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

[Yellowtail]

6 hours ago, lkn said:

Uhm… yeah… that was not really what any of us said. We said that (in a zero-sum game) someone’s profit is another person’s loss. I think we have been over this a dozen times already.

1. You claimed: "Everything won in crypto, someone else lost." , correct? 

2. You equated buying crypto to buying the Brooklyn Bridge, correct? 

3. You also claimed crypto has no value, correct?

4. And you claimed that the moment anyone buys anything that has no value, that person has already lost their money, is that correct? 

 

So clearly it follows that you are claiming that everyone that has ever purchased crypto has lost all their money. 

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

6 hours ago, lkn said:

The stock has split twice, so I have 21 more stocks than I initially paid for. And in split-adjusted price, my first share in Apple was bought for about $2.5 and that now gives me a yearly dividend of $0.88.

 

So yes, effectively the dividend has double many times, and yes, I do have a lot of shares today.

 

And you know what? All this money comes from people buying Apple’s products, products that have an extremely high consumer satisfaction rating, so nobody is being cheated here, nor is the money I earned, as an investor in Apple, somebody else’s loss.

If it has only split twice since you've bought it, you should have 28 times as many shares, not 21 more "stocks."

 

 

[lkn]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

If it has only split twice since you've bought it, you should have 28 times as many shares, not 21 more "stocks."

Actually, 35 times as many, yes (it was a 1:7 split then a 1:5 split).

[lkn]

On 1/10/2022 at 8:39 AM, Yellowtail said:

So clearly it follows that you are claiming that everyone that has ever purchased crypto has lost all their money. 

The Brooklyn Bridge example was a rhetorical question about when you lose the money. When you buy something worthless, or when you find out it is worthless? I think I have already elaborated on this a few times.

 

But no, I did not actually claim that “everyone that has ever purchased crypto has lost all their money” because, as you quote, “Everything won in crypto, someone else lost”, i.e. clearly that statement says that someone is winning something, but that gain comes from someone else.

 

So there are winners and losers, or early buyers and bagholders. Anyone who resell before it collapses will have won something. But the total sum of money won, will be less than the total sum of money invested.

 

I have explained this to you a dozen times now. This is a widely accepted truth...

[ThLT]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

1. You claimed: "Everything won in crypto, someone else lost." , correct? 

2. You equated buying crypto to buying the Brooklyn Bridge, correct? 

3. You also claimed crypto has no value, correct?

4. And you claimed that the moment anyone buys anything that has no value, that person has already lost their money, is that correct? 

 

So clearly it follows that you are claiming that everyone that has ever purchased crypto has lost all their money. 

Lol. The only thing that is clear is that you're confused about every straw men point you mention above, including your straw man conclusion.

Zero-sum. It's not difficult to understand.

The money/profit that you earn when selling crypto comes from other people who sold crypto at a lost. What you earn making crypto, comes from another's pockets. 

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zero-sum

 

10 hours ago, lkn said:

We said that (in a zero-sum game) someone’s profit is another person’s loss. I think we have been over this a dozen times already.

Edited January 10, 2022 by ThLT

[ThLT]

 

Quote

zero-sum
ze·ro-sum | \ ˈzir-(ˌ)ō-ˈsəm  , ˈzē-(ˌ)rō- \
of, relating to, or being a situation (such as a game or relationship) in which a gain for one side entails a corresponding loss for the other side.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zero-sum

Edited January 10, 2022 by ThLT

[Yellowtail]

On 1/10/2022 at 12:22 PM, lkn said:

The Brooklyn Bridge example was a rhetorical question about when you lose the money. When you buy something worthless, or when you find out it is worthless? I think I have already elaborated on this a few times.

 

But no, I did not actually claim that “everyone that has ever purchased crypto has lost all their money” because, as you quote, “Everything won in crypto, someone else lost”, i.e. clearly that statement says that someone is winning something, but that gain comes from someone else.

