Siam Commercial Bank moving into Crypto, why aren't you?

[CH1961]

4 hours ago, Sametboy2019 said:

I didnt say all. I just mentioned two that did.

I should still have 50 BTC. 

Unfortunately at Mt. Gox ... the largest Exchange ever. 

The largest scam too. 

[Lemsta69]

On 12/30/2021 at 8:05 PM, Elkski said:

Bitcoins transaction time is to long and expensive and it's transactional volume is to low according to Elon.   

Not to mention it's high energy costs.   Crypto may be here to stay but not Bitcoin. 

Elon Musk is a charlatan, you really shouldn't listen to a word he says. except maybe when he decides to pamp some random coin because his Asperger's kicked in and he knows the SEC has no jurisdiction in such matters. then you should buy a bunch of said coin and sell at the new post-Elon pamp ATH.

[Jenkins9039]

11 hours ago, CH1961 said:

I should still have 50 BTC. 

Unfortunately at Mt. Gox ... the largest Exchange ever. 

The largest scam too. 

You'd do best to contact the liquidator, as all of us that had BTC on MT Gox have or are being refunded at rough current costs.

 

You'd have something like attached, (Gate Coin liquidation of my account). If they reached out to you on your account email, if not you will need to jump through hoops to verify you owned it, detailing balances etc

0c448231-9b6c-4b4b-a4cd-bdc0f50b42b9.pdf b0ebb59d-7021-41b8-86ea-e32da4d65cf9.pdf

Edited January 3, 2022 by Jenkins9039

[Yellowtail]

There is money to be made, but as always, don't bet scared money.

[Sametboy2019]

18 hours ago, CH1961 said:

I should still have 50 BTC. 

Unfortunately at Mt. Gox ... the largest Exchange ever. 

The largest scam too. 

Wow thats a nightmare. If anybody else reads this and doesnt have a offline wallet then get one!

[Liverpool Lou]

On 12/30/2021 at 10:25 AM, Neeranam said:

Cryptocurrency is here to stay, whether you like it or not. 

 

Anyone here not investing? If not, what are you scared of?

I'd imagine many people are not investing in it for the same reasons that they don't invest in other products that have zero guarantees of returns.

[Liverpool Lou]

On 12/30/2021 at 10:52 AM, Neeranam said:

So it is hard for you to understand if you bought Bitcoin a year ago, you would be up 100%. 

If you bought it 12 years ago, you'd be up 600,000,000% and anywhere in between you would be well ahead.

 

Not exactly rocket science is it?

Is it so hard for you to understand that past performance means nothing in terms of future returns?   Not exactly rocket science, that, is it?

[Liverpool Lou]

On 12/30/2021 at 11:13 AM, Neeranam said:

I think the fact that Thailand's oldest bank and the largest in SE Asia has bought Bitkub rules out all the past worries about high risk. 

55555!  You can't seriously think that banks don't make high risk investments?!

[Sametboy2019]

20 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

55555!  You can't seriously think that banks don't make high risk investments?!

Exactly. What do you think they do with the money everybody puts in them?

Just stare at it????

[lkn]

As for risk, OP’s entire premise is flawed: Having a bank in charge of selling casino chips does not improve the odds when placing it all on black.

 

As for crypto, at best, it is a zero sum game, everything won in crypto, someone else lost. None of these crypto-proponents have been able to dispute that by explaining how value is being created.

 

And this is why crypto-proponents spam the non-crypto forum with this <deleted>: They need a steady stream of new money to have enough liquidity for them to cash out.

Edited January 4, 2022 by lkn

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, lkn said:

As for crypto, at best, it is a zero sum game, everything won in crypto, someone else lost.

This is simply not true. If you think it is true, please explain it. 

 

You could argue that because it has no "real" value it will be worthless at some point, but that is not the same thing. 

[lkn]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

This is simply not true. If you think it is true, please explain it. 

It is a non-productive asset, no value is being created while you hold the coins.

