward Youtube aqueduct!