Its almost like tossing a million shallow arguments at the wall and asking your opponent to spend time debunking each individual one is a duplicitous strategy in itself.

Calling it a Ponzi shows a rather poor understanding of the area as if you say look at the Wikipedia article on them say, or similar sources it is apparent that Bitcoin isn't one. A passage from Wikipedia for example

>The scheme leads victims to believe that profits are coming from legitimate business activity (e.g., product sales or successful investments), and they remain unaware that other investors are the source of funds.

Bit like anti vaxxers saying the vaccine isn't a vaccine because it doesn't have 100% sterilizing immunity. It just goes to show the argurers are not very well informed on what vaccines and or Ponzis are by the usual dictionary definitions.