Bumping for leaderboard and orange numbers.
Haha, I was just thinking of doing the same I have been promised that all input from you has been timely received, and the orangization will happen as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
Indeed. I'm giving the first real mid-term bear market a good chance.
The chance is about as high as the possibility for the Bitcoin adoption to start going in reverse. Well, it has never happened before with any winning technology but yeah, not an impossibility. You never know  |
|
|
|
your a bit well behind the times man! lol
and if your so sure it can be done, why dont you do it? im sure the nxt guys would put a hefty bet on with you that you or anyone cant do it.
If this is your answer to Peter R.s well-founded and well-explained critcism of PoS/nxt, then it's very easy for me to make up my mind. As for the supposed (not factual) bet you propose: they would have to give the potential attacker access to a key that used to have 51% stake at some point in the past first. I'm willing to bet they wont do that. Then history is not on your side. Mark also turned crook at gunpoint. |
|
|
|
Yes, that's what I meant - in the beginning, as everybody complains about short-term effects on the price of XMR. Long term most sensible CN (excluding Bytecoin and Duckcoin) coins will have the same total supply in circulation, but at the beginning it's different, hence it takes more buying orders to absorb the initially sold supply of XMR.
for some reasons it does not matter at all does it? - the emmission curve of bbr is slower and it is, as well as xmr, a very good project, but its market cap is less than one forth of moneros. maybe it is only important to define in which way and at what speed a coin is produced and the market participants are pricing this in. coming from the economics perspective and understanding too little of mining - can someone explain the mining mess around xmr? I don't know about any mess, but as for mining schedule: ...it cannot be too slow, nor too rapid, nor look artificial, and it must provide network security at all times (one reason for ~1% constant yearly inflation). XMR is the best I've seen, BBR is close. I still haven't found a compelling reason to buy BBR though. Only one of them can win, and currently it seems obvious that XMR has the lead. |
|
|
|
XMR is supposed to be more inflationary than other CN coins by design, it doesn't matter if it's CPUs or GPUs mining it, miners will dump, it's a law. The more coins they have mined, they more the supply they have to dump.
There is no such thing as "more inflationary", all coins will eventually reach 100%. If you do it faster, your inflation in the beginning is high and later it is slow, or the other way round. (I did not even understand if you meant that it will have more or less coins issued after, say, 3 years than other CNs...) Economically as long as the mining is fair (which means = competitive, which means = no excess profits), it does not matter if the miners dump 100% or 0% of their coins. It is nevertheless part of the S/D equation. |
|
|
|
|
How is GPU miner a death sentence for XMR? Isn't it good to have it, esp. after the accusations that currently botnets control most of the mining?
(Economically, the added value of mining is in the coin distribution, the network security and the statement of honesty/fairness by the devs. It is not intended to produce profit to the miners, quite the contrary - the marginal miner should be mining at a small loss in normal circumstances.)
|
|
|
|
PoS coins use the number of coins held as the basis for their signalling system. Since coins have an exchange rate, they obviously do not fulfill the criteria of having no value, either practical or intellectual. Thus PoS is not an viable mechanism for honest signalling.
