Crypto investments

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Crypto investments > Page 8

Page 8 of 10

02-06-2021 21:29
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Xadoman wrote: Coins will crash, some will fail. Some were a scam from the start... And some will go to the moon. Somebody made an analysis and it turns out that there is about 20% probability that a coin goes 10x. Compared to winning a lottery, the chances are quite good. It sounds to me like somebody is just making schiff up... Whether shitcoin, lottery, or Vegas, gambling is gambling is gambling and you're going to ultimately lose your ass due to your addiction to it.
02-06-2021 21:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	gfm7175 wrote: Whether shitcoin, lottery, or Vegas, gambling is gambling is gambling and you're going to ultimately lose your ass due to your addiction to it. It's one thing to be throwing all your money away on gambling and entirely another thing throwing away all of your family's money on gambling. On the rare occasion that you win, the winnings don't go to the family, they go right back into the gambling. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-06-2021 22:25
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: A) It's all about getting suckers to throw their money away due to their gambling addictions. I would not advise retiring on $250k, C) Wageslaving at least gets you a paycheck; gambling addiction only gets you deeper and deeper in debt. Sage advice. All of it. Regarding A), Xadoman unfortunately operates under a huge conflict of interest. His success in making money with Safemoon is totally dependent upon him selling it as a currency. He has lined up with used car salesmen and snake oil vendors. Regarding , one can easily have to burn through $35-40K/year living in a banana republic. $250K might be able to stretch to nine, maybe ten years before a retiree has to return to decent work ... but good luck with that in a banana republic. Regarding C) "Wageslaving" is just another Marxist slur, like "capitalism" for economics and "unfettered exploitation" for free markets. Working for a paycheck is noble. Marxists refer to it as "slavery" and "exploitation" in order to shame people for participating in "capitalism." Great post. A) Bingo. He's also lined up with the people who say "take this pill and you'll lose a bunch of weight" and then proceed to show you a bunch of misleading "before and after" photos to get you to bite on the scam... The people who fall for such a scam are the people who don't wish to properly adjust their diet and instead want a "quick and easy solution". I have personally lost 40+ pounds of excess weight (and have continued to keep it off) just by adjusting my diet a bit. I also regularly go out on hikes and sometimes go out on bike rides, so my activity level has increased a bit as well. [B] I'd say 9-10 years max, but probably closer to 5-6 years. Of course, there are a number of variables which make it impossible to pinpoint just how long it would last. Personally, I wouldn't even semi-retire on that small of an amount. C) Sounds about right to me. Thanks. A great post on your part as well. Edited on 02-06-2021 22:34
02-06-2021 22:33
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Whether shitcoin, lottery, or Vegas, gambling is gambling is gambling and you're going to ultimately lose your ass due to your addiction to it. It's one thing to be throwing all your money away on gambling and entirely another thing throwing away all of your family's money on gambling. On the rare occasion that you win, the winnings don't go to the family, they go right back into the gambling. . Indeed. At least with your money you are only financially affecting yourself, but when you have a family to provide for then you are financially bending your family over a chair as well... Yup, and such a pattern of funneling any winnings back into the gambling addiction is why people like Xadoman always end up losing their ass in the end. If only I had a dollar for every time I heard, with regard to the lottery, "you have to play to win"... As far as I am concerned, I am a winner by NOT playing...
02-06-2021 23:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	gfm7175 wrote:Indeed. At least with your money you are only financially affecting yourself, but when you have a family to provide for then you are financially bending your family over a chair as well... You might be aware that some problem gamblers have spouses who work, and the gambling usually does not remain confined to only the gambler's wages. gfm7175 wrote:Yup, and such a pattern of funneling any winnings back into the gambling addiction is why people like Xadoman always end up losing their ass in the end. I really cannot speak to the eventual results he will experience because I cannot see the future and each gambler's results will vary. Nonetheless, Safemoon specifically isn't really gambling. It is a scam. If you lay $20 on a craps table but the table is rigged for you to lose then you are not gambling ... you are being taken. Safemoon is designed to collapse once the directors have milked it for all it is worth. They have collected the money for the initial token issue and now, three months later they have already converted one third of the tokens they sold to others back to their possession ... in a different currency that will hold its value when Safemoon collapses. Xadoman would rather watch all his equity evaporate than to admit the obvious scam right in front of him and just get out with what he has. gfm7175 wrote:If only I had a dollar for every time I heard, with regard to the lottery, "you have to play to win"... As far as I am concerned, I am a winner by NOT playing... I'll tell you what, you take the $1 for every time someone said "you have to play to win" and I'll take the $1 for every time someone said "It's just a few dollars each week; I won't miss it" and we'll see who is the most insanely rich dude between the two of us.

