Crypto investments

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Crypto investments > Page 5

Page 5 of 10

23-05-2021 20:10
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:People wouldn't buy coins from the crypt if they weren't going up. Totally incorrect. [Most] Speculators buy/sell based on what they believe the future price will be, not based on the activity of the moment. All over the world, every hour of every day, many goods, stocks, currencies, futures, securities, contracts,etc.. are purchased while the price is decreasing at the moment, or sold while the price is increasing at the moment. Remember, every sale has an accompanying purchase, and every purchase has an accompanying sale, and the price is moving in some direction. Spongy Iris wrote: That's the only reason there's demand. If they don't go up, then there's no demand You would benefit from studying the supply-demand curve. It clearly shows you that supply and demand determine the price, not the other way around. Spongy Iris wrote: ... is basically counterfeiting money, by guessing a some randomly generated number, using computer programs. You would do well to research cryptography and get a better feel for how it works. Day to day there's never more than a 50 % chance it will rise and 50% chance it will fall. I'm looking at the long term movements. Over a long time period, these types of speculative financial instruments which catch fire like bitcoin, will usually drift higher in price. That's why they call it a long position to buy them. And as they drift higher, more and more speculators become attracted to them. The demand increases. For example in 1921, only around 10% of people owned stocks. In 2021 it's closer to 50% of people who own stocks. The price of stocks has drifted a lot higher in the past 100 years. You can also look at the trading volume of bitcoin since it shot up over the $10K price level. Trading volume has increased along with the price. The demand has gone up because the prices have gone up. Think about it. There is no reason to buy bitcoin except to sell it to somebody else for a higher price later. The constraint to demand is how much discretionary cash people have to gamble with. The supply of bitcoin is not as erratic, and barely increased during the time the price has spiked over $10K around 2018, and then over $50k around 2021. Now today $33K. When a bank issues money to a business or a person, it is because the business or person can sell goods and services. When bitcoin is issued, it is because a computer program has successfully guessed a randomly generated number.
23-05-2021 20:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: You have no personal definition of wealth that you've consistently stuck with (or amended to and stuck with). You've chosen to define it umpteen different ways, You are regurgitating Into the Night's specific dishonesty/stupidity as though it were your own. I have only defined it one way, the way that triggered the two of you. But just for laughs, list only the first eight ways you claim that I have defined wealth. You see, when you adopt someone else's stupid lie as your own, you become just as much a stupid liar. gfm7175 wrote:I thought that ITN was telling me precisely what to say...?? Correction: You were well aware that ITN was telling you what to say/believe. gfm7175 wrote: Him and I ... Hmmmm. gfm7175 wrote: ... have disagreed with each other numerous times over the years ... or he told you to say that ... and you obediently complied. I see how he treats people who do disagree with him and he's not treating you that way. Then I note that not only have I never seen you disagree with him ever, I have never seen you deviate from his exact wording ... on any topic. I'm not buying your claimed "disagreements" any more than I am buying your claimed degree in accounting, especially now that you have become comfortable lying about me without even flinching. gfm7175 wrote: I've mentioned that I work in AR numerous times in the past,, LOOOOOONG before this set of exchanges ever occurred. I'm well aware that Into the Night has been telling you what to believe/write for a LOOOOOONG time, if that's what you're worried about. I'm not disputing that. Take it as a given. gfm7175 wrote: Again, you can look through my post history Even better, I have been following along in real-time... with all of your posts ... fully in proper context. gfm7175 wrote: Why you've chosen to have a complete meltdown over this topic is beyond me... it's not like you. That would be you. You have become a totally dishonest idiot ... just because Into the Night ordered you to. He inexplicably went ape-schitt and you were obligated to follow suit. You started lying and you regurgitated each and every lie that he made and rushed to agree with every error that he made ... and you wouldn't even say "thank you" for the information I gave you because you were under orders to remain in attack mode ... all because you are threatened by the rules of accounting. IBdaMann wrote:For your recollection, I completely stayed out of this whole discussion between ITN and yourself until I was instructed to jump in and parrot for support Yeah, I know. You immediately pretended that the rules of accounting were my opinion. You never cited any authority, you simply sought to define accounting as inventory tracking and whatever else Into the Night told you to say. By the way, Into the Night knows nothing of accounting. When you regurgitate his egregious errors, you broadcast that you know even less. Of all the people you picked to obey, why didn't you pick someone who can at least read English for comprehension? gfm7175 wrote: Correct, I never have. I've already gone through each and every one of those inventory trackings with you, and the favorite retort that you've had to my insults to your intelligence is to point out each and every one of them as "inventory". How long have you gone now without being able to find an authoritative source indicating that balancing ledger entries is purely optional? Oh, that's right, you were told to EVADE this question. Carry on. gfm7175 wrote: What about the first page of this thread, before this set of exchanges ever began? You both seemed to be in complete agreement about Xadoman's gambling addiction as well as the consequences of it. I was also in agreement with that sentiment. Into the Night apparently saw fit to agree with me on that one. Can you imagine if he hadn't? You'd be praising Xadoman's shrewd financial strategy right now. IBdaMann wrote:Except, I haven't. The cow/chicken example was introduced by me and it is mine and mine alone. You did not invent the concept of bartering livestock, but stupidly calling it a " profit and loss statement" was Into the Night's brilliant idea ... that you obediently rushed to regurgitate. Now you own it as well. Congratulations. gfm7175 wrote:I own it. ITN simply decided to add a Profit/Loss Statement onto it You and I agree. We can close this one out. gfm7175 wrote:You are most certainly entitled to such delusions, I really want to believe you. I much preferred the seemingly honest gfm7175. Help me see it your way. Give me a couple of links to some disagreements you've had with Into the Night on Climate-Debate over the years. I'll not stand by and watch you insult gfm as you descend into your paranoia, paradoxes, and insults. Gfm came up with the example involving direct barter and using only chickens and cows on his own. I did not tell him to do that. He is not claiming to have invented barter. You are lying to belittle what gfm has done. You have NOT defined wealth. You are still locked in paradox A. You MUST clear it first. Gfm has also quite eloquently pointed out the ridiculousness of claiming that money is wealth by demonstrating that government printing of money produces no wealth, even if said government printing is massive. I did not tell him to say that. His argument on this is his own. I happen to agree with it. It is a sound argument. A1) Wealth need not be bought or sold to be wealth. A2) Wealth needs to be bought or sold to be wealth. B1) Example of barter of an item is not a transaction. B2) Example of barter of an item is a transaction. C1) Barter does not use dollars. C2) Barter uses dollars. You are still locked into all of these fallacies. You are still arguing both sides of each of these paradoxes. You stated that you claimed one and only one of each of these, and rejected the conflicting argument, but then you went right back to defending BOTH sides of each conflicting argument. You gotta clear 'em dude. There is no other way. You can't insult your way out of it. You can't blame gfm or anyone else to get out of it. You can't just deny they exist to get out of it. You MUST clear your paradoxes or continue to be irrational. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-05-2021 20:23
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Into the Night wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: If you define wealth as only goods and services, than you can say money is not wealth. But Google defines wealth as an abundance of possessions or money. Then, as GFM so eloquently shown already, you must therefore conclude that a government printing massive amounts of money and the hyperinflation that it causes is 'wealth'. Google ain't God. Well why not? It leads to their demise. There is creative destruction. And new wealth is born.
23-05-2021 20:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:People wouldn't buy coins from the crypt if they weren't going up. Totally incorrect. [Most] Speculators buy/sell based on what they believe the future price will be, not based on the activity of the moment. Speculators buy and sell for all kinds of reasons, including using only the activity of the moment as a guide, or by what they believe the future price will be (somewhat related). It's gambling all the same. IBdaMann wrote: All over the world, every hour of every day, many goods, stocks, currencies, futures, securities, contracts,etc.. are purchased while the price is decreasing at the moment, or sold while the price is increasing at the moment. Quite true. It is the same with Bitcoin (a currency). IBdaMann wrote: Remember, every sale has an accompanying purchase, and every purchase has an accompanying sale, and the price is moving in some direction. Not quite true. Bitcoins can be 'mined' or created. The new coin must satisfy the rules set up in the blockchain to be a 'coin'. No purchase of Bitcoin is required to do this. No conversion of dollars to Bitcoin is required to do this. The tools to conduct the mining operation are paid for in dollars, Bitcoin, yen, or any other currency, but that is a purchase of the tools, not buying selling Bitcoin itself. IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: That's the only reason there's demand. If they don't go up, then there's no demand You would benefit from studying the supply-demand curve. It clearly shows you that supply and demand determine the price, not the other way around. Dead right. Nothing else determines the primary price. Exchanges, of course, add a 'spread' value between buying and selling, which is how they make their profit. If one is going to buy and sell Bitcoin, shop around. Find an exchange with the narrowest spread. This is the fee for using the exchange. It's their 'price', so to speak, for using their services. A narrow spread is a lower 'price'. IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: ... is basically counterfeiting money, by guessing a some randomly generated number, using computer programs. You would do well to research cryptography and get a better feel for how it works. Indeed he should. He should also study blockchain algorithms and how a 'coin' is produced to satisfy the rules of the blockchain. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-05-2021 20:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Think about it. It is basically a ponzi scam. The buyers at the bottom are paid off by the sellers at the top. I realize this sentence may not appear to make sense. Perhaps I should elaborate my theory. Scammers buy lots at the bottom, and then they sell it off slowly bit by bit for higher and higher prices to speculators who are chasing the price increase. The higher it goes, the more speculators become attracted to it.. This is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is something specific. The term for what you are describing is "caveat emptor." Agreed. A Ponzi scheme is also a speculation based on the profit realized near the apex of the pyramid as if the speculator could realize the same profit, even though shares obtainable has dropped to almost nil. A deception. Which is why Ponzi schemes are illegal. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

23-05-2021 21:12
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Think about it. It is basically a ponzi scam. The buyers at the bottom are paid off by the sellers at the top. I realize this sentence may not appear to make sense. Perhaps I should elaborate my theory. Scammers buy lots at the bottom, and then they sell it off slowly bit by bit for higher and higher prices to speculators who are chasing the price increase. The higher it goes, the more speculators become attracted to it.. This is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is something specific. The term for what you are describing is "caveat emptor." Agreed. A Ponzi scheme is also a speculation based on the profit realized near the apex of the pyramid as if the speculator could realize the same profit, even though shares obtainable has dropped to almost nil. A deception. Which is why Ponzi schemes are illegal. Sooner or later, I believe there will come a day, for crypto currencies, stock markets, bond markets, and futures markets, where they are deemed illegal. They are scams. But as you say, caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware. The speculators are still willing victims of the scammers.
