Bitcoin Family in Phuket

[patman30]

11 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

Just because other members have a different view on Crypto or anything else,

than yourself does not mean they are ignorant , and I think that is an ignorant

comment to make , 

 

People who own Crypto are always telling other people ,you should buy , buy,

it's the best thing in the World , not because they want you to be Crypto rich

too , it's just without new buyers , Crypto would plummet ,new buyers are

the only thing keeping it going, So anyone with a different view ,telling others

to be careful ,if you have a negative view on Crypto you are the enemy and Ignorant ........

 

Regards Worgeordie

if you choose to have an opinion on something
without actually looking into it and understanding it on a basic level
that is ignorance
as you ignore all the information available to have a clear understanding
and instead rely on ignorant opinions of others to form an opinion
sadly this is extremely common these days regardless of topic

"crypto trading"
yes your comment makes sense
lots of people like to gamble whether they know the horse or not
and many "people who own crypto" are simply ignorant gamblers

having said that most crypto coins are built on false promises
but in reality that is not much different to startups these days
raise money first, build later, but they never build

Bitcoin can scale to become the global cash system
but i dont think anyone here is ready for that conversation LOL

Next Year crypto will look like a joke, and i am not talking about fiat price action, i mean crypto.

[Neeranam]

1 hour ago, worgeordie said:

People who own Crypto are always telling other people ,you should buy

That's not my experience and I'm sure I know more than you who own crypto. 

 

1 hour ago, worgeordie said:

Just because other members have a different view on Crypto or anything else,

than yourself does not mean they are ignorant , and I think that is an ignorant

I wasn't referring to all members. 

Some, however, are worth blocking as they know nothing about crypto, yet high jack threads pretending they do. 

[fdsa]

that feel when you was working with cryptocurrency many years before these ppl even heard about it but you are "ignorant" not them ????‍♂️

[proton]

6 hours ago, Neeranam said:

I wouldn't bother explaining to these guys, they don't even know how to buy Bitcoin and come into these threads to tell us investors how foolish we are. 

Many don't want to know. I would like to know why, if it's that great, people seem desperate to talk it up and get others they don't know to buy into it as well. Smacks of a ponzi scheme or pyramid selling.

[smutcakes]

3 hours ago, Neeranam said:

I have a couple of Hardware wallets, they are called Ledger Nano

I have a Nano Ledger to. But i dont speak about things like that to anyone. How would anyone know even know?

[Neeranam]

3 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

I have a Nano Ledger to. But i dont speak about things like that to anyone. How would anyone know even know?

They wouldn't. I have also kept mine in a safety deposit box in the bank, that I bought to store gold. 

I guess you know you also get good interest rates on Ledger. 14% for Polkadot! However, I prefer Kraken for 12% as it is less hassle and is a US bank.

[smutcakes]

10 hours ago, Neeranam said:

They wouldn't. I have also kept mine in a safety deposit box in the bank, that I bought to store gold. 

I guess you know you also get good interest rates on Ledger. 14% for Polkadot! However, I prefer Kraken for 12% as it is less hassle and is a US bank.

I am very much just a buy and forget about it for 5 years person. However when you talk about that interest it immediately alarms me... where are the interest payments coming from... for investments to produce a return they need to generate a return themselves. Where are polkadot generating income from to pay investors a 14% return? Or Kraken for that matter.

 

Polka are probably many multiples down over the past year or so, so how can they being paying those returns.

 

Something smells off to me. If something sounds to good to be true it normally is.

[Neeranam]

4 hours ago, smutcakes said:

I am very much just a buy and forget about it for 5 years person. However when you talk about that interest it immediately alarms me... where are the interest payments coming from... for investments to produce a return they need to generate a return themselves. Where are polkadot generating income from to pay investors a 14% return? Or Kraken for that matter.

 

Polka are probably many multiples down over the past year or so, so how can they being paying those returns.

 

Something smells off to me. If something sounds to good to be true it normally is.

It's to do with security of the blockchain. 

 

Read the following: - 

 

https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-staking

[lkn]

5 hours ago, smutcakes said:

where are the interest payments coming from... for investments to produce a return they need to generate a return themselves. Where are polkadot generating income from to pay investors a 14% return? Or Kraken for that matter

Maybe it’s a rhetorical question, but if not, most schemes work by issuing new tokens. So they are increasing the number of total tokens and therefore, if a token actually represented ownership in something, that would be diluted, i.e. token should decrease in value, of course since a token represents zero ownership or rights, the “value” of the token is arbitrary, and until about a year ago, it seemed possible to fool people into thinking that value was actually being generated by these schemes.