03-06-2021 00:33
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:Indeed. At least with your money you are only financially affecting yourself, but when you have a family to provide for then you are financially bending your family over a chair as well... You might be aware that some problem gamblers have spouses who work, and the gambling usually does not remain confined to only the gambler's wages. I am definitely aware of that. IBdaMann wrote: Xadoman would rather watch all his equity evaporate than to admit the obvious scam right in front of him and just get out with what he has. Yup. Regarding Safemoon specifically, Xadoman is being scammed. IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:If only I had a dollar for every time I heard, with regard to the lottery, "you have to play to win"... As far as I am concerned, I am a winner by NOT playing... I'll tell you what, you take the $1 for every time someone said "you have to play to win" and I'll take the $1 for every time someone said "It's just a few dollars each week; I won't miss it" and we'll see who is the most insanely rich dude between the two of us. Ahhhh, yup... that's another good one... When it comes down to it, we'd both be rich in the end. The "just a few dollars each week" mindset is a stupid mindset in my opinion because "just a few dollars" over an extended period of time adds up to "a hefty sum of dollars"... Even a single $2 powerball ticket once a week for ten years would add up to over $1,000.00, and I've seen numerous people spend a lot more than $2/week on such gambling... Now I'm not familiar with typical gambling habits, but I was stunned to run across someone at a gas station on my vacation five years ago who bought like every single scratcher that this gas station in Wyoming had to offer... If I recall correctly, she spent close to $300 on scratchers (I know it was over $200 for sure). I hope that some other explanation was involved with that and that she wasn't just buying all of those scratchers for herself... That's not how I would spend my money, but to each their own...
03-06-2021 01:50
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	You can keep saving your fake money but eventually you will be the losers and those who bought Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, will be the winners. Crypto is the future , wether you like it or not, but that is the way it is. It will be soon over for fake money.
03-06-2021 03:49
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	How would you access you crypto, if the internet fails? I don't think the entire internet could be shutdown, all at once, and for a long time, but there are blackouts in some areas. Servers, providers, fail, shut down for maintenance. Your wallet is web-based, and resides on a server. The internet has been great technology, but it's mature, actually getting old. I do see us moving toward something different, and not too far in the future. There is a huge push for 5G. SpaceX Starlink. Both can provide more capacity, than the internet can typically provide. Traffic an server speed will always dictate how fast your internet connection will be. Doesn't matter what your provider promised you. The internet will be around a long time, but the new services will only provide a gateway, an option. The new services a purely for profit, and you are going to pay a little differently. Not sure what Starlink has in mind. 5G is cellphone, and they'll still charge by the gigabyte of usage. Pretty easy to burn through a gigabyte these days...
03-06-2021 07:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Because you so far haven't defined either 'wealth' or 'money'. This is not needed to understand the mathematical relationship of sets and subsets. The topic is not logic. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: This is only needed to derail the discussion away from the math that you do not understand. There is no math used here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Learn math. Accept math. Be less of a moron. There is no math used here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:It is the topic. Nope. Refer once again to your reading problem. There is no reading problem. You are refusing to define the words you use. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Math is the topic. Math is not the topic. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: He asked you simple questions. Is this how he is supposed to respond? Is this what I should expect in his next post? Paradox D. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:I am not stating any dogma. Correct. You are preaching it. You have become irrational because of it. Denial of logic. I am not making any argument of any kind at the moment. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:I am not stating a dogma. Correct. You are preaching it. You have become irrational because of it. Denial of logic. I am not making any argument of any kind at the moment. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:I am not stating a dogma. Correct. You are preaching it. You have become irrational because of it. Denial of logic. I am not making any argument of any kind at the moment. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:I am not making an argument. You are a liar. Vacuous argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You initiated this entire subthread by making the affirmative argument that money is not wealth. I am not making any argument at the moment. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: I blew your stupid argument out of the water. Vacuous argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You went apoplectic and have been gibbering since. You never were able to provide any rebuttal, because you know that money is, in fact, wealth. Vacuous argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You cannot be rational on this topic and are being totally dishonest. You suck at math and therefore must deny that it is even the topic. Math is not used here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Try not sucking at math. Then try not sucking at logic. Math is not used here. The logic required here is the avoidance of fallacies. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Your affirmative argument "money is not wealth" has been falsified, by math ... math that you unfortunately deny. Math is not used here. Vacuous argument fallacy. Attempted proof by void. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Do you have anything (coherent) to add? Yes. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. You cannot pivot to math. That's a fallacy. You cannot pivot to logic. That's a fallacy. You cannot pivot to a proof by void. That's a fallacy. You cannot continue your vacuous argument. That's a fallacy. You cannot continue to use undefined buzzwords. That's a fallacy. You can't get around it, dude. you MUST define 'wealth' and define 'money'. Until you do you have no valid argument. 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