 

So there are winners and losers, or early buyers and bagholders. Anyone who resell before it collapses will have won something. But the total sum of money won, will be less than the total sum of money invested.

 

I have explained this to you a dozen times now. This is a widely accepted truth by anyone with half a brain.

1. You claimed: "Everything won in crypto, someone else lost." , correct? 

2. You equated buying crypto to buying the Brooklyn Bridge, correct? 

3. You also claimed crypto has no value, correct?

4. And you claimed that the moment anyone buys anything that has no value, that person has already lost their money, is that correct? 

 

So clearly it follows that you are claiming that everyone that has ever purchased crypto has lost all their money. 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by onthedarkside
flame removed

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, ThLT said:

The money/profit that you earn when selling crypto comes from other people who sold crypto at a lost.

How do you know they sold it at at a "lost"? One might have sold it to someone who turned around and profited from selling it, yes? 

 

1 hour ago, ThLT said:

What you earn making crypto, comes from another's pockets. 

Most anytime you sell anything to anyone the money you get comes from another's pockets. yes? 

[ThLT]

On 1/10/2022 at 2:00 PM, Yellowtail said:

How do you know they sold it at at a "lost"?

Apologies for the typo. I've been typing fast...

 

Obviously there are thousands who have sold crypto at a loss. Are you implying that because I don't have access to their accounts that I can't know for sure that people who lost money selling their crypto exist? ???? Do you also think I also can't know that some people have lost money selling traditional stocks at a loss? 

 

Quote

One might have sold it to someone who turned around and profited from selling it, yes? 

So? If you add a third, or fourth of fifth person, it doesn't change that the profits solely come from those who sell at a loss.

Again, discussing pointless details, and yet another false whataboutism.
Did you read the dictionary definition of "zero-sum"? That was fairly simple.

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by onthedarkside
flame removed

[ThLT]

Here it is again, @Yellowtail:

 

zero-sum
ze·ro-sum | \ ˈzir-(ˌ)ō-ˈsəm  , ˈzē-(ˌ)rō- \
of, relating to, or being a situation (such as a game or relationship) in which a gain for one side entails a corresponding loss for the other side.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zero-sum

Edited January 10, 2022 by ThLT

[ThLT]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Most anytime you sell anything to anyone the money you get comes from another's pockets. yes? 

In all cases where it's zero-sum, yes. The difference between crypto and buying stock is that crypto creates no real-world value (the other portion of the discussion which you don't seem to understand). 
 

When you buy stock of a company, that helps the company. This allows leverage and increased capital for the company, to expand and create/deliver products and services to a large amount of customers.

 

No one who buys Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies intends to use them as a currency. Ironically. With all of the hype, they are too valuable as a speculative asset to profit from. The intention is to buy a coin/portion coin, wait, and then sell it at a profit. Rinse and repeat. In large part, that's all crypto is at the moment.

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by ThLT

[Yellowtail]

On 1/10/2022 at 3:05 PM, ThLT said:

Apologies for the typo. I've been typing fast...

 

Obviously there are thousands who have sold crypto at a loss. Are you implying that because I don't have access to their accounts that I can't know for sure that people who lost money selling their crypto exist? ???? Do you also think I also can't know that some people have lost money selling traditional stocks at a loss? 

 

So? If you add a third, or fourth of fifth person, it doesn't change that the profits solely come from those who sell at a less.

Perhaps you should consider reading what you are going to post. 

 

Yes, plenty of people have lost money, but plenty of people have made money a well. 

 

On 1/10/2022 at 3:05 PM, ThLT said:

Again, discussing pointless details.
Did you read the dictionary definition of "zero-sum"? That was fairly simple.

To be clear,  I know what zero-sum means, and I do not now, nor have I ever said crypto was not a zero-sum game. The only thing I asked you two to to define was "create value", but because you were unable to define  "create value", you keep going on about zero-sum.