 

It is no different than buying a casino token or beanie baby, then later selling it. You might sell it for a profit, but only if someone else pays more then you did. Your profit is 100% funded by the next buyer.

 

This is unlike a productive asset, e.g. buy a condo, rent it out, sell it for same price a year later. You still made a profit from rental income. That is not a zero-sum game, because the asset has a cashflow, and your profit came from this cashflow, not from selling the condo at a higher price.

[ukrules]

On 1/2/2022 at 11:12 PM, CH1961 said:

I should still have 50 BTC. 

Unfortunately at Mt. Gox ... the largest Exchange ever. 

The largest scam too. 

Did you put a claim in?

 

It's too late to file a new claim now but if you previously claimed then I would expect a distribution some time this year.

 

[ukrules]

1 hour ago, lkn said:

It is a non-productive asset, no value is being created while you hold the coins.

 

It is no different than buying a casino token or beanie baby, then later selling it. You might sell it for a profit, but only if someone else pays more then you did. Your profit is 100% funded by the next buyer.

 

This is unlike a productive asset, e.g. buy a condo, rent it out, sell it for same price a year later. You still made a profit from rental income. That is not a zero-sum game, because the asset has a cashflow, and your profit came from this cashflow, not from selling the condo at a higher price.

A bit like gold which isn't used for jewellery or electronics purposes, the kind that sits in bank vaults guarded 24/7 at great cost and under constant threat of violent theft?

 

[lkn]

17 minutes ago, ukrules said:

A bit like gold which isn't used for jewellery or electronics purposes, the kind that sits in bank vaults guarded 24/7 at great cost and under constant threat of violent theft?

Gold does not have a cashflow, correct. So if you buy gold today, the only way to make a profit is, if you can find someone that is willing to pay more than what you bought it for, and your profit is funded 100% by that person.

 

Main difference compared to bitcoin is that gold does have some uses, e.g. electronics and decoration/jewelry, so the chance of running out of buyers is small, unlike a purely speculative asset, for which the market of greater fools tend to eventually dry up, since mathematically, price can’t continue to go up each time the asset is resold, and once the price stops going up, the entire point of buying it will disappear.

 

You can argue that one use of bitcoin is as a currency on dark web marketplaces, so as long as there are these market places, it will be possible to sell the coins. But this doesn’t change BTC away from being a non-productive asset, and since these marketplaces tend to exchange BTC back to USD (or other fiat), no real demand for BTC is created, unlike e.g. the demand for CHF, where Swiss exporters do not exchange CHF received back to USD, as all their costs and taxes are in CHF, thereby giving CHF value relative to the currency used by those trading with Switzerland.

[watgate]

Neeram-What do you know about counterfeiting of stable value coins and do you foresee this as a problem with purchases of crypto currencies using the counterfeit stable coins?

[CH1961]

7 hours ago, ukrules said:

Did you put a claim in?

 

It's too late to file a new claim now but if you previously claimed then I would expect a distribution some time this year.

 

Yes, I have filed a claim long time ago. 

I get all the updates from trustee and still hope to get refunded. 

[Yellowtail]

9 hours ago, lkn said:

It is a non-productive asset, no value is being created while you hold the coins.

 

It is no different than buying a casino token or beanie baby, then later selling it. You might sell it for a profit, but only if someone else pays more then you did. Your profit is 100% funded by the next buyer.

 

This is unlike a productive asset, e.g. buy a condo, rent it out, sell it for same price a year later. You still made a profit from rental income. That is not a zero-sum game, because the asset has a cashflow, and your profit came from this cashflow, not from selling the condo at a higher price.

 

9 hours ago, lkn said:

It is a non-productive asset, no value is being created while you hold the coins.

No value is being created for the holder, true. 

 

9 hours ago, lkn said:

It is no different than buying a casino token or beanie baby, then later selling it. You might sell it for a profit, but only if someone else pays more then you did. Your profit is 100% funded by the next buyer.