03-06-2021 08:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: How would you access you crypto, if the internet fails? I don't think the entire internet could be shutdown, all at once, and for a long time, but there are blackouts in some areas. Servers, providers, fail, shut down for maintenance. Your wallet is web-based, and resides on a server. A Bitcoin wallet is not web based. It is a local encryption file. Sure, you can use online wallets, but you can also use offline wallets, and even wallets that are built to be wallets that you can carry in your pocket. No internet needed. You can buy one of these from Amazon for about $100. If you travel with Bitcoin, it's a great way to do it. HarveyH55 wrote: The internet has been great technology, but it's mature, actually getting old. Bits don't age. The IP protocol was developed quite a few decades ago. It is a wrapper protocol. It can run on anything else for a network. You might say is a 'meta' network. It is literally a network of networks, hence the name 'inter-net'. IP stands for Internet Protocol. On top of this, are typically one of three protocols, known as TCP, UDP, and ICMP. TCP, or Terminal Control Protocol provides a sequenced and error detected method of sending data, much as if you were connecting using one of the serial computer terminals. TCP has 'ports' that operate like the channels on a TV. Different services are offered on different channels (or ports). UDP, or User Datagram Protocol, provides a non-sequenced non-checked method of passing data. It is useful for printers to broadcast status, for example, without requiring an actual connection to anyone. ICMP is the Internet Control Message Protocol, used to coordinate the Internet and it's routers. One popular port on TCP is port 443, which carries web traffic using the https protocol. The protocol you are using right now, in fact, to read this message and to write your posts. The Internet hasn't been static since its creation. It has grown and expanded over the years when it only provided email (port 25) and a few other limited services. Today, we have the cloud (a set of many services for public use and for programming custom web applications), the most extensive of which is Amazon Web Services, or AWS. This vast set of services now can store and process data with a wide range of techniques. It is the cloud that made the Alexa service possible. Blockchain currencies. are rather new to the game. They are not particularly old protocols. The technique is fairly simple. You have a so-called 'block chain', or set of transactions. It can be coins, logging transactions, telemetry, anything. This chain is encrypted following a given set of rules, which are published. The encryption algorithm is intentionally based on a randU, so that it is possible to calculate a new entry for the blockchain (such a new Coin). All that has to be done is to find a number that fits the criteria of that particular blockchain, and voila! you have a new Coin. These numbers are difficult to find. The calculation is not a difficult one, but it must be done millions of times. This is why Bitcoin miners use video cards, custom programming the GPUs in them to perform these calculations. A GPU is the perfect processor model for such a requirement, since processing video has the same kind of requirements. A CPU can be very 'smart', capable of handing lots of instructions, but an only run a relatively few threads. A GPU is much 'dumber', handling only a few instructions, geared to simple math, but you can have 100's of threads. HarveyH55 wrote: I do see us moving toward something different, and not too far in the future. There is a huge push for 5G. The 5G pushed by Verizon isn't quite 5G. It's kind of a 4.5G. It is faster, but it isn't actual 5G protocol. It IS widespread over their network though. Internet can run over 4G and 5G. Your phone is an internet device, carrying voice and data using bits and packets. Voice Over Internet Protocol, or VOIP, runs on port 5060. Some cellular companies use different port numbers. In other words, everything about your cell phone is internet based, including any voice transmissions on phone calls you make. HarveyH55 wrote: SpaceX Starlink. Satellite systems such as these are also internet. Yup it runs over these just as well as any other network such as Ethernet. You can even run internet over carrier pigeon (yes...real pigeons!). That network protocol even handles packet loss due to hawks. It even works with smoke signals too. Such networks are too slow to be practical to build a computer interface for to view web traffic on, but theoretically it's possible. BTW, these two networks were issued as April Fools day RFC's, the funny thing about them is that they would actually work, if you build an interface to a computer for them! Internet is a network of networks. The local network can be a radio signal to a satellite, a cellular signal, or indeed any radio signal. It also runs on Ethernet (your typical home network) or a WIFI short haul radio signal (another typical home network). It can run over a speaker wire. The simple wiring in your automobile (the CAN bus can pass internet traffic as well), fiber optics (which have an incredibly high bandwidth and speed capability), or any other network system you can name. HarveyH55 wrote: Both can provide more capacity, than the internet can typically provide. The Internet is not about a capacity. It is a protocol. It can run at any capacity. HarveyH55 wrote: Traffic an server speed will always dictate how fast your internet connection will be. In TCP, the limiting factors are the server, the client, and the network speeds in between. Internet itself has no speed limit. It's just a protocol. Thanks to things like Amazon developing cloud computing, the 'server' isn't just one machine anymore, but hundreds of them working in parallel. By dividing up the task in this way, you can get amazing performance on a server and still handle the literally thousands of connections at a time. This is what Amazon does as a normal routine everyday. In other words, it's scalable. HarveyH55 wrote: Doesn't matter what your provider promised you. The internet will be around a long time, but the new services will only provide a gateway, an option. The new services a purely for profit, and you are going to pay a little differently. Not sure what Starlink has in mind. 5G is cellphone, and they'll still charge by the gigabyte of usage. Pretty easy to burn through a gigabyte these days... Network providers all charge to provide you their network. It costs money to put up those wires, telephone polls, radio systems, satellites, cell towers, or whatever. It costs money to maintain them. Internet has no cost in and of itself. It's just a protocol. What you are paying for is getting the bits to you, the user. Internet runs on anything for a network. It is a network of networks. 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
03-06-2021 18:10
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Xadoman wrote: You can keep saving your fake money but eventually you will be the losers and those who bought Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, will be the winners. Crypto is the future , wether you like it or not, but that is the way it is. It will be soon over for fake money. The US dollar is "fake money" and Bitcoin is "real money"?