23-05-2021 21:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Think about it. It is basically a ponzi scam. The buyers at the bottom are paid off by the sellers at the top. I realize this sentence may not appear to make sense. Perhaps I should elaborate my theory. Scammers buy lots at the bottom, and then they sell it off slowly bit by bit for higher and higher prices to speculators who are chasing the price increase. The higher it goes, the more speculators become attracted to it.. This is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is something specific. The term for what you are describing is "caveat emptor." Agreed. A Ponzi scheme is also a speculation based on the profit realized near the apex of the pyramid as if the speculator could realize the same profit, even though shares obtainable has dropped to almost nil. A deception. Which is why Ponzi schemes are illegal. Sooner or later, I believe there will come a day, for crypto currencies, stock markets, bond markets, and futures markets, where they are deemed illegal. They are scams. But as you say, caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware. The speculators are still willing victims of the scammers. Why are they scams? Please list each one, and describe why it's a scam, and how the scam works, and who is benefiting from the scam. Be prepared to show the deception method in each case. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 23-05-2021 22:00
24-05-2021 02:26
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Into the Night wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: Why are they scams? Please list each one, and describe why it's a scam, and how the scam works, and who is benefiting from the scam. Be prepared to show the deception method in each case. I provided an explanation earlier to some of your questions. Now repeated. Scammers buy lots at the bottom, and then they sell it off slowly bit by bit for higher and higher prices to speculators who are chasing the price increase. The higher it goes, the more speculators become attracted to it. Once the scammers have sold all their long buy positions to speculators, then they sell short. When they sell short the price falls fast. Most of the speculators get scared and sell their positions to cut their losses. The price falls fast more. Then after the price has fallen a lot, scammers cover their short positions, by once again buying. This once again attracts more speculators. The cycle repeats in a new pattern. If you don't believe or know the above to be a generic explanation of how the scam works, you must believe all market participants are speculators, and the price change is random. Yes? No? Edited on 24-05-2021 02:34
24-05-2021 06:02
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy Iris wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: Why are they scams? Please list each one, and describe why it's a scam, and how the scam works, and who is benefiting from the scam. Be prepared to show the deception method in each case. I provided an explanation earlier to some of your questions. Now repeated. Scammers buy lots at the bottom, and then they sell it off slowly bit by bit for higher and higher prices to speculators who are chasing the price increase. The higher it goes, the more speculators become attracted to it. Once the scammers have sold all their long buy positions to speculators, then they sell short. When they sell short the price falls fast. Most of the speculators get scared and sell their positions to cut their losses. The price falls fast more. Then after the price has fallen a lot, scammers cover their short positions, by once again buying. This once again attracts more speculators. The cycle repeats in a new pattern. If you don't believe or know the above to be a generic explanation of how the scam works, you must believe all market participants are speculators, and the price change is random. Yes? No? And yet buyers are intrigued because crypto currency is like the real estate market. More buyers increases demand yet it's not real estate which is limited due to location.
24-05-2021 13:19
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: ... have disagreed with each other numerous times over the years ... or he told you to say that ... and you obediently complied. I see how he treats people who do disagree with him and he's not treating you that way. ... because we agree with each other on this specific discussion, because we both have real world experience in accounting (although mine is mostly limited to AR). We also realize that book examples are not the end all be all, and that the very same accounting functions can be expressed in different ways. I've already gone through the details of that with you, going through the very same transaction logging process but just using cows and chickens instead of dollars. Accounting is about performing those various processes ("logging and cross checking", as "ITN told me to say"), not about formally presenting wealth to aid in management decisions (which in today's world is essentially just opening up your accounting program on your computer, going to the 'reports' tab, choosing which report you wish to use to "formally present your wealth", and then pressing the print button). Maybe you're failing to understand that my example goes through the same processes of accounting all the same as what you're asking for, or maybe you do understand that I am in fact correct about this but you are just too proud to admit it, thus all of the insults and the suddenly newfound attempts to put me down as "not having a mind of my own", although I've been active on this particular forum for a whole 2.5 years and you've never once taken any such issue with me, or with my "being ITN's puppet", until just now. Rather slow on the take, eh? Did ITN also tell me what to say for my whole Cult of the Mask write-up that I did (and that you did an intro write-up for as well as a couple of the entries)? To provide a part of what I do on a daily basis in AR, I keep track of customer accounts, I invoice those customers, I receive payments from those customers, and I log those entries accordingly. My cow/chicken example involves all of those things all the same as any example involving dollars or some form of currency would involve. The farmer with the chickens in my example is my customer. I would, upon my first transaction with him, set up a customer account for him. I would then invoice him for forty chickens, which at that point puts on the books that I am owed forty chickens. Once the forty chickens are delivered to me, I would then apply that payment of forty chickens to the invoice that I had previously sent out. That's my job, in a nutshell, and I just performed it in the same exact way that I would have performed it had I chosen to replace "forty chickens" with "$____". This same thing applies to AP accounting, payroll accounting, GL accounting, and etc... The same accounting processes are being performed, as if there were a currency being used, even though there is no currency being used. I'm not about to search through all my interactions with ITN over the years over various forums for you. It is available for your perusal. ITN has treated me the same way that he treats any other poster of whom he disagrees with. I've been on the receiving end of "WRONG", "not quite right", "_____ fallacy", and other similar responses numerous times over the years (especially on the debatepolitics and justplainpolitics forums, as that's where our interactions with each other began until he eventually informed me about this forum some time later). He's corrected me a number of times on fallacies that I have mislabeled. He's corrected me on numerous learned-in-school misteachings that I used to believe were true until he voiced his disagreement with me and provided me with reasoning as to why my position was incorrect. I've learned a lot from him over the years. I've learned a lot from you too. You both have more experience with a lot of different things than I have, so I'm thankful for those interactions and opportunities to learn. IBdaMann wrote: Then I note that not only have I never seen you disagree with him ever, It happens from time to time. For instance, I don't consider the covid jab to be a vaccine. He does. That particular disagreement occurred on the justplainpolitics forum rather than this one. I think we've also had some disagreements in the past during some Biblically-related discussions that we've participated in. IBdaMann wrote: I have never seen you deviate from his exact wording ... on any topic. Not on even ONE topic during my 2.5 years on this forum? Huh. Guess I should do a better job at hiding my puppeteering then, which took you a whole 2.5 years to finally sniff out... Actually, I think you were on hiatus when I first arrived on this forum, so how about we call it an even 2 years? IBdaMann wrote: I'm not buying your claimed "disagreements" any more than I am buying your claimed degree in accounting, especially now that you have become comfortable lying about me without even flinching. Okay. IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: I've mentioned that I work in AR numerous times in the past,, LOOOOOONG before this set of exchanges ever occurred. I'm well aware that Into the Night has been telling you what to believe/write for a LOOOOOONG time, if that's what you're worried about. I'm not disputing that. Take it as a given. It sure took you a LOOOOOONG time to figure out that I "don't have a mind of my own", but I'm glad that you finally figured it out. Maybe you should award yourself some bonus points. I'd suggest the 5-pointer since you're such an amazing detective who is now resorting to tmiddles-type omniscience to avoid admitting that he was incorrect about accounting requiring the use of a currency. I'm ready to move on from this particular discussion whenever you are... IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Except, I haven't. The cow/chicken example was introduced by me and it is mine and mine alone. You did not invent the concept of bartering livestock, I never made any claim to inventing the concept of bartering... I've only made claim to my cow/chicken argument, as posted earlier. Is this the point where I should naggingly ridicule you for not being able to read or comprehend English, as you have resorted to doing during your temper tantrum? Oh, that's right, I need to await my marching orders from ITN before I can proceed... I'll let you know what he tells me to say on the matter... IBdaMann wrote: but stupidly calling it a " profit and loss statement" was Into the Night's brilliant idea ... that you obediently rushed to regurgitate. Now you own it as well. Congratulations. Neither I nor ITN have ever called bartering a profit and loss statement. Again, should I now be ridiculing YOUR English literacy? IBdaMann wrote: I really want to believe you. I much preferred the seemingly honest gfm7175. Help me see it your way. Give me a couple of links to some disagreements you've had with Into the Night on Climate-Debate over the years. Let's see if I got this right... So, after multiple pages of insults, mockery, and now actively putting me down to the point of "having absolutely no mind of my own", you now expect ME to put in the work for YOU? No. Absolutely no way in hell will I be doing that at this time. Both of our post histories are available for your perusal. Have at it if you wish. Edited on 24-05-2021 14:08
24-05-2021 14:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Into the Night wrote:Then, as GFM so eloquently shown already, you must therefore conclude that a government printing massive amounts of money and the hyperinflation that it causes is 'wealth'. You suck at formal logic. Is pizza not food? Into the Night wrote:Google ain't God. Very True. You should have stuck with this instead of advertising that you are clueless about economics.
