Craig krup

23 hours ago, dfdgfdfdgs said:

I always found that park at Mochit that others have mentioned to be a bit of a rundown area, and kind of far from the middle of Bangkok if we talk about the middle as Siam/Sukhumvit/Silom.  But it is bustling I guess.

It's a nice park. I don't know what the deal is with the open air weights. Some of the guys obviously take it fairly seriously. 

6 hours ago, csabo said:

Nong Khai

Nong Khai park's mental. It's nice once you're there, but - on foot - it's a sod to get to. 

12 hours ago, rickudon said:

When you say a budget of 15,000, is that in total per month or just for accommodation? As said Udon has a reasonable central park, and 2 others a walkable distance within the ring road (I like Nong bua more, much quieter). And a significant expat population, so can get nearly anything you routinely want. 

If your total budget was 15,000 a month, you will find condo's anywhere expensive. Can get a room in Udon from about 2000 - 4000 baht a month with air conditioning. The condo's are new so not cheap. 

If the park was a really big issue, and you can manage the stairs, there are nice cheap condos immediately South of the Phosri road at the pedestrian bridge that takes you across to Nong Bua park. For about 4,000 baht you're away from the main road, and you can cross it on the footbridge. If you're the UD town side of the railway track it's a wee bit more time to get into Nong Bua, although (IMHO) the other facilities in the centre make it worthwhile. I don't think it's that safe to cut through the Thai neighbourhood north of the railway station and then walk down the road. A bit too much traffic. Nong Bua park is really mellow. They put a lot of work into keeping it nice. 

On 03/05/2018 at 9:55 AM, kokesaat said:

Udon has a large park, well within walking distance of at least one newish condo unit and a bevy of apartments.  Nongprajak......maybe not on the same par as Lumpini, but it's not bad.  You can check it out on google earth.

Nong Prajak is brilliant, and the little studios right in the South West corner were only 4,500 a month when I asked in 2016, and you had a balcony and a view. There are brand new condos for about the same money, without the view, just 100 yards back from the park on the eastern side. The only ballache is that the bikes get the better path around the park - next to the water. Nong Bua is even prettier and it's right next to the centre, although not as big.

44 minutes ago, bartender100 said:

Meanwhile with this steady flow of news, ETH is up over 100% this last 30 days

Explain to me how an economist would account for this. 

Now explain how a psychologist would account for this. 

Now explain how a professional gambler would construe it. 

30 minutes ago, bartender100 said:

JPMorgan Chase is seeking to patent a system for using distributed ledgers as a way to facilitate and reconcile financial transactions, newly-released filings show

 

https://www.coindesk.com/jpmorgan-seeks-patent-blockchain-powered-interbank-payments/

 

Now what would they want by patenting a bunch of Tulips 

 

Meanwhile with this steady flow of news, ETH is up over 100% this last 30 days

If every various tweak, flavour and iteration can be patented then - essentially - you don't have a defensible advantage. 

Besides, in the UK you have to show an inventive step to a sceptical examiner. The US patent office is funded by the fees. They'll grant anything and leave you to defend it, and the courts to establish the (supposed) inventive step. 

3 minutes ago, seancbk said:

 

Well aside from all the young people with degrees in computing of course.    Not sure how you think blockchain developers manage to do their jobs without being highly proficient coders. 

Incidentally.... from ComputerWorld 3 days ago.

Blockchain development is now the hottest skill in the freelance job market, growing more than 6,000% since this time last year and putting it on pace to be the new “cloud” of the 21st Century, according to a new report. - https://www.computerworld.com/article/3235972/it-careers/blockchain-moves-into-top-spot-for-hottest-job-skills.html

The median income for fulltime blockchain developers in the U.S. is $140,000 a year, compared to general software developers, whose annual median pay is $105,000, according to Matt Sigelman, CEO of Burning Glass Technologies.

Kind of makes me want to go back into full time dev work.

 

Just as a matter of interest, how many of your friends are in the 20-30 age range?
 

We've already had that "fact". As I say, I listened to "In Business" last night on the subject of digital nomads, and two (from Edinburgh, IIRC) living in Lisbon were earning (they say) around 40,000 euros a year. That was pretty much the only number we heard. I remember thinking, 1) is that really true, 2) I wonder what the median income is, 3) I wonder why we don't see this bounty expressed in the typical spending and 4) I wonder why so many highly-skilled high-earners with "square" jobs troop on. 