03-06-2021 19:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Xadoman wrote: You can keep saving your fake money but eventually you will be the losers and those who bought Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, will be the winners. Crypto is the future , wether you like it or not, but that is the way it is. It will be soon over for fake money. There is no such thing as 'fake money'. Money is money, even if it isn't widely accepted as such. Bitcoin is just as 'fake' and just as 'real' as dollars. They are both bits. That's all they are. Some dollars are represented as paper money, but only a small part. 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
03-06-2021 23:50
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Into the Night wrote:I am not making any argument of any kind at the moment. Yes or no, are you now repudiating your affirmative argument? *On 10-May-2021 at 12:53 Into the Night* wrote:Money is NOT wealth. On 10-May-2021 at 12:53 Into the Night wrote:It is not wealth. It can be [traded for any other] wealth, but it is not wealth ... On 10-May-2021 at 19:26 Into the Night wrote:Money is currency. It is not wealth. On 11-May-2021 at 16:04 Into the Night wrote:Money is not wealth. It is a representation of value, and a unit of account. On 11-May-2021 at 16:04 Into the Night wrote:** [Money] is not wealth itself.
03-06-2021 23:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as 'fake money'. Just out of curiosity ... What is a counterfeit $5 bill? What is Monopoly money?
04-06-2021 02:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:I am not making any argument of any kind at the moment. Yes or no, are you now repudiating your affirmative argument? *On 10-May-2021 at 12:53 Into the Night* wrote:Money is NOT wealth. On 10-May-2021 at 12:53 Into the Night wrote:It is not wealth. It can be [traded for any other] wealth, but it is not wealth ... On 10-May-2021 at 19:26 Into the Night wrote:Money is currency. It is not wealth. On 11-May-2021 at 16:04 Into the Night wrote:Money is not wealth. It is a representation of value, and a unit of account. On 11-May-2021 at 16:04 Into the Night wrote: [Money] is not wealth itself. Irrelevant question. Pivot fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. 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**

04-06-2021 02:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as 'fake money'. Just out of curiosity ... What is a counterfeit $5 bill? A counterfeit $5 bill. It is not money at all. IBdaMann wrote: What is Monopoly money? Currency used in the game of Monopoly. It is money. It is real. It is good for any buying and selling within the game of Monopoly. These are according to how I have already defined 'money', which is consistent. How would YOU define 'money'? How would YOU define 'wealth'? 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 04-06-2021 02:34
04-06-2021 04:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote:What is a counterfeit $5 bill? A counterfeit $5 bill. Ergo, it is a fake $5 bill, yes? A $5 bill is money, yes? Isn't a counterfeit $5 fake money? Into the Night wrote:These are according to how I have already defined 'money', which is consistent. You haven't provided any sort of definition of money that isn't a contrivance of word games. Your definition of money is totally invalid. You claim that money "represents" wealth and you acknowledge that it can be exchanged for other wealth just like any other wealth ... but then you epically fail at the logic and begin preaching your contradictory dogma of money somehow not being wealth. It would be a completely fair question to ask if you ever went to school. Your butchering of words is utterly stupid. ... but you know this well. When WACKY fanatical dogmas are at play, people become irrational and dishonest, as you have become. All you have demonstrated on this topic is EVASION. In this case, word games are currently your go-to form of EVASION. If I ask you for an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money, which is a totally fair, valid and straightforward question, you put your tail between your legs and you flee like a coward, probably crying like a baby in the process. Into the Night wrote:How would YOU define 'money'? How would YOU define 'wealth'? Because you are an esteemed denizen of Climate-Debate, I will extend to you the courtesy of repeating my treatise. You erred when you didn't pay attention the first time I wrote it and you erred again when you pretended to correct me. Read up this time and pay attention. The correct answer is as follows: On 10-05-2021 16:07 IBDaMann wrote: Money is a normalization of value, providing units of measure. It enables accounting. It facilitates transactions. It elevates an economy above mere bartering because it eliminates the requirement for a coincidence of needs. ... and money is wealth ... in its liquid form. You might have a house worth $10 Million but you can't eat it. You might, for example, take out a loan, i.e. convert the wealth of your home to its liquid form (money) and pay me $2 for a loaf of bread. This is not possible where only bartering is available. The main concepts of money are 1) normalization of value and 2) liquidity. You could convert all of your wealth to money and then convert all of your money to non-liquid assets and then back again. Speculators/gamblers like Xadoman expect to buy-low/sell-high and continually increase wealth ... while completely ignoring the high likelihood that their speculations will not materialize, that they will lose their bets and that they will suffer a huge loss of wealth in the process. One thing to note, we should not confuse "money" with "currency." Currency is simply a particular normalization of wealth in which a particular "community" places a certain amount of faith. Money of a given currency is simply the physical representation of a specific amount of wealth in that particular currency. Currency is not wealth. Money of a given currency is wealth in that currency. If the currency is worthless then the money is worthless as well. If the money holds value then the currency is valuable to some community who places faith in it. On 10-05-2021 20:01 IBDaMann wrote:Money is a specific amount of wealth under a particular currency. Take dollars as an example. Dollars is the currency, the normalization of worth and the unit of measure. Then you take a $5 bill. This is money. This represents 5 units (dollars) worth of wealth. It can be exchanged for any other wealth valued at $5 whever the dollars currency is accepted. No, you cannot eat your house. Yes, you can eat bread. You can use a loan vehicle to convert some of the wealth in your home to monetary (liquid) wealth, which you can use to acquire different wealth of equal value, including wealth that you can eat, such as bread. It's all verifiable in the accounting. On 11-05-2021 19:15 IBDaMann wrote:Money is wealth, in fact it is a specific amount of wealth under a specific currency. There are ways you can verify this for yourself. 