24-05-2021 15:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	gfm7175 wrote: Let's see if I got this right... So, after [my insistence that I have actually dared to disagree with Into the Night] you now expect ME to [support my claim with a few examples] ? No. Absolutely no way in hell will I be doing that at this time. I expected no other response. After all, I have read all your posts and you have never disagreed with him. For you to admit this would have required honesty on your part. gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I see how he treats people who do disagree with him and he's not treating you that way. ... because we agree with each other on this specific discussion, You have adopted Into the Night's inability to read English for comprehension. One more time: I can see by the way Into the Night is treating you that you have not dared to disagree with him. gfm7175 wrote: ... because we both have real world experience in accounting You both deny the rules of accounting. Whatever experience you might have, if you are attempting to redefine accounting then you are attempting to redefine accounting. I am still not impressed by "Accounts Receivable" being the department in which you work. Like I said, I'm sure you do a good job at whatever you do, be it customer service, records research, ...whatever ... but you suck at accounting. Nonetheless, you have somehow allowed the name of your department to go to your head and convince you that you are somehow an accounting expert who is empowered to rewrite the rules of accounting. Have fun with your delusion. gfm7175 wrote: We also realize that book examples are not the end all be all, I would ask what this is supposed to mean, but I realize that this is your way of saying that the rules of accounting are not restricted to what is written in books and that you get to alter them as you see fit. Yes, I know you believe this. gfm7175 wrote: ... and that the very same accounting functions can be expressed in different ways. I would ask what this is supposed to mean, but I realize that this is another way of saying that the rules of accounting are a matter of personal taste and are to be implemented as each individual sees fit. Yes, I know you believe this. gfm7175 wrote: I've already gone through the details of that with you, going through the very same transaction logging process but just using cows and chickens instead of dollars. You suck at accounting but you have a minor grasp of tracking inventory ... so it is no wonder that you have succumbed to the temptation to conflate the two while insisting that you aren't. ... especially when Into the Night is instructing you to do so. People who suck at accounting don't wake up one day and decide to do this on their own. gfm7175 wrote: Accounting is about performing those various processes ("logging and cross checking", as "ITN told me to say"), not about formally presenting wealth to aid in management decisions (which in today's world is essentially just opening up your accounting program on your computer, going to the 'reports' tab, choosing which report you wish to use to "formally present your wealth", and then pressing the print button). Accounting is a set of rules establishing a formal standard for presenting a financial/wealth picture to aid in making decisions. You are very close to being as objectively wrong as is possible on this matter. If only you had not adopted Into the Night's misunderstanding of "Yes vs. No" you would not have used the word "not" above and instead used the word "and." You see, when you obey someone who is leading you down the primrose path and when you adopt his lies as your own, you become just as much a dishonest moron. gfm7175 wrote: Maybe you're failing to understand that my example goes through the same processes of accounting all the same as what you're asking for, 1. As the dishonest moron you have thus become, you insist that the rules of accounting are somehow merely my opinion. 2. As the dishonest moron you have become you have thus been relegated to assigning to me bogus positions, because that's all you have. I am not asking for anything, I do not want anything, I am not selling anything and I am not pushing any agenda. Nonetheless, because your master has ordered you to attack, you obey and unleash as much dishonesty as you feel is necessary ... or as your master tells you is necessary. 3. You think accounting is nothing more than inventory tracking. Because you suck at actual accounting you have no way to realize just how screwed up your perspective is ... but because you have become a totally bulveristic moron on this matter you presume that the problem must be with someone else. gfm7175 wrote: ... or maybe you do understand that I am in fact correct Nope. We can safely place your position in the "incorrect" column. On Tab-A your position will be further categorized as "bat-shit crazy." Now we are yet another day further along and you still have not provided a single authoritative reference showing that balancing the debits and credits in all ledger entries is somehow merely optional. You have looked but you found nothing because you know that I am correct and that you are incorrect ... but you are too proud to admit it ... and Into the Night wouldn't permit you to do so anyway. gfm7175 wrote: Did ITN also tell me what to say for my whole Cult of the Mask write-up that I did (and that you did an intro write-up for as well as a couple of the entries)? Are you saying that he gave you a certain lee-way? Once you start regurgitating someone else's asinine lies then you throw all of your own credibility out the window across the board. gfm7175 wrote: To provide a part of what I do on a daily basis Immaterial. What you do doesn't justify your regurgitation of dishonesty. Cough up an authoritative reference showing that balancing ledger entry credits and debits is only optional. You rushed to fall on your sword over this ... at Into the Night's order ... so fall on it. gfm7175 wrote:My cow/chicken example involves all of those things all the same as any example involving dollars or some form of currency would involve. At one point you essentially declared chickens as your currency and performed accounting under that currency. Of course you don't know enough about either accounting or economics to realize what you were doing. So what I am seeing is that you would rather attack me, i.e. someone who knows so much more than you do and who is simply trying to point you in the right direction ... than to merely question someone who is openly lying to you. As such, I will be happy to point out to the board, every single post, just how much of an idiot you have willingly allowed yourself to become. On your current path you won't be getting any smarter on the subject. So let's have at it, shall we? gfm7175 wrote: Neither I nor ITN have ever called bartering a profit and loss statement. On 21 May 2021 Into the Night wrote: I have also added the other half of summary...the P&L, and showed the cross check. gfm7175 wrote: Again, should I now be ridiculing YOUR English literacy? Yes, please try.
24-05-2021 16:39
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Then, as GFM so eloquently shown already, you must therefore conclude that a government printing massive amounts of money and the hyperinflation that it causes is 'wealth'. You suck at formal logic. Is pizza not food? It is your logic that is faulty here, not mine or ITN's. Here is why: First, let's review how we got to this point. You made the assertion that 'money is wealth'. I then decided to take your assertion to its logical conclusion, as follows: [1] money is wealth [2] printing money increases the amount of money [3] increasing the amount of money, per #2, increases the amount of wealth, per #1 [4] Thus, per #3, more money is more wealth... and you're now claiming that the SODC turning on the printing presses is increasing wealth. The above can be simplified (as you did below this) as follows: [1] money is wealth [2] printing money increases the amount of money [3] increasing the amount of money (per #2) increases the amount of wealth (per #1) You then took issue with my extension of your logic, so you attempted to refute my extension of it as follows: gfm7175 Statement #1: Pizza is food gfm7175 Statement #2: Slicing the pizza into more slices increases the amount of pizza gfm7175 Statement #3: More pizza slices means there's more food. Here, your argument is that my extension (premise #2 in my original example) is equivalent to your mirrored premise #2 about the pizza slices. The issue here is that you did not properly mirror my line of reasoning. You are attempting to equate "slicing a pizza" with "printing more money". That is not an equivalent comparison. It WOULD be one IF you were comparing it against dividing dollars into fractions of dollars, such as the creation of coins. All you are doing is creating a smaller denomination for pizzas (e.g., 1/4th of a pizza would be equivalent to a quarter being 1/4th of a dollar). IOW, you are creating the quarter rather than printing more money. That's not what I'm saying in my premise #2... I am, rather, saying that more dollars are being printed, or in terms of your example, more pizzas are being cooked. Thus, your mirror of my extension of your logic SHOULD read as follows: gfm7175 Statement #1: Pizza is food gfm7175 Statement #2: Cooking more pizzas increases the amount of pizzas. gfm7175 Statement #3: More pizzas means there's more food. I would agree with that conclusion because I accept both premises (#1 AND #2). Yes, pizza is food. Yes, cooking more pizzas increases the amount of pizzas. If you are trying to look at this from an economic standpoint, the issue would be that I still have my one pizza even though the government has now "cooked up" 100 more pizzas and added them to the pizza supply. Hello inflation. Assuming there were 100 pizzas to begin with, and I had one of them, but now 200 pizzas exist, 0.5% < 1.0%... I now have 1 pizza/200 pizzas rather than 1 pizza/100 pizzas. In terms of money, I would now have $1/$200 rather than $1/$100. Now, back to my actual logical extension of your 'money is wealth' assertion. I'll copy it here again for quick reference: [1] money is wealth [2] printing money increases the amount of money [3] increasing the amount of money (per #2) increases the amount of wealth (per #1) Now, after recognizing and addressing the fact that you didn't mirror my extension of your assertion properly with your own crafting of it, that leaves you with attempting to deny the conclusion (#3) yet simultaneously accepting both of the premises (#1 AND #2). That is irrational. You now have a few choices that you can make: Reject premise #1 and join me and ITN. Reject premise #2 and join keepit. Continue irrationally rejecting the conclusion while accepting both #1 AND #2. Accept the conclusion, thus claiming that printing money increases wealth. The choice is yours... P.S. -- I didn't need any marching orders from ITN in order to type up this post either Edited on 24-05-2021 17:24
24-05-2021 17:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Spongy Iris wrote:Day to day there's never more than a 50 % chance it will rise and 50% chance it will fall. Incorrect. You do not know the probability at any moment of an increase or decrease. Spongy Iris wrote:I'm looking at the long term movements. Incorrect. You are looking at the activity of the moment. Spongy Iris wrote: Over a long time period, these types of speculative financial instruments which catch fire like bitcoin, will usually drift higher in price. So tell me what aspects of either supply or of demand you are examining that will determine the price movement upon which you are wagering ... or admit that you are simply gambling blindly on the activity of the moment. Spongy Iris wrote: And as they drift higher, more and more speculators become attracted to them. The demand increases. You are swapping cause and effect. First demand increases and then price increases as a result, not the other way around. You would do well to study supply-&-demand. I believe I have mentioned this before. Spongy Iris wrote:The price of stocks has drifted a lot higher in the past 100 years. This is a complex topic. Part of the reason for the price increase is a phenomenon known as "inflation" while another aspect is called "commercial success." You might be interested in reading a bit about Opportunity Cost. This will get you thinking along the right lines. Spongy Iris wrote:You can also look at the trading volume of bitcoin since it shot up over the $10K price level. Trading volume has increased along with the price. Do you believe the two are interrelated or are they actually independent? Spongy Iris wrote:The demand has gone up because the prices have gone up. You have that backwards. Think about it. The belief that Bitcoin will increase in value causes speculators to want to buy it, i.e. the belief causes an increase in demand. This demand drives speculators to buy Bitcoin, even though the asking price is above the current market value (or previous sale price), i.e. the price increases. One more time in review: Per basic supply-demand, an increase in demand causes an increase in the realized price. How that plays out in this case is as follows: Some speculators believe, for whatever reason, that Bitcoin will increase in value. Their demand for Bitcoin increases. The price for Bitcoin increases. Spongy Iris wrote:The constraint to demand is how much discretionary cash people have to gamble with. ... which translates to a ceiling on any sale price. Spongy Iris wrote:When a bank issues money to a business or a person, it is because the business or person can sell goods and services. Incorrect. Banks issue loans because that is a source of income for the bank. When a bank issues a loan to a business or a person it is because the bank expects to be repaid with interest (note: such an expectation involves the bank's belief in the borrower's ability to repay the loan). The specifics of how the borrower is able to repay the loan only relate to the lender's belief in the borrower's ability to repay the loan, not to why the bank is issuing the loan. Spongy Iris wrote: When bitcoin is issued, it is because a computer program has successfully guessed a randomly generated number. Would you mind explaining this a bit more? Note: Computers generate pseudo-random numbers, not random numbers. Dice generate (mostly) random numbers with some amount of bias.
