The simplest estimate to make (not necessarily the most reliable) is that the price is in inverse ratio to the emission.  So, roughly Moore's law.

Rootstock actually seems like Ethereum Done Right to me.  The extra protocol is not an impediment for smart contracts, in my view.  The one caveat in my mind is whether Lukejr decides to destroy it with a merge-mining attack. Merge-mining is...I don't even...

Usability factors are prominent for currency fungibility, however.  Coinjoin is just buckets of fail.  You have to be very motivated, but then why would you expose yourself like that?

In terms of exchanges, my ideal would be an exchange serving international customers on a non-discriminatory basis, providing a facility for both spot and futures.  (Futures are good for merchant acceptance since they can hedge.  The exchange could provide merchant wallets with transparent hedging, for some small transaction fee, presumably less than a Visa swipe fee.)  Really, it needs to happen.  Probably the best way is to get an existing card processor engaged.  Then all of their merchants instantly become XMR merchants.  Indeed, they could provide XMR debit cards as well.  I top up my XMR debt account, and use the card anywhere on the e.g. Electron network, with a discount for paying in XMR at an XMR-enabled merchant.  (That baked-in consumer discount might be dodgy with existing card processor upstream agreements, I admit, but I think there's a good antitrust case that such non-discounting agreements are violating open competition legislation.)

Did a little study of historical GDP trends.  Upon reasonable assumptions, I conclude that global per capita GDP has grown 75bp/an since 1500, correlated about R2~0.7 with population growth rate (albeit highly non-linear).  Why do I mention this?  Because I think the long-term block subsidy is calibrated very well to support global currency use:  The XMR supply can be reasonably expected to increase at almost exactly the same rate the the GDP does, during a period of sustainable population stability, and hence the value of one unit of XMR will tend to be about as stable as one could feasibly hope for it to be, once usage saturation has occurred, regardless of the share of currency, so long as that share is stable.  In other words, it is unlikely than anything short of heroically innovative measures could produce a  currency which is better suited to long-term value-stability.

Also, please don't water the noxious weeds.

Monkey anticipates recovering 450 over the next 2 or 3 days, then a small-ish correction before resuming a weekly uptrend.

Meh. There is more pragmatic privacy value in routine transactions than in conspicuous consumption. 

Bitcoin is good enough for Lambos &c., but for important stuff like food, XMR is the better technology.

Probably you need to factor volume quite heavily when defining "dump", to accommodate ordinary use of the word.  On a price basis, the conventional nomenclature has 10%+ down constituting a "correction" and 20%+ constituting a "bear market”, although there are various problems with those naïve 1-d criteria as well.

XMR is currently the only mega-cap coin outperforming BTC on the way up.  This is unusual.  XMR often outperforms falling XBTUSD, but I have never observed it outperforming rising XBTUSD before now.

No, the coin is not lost.  But it is much more difficult to prove that you are the sender.  If poloniex were to use a distinct destination address for each depositor, these problems would not occur, but there are impediments to doing so, albeit fewer than there once were.

There is a simple way to determine the tendency of the actual price of a currency: PQ=MV.

Rational pricing theory says that (ignoring risk adjustments), the rational present price is bounded by the expected future price, discounted by the interest rate.

Usually if people disagree about the fair value, it is because they have different estimates of the breakdown of future eventualities by case, or of the probabilities assigned to those cases.

In short: I do.  And I decided that ETH is too high, but XMR is too low.

Understatement of the millennium.  Doubt it can fall much for long, however.

That was for cat 5.  The argument for cat 4 is:  

Dope.  

Dope, and capital controls.

Dope, capital controls and political activism.

....see, like the Spanish Inquisition, it creeps up on ya...

For that reason I assign the bulk of the probability mass to cat 4.  I am wont to call it 61.8%, because lulz.  Mayhap 420‰ of that is cannabic.

Again, bitcoin just won't cut it, not after the first execution in Hangzhou stadium for the economic crime of sending funds to Chile for the son's college tuition and a nice retirement hacienda.

It is because of 4 that 5 subsequently becomes feasible.  Otherwise, the liquidity hurdle would be, like the rent around here, just too damn high.

I think you are distributing the probability mass very much like an intelligent and reasonable member of your species and culture, as informed by your specialized insight and experience.

I also think you underestimate the likelihood of the upside because of resulting biases.  (If I did not, I would be compelled to agree, which would be boring, since my own discountings are very similarly informed.) You can call it normalcy bias.  It's how normal people think, so in that sense it's healthy - until abnormal circumstances make it maladaptive.