1. First, we follow the logic train for its existence. A. Without a currency, people can only barter. People don't like being restricted to bartering because they can only have transactions involving coincidence of needs. Why? Because wealth is otherwise not liquid and one cannot eat one's house or car, one cannot use one's CD collection to get to work, etc.. B. With a currency, a given community can normalize their wealth into a value of common units of measure. Now, people can convert their wealth to that liquid form, i.e. money. They can take that liquid wealth and exchange it for some other non-liquid wealth. 2. Next, we arrange a test to verify or falsify the wealth value of money. . Take $100 of money. Attempt to exchange it for, say, a digital watch with a price of less than $100 but greater than $30. Note your results. . Take some amount of specifically non-wealth, e.g. trash, a cup of dirt, whatever. and attempt to exchange it for, say, a digital watch with a price of less than $100 but greater than $30. Note the results. **. Repeat the second step several times to get a good feel for how well non-wealth is accepted in exchange for wealth. You might not be surprised when I tell you I already know what your results will be. Money is wealth in its liquid form, made possible by its currency normalizing wealth value. This is why everyone trades wealth in the form of money as opposed to limiting their economy to bartering. I realize that we become socially engineered to think of money as being defined by some account ... but it's the other way around, i.e. accounts exist because we have money in them. All "accounts" are purely imaginary, like a pointer or a label; nothing exists that is an account other than the money that essentially defines it. 3. Check with an accountant. Must all transactions balance with respect to wealth? An exchange of $12 of money for a used book must balance. This can only mean one thing, i.e. that the $12 of money is equivalent to the wealth of one used book.
04-06-2021 04:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Into the Night wrote:Irrelevant question. Incorrect. I determine the relevance of my questions. You just tipped your king. You are done. Now is when I claim victory. Until something changes, this topic is done.
05-06-2021 00:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote:What is a counterfeit $5 bill? A counterfeit $5 bill. Ergo, it is a fake $5 bill, yes? A $5 bill is money, yes? Isn't a counterfeit $5 fake money? RQAA. Into the Night wrote:These are according to how I have already defined 'money', which is consistent. You haven't provided any sort of definition of money that isn't a contrivance of word games.[/quote] Inversion fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Your definition of money is totally invalid. I have defined money in a consistent way. Let's hear your definition of 'money'. Let's hear your definition of 'wealth'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You claim that money "represents" wealth and you acknowledge that it can be exchanged for other wealth just like any other wealth ... but then you epically fail at the logic and begin preaching your contradictory dogma of money somehow not being wealth. Irrelevance fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: It would be a completely fair question to ask if you ever went to school. Your butchering of words is utterly stupid. I am not butchering anything. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: ... but you know this well. When WACKY fanatical dogmas are at play, people become irrational and dishonest, as you have become. All you have demonstrated on this topic is EVASION. In this case, word games are currently your go-to form of EVASION. Inversion fallacy. This is what YOU are doing. It is YOU that is locked into multiple paradoxes that you have never cleared. IBdaMann wrote: If I ask you for an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money, which is a totally fair, valid and straightforward question, you put your tail between your legs and you flee like a coward, probably crying like a baby in the process. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. Until you define these terms, I cannot answer your question. IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote:How would YOU define 'money'? How would YOU define 'wealth'? Because you are an esteemed denizen of Climate-Debate, I will extend to you the courtesy of repeating my treatise. You erred when you didn't pay attention the first time I wrote it and you erred again when you pretended to correct me. Read up this time and pay attention. The correct answer is as follows: On 10-05-2021 16:07 IBDaMann wrote: Money is a normalization of value, providing units of measure. It enables accounting. It facilitates transactions. It elevates an economy above mere bartering because it eliminates the requirement for a coincidence of needs. ... and money is wealth ... in its liquid form. You might have a house worth $10 Million but you can't eat it. You might, for example, take out a loan, i.e. convert the wealth of your home to its liquid form (money) and pay me $2 for a loaf of bread. This is not possible where only bartering is available. The main concepts of money are 1) normalization of value and 2) liquidity. You could convert all of your wealth to money and then convert all of your money to non-liquid assets and then back again. Speculators/gamblers like Xadoman expect to buy-low/sell-high and continually increase wealth ... while completely ignoring the high likelihood that their speculations will not materialize, that they will lose their bets and that they will suffer a huge loss of wealth in the process. One thing to note, we should not confuse "money" with "currency." Currency is simply a particular normalization of wealth in which a particular "community" places a certain amount of faith. Money of a given currency is simply the physical representation of a specific amount of wealth in that particular currency. Currency is not wealth. Money of a given currency is wealth in that currency. If the currency is worthless then the money is worthless as well. If the money holds value then the currency is valuable to some community who places faith in it. On 10-05-2021 20:01 IBDaMann wrote:Money is a specific amount of wealth under a particular currency. Take dollars as an example. Dollars is the currency, the normalization of worth and the unit of measure. Then you take a $5 bill. This is money. This represents 5 units (dollars) worth of wealth. It can be exchanged for any other wealth valued at $5 whever the dollars currency is accepted. No, you cannot eat your house. Yes, you can eat bread. You can use a loan vehicle to convert some of the wealth in your home to monetary (liquid) wealth, which you can use to acquire different wealth of equal value, including wealth that you can eat, such as bread. It's all verifiable in the accounting. Circular definition. You are trying to define 'money' using the undefined word 'wealth'. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: [quote] On 11-05-2021 19:15 IBDaMann wrote:Money is wealth, in fact it is a specific amount of wealth under a specific currency. There are ways you can verify this for yourself. ...deleted further examples based on vacuous arguments. You must define 'wealth'. You must define 'money'. Stop evading. 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
05-06-2021 00:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Irrelevant question. Incorrect. I determine the relevance of my questions. You just tipped your king. You are done. Now is when I claim victory. Until something changes, this topic is done. Logic determines the relevance of a question. You are ignoring it. I have already pointed out the fallacies and paradoxes that you have made numerous times to you. Assumption of victory fallacy. Attempted proof by void. 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
05-06-2021 01:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Into the Night wrote:Logic determines the relevance of a question. One thing is certain, that your illogic is not capable of determining relevance. Your illogic is really not capable of determining much of anything, especially what is math and what is not. Since you have nothing to add then this topic is closed, like I said. Let me know when something changes.
05-06-2021 20:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Logic determines the relevance of a question. One thing is certain, that your illogic is not capable of determining relevance. Your illogic is really not capable of determining much of anything, especially what is math and what is not. Since you have nothing to add then this topic is closed, like I said. Let me know when something changes. Denial of logic. Denial of math. Pivot fallacy. Thought terminating cliche fallacy. Inversion fallacy. No argument presented. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. 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
06-06-2021 00:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Into the Night wrote:Denial of logic. Nope. Total absence of honesty on your part. I have extended to you every courtesy of thorough explanation, to include repetition and restatement for clarification. You have done nothing but EVADE and deny both math and logic. Regardless, your stupid, mindless dogma, i.e. "money is not wealth" stands falsified until you can identify an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money without engaging in stupid word games. I didn't see that anywhere in your post so we'll just look for it in your next post.
06-06-2021 19:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Denial of logic. Nope. Total absence of honesty on your part. Inversion fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: I have extended to you every courtesy of thorough explanation, to include repetition and restatement for clarification. Paradox E. IBdaMann wrote: You have done nothing but EVADE and deny both math and logic. Inversion fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Regardless, your stupid, mindless dogma, i.e. "money is not wealth" stands falsified until you can identify an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money without engaging in stupid word games. Paradox E. Attempted proof by assertion. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: I didn't see that anywhere in your post so we'll just look for it in your next post. It is YOU that needs to define 'wealth' and 'money', not me. Don't evade. This is not about math. This is not about logic. This is about YOU defining 'wealth' and 'money'. Nothing else. 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
07-06-2021 05:33
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	It has been interesting following this thread.I left the party so you turned on each other.ITN Do you not know what money is?My son has a house that is positively geared by rental a heap of silver and bitcoins but I have more cash.He is wealthier than me even though I have more money
07-06-2021 07:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Into the Night wrote:Attempted proof by assertion. I'm asserting math, moron. Stop denying it and start adhering to it. My proof is mathematical and valid. You, on the other hand, deny the math because you don't understand it, as simple as it is. Into the Night wrote:It is YOU that needs to define 'wealth' and 'money', not me. Nope, it's you that needs to define them and then provide an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money if you want your affirmative argument to somehow become valid. At the moment math has rendered your stupid argument false. I have no affirmative argument. I merely asserted math to falsify your affirmative argument. Into the Night wrote: This is not about math. It's entirely about math and your attempt to do an end-run around it. Feel free to define "wealth" and "money" but that is purely optional. For the present, if you want to try to resurrect your affirmative argument, i.e. the idea that money is somehow not wealth, then you need to present some attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money. ... but you cannot ... because money is, in fact, wealth ... exactly as the math shows ... exactly as accounting shows ... exactly as common sense shows. What is disappointing is that there is so much more to this topic worth discussing but you rashly chose to reside on the wrong side of the fence and became forced to immediately flee the entire topic with your tail between your legs. What a shame.