Aren't you confusing the stake (which can be reused to provide signaling for many transactions over time) with the coins (which can only be used once)? The stake is worthless as far as I can tell. Stake is just showing someone what you own, not actually giving it to them. Would someone pay me just because I show them that I have a lot of money in my wallet? I can show what's in there a million times without losing a cent. No, it's you who is confusing. Let me rephrase the issue here and hero members correct me if I am wrong: - You need to expend real world resources to produce something (otherwise) worthless (eg. hashes), which are expended when you use it to "vote" on which chain is the longest. You cannot double-spend hashes, so there is always a cost if you want in the game, and the reward (coinbase) tends to the marginal cost. - In PoS, you can vote with the same coins in all universes of the present, as well as the past and future, and not produce anything, and it does not cost anything. So it is a worthless system to determine which chain is the longest (no cost == nothing at stake). The only reason PoS advocates argue against it is that they have not even understood the basic problem. |
|
|
|
your a bit well behind the times man! lol
Yeah, I guess I should have signed up with Chuck for the mailing list. The definition of the coin apparently changes monthly. Crypto 2.0: The future of money indeed. / sarc It is not very reassuring to read the assertations that PoS is fine, because not only are they incorrect, but also they reveal that the monetary architects of PoS thingies are not well versed in monetary economics. |
|
|
|
PoS put to rest: that mechanism is far less than optimal for many reasons and excludes those who don't have mining gear and favours those with higher powered mining gear. It's no different to "rich getting richer" in nxt. In that respect, pow is elitist This is the problem with proof of stake: it was invented by people who have no idea what problem mining is supposed to solve and have some agenda other than solving that problem. Mining is not about allocating the issuance of new coins. The fact that they are tied together in Bitcoin is a temporary coincidence. Mining is about solving the problem of distributed consensus - how do a bunch of independent nodes spread all over the planet agree on a precise ordering of transactions when every node must operate with an incomplete view of the network and anybody might be trying to cheat? This problem has nothing to do with elitism or notions of fairness or populism. Overlaying those agendas into the solution is a great way to not solve the problem. As nodes on the network continually work to establish a consistent of narrative of what has happened in the netwowk based on their own incomplete knowledge, there will be times where two nodes disagree. Mining is nothing more than a signalling mechanism which provides an objective basis for choosing which version of history to treat as correct, whenever a conflict occurs such that more than one alternative version exist. The design criteria for what makes a good mining algorithm comes from signalling theory: Two individuals have access to different information.
They could both gain if they could honestly share this information.
However, their interests do not coincide entirely, and so each has an incentive to deceive the other.
How can honest communication be ensured? How can honest communication be ensured despite conflicting interests between a signaller and a signal receiver? Economists and biologists independently proposed that the costs associated with producing signals can provide a solution to this problem. Loosely paraphrased, the solution typically takes the following form. Suppose that signals are costly, and that for one reason or another, lies cost more than honest signals.
If telling the truth is cheap enough and telling a lie is costly enough, it may be worthwhile to communicate honestly but not to lie. There's a reason that when Wei Dai proposed b-money in 1998, he didn't even bother to explain why calculations in a proof of work system, "must be easy to determine how much computing effort it took to solve the problem and the solution must otherwise have no value, either practical or intellectual." He assumed this statement would be so obviously true that no explanation was needed. Apparently this is no longer the case. The signal sent by proof of work is the amount of opportunity cost the miner has paid in order to produce the block. The fact that mining calculations are completely useless outside the signalling system itself is what makes lies more expensive than telling the truth, thus satisfying the conditions for honest signalling. The opportunity cost the miner pays to produce a block only represents a profitable trade for the miner if the network accepts their block. So when it comes to a node in the network choosing between two valid blocks, choosing to accept the block with the higher PoW means choosing the block which produced by the miner who has the most at stake in terms of opportunity cost paid. Note that if the miner has to use specialized hardware for which there is no possible use other than mining, the signal is even better than performing otherwise-useless calculations on general purpose hardware. Higher opportunity costs = more reliable signal. Proof of work is a proof of stake system, the only one that actually works.
PoS coins use the number of coins held as the basis for their signalling system. Since coins have an exchange rate, they obviously do not fulfill the criteria of having no value, either practical or intellectual. Thus PoS is not an viable mechanism for honest signalling. Latter emphasis mine. |
|
|
|
nem has 3000 original stake holders and a new proof importance algo which means that the nodes that are more important to the network "mine/forge" more than those with simply more coins. which fixes the hoarding issues inherent in nxt. 3000 stake holders will get equal amounts, there was not an ipo, its was a "pay a fee, join the movement" sort of thing. so even the ipo does no favor those with better finances. also the stake holder list went through weeks of taint analysis and auditing to remove sock puppets.
All of this you could have avoided by just using a mechanism that requires you to pay the market value for any stake, such as a PoW.. |
|
|
|
Now, by applying log-scale and drawing a trendline using the linear regression with least square error, we find that the equation of the trendline is: -2.8 + 5.2/57(number_of_months_since_Jan_2009). - Bitcoin went from being a laggard to being overvalued in Nov, 2010. - Highest overvaluation was reached in June, 2011, when the price was $18.5 on average, but the price trendline was only at $0.70. - Despite the crash in 2011, actual undervaluation started only in April, 2012 and continued until Feb, 2013. - The peak of April 2013 saw slight overvaluation, and after the peak, bitcoin has again been slightly undervalued and still is. - Target price October 2013: $251, Nov: $310, Dec: $382. More long-term targets: - $1000: May 2014 - $10,000: April 2015 - $300,000: August 2016. Do you seriously believe that these targets are achievable? May 2014 is already passed by. That was written in Oct-13. If you don't recall, $1k was reached in the following month. Reaching $10k by Apr-15 is nothing, and the only reason that I don't bet with people for the outcome, is that simple investing in bitcoins gives me much better odds  |
|
|
|
Interpretation of the acronym escapes my imagination.  |
|
|
|
My default assumption is that any new coin is either a scam or a folly.