24-05-2021 18:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote:You suck at formal logic. Is pizza not food? It is your logic that is faulty here, not mine or ITN's. Here is why: First, let's review how we got to this point. No. First explain how Into the Night's logic is not faulty. gfm7175 wrote: You made the assertion that 'money is wealth'. I consider money to be wealth and I explained why. I accepted that your opinion and Into the Night's opinion differs and that I think it is a mistake. Into the Night went ape-schitt. You followed suit. You never explained, as I did, why you believe what you believe. You both simply EVADED like total cowards. Go on ... gfm7175 wrote: I then decided to take your assertion to its logical conclusion, as follows: You engaged in absurd illogic to assign bogus position after bogus position to me ... because that is your fall-back position when you have nothing else. gfm7175 wrote:[1] money is wealth [2] printing money increases the amount of money In showing that you have willingly become too stupid to learn, despite my attempts to explain your abysmal logic error to you, you insist on doubling down on brain-death. I'm in a good mood. I'll try again. Let's see if you can engage your brain for a moment. Is pizza food? This should not be too difficult a question for you to answer. If it is then we will have rooted out your problem. Once you have answered that question, think about how much more food you have if you slice a pizza into ten slices rather than eight. My position is that no, we do not have more food. You, however, are dishonestly claiming that my position is that we have more food which is a totally absurd position that I do not have. In so lying about my position, you are further claiming that I operate under your abysmal illogic, which I do not. You suck at formal logic. I do not. You suck at accounting. I do not. You suck at economics. I do not. ... but you work in "Accounts Receivable" and I do not, so I guess that gives you the edge, right? All this time you could have been learning from what I have been telling you and independently verifying all of it. Instead, you stupidly repeat the same errors that you know you cannot support. So, we come back to the definition of wealth. Here I will give you another opportunity to epically fail at formal logic: 1) I claim that money is wealth because it is a proper subset of wealth. 2) This implies that any attribute of wealth is therefore an attribute of money 3) You claim that money is not wealth 4) Your assertion implies that there exists at least one attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money ___________ What is that attribute? [This is where you flee like a coward. This is where you EVADE as ordered. This is where you feign indignance and write "RQAA." This is where you run, run, run away and live to lie another day]

24-05-2021 19:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Into the Night wrote:Speculators buy and sell for all kinds of reasons, including using only the activity of the moment as a guide, Speculators can certainly use the wackiest things as guides ... but they only buy when they believe the future price will be higher (or sell short when they believe the future price will be lower). Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Remember, every sale has an accompanying purchase, and every purchase has an accompanying sale, and the price is moving in some direction. Not quite true. I hate to disagree with you, but regardless of how Bitcoins might come into existence, every purchase has an accompanying sale. One cannot purchase something that is not being sold.
24-05-2021 19:48
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: [ [quote]Spongy Iris wrote:Day to day there's never more than a 50 % chance it will rise and 50% chance it will fall. Incorrect. You do not know the probability at any moment of an increase or decrease. Over the past 100 years, the up vs down days is 50-50. Spongy Iris wrote:I'm looking at the long term movements. Incorrect. You are looking at the activity of the moment. Do you not consider 100 years long term? Spongy Iris wrote: Over a long time period, these types of speculative financial instruments which catch fire like bitcoin, will usually drift higher in price. So tell me what aspects of either supply or of demand you are examining that will determine the price movement upon which you are wagering ... or admit that you are simply gambling blindly on the activity of the moment. Sadly I am not a scammer. Spongy Iris wrote: And as they drift higher, more and more speculators become attracted to them. The demand increases. You are swapping cause and effect. First demand increases and then price increases as a result, not the other way around. You would do well to study supply-&-demand. I believe I have mentioned this before. Spongy Iris wrote:The price of stocks has drifted a lot higher in the past 100 years. This is a complex topic. Part of the reason for the price increase is a phenomenon known as "inflation" while another aspect is called "commercial success." it's all inflation. Commercial success has nothing to do with rising and falling stock prices. Have you been deceived into thinking it does? You might be interested in reading a bit about Opportunity Cost. This will get you thinking along the right lines. irrelevant sloganeering Spongy Iris wrote:You can also look at the trading volume of bitcoin since it shot up over the $10K price level. Trading volume has increased along with the price. Do you believe the two are interrelated or are they actually independent? I think it is an indication rising price of bitcoin causes increased demand Spongy Iris wrote:The demand has gone up because the prices have gone up. You have that backwards. Think about it. The belief that Bitcoin will increase in value causes speculators to want to buy it, i.e. the belief causes an increase in demand. This demand drives speculators to buy Bitcoin, even though the asking price is above the current market value (or previous sale price), i.e. the price increases. One more time in review: Per basic supply-demand, an increase in demand causes an increase in the realized price. How that plays out in this case is as follows: Some speculators believe, for whatever reason, that Bitcoin will increase in value. Their demand for Bitcoin increases. The price for Bitcoin increases. You don't seem to understand. The only thing that empowers a speculator to believe in bitcoin is a rising price. And a scammer needs to get the ball rolling in that regard, by buying an inventory, then slowly selling it for higher prices to speculators over a long time. You are pushing fairy tale economics, magical price discovery. Spongy Iris wrote:The constraint to demand is how much discretionary cash people have to gamble with. ... which translates to a ceiling on any sale price. Spongy Iris wrote:When a bank issues money to a business or a person, it is because the business or person can sell goods and services. Incorrect. Banks issue loans because that is a source of income for the bank. When a bank issues a loan to a business or a person it is because the bank expects to be repaid with interest (note: such an expectation involves the bank's belief in the borrower's ability to repay the loan). The specifics of how the borrower is able to repay the loan only relate to the lender's belief in the borrower's ability to repay the loan, not to why the bank is issuing the loan. There is not enough money created for all banks to collect any interest Spongy Iris wrote: When bitcoin is issued, it is because a computer program has successfully guessed a randomly generated number. Would you mind explaining this a bit more? Note: Computers generate pseudo-random numbers, not random numbers. Dice generate (mostly) random numbers with some amount of bias. We should probably figure out the basics before we dive into specifics
24-05-2021 21:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: Why are they scams? Please list each one, and describe why it's a scam, and how the scam works, and who is benefiting from the scam. Be prepared to show the deception method in each case. I provided an explanation earlier to some of your questions. Now repeated. Scammers buy lots at the bottom, and then they sell it off slowly bit by bit for higher and higher prices to speculators who are chasing the price increase. The higher it goes, the more speculators become attracted to it. Once the scammers have sold all their long buy positions to speculators, then they sell short. When they sell short the price falls fast. Most of the speculators get scared and sell their positions to cut their losses. The price falls fast more. Then after the price has fallen a lot, scammers cover their short positions, by once again buying. This once again attracts more speculators. The cycle repeats in a new pattern. If you don't believe or know the above to be a generic explanation of how the scam works, you must believe all market participants are speculators, and the price change is random. Yes? No? Okay. You are attempting to capture a pyramid scheme that isn't there. Neither is there any deception going on. I will not be able to convince you of this, so you are free to stay out of markets if you want to. Others that want to invest in the stock market, commodity markets, or even the Bitcoin market are free to do so. None of them are pyramid schemes or deceptions, but you feel they are in no convincing from me is going to change your outlook. All of them are simply following price discovery as in any market. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2021 21:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: Why are they scams? Please list each one, and describe why it's a scam, and how the scam works, and who is benefiting from the scam. Be prepared to show the deception method in each case. I provided an explanation earlier to some of your questions. Now repeated. Scammers buy lots at the bottom, and then they sell it off slowly bit by bit for higher and higher prices to speculators who are chasing the price increase. The higher it goes, the more speculators become attracted to it. Once the scammers have sold all their long buy positions to speculators, then they sell short. When they sell short the price falls fast. Most of the speculators get scared and sell their positions to cut their losses. The price falls fast more. Then after the price has fallen a lot, scammers cover their short positions, by once again buying. This once again attracts more speculators. The cycle repeats in a new pattern. If you don't believe or know the above to be a generic explanation of how the scam works, you must believe all market participants are speculators, and the price change is random. Yes? No? And yet buyers are intrigued because crypto currency is like the real estate market. More buyers increases demand yet it's not real estate which is limited due to location. A fair point, James. While any bushel of wheat is like any other bushel of wheat on the markets, real estate is itself limiting. You can subdivide of course, but that doesn't create new land. So according to Spongy's logic, real estate itself is a scam and a pyramid scheme. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2021 21:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Then, as GFM so eloquently shown already, you must therefore conclude that a government printing massive amounts of money and the hyperinflation that it causes is 'wealth'. You suck at formal logic. Is pizza not food? Into the Night wrote:Google ain't God. Very True. You should have stuck with this instead of advertising that you are clueless about economics. Pivot fallacy. Non-sequitur fallacy. Insult fallacies. Argument of the stone fallacy. Accounting is not economics. Redefinition fallacies. No argument presented. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2021 21:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Let's see if I got this right... So, after [my insistence that I have actually dared to disagree with Into the Night] you now expect ME to [support my claim with a few examples] ? No. Absolutely no way in hell will I be doing that at this time. I expected no other response. After all, I have read all your posts and you have never disagreed with him. For you to admit this would have required honesty on your part. gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I see how he treats people who do disagree with him and he's not treating you that way. ... because we agree with each other on this specific discussion, You have adopted Into the Night's inability to read English for comprehension. One more time: I can see by the way Into the Night is treating you that you have not dared to disagree with him. gfm7175 wrote: ... because we both have real world experience in accounting You both deny the rules of accounting. Whatever experience you might have, if you are attempting to redefine accounting then you are attempting to redefine accounting. I am still not impressed by "Accounts Receivable" being the department in which you work. Like I said, I'm sure you do a good job at whatever you do, be it customer service, records research, ...whatever ... but you suck at accounting. Nonetheless, you have somehow allowed the name of your department to go to your head and convince you that you are somehow an accounting expert who is empowered to rewrite the rules of accounting. Have fun with your delusion. gfm7175 wrote: We also realize that book examples are not the end all be all, I would ask what this is supposed to mean, but I realize that this is your way of saying that the rules of accounting are not restricted to what is written in books and that you get to alter them as you see fit. Yes, I know you believe this. gfm7175 wrote: ... and that the very same accounting functions can be expressed in different ways. I would ask what this is supposed to mean, but I realize that this is another way of saying that the rules of accounting are a matter of personal taste and are to be implemented as each individual sees fit. Yes, I know you believe this. gfm7175 wrote: I've already gone through the details of that with you, going through the very same transaction logging process but just using cows and chickens instead of dollars. You suck at accounting but you have a minor grasp of tracking inventory ... so it is no wonder that you have succumbed to the temptation to conflate the two while insisting that you aren't. ... especially when Into the Night is instructing you to do so. People who suck at accounting don't wake up one day and decide to do this on their own. gfm7175 wrote: Accounting is about performing those various processes ("logging and cross checking", as "ITN told me to say"), not about formally presenting wealth to aid in management decisions (which in today's world is essentially just opening up your accounting program on your computer, going to the 'reports' tab, choosing which report you wish to use to "formally present your wealth", and then pressing the print button). Accounting is a set of rules establishing a formal standard for presenting a financial/wealth picture to aid in making decisions. You are very close to being as objectively wrong as is possible on this matter. If only you had not adopted Into the Night's misunderstanding of "Yes vs. No" you would not have used the word "not" above and instead used the word "and." You see, when you obey someone who is leading you down the primrose path and when you adopt his lies as your own, you become just as much a dishonest moron. gfm7175 wrote: Maybe you're failing to understand that my example goes through the same processes of accounting all the same as what you're asking for, 1. As the dishonest moron you have thus become, you insist that the rules of accounting are somehow merely my opinion. 2. As the dishonest moron you have become you have thus been relegated to assigning to me bogus positions, because that's all you have. I am not asking for anything, I do not want anything, I am not selling anything and I am not pushing any agenda. Nonetheless, because your master has ordered you to attack, you obey and unleash as much dishonesty as you feel is necessary ... or as your master tells you is necessary. 3. You think accounting is nothing more than inventory tracking. Because you suck at actual accounting you have no way to realize just how screwed up your perspective is ... but because you have become a totally bulveristic moron on this matter you presume that the problem must be with someone else. gfm7175 wrote: ... or maybe you do understand that I am in fact correct Nope. We can safely place your position in the "incorrect" column. On Tab-A your position will be further categorized as "bat-shit crazy." Now we are yet another day further along and you still have not provided a single authoritative reference showing that balancing the debits and credits in all ledger entries is somehow merely optional. You have looked but you found nothing because you know that I am correct and that you are incorrect ... but you are too proud to admit it ... and Into the Night wouldn't permit you to do so anyway. gfm7175 wrote: Did ITN also tell me what to say for my whole Cult of the Mask write-up that I did (and that you did an intro write-up for as well as a couple of the entries)? Are you saying that he gave you a certain lee-way? Once you start regurgitating someone else's asinine lies then you throw all of your own credibility out the window across the board. gfm7175 wrote: To provide a part of what I do on a daily basis Immaterial. What you do doesn't justify your regurgitation of dishonesty. Cough up an authoritative reference showing that balancing ledger entry credits and debits is only optional. You rushed to fall on your sword over this ... at Into the Night's order ... so fall on it. gfm7175 wrote:My cow/chicken example involves all of those things all the same as any example involving dollars or some form of currency would involve. At one point you essentially declared chickens as your currency and performed accounting under that currency. Of course you don't know enough about either accounting or economics to realize what you were doing. So what I am seeing is that you would rather attack me, i.e. someone who knows so much more than you do and who is simply trying to point you in the right direction ... than to merely question someone who is openly lying to you. As such, I will be happy to point out to the board, every single post, just how much of an idiot you have willingly allowed yourself to become. On your current path you won't be getting any smarter on the subject. So let's have at it, shall we? gfm7175 wrote: Neither I nor ITN have ever called bartering a profit and loss statement. On 21 May 2021 Into the Night wrote: I have also added the other half of summary...the P&L, and showed the cross check. gfm7175 wrote: Again, should I now be ridiculing YOUR English literacy? Yes, please try. Paranoia. Hallucinations. Bulverism fallacies. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2021 21:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Day to day there's never more than a 50 % chance it will rise and 50% chance it will fall. Incorrect. You do not know the probability at any moment of an increase or decrease. Spongy Iris wrote:I'm looking at the long term movements. Incorrect. You are looking at the activity of the moment. Quite right. He is making a base rate fallacy. This is the same sort of fallacy that the Church of Global Warming makes when discussing temperature 'trends'. IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Over a long time period, these types of speculative financial instruments which catch fire like bitcoin, will usually drift higher in price. So tell me what aspects of either supply or of demand you are examining that will determine the price movement upon which you are wagering ... or admit that you are simply gambling blindly on the activity of the moment. He won't. He's convinced he is not gambling. You won't change his mind this way. IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: And as they drift higher, more and more speculators become attracted to them. The demand increases. You are swapping cause and effect. First demand increases and then price increases as a result, not the other way around. Good call. This is also known as a reversal fallacy. Accurately called. IBdaMann wrote: You would do well to study supply-&-demand. I believe I have mentioned this before. You have. He ignored it. An argument of the stone fallacy on his part. IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:The price of stocks has drifted a lot higher in the past 100 years. This is a complex topic. Part of the reason for the price increase is a phenomenon known as "inflation" while another aspect is called "commercial success." You might be interested in reading a bit about Opportunity Cost. This will get you thinking along the right lines. Spongy Iris wrote:You can also look at the trading volume of bitcoin since it shot up over the $10K price level. Trading volume has increased along with the price. Do you believe the two are interrelated or are they actually independent? Spongy Iris wrote:The demand has gone up because the prices have gone up. You have that backwards. Think about it. The belief that Bitcoin will increase in value causes speculators to want to buy it, i.e. the belief causes an increase in demand. This demand drives speculators to buy Bitcoin, even though the asking price is above the current market value (or previous sale price), i.e. the price increases. One more time in review: Per basic supply-demand, an increase in demand causes an increase in the realized price. How that plays out in this case is as follows: Some speculators believe, for whatever reason, that Bitcoin will increase in value. Their demand for Bitcoin increases. The price for Bitcoin increases. Spongy Iris wrote:The constraint to demand is how much discretionary cash people have to gamble with. ... which translates to a ceiling on any sale price. Spongy Iris wrote:When a bank issues money to a business or a person, it is because the business or person can sell goods and services. Incorrect. Banks issue loans because that is a source of income for the bank. When a bank issues a loan to a business or a person it is because the bank expects to be repaid with interest (note: such an expectation involves the bank's belief in the borrower's ability to repay the loan). The specifics of how the borrower is able to repay the loan only relate to the lender's belief in the borrower's ability to repay the loan, not to why the bank is issuing the loan. Spongy Iris wrote: When bitcoin is issued, it is because a computer program has successfully guessed a randomly generated number. Would you mind explaining this a bit more? Note: Computers generate pseudo-random numbers, not random numbers. This is wrong. Computers can generate both randU and randR. They can also generate randN. This point is minor, however, since computers don't 'guess' random numbers. They generate them. He is attempting to use a randR as data. An argument from randR fallacy (rather rare!). Concerning a computer's ability to generate a randR, it is quite possible to introduce a high resolution source into a low resolution generator, making it a randR generator. Such things as background network activity, Gunn noise in semiconductors, and even using weather reporting can be sources of high resolution systems. The computer only needs to generate a resolution of 0-255, making such a generator a randR, not a randU. Computers also have randU generators in them as well. They have their uses, such as when you need to specifically seed the generator (some games use this technique to build maps). IBdaMann wrote: Dice generate (mostly) random numbers with some amount of bias. Dice have no natural bias. It is easy to spin test them to eliminate any dice that are shapes or are weighted in any way. The high resolution system for dice is the guy throwing the dice. The low resolution system is the die itself. For a paired randR (using two or more dice), you get the familiar bell curve, but again this is caused by the summation, not by the dice themselves. Dice are randR generators. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2021 21:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Spongy Iris wrote:Over the past 100 years, the up vs down days is 50-50. That is a tally, i.e. a count. You could do the same with die rolls. The count of the results does not determine the possibility that any particular outcome had. Once again, at any given moment, you do not know the probability that the price will increase or decrease. For any given day, you do not know the probability for the price to close higher (or lower) than the previous day. Spongy Iris wrote:Do you not consider 100 years long term? Do you really consider timing your purchase off the activity of the moment to be a long-term plan? Spongy Iris wrote:it's all inflation. Commercial success has nothing to do with rising and falling stock prices. So your position is that stock prices do not rise based on corporate earnings? Spongy Iris wrote: Have you been deceived into thinking it does? Yes. This is exactly what I have been deceived into thinking with certainty. Spongy Iris wrote: IBDaMann wrote: You might be interested in reading a bit about Opportunity Cost. This will get you thinking along the right lines. irrelevant sloganeering You would do well to read up on what a slogan is. Spongy Iris wrote:I think it is an indication rising price of bitcoin causes increased demand Kudos! You got the cause->effect right on this one, i.e. increased demand causing increased prices. However volume is an independent axis. The number of shares trading at a given price is reflective of different opportunities outside of the security in question. A volume increase signals that this market as a whole is more attractive relative to other markets and is now capturing a larger share of the overall trading volume, and that could mean that the price is going to tank and people are rushing to sell it short. Of course it could also mean that the price is anticipated to remain very stable by people looking to reduce price risk in their portfolios. In other words, a volume surge offers no information about why the market is now more attractive relative to other markets, simply that it is. Spongy Iris wrote:You are pushing fairy tale economics, magical price discovery.[/b] Good! You are revealing your Marxist agenda. Now all that's left is for you to explain how capitalism crushes the proletariat by denying them the means of production. The floor is yours. [quote]Spongy Iris wrote:There is not enough money created for all banks to collect any interest I hate to break this to you but banks are currently successfully making loans and collecting interest. If you ditch your Marxism-induced panic attack for a moment you'll breathe more easily in the realization that there is nothing to fear. Spongy Iris wrote: We should probably figure out the basics before we dive into specifics We need to figure out what you even mean before we can figure anything out. Please explain what you mean by Bitcoins existing because a computer generated a pseudo-random number.