07-06-2021 07:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: It has been interesting following this thread.I left the party so you turned on each other.ITN Do you not know what money is?My son has a house that is positively geared by rental a heap of silver and bitcoins but I have more cash.He is wealthier than me even though I have more money How so? 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
07-06-2021 07:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Attempted proof by assertion. I'm asserting math, moron. Vacuous argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Stop denying it and start adhering to it. I am not denying math. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money' Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: My proof is mathematical and valid. A definition is not a proof. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You, on the other hand, deny the math because you don't understand it, as simple as it is. Math is not used here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:It is YOU that needs to define 'wealth' and 'money', not me. Nope, it's you that needs to define them and then provide an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money if you want your affirmative argument to somehow become valid. At the moment math has rendered your stupid argument false. Inversion fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: I have no affirmative argument. You have NO argument. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: I merely asserted math to falsify your affirmative argument. I am not making an affirmative argument. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: This is not about math. It's entirely about math and your attempt to do an end-run around it. Math is not used here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Feel free to define "wealth" and "money" but that is purely optional. Not optional. You cannot use buzzwords as your main topic. You MUST define your words as you use them. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: For the present, if you want to try to resurrect your affirmative argument, i.e. the idea that money is somehow not wealth, then you need to present some attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: ... but you cannot ... because money is, in fact, wealth ... Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: exactly as the math shows No math here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: exactly as accounting shows No accounting here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: exactly as common sense shows. Buzzword fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: What is disappointing is that there is so much more to this topic worth discussing but you rashly chose to reside on the wrong side of the fence and became forced to immediately flee the entire topic with your tail between your legs. Inversion fallacy. Define ' wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: What a shame. You gotta define 'em, IBD. There's no way around it. Your whole argument depends on defining these words you are using. Until you define them, you are just making vacuous arguments and somehow claiming 'I am denying the math'. What math??? Define 'wealth. Define 'money'. Stop evading. 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 07-06-2021 07:29
07-06-2021 07:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Into the Night wrote:You have NO argument. Correct. I have only math, which is all that is needed to falsify your stupid affirmative argument. Into the Night wrote:Your whole argument depends on ... Nope, you were correct above. I'm not the one with an affirmative argument. You are, unless you are now retracting your argument. Your stupid argument is "Money is not wealth." Math destroys your argument leaving you without rebuttal. I don't have any role in that particular lunacy.
07-06-2021 08:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:You have NO argument. Correct. I have only math, which is all that is needed to falsify your stupid affirmative argument. Paradox E. Vacuous argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Your whole argument depends on ... Nope, you were correct above. I'm not the one with an affirmative argument. You are, unless you are now retracting your argument. I am not making an argument. You must define YOUR argument. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Your stupid argument is "Money is not wealth." Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Math destroys your argument leaving you without rebuttal. Math is not used here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: I don't have any role in that particular lunacy. Since you refuse to define any of the words you are using, you have nothing. This I assume is your choice. 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

08-06-2021 04:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Let's take a look at Safemoon for a moment, shall we? Price One Month Ago, on 5/8/2021, three days before Xadoman began talking about Safemoon: Open: $0.00000857 High: $0.00000944 Low: $0.00000843 Close: $0.00000889 Price on 6/1/2021, after a steady decline ... once the directors had reclaimed over one-third of the tokens ... that aren't even backed by their own block-chain ... the day Xadoman made his last pitch for everyone to join him in buying Safemoon, saying "Safemoon is also audited by CERTIK. It is clean as a whistle." Open: $0.00000393 High: $0.00000464 Low: $0.00000356 Close: $0.00000408 ... and continuing its downward spiral ... Price Today: 6/7/2021 Open: $0.00000353 High: $0.00000371 Low: $0.00000353 Close: $0.00000370 ... oh yeah, get this baby while it's hotter than a beluga whale! Xadoman, by any chance did you cut your losses and get out? You're not still holding your Safemoon tokens, are you? Edited on 08-06-2021 05:01
08-06-2021 12:32
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Xadoman, by any chance did you cut your losses and get out? You're not still holding your Safemoon tokens, are you? Just zoom out the graph. Also, I am not going to sell any of my coins for a piddle profit. The fear of selling a possible moonshot for a piddle profit is too much for me to endure. I have planted the seed and now the only thing I need to do is to wait. As already said, I do not expect a Lambo in two weeks, although those kind of things are possible in crypto world.
08-06-2021 17:35
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Let's take a look at Safemoon for a moment, shall we? Price One Month Ago, on 5/8/2021, three days before Xadoman began talking about Safemoon: Open: $0.00000857 High: $0.00000944 Low: $0.00000843 Close: $0.00000889 Price on 6/1/2021, after a steady decline ... once the directors had reclaimed over one-third of the tokens ... that aren't even backed by their own block-chain ... the day Xadoman made his last pitch for everyone to join him in buying Safemoon, saying "Safemoon is also audited by CERTIK. It is clean as a whistle." Open: $0.00000393 High: $0.00000464 Low: $0.00000356 Close: $0.00000408 ... and continuing its downward spiral ... Price Today: 6/7/2021 Open: $0.00000353 High: $0.00000371 Low: $0.00000353 Close: $0.00000370 ... oh yeah, get this baby while it's hotter than a beluga whale! Xadoman, by any chance did you cut your losses and get out? You're not still holding your Safemoon tokens, are you? ATM, it is already down from yesterday's close... down to $0.00000350 Looks like a sinking ship to me... You'll get a laugh out of this headline that I just stumbled across: SafeMoon Price Prediction: Will It Reach $1 In 2025? Ummmm, let's try to make it through JUNE 2021 before we start thinking about 2025, eh?
