|
Having any sizable holdings of crypto-currency means either you are giddy or depressed and never leveled, hunky-dory.
Thus the size of holdings impacts how fun a crypto-currency is. As the size of holdings falls below a week's income, the currency becomes quite trouble-free and an interesting enjoyable outlet.
I disagreed strongly with rpietila trying to convert non-professional speculators into speculators. He will pay dearly for that mistake. I tried to warn him, but he wouldn't listen.
|
|
|
|
There is no "the egg" and there is no "the chicken".
There is an egg, and there is a chicken.
That was my point too. Great answer btw. The DOGE experience suggest that usage and adoption is not particularly a function of technology, so technologists should be careful not to overly focus there
It was a function of there existing both an egg and a chicken in terms of usage as a currency. The problem was it didn't reproduce. My theory is that failure to reproduce was as much a technical design error as it was the narrow market. P.S. Good point that Bitcoin didn't start as a speculative investment, but my hypothesis it is dying ( adoption slowing) as it becomes one. |
|
|
|
Usability and Security is all that's needed for cryptocurrencies. Make it simple to use and relatively safe, then you'll find a huge spike in people actually using the currency as a transfer of wealthincome instead of speculative investments.
That is necessary but not sufficient by itself. Which comes first the egg or the chicken? |
|
|
|
Note that CryptoNote ring signatures (and probably Zerocash and Zerocoin also) breaks the type of unwinding in my proposal because derivative transactions are unlinkable.
Edit: similar functionality can be obtained in the current implementation of the longest chain rule, by waiting for 100 or so confirmations before accepting a payment as final (to extend out the duration cost for the extended time attacker has to keep his chain secret so your payment isn't orphaned by the attacker's chain). Thus unlinkable coins could still defeat ephemeral 50+% double-spending attacks, but with very slow payments.
Note the above is FUD in sense that I have not really formalized and verified merging instead of forking the block chain. I might still discover that merging is infeasible. But this is something to keep on your distant radar. That is the qualitative difference I was arguing with smooth upthread. The point is that between 25% and 50% of the network hashrate, the attacker can in theory win with selfish mining (and probably ramp up to 50% with it) and this is due to the fact that the chain is forked and not merged (I have a formal math proof of this). Also above 50%, the attacker gets winner-takes-all with short-term rented hardware, because the chain is forked and not merged. I don't think gmaxell really understood me, yet I am not sure if I really understood all the variables yet. So this is a work in progress subject to failure. The following also applies: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/11/toward-a-12-second-block-time/I reloaded all those variables in my mind and worked through it finally. I confirm gmaxell is incorrect (but without peer review so caveat emptor). I can see now possibly a deeper reason why he thought I was incorrect, but afaics he apparently didn't see why that reason is irrelevant because it is sort of non-intuitive or not obvious. I'd rather not share my finding at this time, as I think it is very valuable. Appears to me Ethereum's proposal is not optimum. |
|
|
|
|
I think I know what that feature is and I've stated it (perhaps not explicitly enough for most, but a few readers seemed to get it) in the past more than once, so no need to repeat myself.
The best time to launch a counter trend asset, is during the counter trend market psychology.
Crypto-currencies up to this point have all been targeted to speculative investors.
|
|
|
|
Don't buy until the pessimism can't get any worse
Good advice. Technology changes, but human psychology and markets stay the same. It is not likely, but it is within the realm of very remote possibility that there could come along some altcoin during this downtrend that is so highly adopted by normal internet users that it sucks capital away from everything else that is falling; thus it would be a counter trend asset because it was fundamentally different market in that it is targeted to users and not investors. Other than that, I see all altcoins being dragged down by Bitcoin. What would it take to be targeted to normal internet users? It would need to offer something normal internet users need and don't need to be convinced they need. |
|
|
|
|
Looks like we are following silver's pattern. As the dollar is going stronger for the reasons Armstrong has explained.
Looks like we won't bottom until everyone hates Bitcoin and especially altcoins.
As with silver, don't try to catch a falling knife nor call the bottom. Sell the bounces. Don't buy until the pessimism can't get any worse, i.e. all the permabulls who are going to do so then have done the action of selling out.