24-05-2021 22:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote:You suck at formal logic. Is pizza not food? It is your logic that is faulty here, not mine or ITN's. Here is why: First, let's review how we got to this point. No. First explain how Into the Night's logic is not faulty. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Burden of proof fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: You made the assertion that 'money is wealth'. I consider money to be wealth and I explained why. Paradox A. IBdaMann wrote: I accepted that your opinion and Into the Night's opinion differs and that I think it is a mistake. Into the Night went ape-schitt. You followed suit. You never explained, as I did, why you believe what you believe. You both simply EVADED like total cowards. Lie. You openly stated that his opinion is directed by me. Now you deny this????? Paradox. I will label this paradox D. IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: I then decided to take your assertion to its logical conclusion, as follows: You engaged in absurd illogic to assign bogus position after bogus position to me ... because that is your fall-back position when you have nothing else. No, dude. YOU made the arguments. YOU put yourself into various paradoxes. YOU are the only that can clear them. It is YOUR problem. Only YOU can solve it. Inversion fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:[1] money is wealth [2] printing money increases the amount of money In showing that you have willingly become too stupid to learn, despite my attempts to explain your abysmal logic error to you, you insist on doubling down on brain-death. I'm in a good mood. I'll try again. Let's see if you can engage your brain for a moment. Is pizza food? This should not be too difficult a question for you to answer. If it is then we will have rooted out your problem. Once you have answered that question, think about how much more food you have if you slice a pizza into ten slices rather than eight. My position is that no, we do not have more food. You, however, are dishonestly claiming that my position is that we have more food which is a totally absurd position that I do not have. False equivalency fallacy. Pizza is not money. Money is not printed by dividing it. Pizza slices increase by dividing a pizza. Government printing of money does not increase wealth. Money is not wealth. IBdaMann wrote: In so lying about my position, you are further claiming that I operate under your abysmal illogic, which I do not. You suck at formal logic. I do not. You suck at accounting. I do not. You suck at economics. I do not. Inversion fallacy. Redefinition fallacies. Money is not wealth. Accounting is not economics. IBdaMann wrote: ... but you work in "Accounts Receivable" and I do not, so I guess that gives you the edge, right? Apparently enough of an edge to floor you with his examples. IBdaMann wrote: All this time you could have been learning from what I have been telling you and independently verifying all of it. Instead, you stupidly repeat the same errors that you know you cannot support. He has not made any errors. Assumption of victory fallacy. He has already supported his arguments. RQAA. Argument of the stone fallacies. IBdaMann wrote: So, we come back to the definition of wealth. Here I will give you another opportunity to epically fail at formal logic: 1) I claim that money is wealth because it is a proper subset of wealth. We know your claim. You cannot seem to consistently define 'wealth'. Paradox A. IBdaMann wrote: 2) This implies that any attribute of wealth is therefore an attribute of money That it does. We have already shown you the difference. IBdaMann wrote: 3) You claim that money is not wealth Correct. IBdaMann wrote: 4) Your assertion implies that there exists at least one attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money RQAA. I will answer it yet AGAIN here. Wealth is not used to represent wealth. Money is. Wealth is goods and services (the same definition I have always used, and it has never varied). Money is neither goods nor services. Money is a medium of exchange of wealth, nothing more. Wealth has an inherent value. Money has little to no inherent value. GFM has ALREADY brought up the example of printing more money by a government on a massive scale is not increasing wealth. Printing is not done by dividing money. It is done by CREATING money. Money, however, is not goods or a service. Do not ask this question again. This is the last time I will answer it. IBdaMann wrote: ___________ What is that attribute? [quote]IBdaMann wrote: [This is where you flee like a coward. This is where you EVADE as ordered. This is where you feign indignance and write "RQAA." This is where you run, run, run away and live to lie another day] See above. RQAA. Do not ask this question again. I have answered it enough times for you. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2021 22:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Speculators buy and sell for all kinds of reasons, including using only the activity of the moment as a guide, Speculators can certainly use the wackiest things as guides ... but they only buy when they believe the future price will be higher (or sell short when they believe the future price will be lower). A fair statement. The trigger for the purchase, as I have noted, can be nothing more than some wacky guide that they use. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Remember, every sale has an accompanying purchase, and every purchase has an accompanying sale, and the price is moving in some direction. Not quite true. I hate to disagree with you, but regardless of how Bitcoins might come into existence, every purchase has an accompanying sale. One cannot purchase something that is not being sold. I have ALREADY described how Bitcoins are CREATED. No one has to purchase it for that Coin to exist. Argument of the Stone fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2021 22:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Into the Night wrote:This is wrong. Computers can generate both randU and randR. They can also generate randN. You are incorrect. No computer can compute a random number. The act of computing makes it deterministic. I'll explain more below. Into the Night wrote: This point is minor, however, since computers don't 'guess' random numbers. They generate them. Computers generate pseudo-random numbers. Computers have no ability to generate random numbers. Into the Night wrote: Concerning a computer's ability to generate a randR, it is quite possible to introduce a high resolution source into a low resolution generator, making it a randR generator. Such things as background network activity, Gunn noise in semiconductors, and even using weather reporting can be sources of high resolution systems. In such cases those other things are generating the random number, not the computer. This point is not trivial, it is fundamental. The moment you are conceptually discussing a computing device, everything is deterministic, precluding any random number generation. This is why one must leave the computing device to obtain randomness. Into the Night wrote: Computers also have randU generators in them as well. They have their uses, such as when you need to specifically seed the generator (some games use this technique to build maps). Your terms RandU, RandR and RandN do not exist in math. I tried explaining the math involved to you previously but you didn't want to learn any of it. This statement you made here is meaningless. Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Dice generate (mostly) random numbers with some amount of bias. Dice have no natural bias. It is easy to spin test them to eliminate any dice that are shapes or are weighted in any way. All objects have bias. There is no such thing as any die with zero bias. Yes, you can reduce the bias to very small levels such that you treat it as zero but there is always some. That also goes for any devices upon which a computer might call to provide a random number. All devices have bias.
