You guys haven't sold yet? What are you waiting for? Falling down to 4-5 mil mkt cap. That's where it's heading.
Volume deflated from fake 600-800k artificial pump to 100k and going lower to 20-30k where it should be. When volume gets there so will the price. It`s no brain surgery for God`s sake.
Are you here for a reason? Just curious. |
|
|
|
|
"[XMR] Monero - Fluffypony is about to make you his bitch. (v0.9.1)"
Should be a hit.
|
|
|
|
To be honest, all cryptonotes needs a free software like minergate's one.
I think you have a point. What is it specifically about the minergate software that you think is most valuable? It's been a while since I've looked at minergate, but from what I remember, it requires zero brain power. (1) Run the program, (2) click the big green button that says "Start Mining," (3) watch money accumulate. I have a couple crypto-newb friends who mine for fun, and they both use minergate for it's ease and simplicity. EDIT: and as stated above, people often don't like the cmd line. Even if they're not afraid of it, copying commands from a readme is not as dead simple as clicking a button. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB, from what I understand your design is supposed to eliminate mining profitability by requiring users to send PoW with each transaction. Are you (not) trying to tell us that you plan to decouple transaction processing from currency distribution (i.e. no block rewards)?
|
|
|
|
An article about privacy that mentions ring signatures being "promising tech." How exactly does that mean "the beginning of the end" for Monero? Because Vitalik wrote the article? Don't worry. He still has to implement his 12 second block times and secure proof-of-stake model, first  |
|
|
|
I asked Gavin back in 2011 about more anonymity in bitcoin, and he didn't seem interested at all. Either he didn't understand the importance of fungibility (which is kind of related to anonymity) at the time, or maybe he still doesn't. Needless to say, I started looking for other alternatives..eventually making my way to the Monero community.
I don't think fungibility in general was ever really talked about as a concern in bitcoin until quite recently. Fungibility as a result of privacy was rarely if ever discussed before Monero, and I don't think Monero's fungibility was even realized as a "feature" until months after it was released (I could be wrong...I don't feel like reading that far back in the thread.) I want to say it was late 2014 when it really became clear that fungibility was the real goal...not simply privacy...and that's what distinguished XMR from all the other anon players of the time. |
|
|
|
I thought I would never say this, but investing a small % of your crypto in DOGE as a hedge seems reasonable now.
of course, XMR is a way better hedge than DOGE.
And for people who have a low net worth, having more XMR than BTC can even be reasonable.
I'm sure most of us have more XMR than BTC. |
|
|
|
There will also be no long term dilution because of the extremely slow and tapering supply expansion. I guess it depends what you mean by dilution. When one's share of a business is diluted by new investment, it means the percentage of ownership decreases, but it doesn't necessarily mean the value of your investment is smaller. The value may increase, decrease, or remain the same. It is pretty useful to be very precise about whether one is talking about money supply in nominal units or value of individual units (or something else). The confusion also comes up when people discuss "inflationary" or "deflationary" currencies and end up talking past each other because they are using different meanings. My comment about long-term dilution was referring to money supply units. Agreed. My (tangential) point was that there is no useful store of value in a defunct property. If the coin survives 200 years but only scales to 58 million units, dilution is the least of everyone's concern. if the average cryptouser starts caring about this minutia This seems like a questionable premise. Almost everyone agrees that for crypto to become more successful, the user base needs to grow dramatically, which probably means the average crypto user will have significantly less interest in monetary policy and such. Mass adoption is the end goal. The "average crypto user" won't ever know about the currency until it survives the scrutiny of the interested community. |
|
|
|
A "strong" password helps a bit but most of the security comes from the coin ID itself.
If you want to be reasonably paranoid, you must assume that between production and shipping, the coin ID is compromised. I'd personally make sure the entropy of my password is fine by itself. If you're going to do that, you might as well just use a paper wallet (which I personally recommend). There is no way you will ever have a strong password that doesn't need to be written down. Brain wallets don't work. False - it's possible, most people just don't do it. And the ones who do occasionally forget their passwords, because they go so long without needing to recall it. It's possible but hardly practical. |
|
|
|
And unfortunately, monero is not a store of value, it is transactional. Unless you think a perpetual emission magically prevents dilution. In 114 years there will be 36 million monero. And in 228 years there will be 54 million.