Not true. Both the casino token and the Beanie Baby have intrinsic value, yes? So they are very different than the crypto. Further, a casino token (unless it is collectable) is never going to be worth more than face value, nor will it ever be valueless, unless the casino goes bust, it is nothing like a Beanie Baby. 

 

9 hours ago, lkn said:

This is unlike a productive asset, e.g. buy a condo, rent it out, sell it for same price a year later. You still made a profit from rental income. That is not a zero-sum game, because the asset has a cashflow, and your profit came from this cashflow, not from selling the condo at a higher price.

I do not disagree that it is a "zero-sum game", but it is worth noting that plenty of people make money from crypto without buying or selling it. 

 

In any event, what you said that said is untrue to is: "As for crypto, at best, it is a zero sum game, everything won in crypto, someone else lost."

 

You have said nothing in the above to show it is true. Even if crypto ultimately all goes bust, (as I imagine it will) plenty of people have made money selling to people that have not yet lost money, 

 

Had you stated: As for crypto, at best, it is a zero sum game, everything won in crypto, someone else will ultimately lose, it would at least have a chance of being true.

[In Full Agreement]

On 12/30/2021 at 12:08 PM, Neeranam said:

Isn't this true for any asset?

 

Some people here are still entertaining the thoughts that people had about bitcoin 10 years ago, wake up, so many things have changed. 

 

I can't think of any other asset  class that comes close to the volatility of BTC.    And at least for most other assets there is a fundamental cause for serious shifts in value.

 

Can you explain what typically causes the multi thousands of dollars changes in BTC?

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, In Full Agreement said:

 

I can't think of any other asset  class that comes close to the volatility of BTC.    And at least for most other assets there is a fundamental cause for serious shifts in value.

 

Can you explain what typically causes the multi thousands of dollars changes in BTC?

The same thing that drives value shifts in most every asset class, supply and demand. 

[lkn]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

The same thing that drives value shifts in most every asset class, supply and demand. 

For other assets (like oil, rice, coffee, soy beans, aluminum, etc.) we have producers and consumers. It makes sense that rice prices goes up, when rice harvest fails due to drought, or that energy prices goes down, because of production shutdowns due to a financial crisis, or similar.

 

Crypto coins are made out of thin air (I believe we have >10,000 different coins), and no-one in the real economy are dependent on any of them (and if there were, they could just create their own). So how can you talk about supply and demand?

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, lkn said:

For other assets (like oil, rice, coffee, soy beans, aluminum, etc.) we have producers and consumers. It makes sense that rice prices goes up, when rice harvest fails due to drought, or that energy prices goes down, because of production shutdowns due to a financial crisis, or similar.

 

Crypto coins are made out of thin air (I believe we have >10,000 different coins), and no-one in the real economy are dependent on any of them (and if there were, they could just create their own). So how can you talk about supply and demand?

You have not responded to our previous discussion, and now you want to move on to something else.

 

You stated: "As for crypto, at best, it is a zero sum game, everything won in crypto, someone else lost."

 

Again, this statement is clearly false. and I believe I showed it was false in a previous post. Before we move on, please either admit that you were mistaken, or explain your position. 

[lkn]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I do not disagree that it is a "zero-sum game", but it is worth noting that plenty of people make money from crypto without buying or selling it. 

But all these methods are just transferring value from one person to another, right? No value is being created. E.g. the staking schemes tend to just issue new coins, i.e. people’s ownership ratio of total coins is changed, but no value is being created.

 

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

In any event, what you said that said is untrue to is: "As for crypto, at best, it is a zero sum game, everything won in crypto, someone else lost."

 

You have said nothing in the above to show it is true. Even if crypto ultimately all goes bust, (as I imagine it will) plenty of people have made money selling to people that have not yet lost money, 

If you agree that it is a zero-sum game, then by definition, one person’s gain is another person’s loss. So I do not understand what it is you want me to explain.

 

Btw: When I said “at best” it is because I ignore the price of running the network. This cost is not insignificant, and the participants in the game indirectly pay this cost, so when you factor in this, and exclude the miners and various “founders” (who assign themselve coins), then it is a negative-sum game.