24-05-2021 22:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [ Spongy Iris wrote:Day to day there's never more than a 50 % chance it will rise and 50% chance it will fall. Incorrect. You do not know the probability at any moment of an increase or decrease. Over the past 100 years, the up vs down days is 50-50. Argument from randU fallacy. Math error: failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Opening paradox. I will call this argument A. Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:I'm looking at the long term movements. Incorrect. You are looking at the activity of the moment. Do you not consider 100 years long term? The phrase 'long term' has no numeric value. Attempted use of subjective as objective. Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Over a long time period, these types of speculative financial instruments which catch fire like bitcoin, will usually drift higher in price. So tell me what aspects of either supply or of demand you are examining that will determine the price movement upon which you are wagering ... or admit that you are simply gambling blindly on the activity of the moment. Sadly I am not a scammer. I will cal your insistence that price has drifted higher as argument B. You are now locked in paradox. You must clear it. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It is irrational. Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: And as they drift higher, more and more speculators become attracted to them. The demand increases. You are swapping cause and effect. First demand increases and then price increases as a result, not the other way around. You would do well to study supply-&-demand. I believe I have mentioned this before. Spongy Iris wrote:The price of stocks has drifted a lot higher in the past 100 years. This is a complex topic. Part of the reason for the price increase is a phenomenon known as "inflation" while another aspect is called "commercial success." it's all inflation. Commercial success has nothing to do with rising and falling stock prices. Have you been deceived into thinking it does? You might be interested in reading a bit about Opportunity Cost. This will get you thinking along the right lines. irrelevant sloganeering No. Opportunity Cost is actually a thing. It is another way of describing the price discovery inherent in any market. As a slogan, it fits. You are ignoring price discover, inherent in all markets that are not manipulated by the government. Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:You can also look at the trading volume of bitcoin since it shot up over the $10K price level. Trading volume has increased along with the price. Do you believe the two are interrelated or are they actually independent? I think it is an indication rising price of bitcoin causes increased demand No. Reversal fallacy. It's the other way 'round. Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:The demand has gone up because the prices have gone up. You have that backwards. Think about it. The belief that Bitcoin will increase in value causes speculators to want to buy it, i.e. the belief causes an increase in demand. This demand drives speculators to buy Bitcoin, even though the asking price is above the current market value (or previous sale price), i.e. the price increases. One more time in review: Per basic supply-demand, an increase in demand causes an increase in the realized price. How that plays out in this case is as follows: Some speculators believe, for whatever reason, that Bitcoin will increase in value. Their demand for Bitcoin increases. The price for Bitcoin increases. You don't seem to understand. The only thing that empowers a speculator to believe in bitcoin is a rising price. And a scammer needs to get the ball rolling in that regard, by buying an inventory, then slowly selling it for higher prices to speculators over a long time. You are pushing fairy tale economics, magical price discovery. There is nothing magickal about price discovery. It is present in all markets except those manipulated by the government (fascism) or owned by the government (communism). Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:The constraint to demand is how much discretionary cash people have to gamble with. ... which translates to a ceiling on any sale price. There is no ceiling on any sale price. You are trying to describe price discovery while at the same time denying it. This is irrational. This is the paradox you are already locked into. You must clear it. Spongy Iris wrote:When a bank issues money to a business or a person, it is because the business or person can sell goods and services. Incorrect. Banks issue loans because that is a source of income for the bank. When a bank issues a loan to a business or a person it is because the bank expects to be repaid with interest (note: such an expectation involves the bank's belief in the borrower's ability to repay the loan). The specifics of how the borrower is able to repay the loan only relate to the lender's belief in the borrower's ability to repay the loan, not to why the bank is issuing the loan. There is not enough money created for all banks to collect any interest If a bank makes a loan, it charges interest. You are attempting a compositional error fallacy. Not all banks are making that loan. Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: When bitcoin is issued, it is because a computer program has successfully guessed a randomly generated number. Would you mind explaining this a bit more? Note: Computers generate pseudo-random numbers, not random numbers. Dice generate (mostly) random numbers with some amount of bias. We should probably figure out the basics before we dive into specifics Here you are actually making an argument from randR fallacy, rather rare. I haven't called this one since tmiddles! You cannot use random numbers from dice as data. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2021 22:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:This is wrong. Computers can generate both randU and randR. They can also generate randN. You are incorrect. No computer can compute a random number. The act of computing makes it deterministic. I'll explain more below. They do all the time. You will find the best randR generators in Unix, and specifically in Linux. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: This point is minor, however, since computers don't 'guess' random numbers. They generate them. Computers generate pseudo-random numbers. Computers have no ability to generate random numbers. They can generate both. I have already described how. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Concerning a computer's ability to generate a randR, it is quite possible to introduce a high resolution source into a low resolution generator, making it a randR generator. Such things as background network activity, Gunn noise in semiconductors, and even using weather reporting can be sources of high resolution systems. In such cases those other things are generating the random number, not the computer. No. The network card and the network it is connected to is part of the computer. The noise card is part of the computer. You are confusing 'computer' with 'processor'. IBdaMann wrote: This point is not trivial, it is fundamental. The moment you are conceptually discussing a computing device, everything is deterministic, precluding any random number generation. This is why one must leave the computing device to obtain randomness. No. Computers today can provide randR, randU, and randN numbers. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Computers also have randU generators in them as well. They have their uses, such as when you need to specifically seed the generator (some games use this technique to build maps). Your terms RandU, RandR and RandN do not exist in math. I tried explaining the math involved to you previously but you didn't want to learn any of it. This statement you made here is meaningless. They do exist in random number math. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Dice generate (mostly) random numbers with some amount of bias. Dice have no natural bias. It is easy to spin test them to eliminate any dice that are shapes or are weighted in any way. All objects have bias. There is no such thing as any die with zero bias. Yes, you can reduce the bias to very small levels such that you treat it as zero but there is always some. None, for a legal die. IBdaMann wrote: That also goes for any devices upon which a computer might call to provide a random number. All devices have bias. No, they don't. Base rate fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2021 23:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Into the Night wrote:They do all the time. Nope. No computer does. This is just another area of your incompetence. Into the Night wrote:They can generate both. I have already described how. You completely blocked out my explanation of why they cannot. But go ahead and tell gfm7175 to parrot your error as well. I know that misery loves company. Into the Night wrote:No. The network card and the network it is connected to is part of the computer. The OSI model says that you are mistaken. Shall I anticipate your denial of the OSI model? In any event, the computer's operating system calls a device outside the operating system and requests a random number. The computer receives the random number, it does not generate it. Like I said, this concept is not trivial, it is fundamental. Into the Night wrote: The noise card is part of the computer. Nope. The noise is used by some device to generate a random number which it then provides to the operating system. Into the Night wrote:No. Computers today can provide randR, randU, and randN numbers. Totally meaningless drivel. Into the Night wrote:They do exist in random number math. What would that be? Perhaps I should ask what you believe it is. I am an expert in pseudo-random number math. There is no random-number math of which I am aware nor is there any such thing as deterministic randomness. But you claim that there is. I am intrigued. What do you believe that is? Into the Night wrote:None, for a legal die. You don't know what you are talking about. Into the Night wrote:No, they don't. Base rate fallacy. I am going to feel really bad for gfm7175 when he starts parroting you on this. Too funny.
25-05-2021 00:12
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote:You suck at formal logic. Is pizza not food? It is your logic that is faulty here, not mine or ITN's. Here is why: First, let's review how we got to this point. No. First explain how Into the Night's logic is not faulty. Why would I need to do that? Aren't you the one claiming that his logic is faulty? IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: You made the assertion that 'money is wealth'. I consider money to be wealth and I explained why. I accepted that your opinion and Into the Night's opinion differs and that I think it is a mistake. Into the Night went ape-schitt. You followed suit. You never explained, as I did, why you believe what you believe. You both simply EVADED like total cowards. Go on ... ... I have recognized that you consider money to be wealth. That's why I have listed it as the first premise of my extension of your position, which I have already laid out like this, and you "have simply EVADED like a total coward", to use your words: [1] Money is wealth Since this is YOUR claim, and you have made it again in your last response, I take it that you are accepting this premise as true [2] Printing money increases the amount of money Since you have, in the past, made fun of keepit for rejecting this claim, I take it that you are also accepting this premise as true [Conclusion] Increasing the amount of money (per #2) increases the amount of wealth (per #1). Since you have seemingly accepted BOTH of the above premises to be true, it then logically follows that you would also accept the conclusion to be true (that "the SODC turning on the printing presses", for example, increases wealth)... You seem to be rejecting the conclusion, thus you are not being logical about this You now have a few choices that you can make: Reject premise #1 and join me and ITN. Reject premise #2 and join keepit. Reject (irrationally) the conclusion while accepting both #1 AND #2. Accept the conclusion, thus adopting the position that printing money increases wealth. The choice is yours... IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:[1] money is wealth [2] printing money increases the amount of money In showing that you have willingly become too stupid to learn, despite my attempts to explain your abysmal logic error to you, you insist on doubling down on brain-death. I'm in a good mood. I'll try again. Let's see if you can engage your brain for a moment. Is pizza food? This should not be too difficult a question for you to answer. If it is then we will have rooted out your problem. Once you have answered that question, think about how much more food you have if you slice a pizza into ten slices rather than eight. My position is that no, we do not have more food. Please refer to the entirety of my prior post for all that I had to say about this specific question of yours and my thoughts on its (non)applicability to my extension of your 'money is wealth' claim. To briefly reiterate, the supply of money does not increase by dividing it into half dollars, quarters, dimes, nickels, and pennies. The supply of pizza does not increase by dividing it into two slices, four slices, ten slices, twenty slices, and a hundred slices. Your attempt at mirroring premise #2 in particular is not an equivalent comparison. So that leaves us at my extension of your position (which I have labeled as premise #1), as well as which of the four reactions to its conclusion that you are choosing to take... Edited on 25-05-2021 00:18

25-05-2021 00:26
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: But go ahead and tell gfm7175 to parrot your error as well. I know that misery loves company. IBdaMann wrote: I am going to feel really bad for gfm7175 when he starts parroting you on this. Too funny. Luckily for you, I am going to abstain from this particular side discussion due to my lack of knowledge/experience on the matter. You two can duke this one out.
25-05-2021 02:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	gfm7175 wrote:Luckily for you, I am going to abstain from this particular side discussion Why does that make me lucky? gfm7175 wrote: ... due to my lack of knowledge/experience on the matter. Are you saying that you intend to keep it that way? This is a fascinating area of math and computer science. Regrettably, unless you actively participate and ask questions, you're not going to learn anything. Into the Night has already made the conscious decision to deny discrete math and he won't be adding any value on the computer science side I'm afraid. I'll tell you what. I know that being pointed in the right direction sort of rubs you the wrong way, so I won't offer any explanation ... but if you have ever wondered about pseudo-random number generators (normally called "random number generators" by the vast majority of the lay public) look up "spectral test" whenever you have a free moment. It's good stuff. You might have to review a few sources to find one that works for you. gfm7175 wrote: You two can duke this one out. There won't be any duking. Into the Night is ill-equipped for any discussion on the matter. I'll just rake him over the coals a bit and there won't be much more to it.
25-05-2021 02:34
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	[quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: Argument from randU fallacy. Math error: failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Opening paradox. I will call this argument A. What is this gibberish you are spewing? Since 12/31/1970 through today there have been 6637 up days and 6022 down days on the Dow Jones Industrial average. That is 52-48. Not significantly different than 50-50. I will cal your insistence that price has drifted higher as argument B. You are now locked in paradox. You must clear it. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It is irrational. Please clarify your gibberish No. Opportunity Cost is actually a thing. It is another way of describing the price discovery inherent in any market. As a slogan, it fits. You are ignoring price discover, inherent in all markets that are not manipulated by the government. This is a conversation about crypto currencies and other speculative assets. These are manipulated. No. Reversal fallacy. It's the other way 'round. There would be no demand for bitcoin if the price didn't increase. It's hard to believe you can't understand that. Oh well. There is nothing magickal about price discovery. It is present in all markets except those manipulated by the government (fascism) or owned by the government (communism). The price of bitcoin and other speculative assets is discovered through manipulation There is no ceiling on any sale price. You are trying to describe price discovery while at the same time denying it. This is irrational. This is the paradox you are already locked into. You must clear it. You should clarify your gibberish. If a bank makes a loan, it charges interest. You are attempting a compositional error fallacy. Not all banks are making that loan. The money to pay interest is not created. Here you are actually making an argument from randR fallacy, rather rare. I haven't called this one since tmiddles! You cannot use random numbers from dice as data. Wow. More gibberish Edited on 25-05-2021 02:34
25-05-2021 02:56
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: ... due to my lack of knowledge/experience on the matter. Are you saying that you intend to keep it that way? Yes. I have little to no interest in the subject matter. It's just not my cup of tea.