 

[fdsa]

26 minutes ago, ThLT said:

No one who buys Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies intends to use them as a currency.

while I mostly agree there are still some people who use crypto for anonymization of their purchases.

[Yellowtail]

21 minutes ago, ThLT said:

In all cases where it's zero-sum, yes.

In all cases, period.

 

21 minutes ago, ThLT said:

When you buy stock of a company, that helps the company. This allows leverage and increased capital for the company, to expand and create/deliver products and services to a large amount of customers.

More whataboutism. When you buy crypto, this allows leverage and increased capital for the company, to expand and create/deliver crypto and crypto services to a large amount number of customers.

 

21 minutes ago, ThLT said:

 

No one who buys Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies intends to use them as a currency. Ironically. With all of the hype, they are too valuable as a speculative asset to profit from. The intention is to buy a coin/portion coin, wait, and then sell it at a profit. Rinse and repeat. In large part, that's all crypto is at the moment.

 

How do you know that no one buying it intends to use it as currency? I thought one of the issues with it was people using it to finance drug trafficking. How would that be possible if no one uses it as currency?  

[ThLT]

On 1/10/2022 at 3:41 PM, Yellowtail said:

In all cases, period.

Not everything is zero-sum. ????

 

On 1/10/2022 at 3:41 PM, Yellowtail said:

When you buy crypto, this allows leverage and increased capital for the company

Cryptocurrencies aren't companies. ???? 
 

On 1/10/2022 at 3:41 PM, Yellowtail said:

How do you know that no one buying it intends to use it as currency?

People making money with crypto—which is what we are discussing—are almost entirely not using it as a currency.

YOU: "But there are people who use it as a currency, for drugs and things like that."
Yet another whataboutism.

[ThLT]

On 1/10/2022 at 3:23 PM, Yellowtail said:

The only thing I asked you two to to define was "create value", but because you were unable to define  "create value", you keep going on about zero-sum. Please stop it. 

 

I explained it in different ways, and so did lkn...

 

I even agree with the definition of "creating value" which you yourself posted two pages ago.

 

Quote

Value creation is the primary aim of any business entity. Creating value for customers helps sell products and services, while creating value for shareholders, in the form of increases in stock price, insures the future availability of investment capital to fund operations. From a financial perspective, value

https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Tr-Z/Value-Creation.html

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by onthedarkside
flame comments removed

[Yellowtail]

On 1/10/2022 at 3:47 PM, ThLT said:

Not everything is zero-sum. ????

 

Now you're making ridiculous claims. ????????????
 

Cryptocurrencies aren't companies. ???? 
 

People making money with crypto—which is what we are discussing—are almost entirely not using it as a currency.

YOU: "But there are people who use it as a currency, for drugs and things like that."
Yet another whataboutism. ????????????????????

You claim that "No one who buys Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies intends to use them as a currency.", and then when I show you are lying and provide an example of people that use  it as currency, you call it whataboutism.

[ThLT]

On 1/10/2022 at 5:32 PM, Yellowtail said:

You claim that "No one who buys Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies intends to use them as a currency.", and then when I show you are lying and provide an example of people that use  it as currency, you call it whataboutism.

How many who buy crypto use it as a currency on a regular basis? Almost no one.

How many have used cryptocurrency as a currency even just once in their lifetime? 1%, maybe 4% at most? ????

This is a perfect example of a whataboutism. I said "no one buys bitcoin to use it as a currency"... You know, when using an actual currency, you use it to buy stuff on a regular basis—more than once or twice. ???? 

 

[lkn]

Regarding bitcoin as a currency: It was used on Silk Road, and they provided escrow between buyer and seller.

 

But even back then (when BTC was < $1,000) the volatility was too big of a problem, so the escrow service would immediately sell the BTC for USD on Mt.Gox and then hold USD in escrow.

 

If you understand economy, you should understand that BTC will always be extremely volatile (unless it goes to zero), and nobody wants to use a medium of exchange that keeps changing value relative to their expenses.