Btw, I don't think silver and gold have bottomed. Still thinking gold will bottom at or below $1000, thus silver $17 or below.
|
|
|
|
almost free for all already  Before both dips from the $500 - $600 BTC level, I stated it would fall to $350 - $400. I have even been comparing it to silver's decline. Recently when BTC dropped below $400 and then bounced to $440, I said it was going to $200 - $300, probably $200 and that would be a firm bottom to start a new bubble. I pounded the table to my whales to dump BTC at $485 recently and so they would maintain their fiat wealth. Some of those predictions were in public posts. If I am correct, the altcoins will be dragged down with BTC. We are not going to bottom until the Winkervoss ETF is launched. I don't know this for sure. I only have a 50% chance of being correct. I correctly called the prior two declines from the $500s to $300s. Hope you all sold in the high $400s and repurchased below $400 as I suggested. I am selling this bounce we have now. But that doesn't mean I will be correct from here. With 2 correct calls, it is more likely I will be incorrect on this 3rd one. There is much more room to the upside than to the downside. However, the BTC chart looks just like silver's decline. It bottomed twice at $26, before collapses to $17. BTC has bottomed twice at $350ish. I think we will break through and head to $200 probably by December when the tax selling season peaks: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-price-forecast-and-beware-bitcoin-regulation/http://cointelegraph.com/news/112576/bitcoin-analysis-week-of-sep-21-wealth-management-pt-iThe bullish charts are much more short-term thus don't have the same veracity to me: https://www.tradingview.com/s/bitcoinArmstrong is correct the dollar is coming stronger. Capital is moving out of alternative investments into mainstream dollar investments such as stock market and real estate. We have a hell of a run to $1100, with 100 - 1000X gains. That has to unwind before we can set a new bottom and go up again. The Bitcoiners have to hate Bitcoin before we reach a bottom, just like silver investors have been destroyed. I could be wrong! Don't blame me if you follow me and miss a big rise in the BTC price. I suggest moving something like 25 - 50% of your crypto-currency holdings to dollars cash if they are a sizeable portion of your liquid net worth. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
Spoetnik, let's evaluate the technology on its merits.
|
|
|
|
xulescu, I agree. Note that CryptoNote ring signatures (and probably Zerocash and Zerocoin also) breaks the type of unwinding in my proposal because derivative transactions are unlinkable.
Edit: similar functionality can be obtained in the current implementation of the longest chain rule, by waiting for 100 or so confirmations before accepting a payment as final (to extend out the duration cost for the extended time attacker has to keep his chain secret so your payment isn't orphaned by the attacker's chain). Thus unlinkable coins could still defeat ephemeral 50+% double-spending attacks, but with very slow payments.
Note the above is FUD in sense that I have not really formalized and verified merging instead of forking the block chain. I might still discover that merging is infeasible. But this is something to keep on your distant radar. That is the qualitative difference I was arguing with smooth upthread. The point is that between 25% and 50% of the network hashrate, the attacker can in theory win with selfish mining (and probably ramp up to 50% with it) and this is due to the fact that the chain is forked and not merged (I have a formal math proof of this). Also above 50%, the attacker gets winner-takes-all with short-term rented hardware, because the chain is forked and not merged. I don't think gmaxell really understood me, yet I am not sure if I really understood all the variables yet. So this is a work in progress subject to failure. The following also applies: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/11/toward-a-12-second-block-time/ |
|
|
|
I already answered you with this post. Note you've made a strong argument for very clean source code and simplified crypto. Validates everything I've been working on. Thanks! And I've already answered you with this: (don't get circular on me here) Lol. 
I wholly agree with very clean code and the simplest crypto that is sufficient. I doubt anyone would challenge that.
You cannot just say "trusting nobody doesn't work with minichains, and that is the only idea for decentralization, thus I'll pretend the trust issues are PEDANTIC TRIVIALITIES".