There will be no long term dilution because of lost coins. Eventually some equilibrium will be reached, probably around 35 million coins. Anyway, store of value doesn't mean a perfect store of value with no fluctuations or erosions in value whatsoever, and for Monero to function as any sort of store of value at all in a significant sense, or even to function transactionally, the value will need to increase a lot. 5 million USD market cap (or even 15 million if you project out to my estimate of long term supply) isn't going to cut it. The incentives for investing are there, as well as the risk that it doesn't function, interest is lost, and goes to zero. There will also be no long term dilution because of the extremely slow and tapering supply expansion. If this network somehow did survive 200 more years, how many people do you think would be using it? Do you think 58 million XMR would be nearly enough to support an economy of such scale? This is why I believe a fixed block reward was a poor decision vs exponential growth of the money supply. Our money supply isn't fixed like Bitcoin's, but we're still dying a slow death. The good news is it probably won't matter anyway, because better tech will most likely replace Monero long before then. However, if the average cryptouser starts caring about this minutia, we may see Monero fall out of favor to it's little brother, where last I heard, the plan was to incorporate an exponential rate of inflation. |
|
|
|
The moero code must be reviewed by metclaf.
I'm not familiar with either "moero" or "metclaf." |
|
|
|
...
...
Welcome, latest trolls! New to the thread and not sure what to troll about? Try these: - Still no 'official' GUI!! omg sell sell sell - Still no 0.9 release!! omg sell sell sell - XMR is a copy/paste of Bytecoin, a totally legit crypto project!! - A few XMR supporters are vocal about DASH being a scam!! What assholes! - Vitalik is implementing ring sigs into ethereum!! sell sell sell - Zerocash is going to be released Any Minute™!! sell sell sell - Risto Pietila is the only person keeping Monero alive with all of his billions. Sell sell sell - Icebreaker supports Monero. What a dick. Better sell. |
|
|
|
|
Freicoin, iirc, used a tax-like debasement mechanism and worked on a fixed rate.
I agree that typical forms of inflation have already been experimented with, which is why a fixed X% accomplishes little more than, "look, this coin is inflationary!"
A smart-inflation like system would only increase the money supply as needed, meaning there would effectively be no inflation at all (outside of standard emission) until the coin started seeing greater transaction volumes.
TL;DR I'd rather see a dynamic "smart inflation" that doesn't exceed 1% (which is kind of pointless, but at least the mechanism would be in place) than a fixed 1%, which has been done before.
Also, I realize we haven't yet designed a system for making this work that cannot be gamed, but I have some ideas if it turns out to be something we wish to pursue.
|
|
|
|
Then like a quantum foam settling on what it wants to become, let's narrow it down to two binary options for inflation, 0.75% or 0.9%?
I'll make an altcoin topic with a poll in a little while with those two options, "fixed block reward", or "none of the above". If you have an interest in Aeon, please make your voice heard.
I argue it's pointless either way. I doubt (without any supporting argument) that anything less than 1% is enough to have any significant effect beyond incentivizing mining. I certainly don't think it's enough to discourage hoarding. If Aeon is really the experimental coin we all pretend it is, then why not actually experiment with it? |
|
|
|
tbh Monero ppl got the best signatures on this forum  The Monero community also seems to have the smallest percentage of members participating in paid signature campaigns which I think is a good thing. amen! please stay out of those fucking spammy sig campaigns guys. I would hate to put yall on ignore, already over 2k entries because of sig spammers. At that point why not just disable signatures in your profile settings? |
|
|
|
I would disagree with you. One of the intentions of inflation is to incentivize spending vs. HODLing. If there is little activity, then people aren't spending.