 

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Had you stated: As for crypto, at best, it is a zero sum game, everything won in crypto, someone else will ultimately lose, it would at least have a chance of being true.

That is a strange way to think of it. When I bought the Brooklyn bridge, did I lose my money when a) I gave my money to George C. Parker, or b) when I found out, that I could not resell the bridge? I think most people would answer A.

 

You didn’t say this, but what is often misunderstood about crypto is, that it is not like a bank or a game of poker, where all the money put into the pot is still there. For example, I think Coinbase stated that their customers have $25B worth of crypto stored on their exchange (I am quoting from memory, so I might misremember this number). That means their customers believe that they collectively hold $25B worth of value that they can convert to USD and withdraw, but that is not the case, Coinbase does not have any obligation to their customers about redeeming their coins for fiat, the only way to withdraw those $25B is to find other people who will buy these coins.

 

Even with a ponzi scheme, like Bernie Madoff, there are just a few guys receiving all the money, and you can go after their assets to reclaim some of the money invested, but with crypto, due to the many fees and high cost of running the network, a lot of the money invested are already lost, and the rest are distributed among too many people to pursue (and there isn’t really any legal framework to actually pursue this, e.g. if you bought BTC at $64k you do not have any claim against anyone, because it has since dropped to $46k). Even if you buy shares in a company, and the share price drop, you might take legal action if the CEO or board has mislead investors.

[lkn]

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Again, this statement is clearly false. and I believe I showed it was false in a previous post. Before we move on, please either admit that you were mistaken, or explain your position. 

I have since replied, though you actually said »I do not disagree that it is a "zero-sum game"«.

 

 

I also think you have it a little backwards, the hard thing to explain is how you can create value by just manipulating numbers in a database. Without showing this, it should by default be considered a zero-sum game.

 

But we have had this come up in pretty much every crypto thread on this forum, and no-one has been able to explain value creation in crypto. At best, people will just point to something else and say “what about that?”.

 

If you do not understand or cannot explain how something creates value, I would argue that you shouldn’t invest in it.

 

People have previously made parallels to the dotCom: This is actually very apt, because we had lots of companies where their business plan did not include anything about creating value, just get mass adoption, and all these businesses have since gone bankrupt.

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, lkn said:

But all these methods are just transferring value from one person to another, right?

Mostly correct. 

 

6 minutes ago, lkn said:

No value is being created.

In the same way that gambling creates no value, yet plenty of people make money on it.  

 

6 minutes ago, lkn said:

E.g. the staking schemes tend to just issue new coins, i.e. people’s ownership ratio of total coins is changed, but no value is being created.

I understood staking to be something different

 

6 minutes ago, lkn said:

If you agree that it is a zero-sum game, then by definition, one person’s gain is another person’s loss.

I did not mean to say I agreed. What I said was that I don't disagree that it is a zero-sum game. What I should have said was that I don't disagree that I believe ultimately it will be a zero-sum game. It is not a zero-sum game yet, and clearly a lot of people are making a lot of money.

 

6 minutes ago, lkn said:

So I do not understand what it is you want me to explain.

And I don't understand how you could have read what I said and still ask that, but here we are.

 

6 minutes ago, lkn said:

Btw: When I said “at best” it is because I ignore the price of running the network. This cost is not insignificant, and the participants in the game indirectly pay this cost, so when you factor in this, and exclude the miners and various “founders” (who assign themselve coins), then it is a negative-sum game.

Is horse racing a negative sum game because the track makes money and the jockeys get paid?

 

6 minutes ago, lkn said:

That is a strange way to think of it. When I bought the Brooklyn bridge, did I lose my money when a) I gave my money to George C. Parker, or b) when I found out, that I could not resell the bridge? I think most people would answer A.

That's a silly way of looking at it. You should have sold it for a profit when you had the chance, as many do with crypto? 