 

There is an infamous Odd Lots episode where Matt Levine (experienced finance guy) asks Sam Bankman-Fried (FTX founder who was valued at $32 bn. and today he is left with around $100k and a potential jail sentence) to explain yield farming, and it left the hosts stunned, as SBF basically explained a ponzi scheme, and even went further, suggesting lending against this scheme and defaulting on the debt, losing the (worthless) collateral, but keeping the real money borrowed.

 

He also seemed to not understand, that his “magic box that generated money” was (at best) a zero sum game.

 

It seems very much like this is actually what FTX / Alameda Research were doing, as majority of their assets on the balance sheet were tokens they had made up themselves and sold to the public, but they also had very real liabilities (i.e. they had taken out debt) that could not be covered by these assets, as the market value of these assets (i.e. tokens they made themsevles) is now closer to zero than the $8 bn. (or thereabout) that they owe.

[In Full Agreement]

 

One of the more interesting stories I've read connected to BTC is about the fellow who forgot the "password" to access his bitcoins.      At the time he'd  made a few attempts to guess the password but realized he had something like only 10 attempts available before they were lost forever in the Cyber  space.

 

 

 

 

[lkn]

17 hours ago, patman30 said:

having said that most crypto coins are built on false promises
but in reality that is not much different to startups these days
raise money first, build later, but they never build

Main difference is that startups are not allowed to market themselves as investments to the public.

 

When you sell “investments” (going by U.S. law here) you are under strict regulation, for example there are limits on what you can (legally) say, how you should do your quarterly finances, etc.

 

Elon Musk has gotten into trouble because he seems to have made incorrect statements on how far Tesla is with self-driving vehicles, even the MoviePass founders have gotten into trouble because they were a subsidiary of a public company (i.e. shares sold to the public), and they had made statements indicating that they could become profitable by utilizing AI to analyze customer data etc., which was all just BS, so they were misleading investors.

 

And for those who may not know MoviePass, it was a subscription service where you paid $9.95 per month and could then see at most one movie per day. MoviePass themselves bought your ticket at retail price, so it was so obviously a failed business model, as they would lose money on any customer who saw just 1-2 movies per month.

 

 

[Neeranam]

3 minutes ago, In Full Agreement said:

 

One of the more interesting stories I've read connected to BTC is about the fellow who forgot the "password" to access his bitcoins.      At the time he'd  made a few attempts to guess the password but realized he had something like only 10 attempts available before they were lost forever in the Cyber  space.

 

 

 

 

Is that the one who lost $27?

 

[Neeranam]

19 minutes ago, lkn said:

Maybe it’s a rhetorical question, but if not, most schemes work by issuing new tokens. So they are increasing the number of total tokens and therefore, if a token actually represented ownership in something, that would be diluted, i.e. token should decrease in value, of course since a token represents zero ownership or rights, the “value” of the token is arbitrary, and until about a year ago, it seemed possible to fool people into thinking that value was actually being generated by these schemes.

 

There is an infamous Odd Lots episode where Matt Levine (experienced finance guy) asks Sam Bankman-Fried (FTX founder who was valued at $32 bn. and today he is left with around $100k and a potential jail sentence) to explain yield farming, and it left the hosts stunned, as SBF basically explained a ponzi scheme, and even went further, suggesting lending against this scheme and defaulting on the debt, losing the (worthless) collateral, but keeping the real money borrowed.

 

He also seemed to not understand, that his “magic box that generated money” was (at best) a zero sum game.

 

It seems very much like this is actually what FTX / Alameda Research were doing, as majority of their assets on the balance sheet were tokens they had made up themselves and sold to the public, but they also had very real liabilities (i.e. they had taken out debt) that could not be covered by these assets, as the market value of these assets (i.e. tokens they made themsevles) is now closer to zero than the $8 bn. (or thereabout) that they owe.

Polkadot is NOTHING like FTX. 

 

Your crusade to belittle crypto it tiresome. I have no interest in traditional stocks like you are and certainly wouldn't hijack your thread quoting Bernie Maddof, insinuating all stocks are ponzis. 

[metisdead]

An inflammatory troll post and a flaming reply has been removed. 

[Neeranam]

3 hours ago, lkn said:

There is an infamous Odd Lots episode where Matt Levine (experienced finance guy) asks Sam Bankman-Fried (FTX founder who was valued at $32 bn. and today he is left with around $100k and a potential jail sentence) to explain yield farming, and it left the hosts stunned, as SBF basically explained a ponzi scheme, and even went further, suggesting lending against this scheme and defaulting on the debt, losing the (worthless) collateral, but keeping the real money borrowed.

Firstly, I thought you have me on ignore, as you keep telling us. How can you see my posts?

 

Your reply was about Polkadot, which is NOTHING like FTX. 

 

How much was BTC when you first heard about it? ( I guess this is one of the posts you will refuse to see lol) In fact, this is the question you have avoided for months!