Wow so many vapid words. To the chase then:

There are no alternatives.  Old discountings fail because socioeconomic superstructure is determined by technological infrastructure, and this technology is exquisitely tuned to the drastic social circumstances racing towards us.  Like Marx's vision of the inevitability of communism, I see the inevitability of fungible digital privacy-enabled non-inflationary decentrally antifragile currency glowing before me. It's a perfect storm a-comin'  and monero is the only lifeboat which hasn't been spiked.

When the AI tech is right, no vested interests, no legacy legal barriers, will be able to stop the self-driving car.  People don't want to die in a stupid crash or waste time with traffic laws and nonsense.  There is a way to escape that pain.  So people will take that way, pure and simple.  10 years ago such talk would have been a ludicrous fantasy in the minds of those not privy to the state of the art in decision theory, deep learning, graphical models.  Those in the know could be excused the social deviance of an accurate estimate of the long term outcome -- but only in retropect, by the vindication of history.

The One Bank ( and really, there is one, just as surely as there is a selfish gene for glyphosate resistance which dominates the North American biosphere - the One Bank is just as real and impactful ) is getting ready for a Big Reset, and you should too. When it comes is an unknown, although I estimate the central tendency as autumn, 2017 - but excellent technocrats could kick the can along for another 2 or 3 years perhaps, if they were to emerge.  No way they can drag it out to the demographic dark hour coming in 2023-2025 with verbal easings and whatever it takes.  Too many postal carriers will be exploding IEDs by then to carry out the best laid plans undisturbed.

The debt-based indenture money system was the greatest tool ever devised to subjugate the peoples of the Earth, and they actually enjoyed many benefits from that Faustian bargain, in terms of a rising tide of systemic efficiency which raised all boats, but the time-preference distortions have grown so encumbering that all the energy has been sucked out of the system.  The cake is a lie, now. A profoundly explosive change in the economic system is coming as the stabilizing bonds of systemic confidence are dissolved by the universal acid of survival instinct.  

Iterated exponential indebtedness is not something human technocrats can manage for a full human lifespan. The non-stationary dynamics of iterated diffusive maps alone justify mathematical confidence that chaotic instability is the best possible end game on fiat currency, the alternative being the peaceful stasis of death. Precious metals and crypto are the only financial assets likely to survive unscathed.  And p.m.s are just too easy to control, as the FDR and Soviet cases demonstrated.  Bitcoin?  Don't make me laugh - it hurts too much.

At least 2% in the 5th category, c'mon.  And certainly enough to hang your Kelly hat on.

Ring signatures give rise to an event horizon, so that no information about your transaction can escape to be observed.  Your private key adds an extra dimension, allowing the key holder to view the naked singularity powering each XMR wallet, and observe the transactions it contains.  A view key adds a wormhole into the event horizon from ordinary 4-spacetime.

And now we have gone from "speculation" to "cloud cuckoo land".

Optimizers die lonely and sad.  Satisficers die loved and content.

Personally I don't touch ETH.  VB is very smart but deeply manic.  I think catastrophe is almost certain.  Also, the hype is odious. 

As you suggest elsewhere, it can lead to a greed delusion.  I prefer to observe that XMR rose 4x in 15 months before dropping back to the 3x level.  It seems somewhat more sustainable (because it is) and less frothy, appeals more to the fiscally conservative center which dominates outside of casinos and bucket shops.

I do think that XMR will benefit more from slow,cold money than hot,fast money, which just adds too much vol, undermining the currency case.

I endorse the advice, but must disagree with the implied case distribution estimate.   ( It is good and proper for FP, in his role, to emphasize these risks, however. )

Funding has always been tight, but even abandonment would be survivable because open source.  I know for a fact that baton will never lie on the ground for two seconds in a row. 

The curve, well... I ascribe negligible probability. Implementation bugs certainly.  The math, not so much.  (Of course a quantum resistant development plan would be a responsible necessity. )

Has financial privacy ever been a greater concern for wealth holders?  Is it likely to become less of a concern?  Guess what I think.  I dare you.  If you disagree, try reading financial news some time.

I consider the resistance to volatility an asset.  Without it, we might have much more wealth concentration, pressing fair distribution concerns.


Yes but it would be improper here.  On-topic moderation is in effect, and should be just, blind.

Rpietila did a reasoned analysis about 18 months ago.  You can scan his post history.

In other news, palladium is way cheap under 500 USD.

Given the coming demographic bottom in the u.s., voyageur might outlast the present economic system, by a hair.

Not yet, at least.