Nobody ever tells anyone the hard motherluvin' truth. Geophysicists working for major oil service companies during booms make serious money, but it's $150,000-$200,000, and they fight for it, work hard, and get laid off when the oil price drops. If you read what real candid insiders say about anything it's always very different to "reports", and "I heard" and "according to" [Sigelman, or anyone else]. In any major money making enterprise there are a few who grab obscene money, but even them it's rarely really awesome. An ex-girlfriend ended up on the board of a Fortune 500 company. It was rules and stress. "You can claim gas, but your car's sh*t. Your housing allowance means renting this in downtown Houston, but "this" could be bought for $400,000". As soon as the stock options vested she left, and walked away with $1.5m. But that's a senior job, Fortune 500. Most of what you think is true is just nonsense. 

But honestly, seriously, hand on heart, I hope it all works out for you. It doesn't grease my primary sexual characteristics either way. 

2 hours ago, seancbk said:

Do I think that crypto is going to crash to zero and never recover?  Of course not.   Do I think it's going to change our lives and the way we use 'money' absolutely.   

Until you learn to think about what money is, and can refer to it without your tin-foil-in-hat-it's-all-just-fiat scare marks, you'll understand nothing about currencies, crypto or otherwise. 

Contemplate this: every idiot who was flat wrong and is flat broke has a CV just like yours. 

Did you read the FT piece? 

Here's an interesting piece. 

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/05/02/1525253799000/Blockchain-insiders-tell-us-why-we-don-t-need-blockchain/

5 minutes ago, seancbk said:

 

 

Not sure what this means "if I bank used blockchain in its normal banking function - dealing with dollars and euro - you'd think (you do think) that this tells us something about Bitcoin."

1) Some (many) banks *are* using blockchain very successfully

2) Of course Bitcoin uses Blockchain Technology.    

3) Blockchains and Bitcoin are not the same thing.   A bank using a blockchain *does not mean you can go and buy that specific token from the bank or sell it to the bank*    You can however, own and trade, the tokens or a token created for that blockchain the bank uses.   Ripple is of course the obvious example.


When are you going to admit that you know almost nothing about any of this and are making up arguments from a position of ignorance?

 

Okay mate, you win. I'm quite busy and I've a limited amount of time to deal with retards. You post links to prove that blockchain has uses for companies and then infer that this tells us something about the value of currencies which use blockchain. 

You've never been through a decent university - or even a school - that forced you to read closely and think. This is wrestling with a pig. It wastes my time, but the pig enjoys it. 

4 hours ago, phycokiller said:

werent you the guy that says the market can remain irational longer than you can remain solvent? I can tell you exactly what its worth. $9200 at the time of writting. You can say its worth zero as much as you want, you can say the sky is yellow with polka dots as well but its hard to have a discussion if we just make up our own facts as we go along

Of course the market can remain irrational. That's why Buffett, with all his wealth, didn't want to bet against the continuation of stupidity. Paulson made $4.5bn being right about US housing - read "The Greatest trade Ever" - but he nearly had to give up because with a big enough tidal wave of stupidity it's hard to keep the positions open. That doesn't mean you aren't looking at stupidity. 

But that's all too slippery for you, isn't it? Too many mental moves. Too much thought. 

8 hours ago, bearpolar said:

And guess what? While turdfarts were saying every dotcom innovation was a scam, the venture capital firms were buying that shit for pennies on the dollar

 

and they made a fortune when it all went back up(when people that didnt understand dotcom gave up on their investment.)

No, as a group they were destroyed. But you - identifying the carpetbaggers who weren't, imagining they had characteristics different from their peers (rather than just being lucky), and imagining that you have them - see yourself buying at the bottom. 

The person who made serious money was Warren Buffett. He was buying brick and carpet manufacturers when the herd was going mad. 

3 hours ago, phycokiller said:

also, yes there is nothing behind these currencies, no backing , no intrinsic value, thats a huge advantage they have

No. What lies behind a currency is that it is legal tender in some territory, government demands taxes in that currency and (therefore) government will act to maintain its value. The pound is backed by the productive activity of the UK economy and the counter-inflationary interest rates set by the Bank of England, plus its management of the commercial banks. 

You and your wee pals have avoided thinking about this for seventeen pages, and - doubtless - will continue. 

13 hours ago, seancbk said:

 

You said, in the message I quoted "Nobody can explain to you what need cryptocurrencies meet"   

So I posted links with a real world use case, developed and tested by IBM and a group of banks. 

If you are too stubborn to read it and you don't understand that Global Trade Finance is a very large and important use case for blockchain then you are orders of magnitude more ignorant than I was starting to think.


 

You're so stupid that if I bank used blockchain in its normal banking function - dealing with dollars and euro - you'd think (you do think) that this tells us something about Bitcoin. F-F-S. You think either, 

1) banks use blockchain technology

2) Bitcoin uses blockchain technology

3) ergo banks accept Bitcoin

OR

1) banks use blockchain technology and are successful

2) Bitcoin uses blockchain technology

3) ergo Bitcoin will be successful. 