I don't think we disagree on anything. I really wanted XMR to be inflationary and argued quite a bit to that end, as I'm not convinced that a fixed block reward (relative to increasing supply) is enough to incentivize miners. I recommend skimming the old XMR economics thread as a number of interesting arguments were made. Risto said recently that he thinks wealth concentration in XMR is an issue, but a shrinking circulating supply is always the result in non-inflationary currencies, as money flows into the pockets of the rich and never back out. However, "moar inflation" does not automatically mean more spending. You need enough to disincentivize hodling vs the opportunity risk of investing in productivity. Beyond that there's little incentive to spend (until you get to hyperinflation territory). Thus, slowing distribution during low activity does not necessarily result in further reduced spending. It only eliminates the value dilution that we would otherwise experience if we maintained the higher rate of inflation during the slow period. |
|
|
|
If money velocity is high (i.e., there are a lot of transactions in a block), that means money is valuable and people are using it, and therefore minimal (to zero) inflation is necessary. If money velocity is low (there are few to little transactions in a block), that means money is \too valuable so people aren't spending it. Of course we're diving headforward into economic theory.... of course here there'd be a maximum inflation rate and a minimum, being 0. Of course the magic number question is then what is the proper velocity of money.
I'd argue the opposite on all points. Increase in velocity means the economy is growing and so should the money supply. When spending slows, so does distribution. Also, there would be no maximum or minimum inflation. Only what is precisely necessary given the current conditions. |
|
|
|
There was some good discussion regarding debasement on the Economic Devastation thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg11923878#msg119238783. Due to that squared law explained in #2 and coupled with the fact that small things and investments grow faster, the upcoming wealthy gain more from debasement than the egregiously wealthy. Thus debasement is a very natural, efficient allocator of wealth to the maximum production. The super wealthy can't focus their investments to the most productive because their wealth is too large to allocate efficiently. They are more concerned about safety, economies-of-scale, and return of capital, which retards production in the economy. [implication is that the more wealthy someone is, then the more reliant on usury for return-on-investment instead of non-guaranteed return (a.k.a. return versus risk)]
Thus raising the debasement rate redistributes capital from lower efficiency investment (and thus production) to higher efficiency investment and production. Thus benefiting everyone in society. Thus the debasement rate should be set as high as such that a super majority of society can receive an increase in their personal purchasing power (personal priorities) that exceeds the debasement rate. This will not stop members of society from competing for higher return-on-investment, because to be in that super majority you must compete. Whereas, if it were true that everyone had the same priorities and we could set the debasement to one monolithic purchasing power metric, then no one would have an incentive to compete. This is yet another example of why uniform distribution is lifeless. I mentioned this abstract concept in my two blogs, The Universe and Information is Alive!. The problem is how to measure that in order to set an ideal debasement rate? The debasement rate must increase and decrease with some feedback loop which is the efficiency of production relative to a super majority of the society. Referring back to my explanation about the Quantity Theory of Money: 1. The Quantity Theory of Money roughly posits that the GDP (price × quantity) is roughly proportional to the money supply (M) times the velocity of money (V). Any increase in GDP due to increase in M (such as fractional reserve debt), is illusory non-growth in the form monetary inflation. Any increase in GDP due to increase in V that is not a derivative effect of monetary inflation, is real growth. Real growth translates to an appreciation of buying power, thus protecting store-of-value. Thus we can conclude that friction on unit-of-exchange is undesirable.
We see that Δ real growth is somewhat related to Δ transactions × price. Thus such a feedback loop could modulate the Δ debasement rate by the Δ transactions × price. The variables could be: 1. Debasement is a percentage of the transactions x price. 2. Relationship of this debasement to the transaction fee, if any. Let's assume transaction fees are set by the market and are a better proxy for the real value to society of the transactions than transactions x price, because transaction fees modulate priority. Also market determined transaction fees are society's appraisal of the (equilibrium of tolerable or neglible) cost of unit-of-exchange which is a primary function of money w.r.t. commerce that demands supply of production, thus medium of flow in the power-law wealth distribution circulating pump. Perhaps: debasement = factor × transaction fees Given annual velocity of money has historically been around ≈2.0, then if factor = 1, annual debasement ≈ 2 x weighted average transaction fee percentage. In other words with a factor = 1, an annual velocity of money = 2, and a weighted average transaction fee percentage of 1%, the annual debasement rate would be 2%. |
|
|
|
Also, if anyone can recommend a dedicated box (for these cryptonote coins) I could buy in the $300 - $500 range I might consider that as well. I have free electricity where I live, so it basically costs me nothing to run a miner.
Fanless mini-pcs are the greatest ever: http://www.fit-pc.com/web/products/mintbox/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
