It's as repulsive as state-run lotteries.

The expected return to entrants, over all entries through its collapse, is likely even better than lotteries.

At least this isn't advertising on TV and YouTube to attract even more vulnerable and unsophisticated players!

It's really not much different from gambling. It's not repulsive if they are honest about how it works.

I love people like you who think they are smarter and better than anyone who would do things they don't like. Kudos.

I don't think you understand my comment.

What activities do you think I don't like?

I love people like you who think it matters if you like a lottery or not. Free money!

It's horrible. But it's like watching a trainwreck to be honest, you know exactly what's going to happen yet it's still intriguing.

How so? No one is being deceived. Everyone who participates does so of their own volition. Is individual volition repulsive?

Are they really dumb? Is the guy in the middle of the scheme who makes out with a profit dumb? There's known risk - some will decide they'll risk it. It may not be wise (I wouldn't participate, myself), but I wouldn't be so bold as to assume they're dumb.

> But those who participate are still morally complicit.

Who are these morally complicit participants if not the "obviously dumb" persons whom you just described? Are they victims with "serious issues" or are they morally corrupt enablers?

You may mean that the morally-corrupt-enabler(s) are whomever set this up, but that's not really what's suggested by such a broad phrase as "those who participate".

Humans are not robots, we make mistakes and often do things that we later regret. I don't have the concept of morality worked out perfectly. However, it feels wrong to influence people in a way that increases the frequency of said regretful events, especially when potentially large sums of money are involved. It looks like over 200k went through the site before it shut down? Nothing to sneeze at.

You are right, there is a distinction to be made between those who created the site, and those throw money at it.

Some who throw money at the site are well off and are essentially using the scheme as entertainment. They likely would not be too upset if the money didn't come back. One could make the argument that these people are morally entangled to a degree, as they increase the volume of funds flowing through the site, which draws in additional people, and makes it more likely that someone who actually has financial or gambling problems is tempted to bet on the site. However, this is argument is somewhat weaker than the one against the actual creators of the scheme.

Just because your expected return is negative doesn't mean it's dumb to partake in it. Nor is the outcome obvious.

The site wasn't created for the purpose of hooking in gambling addicts, so I see no problem with it. Also, you have no evidence that an explicit bitcoin ponzi scheme draws in gamblers who put in more money than they can afford to lose.

Things created for one intent often have unintended side effects.

And you are right, I don't have any hard data or evidence off the top my head. I have read many accounts about gambling in general though. It can be quite insidious. Putting money into the scheme from the OP is virtually the same thing as gambling. If the site actually ran for any decent length of time, I think it is extremely likely that some people who are struggling financially would have made bets on this site that they would then later regret. I also doubt you have evidence that implies otherwise ;)

Personally, I think that facilitating such events is morally dubious. I understand that not everyone shares this view.

Theft is theft, even when you label yourself "we steal". Making this do actual and not fake transactions is criminal.

But saying "We'll take your items, if you give them to us" is not theft.