Your head is like a ball of wool that the cat has been playing with. 

3 hours ago, phycokiller said:

I see today even goldman sachs is going to start trading it. I

Christ. And you won't even distinguish between trade and own. 

When they make a market and hold 10 million as market makers I'll be impressed. When they hold two, or efficiently facilitate matched orders for a slice of the action, I won't be surprised. 

If two idiots want to fight I wouldn't join in, but I might sell tickets. 

12 hours ago, seancbk said:

1) When the issues with Bitcoin and other blockchain projects are solved (ie we reach their future potential) the mass adoption will occur and the value of one Bitcoin will be significantly higher than it is now.    But we are talking 5 years or so from now.  

2) In the meantime people will trade crypto the same as they trade stocks, pork belly futures or any other tradeable asset class.
 

1) You've absolutely no way of knowing this, no basis for it, and have resisted every attempt to get you to think about what a currency is. 

2) Stocks can be pharma or oil - products with use. Pork can be eaten. You don't want to think about this either. 

You're such a disappointment to me. 

3 minutes ago, seancbk said:

 

Blockchain technology, crypto currencies and crypto tokens are here to stay.
 

And if we ever get the drugs promised in "Lawnmower Man" we'll be able to get you to see that you've three things here, and - just as they're presented by you - they constitute a jobby sandwich. 

You're like your wee pal. You can't see that if blockchain has a use (which it certainly does) then that doesn't mean that cryptocurrencies make any sense. 

You've never thought about what money is because you're too far up your tech jargon fundament to see why understanding money might be necessary to understand the cryptocurrencies. Hint - the clue is in the name. 

6 minutes ago, seancbk said:

 

You said, in the message I quoted "Nobody can explain to you what need cryptocurrencies meet"   

So I posted links with a real world use case, developed and tested by IBM and a group of banks. 

If you are too stubborn to read it and you don't understand that Global Trade Finance is a very large and important use case for blockchain then you are orders of magnitude more ignorant than I was starting to think.


 

 Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. Did I mention, "No"? Established providers might be able to use blockchain to meet some of their business needs. That has sod all to do with cryptocurrencies. 

So there's no doubt left, is there? None. You slide - and you do it right here in the piece quoted - between "..what need do cryptocurrencies meet.." and global finances "..important use..for blockchain". 

There is, M'lud. That's the cause admitted, M'lud. 

You don't even see that you're doing it. F-F-S. 

43 minutes ago, seancbk said:

Try educating yourself.

https://www.nasdaq.com/article/ibm-five-international-banks-pilot-blockchain-based-platform-for-trade-finance-cm954045

https://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-trade-finance-breaking-proof-concept-gridlock/

 

And you've actually posted us links that have ***k all to do with currencies. Jesus wept. 

30 minutes ago, seancbk said:

Who the hell ever said that about Bitcoin?

You clearly can't even distinguish between Bitcoin and any other crypto coin or token.    

Your lack of knowledge is embarrassing.

Oh please. You're always alluding to your arguments, but when anyone takes seriously the endless urls you post they get a social cripple explaining how some piece of tech works, with abso*uckinlutely no relevance whatsoever to the issue at hand. 

All your distinctions are only for aficionados - a.k.a. people who want to argue whether Tweedledum is better than Tweedledee. The "distinction" you mean to draw between the precise onanism you favour, and other forms of self-abuse, is a distinction without a difference. If these "currencies" are for paying for things then they're s*it. So your adolescent fascination with their differences is meaningless next to the characteristic they share in common - they're rubbish at what they're supposedly for. 

You've slid all over the distinction between the possible IT applications of technology for business purposes, and the sense in this technology providing the basis for a kiddy-on currency. I've tried for pages to get you to see that, and to see that if the former exists it has existed for at least twenty years, and any super-normal wages it puts into the hands of workers, or super-normal profits into the hands of companies, will be quickly bid away by competition. 

In case it has escaped your notice - no, it has escaped your notice - this entire thread is, "Cryptocurrency - would you consider investing?" 

Go. I tire of you now. 

6 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Yeah, and no one lost anything on that one in 2001, the dot com stocks only lost $5 trillion dropping 78%.

Global Crossing, Enron....

Mind you, at least at some level these disasters made sense: there was some possibility of a business there. Nobody can explain to you what need cryptocurrencies meet, why buying one right now won't almost certainly be worse than buying one later (should they look like working), and why there isn't horrendous political-legal (as well as competition) risk. 

We've got people claiming that buying a Bitcoin (or similar) somehow involves grabbing a stake in the provider of technological solutions to businesses. Does it? Does that make any sense?