 

6 minutes ago, lkn said:

You didn’t say this, but what is often misunderstood about crypto is, that it is not like a bank or a game of poker, where all the money put into the pot is still there. For example, I think Coinbase stated that their customers have $25B worth of crypto stored on their exchange (I am quoting from memory, so I might misremember this number). That means their customers believe that they collectively hold $25B worth of value that they can convert to USD and withdraw, but that is not the case, Coinbase does not have any obligation to their customers about redeeming their coins for fiat, the only way to withdraw those $25B is to find other people who will buy these coins.

I think most everyone actually  involved people understands that. Caveat emptor...

 

6 minutes ago, lkn said:

Even with a ponzi scheme, like Bernie Madoff, there are just a few guys receiving all the money, and you can go after their assets to reclaim some of the money invested, but with crypto, due to the many fees and high cost of running the network, a lot of the money invested are already lost, and the rest are distributed among too many people to pursue (and there isn’t really any legal framework to actually pursue this, e.g. if you bought BTC at $64k you do not have any claim against anyone, because it has since dropped to $46k). Even if you buy shares in a company, and the share price drop, you might take legal action if the CEO or board has mislead investors.

There is noting illegal about it (yet) and I have not seen any provider claiming it is without risk.

 

It's entertaining to a lot of people, and entertainment has value. 

[lkn]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Is horse racing a negative sum game because the track makes money and the jockeys get paid?

For the people gambling on horses? Yes!

 

The sum of money “invested” in gambling on horses is certainly more than the total amount of prize money paid out (assuming we do not have sponsors who make up the difference), same with lotteries, casinos, etc. Sure, there is value for some people in participating in these things, but that doesn’t mean monetary value is created out of thin air. Money is just moved from participants (gamblers) to those running the show (e.g. casino owners).

 

As for the Brooklyn Bridge, you missed the reference. It is like paying for naming rights to stars: It is money out the window, and any certified accountant will put it down as a loss the minute you pay for it, not two years later, when you realize you’ve been had ???? But I am content with you realizing that “eventually” it will be zero-sum (because no new money was created during the speculative bubble) and that it is effectively gambling. And I will agree with you, gambling does provide value to some people, and yes, people can make a lot of money gambling.

 

As for staking, feel free to enlighten me about any cashflow I may have missed. Those I have seen has either been redistribution through various means, or just suspected ponzi schemes, as the operators would not reveal how they are providing the returns (though I think this is normally called yield farming rather than staking).

[EricTh]

Bitcoin is a pyramid scam. When everybody start to pull out their money, the last few ones are the ones who is going to lose a lot of money.

 

Think musical chairs

[Nojohndoe]

This topic is  based on a false concept ! Digital currencies are  not the same as crypto  !

The digital currencies being promoted are simply non physical digital representative  alternatives to the physical form of "hard cash" money or  "fiat currency".

 

 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, lkn said:

As for the Brooklyn Bridge, you missed the reference.

I missed the reference? You were the one comparing buying crypto to buying the Brooklyn bridge, but conveniently  ignoring that the people selling crypto typically hold the "title" and the people buying can generally resell any time they please. 

 

You sounded strong when we started, but your arguments just get weaker and weaker. 

 

I get it, you don't like crypto and you seem to believe everyone will lose money, don't buy it. 

[lkn]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You sounded strong when we started, but your arguments just get weaker and weaker. 

 

I get it, you don't like crypto and you seem to believe everyone will lose money, don't buy it. 

What a surprise, when you can’t argue facts, attack the opponent, as is so often the case in these threads.

 

And I never said everyone would lose money. Surely, some will make out like bandits, I just say overall, if we ignore the billions of dollars so far spent on electricity and hardware, it is a zero-sum game, so no money “in the real economy” has been created, therefore, if Richard Heart made a billion on his HEX coin, that billion was just transferred from other people, who effectively lost that billion. They might be able to pass on the loss, by selling to another sucker, but eventually, we should run out of greater fools.

 

If value was actually being created, it should be easy to explain. And here, I am not referring to subjective value, like being entertained, I am referring to value, as in accounting.