[patman30]

On 12/3/2022 at 11:00 AM, lkn said:

Main difference is that startups are not allowed to market themselves as investments to the public.

"raise money"
i did not state "get listed on a stock exchange" or "publicly traded"
my point stands, plenty of ways for startups to raise funds these days

[ukrules]

On 12/2/2022 at 4:57 PM, worgeordie said:

People who own Crypto are always telling other people ,you should buy , buy,

it's the best thing in the World

Wrong. I've never recommended that anyone buy any crypto, quite the opposite, I've discouraged them at times.

 

So not all people and definitely not always.

 

 

 

[lkn]

1 hour ago, patman30 said:

i did not state "get listed on a stock exchange" or "publicly traded"

Nor did I. In the U.S., if you give me money, with a reasonable expectation of profit, from the efforts of others, then this transaction is considered the sale of a security (the Howey test), and is regulated by the Securities Act of 1933.

 

The Securities Act was created to protect investors against fraud and ensure proper disclosures from those “accepting money”.

 

So back to your point that [like crypto] “most startups are built on false promises”: If a startup is misleading their investors then that could have legal implications, even for a startup that is not publicly traded.

 

And indeed there have been examples of founders being fined or even jailed for misleading the (private) investors, but fortunately, most startups do have lawyers that know about this stuff, before they accept VC, which is why most startups are not “built on false promises”. They may have flawed business models, but that is for the investors to judge, though the startup must not give false or misleading statements to these investors.

 

The main difference here between private and public company is that for the latter, the S.E.C. may file complaints “on their own” on behalf of the investors, which I don’t think they ever do for private companies (as they are not privy to what was promised/disclosed/etc.).

[ukrules]

3 minutes ago, lkn said:

Nor did I. In the U.S., if you give me money, with a reasonable expectation of profit, from the efforts of others, then this transaction is considered the sale of a security (the Howey test), and is regulated by the Securities Act of 1933.

 

The Securities Act was created after the stock market crash to protect investors against fraud and ensure proper disclosures from those “accepting money”.

 

So back to your point that [like crypto] “most startups are built on false promises”: If a startup is misleading their investors then that could have legal implications, even for a startup that is not publicly traded.

 

And indeed there have been examples of founders being fined or even jailed for misleading the (private) investors, but fortunately, most startups do have lawyers that know about this stuff, before they accept VC, which is why most startups are not “built on false promises”. They may have flawed business ideas, but that is really for the investors to judge for themselves, but the startup must not give false or misleading statements to these investors.

 

The main difference between private and public company is that for the latter, the S.E.C. may file complaints “on their own” on behalf of the investors, which they are unlikely to do with a private company (here the investors themselve will have to file a complain / sue, if they feel mislead).

If I ever move to the US I'll take this under consideration ????

 

 

[worgeordie]

56 minutes ago, ukrules said:

Wrong. I've never recommended that anyone buy any crypto, quite the opposite, I've discouraged them at times.

 

So not all people and definitely not always.

 

 

 

OK so the majority ,is that fair ......they do it as they need to encourage more people to put money

into it , so the price goes up ....is that a fair assumption .whatever, but that is what I think...

regards Worgeordie 

[patman30]

57 minutes ago, lkn said:

“most startups are built on false promises”:

Where did i state this?
you do understand how quotes work ?

*that is where i stopped reading.????

[lkn]

5 hours ago, patman30 said:

Where did i state this?
you do understand how quotes work ?

I was paraphrasing you, this is your full statement:

 

On 12/2/2022 at 5:19 PM, patman30 said:

having said that most crypto coins are built on false promises
but in reality that is not much different to startups these days

Which led me to say that investing in startups falls under the Securities Act and therefore they cannot “make false promises” to their investors (without legal consequences), despite not being publicly listed. So no, startups these days are not like crypto currencies.

[1FinickyOne]

On 12/2/2022 at 4:26 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

You convinced me. Bitcoin is such a great idea. I will put all my money in it.

And don't forget to buy the black light too so you can find it again... 

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, 1FinickyOne said:

And don't forget to buy the black light too so you can find it again... 

It's all an illusion. Just close your eyes and imagine.

[lkn]

On 12/9/2022 at 4:30 PM, lkn said:

The main difference here between private and public company is that for the latter, the S.E.C. may file complaints “on their own” on behalf of the investors, which I don’t think they ever do for private companies

I stand corrected, the S.E.C. will also charge founders of private companies for misleading their investors, as they just did with SBF: “We allege that Sam Bankman-Fried built a house of cards on a foundation of deception while telling investors that it was one of the safest buildings in crypto”.

[Neeranam]

It's a great feeling when your assets increase 50% in a month! 

As the golden cross approaches, time is running out to get it at discount prices.