 “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” Charles Mackay

Last Chance to Invest in IPO 

Get the Hottest New Cryptocurrency Shekelwank. Over 20,000 Shekelwank already ordered*. Unique post-blockchain inventory-optimised facilitation network** with robust challenge facing characteristics***. 

[* My mum. ** My PC's Excel sheet. *** McAfee. ]

5 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

It is not nonsense and you need to learn to read. There are programs where people are saying they will invest in bitcoin for you. You send your money in and THEY purchase the coins using your money. Say they buy 5 coins with your money. The price goes up, they say there is suspicious activity on your account, close it and refund your original money. They then keep the bitcoins and the profit or sell the bitcoins, refund you and keep the profit. Simple. Nothing to do with the secure nature of bitcoin and most people will not think to question it as they get their original money back and do nothing more than mutter sh*t under their breath..

I'm trying to be funny F-F-S. 

I've spent considerable time trying to force sense into the cast of Fraggle Rock . What do you think the "tongue in cheek" stuff was about. 

Of course it's a scam! The whole things a scam. Admittedly the best con men don't know that they're con men, so some will get rich and never think themselves crooks. Indeed lacking a mens rea they aren't. Just idiots. 

12 minutes ago, seancbk said:

 

 

What the hell has Thailand and people who want to stay here got to do with Bitcoin?    


I'm beginning to think you are a complete nut job with a major ego problem.   

You are allegedly involved in education yet you seem unwilling to educate yourself, instead you spout nonsense that has nothing to do with crypto. 

Are you really so much more intelligent than all the people actively developing crypto platforms and working in the crypto space?   

I don't think you even have the slightest clue how big the cryptosphere is, maybe the demand for developers will give you a clue.....

From Techcrunch -   "Blockchain-related jobs are the second-fastest growing in today’s labor market; there are now 14 job openings for every one blockchain developer. And as Nick Szabo, the developer who coined “smart contracts,” pointed out, there is an extreme “$/knowledge” ratio in the blockchain space, where capital by far outpaces talent.

Today, Toptal, a marketplace for on-demand tech talent, is publicly launching their blockchain engineering talent vertical out of private beta. In today’s software development landscape, Toptal represents about 50 percent of on-demand engineering labor by revenue.   Requests for on-demand blockchain talent are skyrocketing. Last year, freelance talent marketplace Upwork saw blockchain rise to the fastest-growing skill out of more than 5,000 skills in terms of freelancer billings —  a year-over-year increase of more than 35,000 percent."

 

Are we to believe that you are smarter than all the people at all those companies who are hiring all those highly skilled engineers (and the engineers themselves)?   

Yeah mate, whatever, you're right. Hope it all works out for you. I was lucky to be born in 1965, and I was saved when I walked into a steady job in 1996. Scarred as I was by what came before I made damn certain that I bought protection, and plenty of it. Given the financial crisis, given the "gig" economy, we've an army of young people with the arse out of their trousers. "Brett Dev" on Youtube deleted my comments about the reality of this, and I can see why. It must be horrendous. Whatever. Chook dee. The reality is sad. I've honestly got sympathy. It's a tough world. The unique selling point of the West was the rule of law and political stability. As the world became more stable post 1990 hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty, but the privileged position of those lucky enough to be born in the West has been violently eroded. Really good tech people make £30,000 a year in the UK, and work horribly hard for it. I know a guy who has taken a massive pay cut on already low wages to be made permanent by British Telecom. 

So if you need to believe this sh*te to get through the day, fine. In your circumstances I'm not sure that I'd be any different.  

23 minutes ago, phycokiller said:

your characterization isnt accurate because, as you state in the very next word, its an "if". an if based on a bunch of assumptions based on your uninformed opinion. it may be correct but you provide no evidence, although of course we do undersatand that you are so much better at predicting the future then the rest of us, well, apart from the guy that made a million by ignoring your advice

Okay, tell us your assumptions that underpin the claim that it's worth $9,000, or $90, or $9, or $9m?

I've told you why I think it's worth zero. It's a bad way to exchange goods and services, and if it wasn't bad new entrants could do it much better. That's my claim. It doesn't function as a currency. Currencies exist in sovereign territories, they're legal tender, governments ask for their taxes in them, and so act to preserve their value. Bitcoin isn't a currency. That's my argument. That's why I think it's worth zero. What assumptions do you make - aside from today's supposed fact that some numpty will give you more than zero - that it's fundamental value is worth more than zero? I should pay $9,000 for a Bitcoin because Bitcoin lets me do what - exactly - that $9,000 doesn't let me do?

You've no willingness to think, and the fact that you've got equally thoughtless support changes nothing. Misery loves company, but stupidity loves a mob.