08-06-2021 17:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	gfm7175 wrote:You'll get a laugh out of this headline that I just stumbled across: SafeMoon Price Prediction: Will It Reach $1 In 2025? Was the article a two-worder, e.g. "Not likely"?
08-06-2021 18:00
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Xadoman wrote: Xadoman, by any chance did you cut your losses and get out? You're not still holding your Safemoon tokens, are you? Just zoom out the graph. Also, I am not going to sell any of my coins for a piddle profit. The fear of selling a possible moonshot for a piddle profit is too much for me to endure. I have planted the seed and now the only thing I need to do is to wait. As already said, I do not expect a Lambo in two weeks, although those kind of things are possible in crypto world. I will take this as a "no", that you did not cut your losses in SafeMoon... I zoomed out the graph. SafeMoon has been on a consistent downward trend over the last month (down over 60% from where it was a month ago). I "wonder" why that is...
08-06-2021 18:22
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:You'll get a laugh out of this headline that I just stumbled across: SafeMoon Price Prediction: Will It Reach $1 In 2025? Was the article a two-worder, e.g. "Not likely"? That's what it should have been, but it wasn't. It starts off by explaining what SafeMoon is and tries to pass off the insanely high 10% transaction fee as "encourag[ing] long-term investment rather than day trading bets" and as "ensur[ing] the stability of SafeMoon's price". Then it goes on to talk about how SafeMoon's price has been rising (the author who published this article yesterday apparently hasn't taken a look at how its price has dropped like a rock over the last month) and it brags up SafeMoon some more... FINALLY, it starts discussing the topic of the article. It mentions that WalletInvestor thinks that SafeMoon's price will increase by 780% in a year from now and 3800% in five years (up to $0.00016). However, Digital Coin Price thinks that it will only increase 46% by the end of this year and only increase by 250% in five years ($0.000014). The article itself claims that SafeMoon could reach $1 in 2021 if it maintains some insanely high level of growth (apparently ignoring it's complete collapse over the last month). It then claims that, if the growth rate is only 100% per month, then it'll take a couple more years to reach $1, so maybe Xadoman will be a millionaire by 2023...?? The article ends by saying how great of an investment SafeMoon is (even though it has "pulled back 70%" from its peak of $0.00001399 in April, "which opens a bargain entry point" (this makes Xadoman all giddy inside!!).
08-06-2021 18:41
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Xadoman wrote: Xadoman, by any chance did you cut your losses and get out? You're not still holding your Safemoon tokens, are you? Just zoom out the graph. Also, I am not going to sell any of my coins for a piddle profit. The fear of selling a possible moonshot for a piddle profit is too much for me to endure. I have planted the seed and now the only thing I need to do is to wait. As already said, I do not expect a Lambo in two weeks, although those kind of things are possible in crypto world. It takes incredible faith to hold onto a speculative thing like crypto coins for a long term (decade(s)). Some times it pays off. But I don't think most have that kind of faith. Bitcoin really had very few days where it's price spiked up big in its +10 year history. Most of the time it is just moving sideways and hodlers must patiently wait. Edited on 08-06-2021 19:02
10-06-2021 08:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Xadoman, how's Safemoon faring these days? Is it down 7.47% over this last week? Have you dumped your Safemoon holdings yet? Let's talk about Safemoon for a moment, shall we? I hear that the Safemoon directors have reclaimed 41.6% of the total supply of tokens. That's 416 trillion tokens reclaimed by the directors and converted to some other cryptocurrency that is expected to retain its value. That's right, the directors are doing this. The implication is that Safemoon is not expected to retain its value ... almost as if it's by design. I'll let you in on a little secret ... which happens to be the same secret that I have already explained but will now put into your context of expected wealth. The current predictions of when you should expect to become a millionaire by purchasing $100 of Safemoon is 21 years ... all under the assumption that Safemoon will be heavily used as a currency. Unfortunately, the ongoing drop in Safemoon price is indicative of the total lack of desire anyone has in using Safemoon as a currency. All people who buy Safemoon are speculators who will hold it, not people engaging in commerce who will use it as a currency. Safemoon cannot increase in value beyond minor erratic fluctuations. As a currency, Safemoon's value is on the tracks to only one destination: Worthlessness. The Safemoon directors seem to know this. The Safemoon directors are specifically not buying Safemoon. What does all this tell you? . Attached image:
10-06-2021 10:35
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Xadoman, how's Safemoon faring these days? Is it down 7.47% over this last week? Have you dumped your Safemoon holdings yet? I am feeling pretty comfy. It is the most viewed and fastest growing crypto in the world and it is only a couple of months old. It will( and already has) set records that have never seen before in the crypto world. As a currency, Safemoon's value is on the tracks to only one destination: Worthlessness. The Safemoon directors seem to know this. The Safemoon directors are specifically not buying Safemoon. You got it wrong. It is a deflationary crytocurrency by design. Its value is destined to go up. What does all this tell you? It is a great time to accumulate. I will sell my two project cars to get more money to invest. Edited on 10-06-2021 10:36
10-06-2021 11:53
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)

Page 8 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