Well implementation is better than ideas, so I can only speak to what I may think is implementable in terms of radical decentralization. Understandably from your perspective, my words are just the same as hollow non-specified ideas other than what you have already contemplated about designs that might be possible. I understood your opinion that BBR doesn't significantly increase decentralization and thus in your opinion the tradeoff isn't a clear gain. That tradeoff is not a slamdunk either way, so it is subjective. Whereas, I think coinmarketcap.com will show clearly when someone has demontrated a convincing result and the analysis no longer subjective. In short, neither XMR nor BBR have yet solved the issues around threats from mining, thus many figure might as well stay with Bitcoin since it has a higher hashrate. What is the point of moving to anonymity if it can be destroyed reasonably easily (apologies that is FUDdy, I don't mean it is likely but rather the same risks for altcoins). And still there is the vetting of the de-anonymization, impacts scaling, etc.. There are so many variables...I'm glossing over specifics, e.g. XMR's pools are currently not overly concentrated, etc.. Any way, that is my 2 cents on why there hasn't been mad rush to buy anonymous coins. The market doesn't yet trust them, combined with there isn't an incredible incentive and not a slamdunk win on many facets. Also CN is still new, had a choppy beginning, and BTC has been down. Edit: the environment will change on at least two fronts. 1) the governments will become more hostile to capital, 2) altcoin tech will continue to be improved, heck even XMR might have some tricks up their sleeve coming... Probably also BTC will bottom (I think < $200) and begin a new bubble phase. LTC had its big move during the 2013 bubble. Risk-off phases means altcoins are ignored. Also someone might introduce another unexpected paradigm shift DOGE-like curve ball. |
|
|
|
I already answered you with this post. Note you've made a strong argument for very clean source code and simplified crypto. Validates everything I've been working on. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Hopefully now you better understand my reservations about declaring a winner too soon and my opinion that we could see more developments in this space than the ones already factored in. And why I think the market is not jumping bananas to buy up XMR.
I am also interested to see what comes out of the bounty algorithm if it is implemented and better understood.
I think we still need some other fundamental breakthroughs. Ring signatures are interesting, but not sure yet if they are the Holy Grail.
Note I apologize for any impact on investment decisions this post has. I understand it is difficult for me to make such a post without stepping on someone's toes. I will try to go quiet as that is the best way to not offend interests and the best way to actually get some work done (health willing).
|
|
|
|
There are so many significant costs (if one realizes that without radically decentralized mining we are just wasting our time) that are paid for protecting that silly scenario.
market caps seem to agree with leaving the ring signatures in ... and i actually would prefer it as well. it seems odd that anonymint who is the MOST CONSERVATIVE on EVERYTHING to do with anoniminity is siding on the side of possibly not being able to prove anoniminity of prev transactions. Because that argument also implies we can't trust any form of off chain anonymity (i.e. where only the mixed inputs and outputs are retained) and we can't use a mini block chain. And thus we will never get radically decentralized mining. And as I pointed out, it is a silly pedantic worry that doesn't justify the ramifications as I have stated in this post. |
|
|
|
Imagine that a code bug exists where coins can be double spent in ring sigs, creating coins out of thin air. The developer realizes this, exploits it secretly, and then waits to see if anyone notices. He pushes out a checkpoint that throws away the old ring sigs and sometime later the bug is fixed.
There are so many significant costs that are paid for protecting that silly scenario. False. At best it is a constant factor reduction in the chain size. We have another protection against that silly worry. It is known as "open source". |
|
|
|
Do you see where I'm going with this?
No. Could you be more explicit? |
|
|
|
(if one realizes that without radically decentralized mining we are just wasting our time)
See my edit. Then again, I am not sure if ring signatures are even congruent with radically decentralized mining... I disagree that a constant factor reduction in chain size will reliably give you radical decentralized mining. The constant factor gets overwhelmed by whatever super-linear scaling occurs, over a relatively small range. You seem to offer some support to my second sentence then... |
|
|
|
(if one realizes that without radically decentralized mining we are just wasting our time)
See my edit. Then again, I am not sure if ring signatures are even congruent with radically decentralized mining... |
|
|
|
Imagine that a code bug exists where coins can be double spent in ring sigs, creating coins out of thin air. The developer realizes this, exploits it secretly, and then waits to see if anyone notices. He pushes out a checkpoint that throws away the old ring sigs and sometime later the bug is fixed.
There are so many significant costs (if one realizes that without radically decentralized mining we are just wasting our time) that are paid for protecting that silly scenario. You got sucked into defending a bad idea by the consensus of the XMR devs. It isn't your fault. You can't entirely speak your own mind. |
|
|
|
|
Those ring proofs are still available (somebody is saving them) if we need to reconstruct from a discovered bug. In the meantime, no need to force everyone to download them every time we sync, which is a significant problem for XMR as I've read some users complain.
And if you think about how to radically decentralize mining as I have been doing for months, then you will realize a long download time for syncing is a significant issue.
(I repeat, "the jury is still out...")
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