even if this was 100% correct, it doesn't mean there's no opportunities left for insane profits (3-10X on top of Bitcoin is possible with some alts) Or 100x. But don't you people feel moral restraint in investing in something that you know to be a scam? (Luckily the obscene profits are available only in such limited investment amounts that I can more easily forgo them  ) |
|
|
|
700 is no different than 600. It's going to be the same uphill battle.
It will last the time it lasts. When it is over, it is over. And then the fun begins. Don't sell now. But especially don't sell between 800->3000: that is a complete waste of money in a situation where there is no way except going up several times in a matter of weeks. |
|
|
|
OK Rpietila, right now XMR lacks a official GUI(there are GUI's, but not "official") and a resolve to the Blockchain bloat/scale.
Once XMR has an official GUI, and a resolve to the Blockchain bloat/scale, what is your valuation on what XMR's price should be then?
The realistic upper limit on BTC's price is 25% of world's wealth (ie ~5M$/ BTC). The realistic upper limit for XMR is 25% of BTC (ie ~0.25 BTC/XMR). I think the development of GUI is priced in, so it will be a negative event if we fail to deliver it. |
|
|
|
Would I be right in thinking that the marketcap (used in the context of cryptocurrencies) is a bit of a fiction? For the majority of coins, there simply isn't the liquidity at the current price?
That's both ways. Try to buy 1 million BTC and you see what happens  Total number of coins to ever be minted? Why is that more helpful than the standard market cap calculation?
It tells us the real picture. I don't know about you but I always compare coins using that metric alone. But generally shouldn't the market be taking the future supply curve into account when pricing? Or do you think that these markets are so inefficient that they don't reflect the reality?(Likely) And I can assume that is one of the major reasons you consider XMR a sound investment. The market doesn't reflect the coins true value? What would a fair valuation look like right now in your opinion? Yes of course. But wasn't the topic that "why is XMR undervalued"? I think it is not, the market is taking into account the 10-doubling of coins and assigning it the valuation of 50M, which makes XMR on par with NXT and much ahead of every other PoS coin. I think XMR is fairly valued at 0.005-0.010. |
|
|
|
Total number of coins to ever be minted? Why is that more helpful than the standard market cap calculation?
It tells us the real picture. I don't know about you but I always compare coins using that metric alone. |
|
|
|
Explain this to me: Why is it that the market doesn't trust Monero if it has so solid fundamentals? Why is it that 100% instamined PoW/PoS hybrids appear out of nowhere, and just by being based on the Bitcoin codebase are able to out-perform the marketcap of Monero in a few days or weeks? This shouldn't even be possible.
4 Darkcoin $ 34,537,954 $ 7.78 4,439,477 DRK
11 Bytecoin (BCN) $ 8,974,931 $ 0.000057 156,920,284,106 BCN
13 VeriCoin $ 7,597,613 $ 0.283679 26,782,417 VRC
15 XC $ 6,451,500 $ 1.17 5,515,507 XC
17 Monero $ 5,080,622 $ 2.72 1,867,647 XMR
It is more helpful to compare the marketcaps with the total # of coins, which puts for example XMR in the $50M range, far above BCN. |
|
|
|
|
This thread is so inaccurate that it deserves to be locked, so I will do it.
|
|
|
|
Tell me the total number of XMR owners and the percentage of the largest owner, I can derive the distribution of everyone in between with amazing accuracy I guess you already have done your calculations. You are the #1 wallet right ? 1) You cant do the calculations, there is no way to know others wallet balances But it is rather easy to know the distribution of them with amazing accuracy, given that the inputs: - number of owners; - largest owner's balance; Are even near correct. 2) I very much doubt it I am large but not in the TOP-5. Just as my strategy dictates. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