25-05-2021 03:10
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: That is a tally, i.e. a count. You could do the same with die rolls. The count of the results does not determine the possibility that any particular outcome had. Once again, at any given moment, you do not know the probability that the price will increase or decrease. For any given day, you do not know the probability for the price to close higher (or lower) than the previous day. Whatever dude. You never know what's going to happen. But based on history, the betting odds are 50-50. Do you really consider timing your purchase off the activity of the moment to be a long-term plan? No, because the betting odds are 50-50! So your position is that stock prices do not rise based on corporate earnings? Yes. If you believe they do, then I'm certain you have been deceived. Kudos! You got the cause->effect right on this one, i.e. increased demand causing increased prices. I hate to repeat myself, but there would be no demand for bitcoin, without its price increasing. Please explain what you mean by Bitcoins existing because a computer generated a pseudo-random number. My point is bitcoin is based on nothing. And it is only attractive because the price has been going up. Edited on 25-05-2021 03:11
25-05-2021 07:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:They do all the time. Nope. No computer does. This is just another area of your incompetence. I design and build computers, dumbass. It's my business. I build instrumentation for industrial, medical, and aerospace applications. These instruments are computerized. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:They can generate both. I have already described how. You completely blocked out my explanation of why they cannot. But go ahead and tell gfm7175 to parrot your error as well. I know that misery loves company. Because you are confusing processors with computers. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:No. The network card and the network it is connected to is part of the computer. The OSI model says that you are mistaken. Shall I anticipate your denial of the OSI model? Irrelevant. The OSI model makes no difference here. IBdaMann wrote: In any event, the computer's operating system calls a device outside the operating system and requests a random number. The computer receives the random number, it does not generate it. The computer is not an operating system. IBdaMann wrote: Like I said, this concept is not trivial, it is fundamental. And you don't understand it, even though I've explained it to you...even in the last post. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: The noise card is part of the computer. Nope. The noise is used by some device to generate a random number which it then provides to the operating system. The computer is not an operating system. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:No. Computers today can provide randR, randU, and randN numbers. Totally meaningless drivel. No, it isn't. I have already defined these for you and why they are what they are and how each is generated. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:They do exist in random number math. What would that be? RQAA. IBdaMann wrote: Perhaps I should ask what you believe it is. RQAA IBdaMann wrote: I am an expert in pseudo-random number math. But not, apparently in randR or randN math. IBdaMann wrote: There is no random-number math of which I am aware nor is there any such thing as deterministic randomness. I have already made you aware of it. You are lying. I never claimed that randomness is deterministic. YOU did. IBdaMann wrote: But you claim that there is. I am intrigued. What do you believe that is? RQAA. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:None, for a legal die. You don't know what you are talking about. Apparently not, even though I just explained it to you. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:No, they don't. Base rate fallacy. I am going to feel really bad for gfm7175 when he starts parroting you on this. Too funny. Why are you picking on gfm? He never even commented on it! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-05-2021 07:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:Luckily for you, I am going to abstain from this particular side discussion Why does that make me lucky? You already answered your own question. IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: ... due to my lack of knowledge/experience on the matter. Are you saying that you intend to keep it that way? He never did. Don't put words in people's mouths. IBdaMann wrote: This is a fascinating area of math and computer science. Yes it is. Too bad you don't seem to understand much of either. IBdaMann wrote: Regrettably, unless you actively participate and ask questions, you're not going to learn anything. Yes he will. By the arguments presented by others. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night has already made the conscious decision to deny discrete math and he won't be adding any value on the computer science side I'm afraid. I do not deny discrete math. A computer is not computer science. IBdaMann wrote: I'll tell you what. I know that being pointed in the right direction sort of rubs you the wrong way, so I won't offer any explanation ... but if you have ever wondered about pseudo-random number generators (normally called "random number generators" by the vast majority of the lay public) look up "spectral test" whenever you have a free moment. It's good stuff. You might have to review a few sources to find one that works for you. RandU generators are part of most operating systems. Computers today can generate randU, randR, and randN numbers. IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: You two can duke this one out. There won't be any duking. Into the Night is ill-equipped for any discussion on the matter. I'll just rake him over the coals a bit and there won't be much more to it. You can try. Won't work though. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-05-2021 07:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: Argument from randU fallacy. Math error: failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Opening paradox. I will call this argument A. What is this gibberish you are spewing? Since 12/31/1970 through today there have been 6637 up days and 6022 down days on the Dow Jones Industrial average. That is 52-48. Not significantly different than 50-50. 50!=52. 50!=48. You also failed to mention how far up the up days went and how far down the down days went. You were also talking about Bitcoin, not the Dow Jones industrial average. Spongy Iris wrote: I will cal your insistence that price has drifted higher as argument B. You are now locked in paradox. You must clear it. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It is irrational. Please clarify your gibberish You created a paradox. Only you can clarify it by clearing you paradox. Spongy Iris wrote: No. Opportunity Cost is actually a thing. It is another way of describing the price discovery inherent in any market. As a slogan, it fits. You are ignoring price discover, inherent in all markets that are not manipulated by the government. This is a conversation about crypto currencies and other speculative assets. These are manipulated. Nope. Bitcoin is not manipulated. Reversal fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: No. Reversal fallacy. It's the other way 'round. There would be no demand for bitcoin if the price didn't increase. It's hard to believe you can't understand that. Oh well. Reversal fallacy. The price increase BECAUSE of demand, the demand does not increase because the price went up. Spongy Iris wrote: There is nothing magickal about price discovery. It is present in all markets except those manipulated by the government (fascism) or owned by the government (communism). The price of bitcoin and other speculative assets is discovered through manipulation [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: There is no ceiling on any sale price. You are trying to describe price discovery while at the same time denying it. This is irrational. This is the paradox you are already locked into. You must clear it. You should clarify your gibberish. Already did. RQAA. Only you can clear your paradox. Spongy Iris wrote: If a bank makes a loan, it charges interest. You are attempting a compositional error fallacy. Not all banks are making that loan. The money to pay interest is not created. And what has that got to do with the phase of the Moon? Spongy Iris wrote: Here you are actually making an argument from randR fallacy, rather rare. I haven't called this one since tmiddles! You cannot use random numbers from dice as data. Wow. More gibberish Yup. You are quoting random numbers as data. That's gibberish. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-05-2021 08:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: That is a tally, i.e. a count. You could do the same with die rolls. The count of the results does not determine the possibility that any particular outcome had. Once again, at any given moment, you do not know the probability that the price will increase or decrease. For any given day, you do not know the probability for the price to close higher (or lower) than the previous day. Whatever dude. You never know what's going to happen. But based on history, the betting odds are 50-50. Math errors. Gamblers fallacy. Attempt to convert randR to randN. Attempt to produce prediction based on odds. Spongy Iris wrote: Do you really consider timing your purchase off the activity of the moment to be a long-term plan? No, because the betting odds are 50-50! Math errors. Gamblers fallacy. Attempt to convert randR to randN. Attempt to produce prediction based on odds. Spongy Iris wrote: So your position is that stock prices do not rise based on corporate earnings? Yes. If you believe they do, then I'm certain you have been deceived. Stock prices rise based on two major factors: corporate earnings, and price discovery. Spongy Iris wrote: Kudos! You got the cause->effect right on this one, i.e. increased demand causing increased prices. I hate to repeat myself, but there would be no demand for bitcoin, without its price increasing. Reversal fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: Please explain what you mean by Bitcoins existing because a computer generated a pseudo-random number. A Bitcoin is not a random number. It is a series of numbers that satisfy the criteria of the blockchain. They are not randU, randR, nor randN. They are simply a series of numbers that satisfy the criteria of the blockchain. Spongy Iris wrote: My point is bitcoin is based on nothing. And it is only attractive because the price has been going up. Reversal fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-05-2021 09:14
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	[quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: [quote] 50!=52. 50!=48. You also failed to mention how far up the up days went and how far down the down days went. You were also talking about Bitcoin, not the Dow Jones industrial average. Dude let's not split hairs about every minute. It's not even 3% off from being 50-50. Not significant. And they are both speculative assets which are inherently worthless. You created a paradox. Only you can clarify it by clearing you paradox. What is the paradox? Inherently worthless bitcoin rises in price. Nope. Bitcoin is not manipulated. Reversal fallacy. I'm considering using this for my signature. Reversal fallacy. The price increase BECAUSE of demand, the demand does not increase because the price went up. Why would anybody buy bitcoin? to sell it to somebody else for a higher price than was paid. That is why it is demanded. And the price needs to rise to give people a reason to demand it. You are trying to describe price discovery while at the same time denying it. This is irrational. This is the paradox you are already locked into. You must clear it. Actually I'm trying to describe how to make a market in a speculative worthless asset. And what has that got to do with the phase of the Moon? Are you talking cryptically because this is a crypto investment thread?

Page 5 of 10

Join the debate Crypto investments:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Crypto-Climate Watch List	540	09-09-2023 02:41
Tom Brady lost $30 million after FTX crypto collapse. Too bad	3	07-09-2023 15:54
$740M in crypto assets recovered in FTX bankruptcy so far	0	24-11-2022 11:07
Crypto exchanges disintegrating as you read this, FTX is gone bitcoin is down 65% this year	4	17-11-2022 16:19
Everybody Can Obtain The New Trillion Dollar Crypto Coin whitepapers To Become Millionaire Easily	4	06-11-2021 03:55