my problem is that it is, in my opion, not possible to take the current development state as an indicator for a market cap in a far away distant future (even 1 year, 5 years or 20 years)

the obvious simple solution is that you have to price in the development of the project until that point in the future is reached and you have to add the potential/niche of the coin. it is more a general problem than a specific one of xcn.

maybe the most elegant solution is the simplest one: which amount of btc inflow per day at current prices is needed to keep the price stable, that is probably also the reason why I asked for that in the xcn thread 

this is quite bad for ripple

stellar is being distrubted by 95% in the beginning - this is a statement

interesting project - as far as I understand this has the potential to scale in a much better way than the current blockchains are doing.

I would like to discuss an economic issue you are referring to, which is somewhat complicated: afaik the fully mined market cap of this currency will not be reached in any foreeseable future (>20 years), but you try to value it in the current state of development. I think it is totally clear that this project in the current condition is not worth 119600 btc. but does this make sense? I think we can savely assume that if xcn somehow survives, the system is much further developed once it is fully mined (in 20 years) as it is now. the methodology of "valueing" very young projects with the final market cap is somehow semi-elegant. does anyone have a more elegant solution for this? probably to make it more clear: assume a new chain is started which reaches its market cap in ~5000 years and the emmission is brutally slow - it does not make sense to use this parameter does it?

was estimating/calculating yesterday, still have problems to understand the daily emission of new mined coines - at current prices it needs around 15-20 btc to eat the inflation and to keep the price stable? please correct me if I am wrong

when does the new weekly overview come?

the development of this protocol is nothing but impressive - maybe it is really possible to put counterparty in the front of blockchain based finance

this bbr xmr discussion is so needless and I see no reason why it is important - I own both in a 1/3 bbr/xmr ratio and yes bbr is massively undervalued BUT xmr has one thing and probably the only really important - the market until now has decided that xmr is the one that shows some serious network effects - I would estimate that at xmr has at least 10 times more "investors/speculators" and what counts much more, it has convinced some serious people to say this will be the privacy counterparty to bitcoins transparent ledger.

compared to all the other stuff out there the market for some reason does not value bbr properly - but to try to compare bbr to monero will seriously end up badly for bbr.

one thing which is probably interesting is the comparison of network effects between drk and xmr - I thought about that for quite a while and we all know examples when the inferior technology surpassed for some reasons the superior technology. it is quite easy to illustrate in game theoretic form why the inferior technology surpasses the superior one - well basically it is network effects which gives the one on the superior technology a higher utility when he uses the inferior technology, in the case that all others use them as well. even if drk has more users/investors/speculators at this moment of time the inferior technology will in this case not win against the superior, for the reason that the the elasticity between somewhat half-baked private and full private regarding utility is very high. this is not watching a movie on a vhs which is inferior to betamax, but offers almost the same utility - this is a very sensitive issue: the differences in utility between the better and the worse will be massive.

I have extreme problems to understand how big the current block reward is - can anyone shortly clarify?

just out of curiosity, because many people expect prices lower than in the ipo - why should someone sell below 1btc=2000eth? the only reason I see is an explosion in btc market cap and people valueing their investments in $ instead of btc. the more interesting thing is inflation - with 28% in the first year (?) it is not that high.

where to put the missing dll in windows 7?

there is no otc for xmr anymore is there? - I think if a reputable person in this forum would supervise an otc, larger investors as well as larger sellers would be better off.

buying even mediocre amounts is complicated without moving the price too much

  especially looking forward to the methodology

what is his motivation of doing this? - It makes not too much sense, if ether only sees an inflation of 28% per year and the ipo buyers probably will not sell below initial price

from a logical standpoint, cloners need a reason to clone: the only reason for a clone to become successful is that the initial distribution is horrible. if everyone agrees that the distribution is fine, the clone will never get support.

this argument even holds from an empirical standpoint: see nxt, which was closed source until the mid of january and had a horrible starting distribution, see drk, which is still in parts closed source due to bad distribution and the fear of clones.

see on the hand xcp, which is not cloned due to the consensus that the distribution is fair. see bytecoin which was cloned due to the distribution and which is now lacking success because of the market deciding that the clone is fairer.

if your coin does not have a bad distribution I see no reason why it should be cloned and therefore no reason why it shouldn't be open source.

by all we know about market this argument does not make sense at all - the market ALWAYS benefits the main innovation, regardless of how many shitclones are existent. I think the arguments for protection are on a multidimensional level stupid.

the main argument for closed source is that the distribution of the coins is non-optimal, otherwise you would not need to protect would you?

bytecoin has - look I own 1.8 million bytecoin - this is worth somewhat 40$ or 0.08 btc - imagine I buy a coffee or a pizza with this or take the opposite I would try to buy a house with bytecoin - this is really really horrible even for a math oriented person to calculate.

I do not think we should spam this wonderful project with this, from a technical perspective, minor problem but you should really consider this.

from a normal non-autistic person you need some point of reference to define the value of one unit - maybe some big currency like dollar or euro or what a cup of coffee costs etc. whereas I also think that 600$ per coin is also far from optima, it is bitcoins biggest unit of account, and it is no problem to use a smaller unit like satoshi or bits or whatever. when you start xcn the biggest unit of account will be 1/184400000000 - even if this project is uber successful it will take ages until one unit is accountable for a normal person and to find some reference point.

the rate of distribution is also independent of the unit of account - so I do not see why you need this huge number. it will probably not be a short time killer for the coin but it will definetely hinder wide adoption

i was silently following your other thread.

i like your concept but also think that a coin supply of around 20 million is much better than this almost undefineable huge number - the reasons for this are practical.

I cannot directly help you with this analysis and appreciate what you are doing, but I have a few concerns:

I followed monero from the otc time and probably the first ten pages of the thread. AFAIK there were little to no buys over the counter with more than 10000 xmr volume. Even otc it was very hard to aquire reasonable amounts of xmr. I cannot speak for the OTC in freenode (?)/ IIRC. Maybe some powerful miners would have the possibility to get a six digit amount of xmr - but to buy them would be quite complicated.

It is probably just an educated guess but I think the group of 1000 to 10000 is underrepresentated to the cost of the group above and below. My idea is that you probably cannot use the normal distribution which is neccessary for power law, because altcoiners are probably not the perfect representative group for that - I assume this group is capped at the top.