[ThLT]

On 1/10/2022 at 6:05 PM, lkn said:

Regarding bitcoin as a currency: It was used on Silk Road, and they provided escrow between buyer and seller.

 

But even back then (when BTC was < $1,000) the volatility was too big of a problem, so the escrow service would immediately sell the BTC for USD on Mt.Gox and then hold USD in escrow.

And even then, especially nowadays, it's a minuscule percentage of people who use cryptocurrencies in this manner. Or use them at all in any manner as a currency, for that matter.
 

[lkn]

Here’s how many uses bitcoin, less than 3 per second, not really seeing increased adoption, despite ATH valuation a few months.

Of course if you understand economics, you understand that price of a currency is unrelated to the number of transactions. Bitcoin itself provides nothing that gives it value. The value provided by the network is paid for via mining fees (and issuing new coins, that, in theory, devalue all existing coins), not by increasing the price of the coins moved.

 

[lkn]

The problem when your investment is in a non-productive speculative asset that has no final consumer, any value above zero is basically overvalued, so when to take profit?

 

[Yellowtail]

He said he bought at $2.50 a share, and that he depended on the dividends for his cash flow. So assuming his cash flow is just $30,000 a year, at $1.88 a share he'd have ~15,957 shares, at $172.19 a share that's about $2.75M. 

 

Given the splits he'd have had to have purchased about 570 shares. At $2.50 a share that means he paid $1,425, so he made millions. 

 

Even if he'd only invested $1,000, at $2.50 a share he'd have made over $1.9M, yes?

 

[ThLT]

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

He said he bought at $2.50 a share, and that he depended on the dividends for his cash flow. So assuming his cash flow is just $30,000 a year, at $1.88 a share he'd have ~15,957 shares, at $172.19 a share that's about $2.75M. 

 

Given the splits he'd have had to have purchased about 570 shares. At $2.50 a share that means he paid $1,425, so he made millions. 

 

Even if he'd only invested $1,000, at $2.50 a share he'd have made over $1.9M, yes? 

He said he bought his first share for about $2.50—not all his shares. ???? 
Your calculations are all off.

 

On 1/10/2022 at 2:18 AM, lkn said:

The stock has split twice, so I have 21 more stocks than I initially paid for. And in split-adjusted price, my first share in Apple was bought for about $2.5 and that now gives me a yearly dividend of $0.88.

 He never said his monthly expenses were paid for by Apple dividends. ???? What he said is the dividends paid for the initial costs of the shares.

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by onthedarkside
flaming & emoticon trolling comments removed

[lkn]

On 1/9/2022 at 3:44 PM, mjnaus said:

There's some people that get it, and there's some that don't […]

The problem is that these people who allegedly get it are unable to explain basic stuff like how it creates value, and seem very confused about other parts of the economy.

 

Anyway, I know you get many of the technical aspects of how the technology works, so setting aside the question about economic value, I came across this article by renowned cryptographer Moxie Marlinspike (founder of the Signal messaging platform).

 

His conclusion/findings is that all this talk about “decentralized” is just talk, in actuality it is all very much centralized (as you and I have also briefly touched upon before about custodial wallets), and his thesis is that it will remain centralized (because centralized solutions will always be superior to distributed solutions that require consensus around a protocol, he mentions that already royalties for NFTs is an OpenSea extension). He also brings up lack of hash commitment for the NFT data, so it can be changed at will, how OpenSea was able to effectively revoke his NFT even though it was stored in his MetaMask wallet, etc.

 

So I wonder, if you read the linked article, would you say Moxie is just among the people who doesn’t get it?

[lkn]

10 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

so he made millions

The point wasn’t how much money I have made, the point was that if I sell Apple shares today, my profit from having held Apple, is not funded by the next buyer. It was funded by the economic activity of the underlying business. And the next buyer can hold these shares for 31 years, and with no growth in Apple’s business, they will still have made back their money from the underlying cashflow that they bought from me.

 

You can’t say this about crypto, therefore you cannot compare stocks with crypto. End of argument.

[mjnaus]

1 hour ago, lkn said:

The problem is that these people who allegedly get it are unable to explain basic stuff like how it creates value, and seem very confused about other parts of the economy.

Are they unable to explain it, or are you unable to understand it. I have explained on several occasions to you, in detail, how I earn money in DeFi without depending a buyer to take assets off my hands. Anyhow, I have zero interest in going through another such discussion.

 

1 hour ago, lkn said:

So I wonder, if you read the linked article, would you say Moxie is just among the people who doesn’t get it?

I haven't read the article, just scanned through it just now, but I am familiar with the author's views. I have yet to see Moxie make claims along the lines of "crypto is a scam", "crypto does not create any value", "crypto has no future", "defi does not improve finance" etc. So your question on whether or not "he doesn't get it" does not make much sense in this context. All Moxie does is be skeptical of Web3, which isn't all strange (considering he's spend a significant part of his career at companies like Twitter, Whatsapp, Google and Facebook) and raise some concerns regarding the level of decentralization of certain projects. He's certainly not alone in that aspect and I personally know many people, in the crypto industry, who are skeptical of the "Web3 promise", including myself. We have yet to see how this will play out. Same thing for NFT's. Not everyone who likes the premise of decentralized finance and digital sound money is into paying insane amounts of money for jpeg's. Moxie's stance on Web3 is hardly unique though, and imo represents the typical SV view on possible progress in the digital age in a manner beyond their control.... 

 

Web3 ≠ crypto ≠ NFT. 

You might find Vitalik's response to Moxie's views interesting as well: 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by mjnaus

[onthedarkside]

A series of posts among several members that involved flaming each other, bickering and emoticon trolling have been edited or removed.

 

If you can't continue discussing the topic rationally without resorting to insulting each other in the forum, the topic will be closed.

 

[Yellowtail]

7 hours ago, ThLT said:

He said he bought his first share for about $2.50—not all his shares. ???? 
Your calculations are all off.

 

 He never said his monthly expenses were paid for by Apple dividends. ???? What he said is the dividends paid for the initial costs of the shares.

He said he bought at $2.50 and that it split twice. 

 

He also said the dividends provided his cashflow. 

 

Who's your broker anyway? 

[ThLT]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

He also said the dividends provided his cashflow. 

He said his Apple stock dividends were a cashflow. ???? 

 

On 1/8/2022 at 9:55 PM, lkn said:

Small for new investors, I started buying Apple shares > 10 years ago because of their ridiculous low P/E compared to their earnings potential, so the dividend must have paid for the cost of my shares many times over, and I don’t have to worry that all of Apple (and thus my cashflow) is gone tomorrow because of a tweet, as they actually produce highly desirable products that they sell worldwide with a 40% profit… ????

Your post:

 

14 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

He said he bought at $2.50 a share, and that he depended on the dividends for his cash flow. So assuming his cash flow is just $30,000 a year, at $1.88 a share he'd have ~15,957 shares, at $172.19 a share that's about $2.75M. 

 

Given the splits he'd have had to have purchased about 570 shares. At $2.50 a share that means he paid $1,425, so he made millions. 

You somehow think that he "depends" on his Apple stock dividends for his "cashflow." ???? As if it's his yearly expenses or something. ???? You assumed his "cash flow" is $30,000 per year, and then made a bunch of reversed calculations based on that. ????

I can't correct your calculations, because they are entirely based on on wrong assumptions of his $30,000 "cash flow," and how he "depends on his Apple stock dividends for his cash flow." 

 

14 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

He said he bought at $2.50 a share, and that he depended on the dividends for his cash flow. So assuming his cash flow is just $30,000 a year, at $1.88 a share he'd have ~15,957 shares

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by ThLT