|
@Hueristic. But only currently, however. Grin will have less than 5% inflation within 25 years similar to what bitcoin began to have after the first 8 years of its existence.
@HairyMaclairy. I reckon you already sold and waiting for sub $1.00 with the rest of us hehehe?
|
|
|
|
@bigslimvdub. That is a better update than your last state of Aeon. It is also very good to see that you understand the issue and that you have responded well.
Also, Asic resistance is not unsuccesful only to cryptonote coins, but to all cryptocoins.
Eh, I tend to agree with you, but overall that is still tbd - it seems to be working out ok for ETH and XRP at the moment... Ethereum and Ripple? You are either serious because you do not know anything or bad in being sarcastic hehehe. However, jwinterm knows everything there is in the cryptospace. It might also either be a bad joke or a hacked account. Can anyone ask jwinterm in Reddit or Github if he made that reply? |
|
|
|
so very important difference with monero, with large inflation. Agreed. However, Grin might attain wider distribution among the populace because of its high inflation in the first 25 years and the constant issuance of 60 coins per minute. |
|
|
|
|
@anu1908. A market dump begun, I reckon shortly after he made that announcement. Agreed that Tom Lee or other experts like Brian Kelly might be good counterindicators, however, they might be more cunning than we thought. They might be dumping while encouraging everyone to buy.
|
|
|
|
|
I reckon that we need to see more of the full picture to assume what occured and why. However, even without the full picture, I can already see that QuadrigaCX might be involved in a confusingly tangled moneylaundering scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
@beerlover. There are people who bet on politics, the oscars, the miss universe and tv shows for as long as there was sportsbetting on the internet, I reckon.
Also, if you are a fan of the Game Of Thrones and sportsbetting, you have to bet hehehe.
@buwaytress. I do not see it in Bitcoinrush's sportsbook page. Are we allowed to see their Game Of Thrones offerings? What is their minstake?
|
|
|
|
I would still be going for Poirier in this fight, even though Max is a champion and Dustin is not. Dustin will be more eager to beat Max once again because he has a champion and there a title that is on the line in this fight.
However, Max will be eager to win a lightweight title also and be a 2 division champion. It is also not on who is more eager. It is on who has improved more since their fight 7 years ago. I reckon it is Max Blessed Holloway. He will test Dustin Poirier's cardio on the 4th and 5th rounds and I predict Max will win by technical knockout. |
|
|
|
|
The odds are updated! I have begun using Cloudbet's odds because it appears that Nitrogensports will not be offering the Game Of Thrones betting anymore.
Season 8 will begin on Sunday!
|
|
|
|
@tromp. I reckon they need some feeding or no one would be bumping this thread and increase this project's visibility hehehe. Trolls also give us the opportunity to defend and show everyone what is good about the project.
@Privcy Foundation. Here trolly trolly trolly.
Its not necessarily a bad project, the tech is good but it is a TERRIBLE investment, it will not appreciate anywhere close to what bitcoin did in the early days. I wil clarify my stance, when I say shitcoin I don't mean a useless coin but I mean a bad investment. also they really needed to come up with better branding than grin and naming something after a harry potter spell, that just looks like amateur hour. @tromp. I appears his true intention is exposed hehehe. I will quote it so he cannot delete it. @Privcy Foundation. It was clearly mentioned in Grin's monetary policy that this is not a cryptocoin for getting rich quick. This is a coin focused on privacy, scalability and fairness. In 10 years Grin might be more widely distributed than bitcoin in its first 10 years. https://github.com/mimblewimble/docs/wiki/Monetary-Policy |
|
|
|
We have found our next entertainer for the bitcoin speculation subforum that will replace our favorite bitcoin bull Tom Lee hehehe. Vinny Lingham is known for his bearish attitude on bitcoin during 2017 when everyone was hyperbullish. He also declared that he sold all his bitcoins on $1250 in that year, I reckon.  Vinny Lingham, CEO of Civic, while discussing what is next for the Bitcoin price with CNBC’s Crypto Trader Ran Neuner noted that he is still not convinced the crypto winter market is over. Vinny still expects the bitcoin price to hold a particular level before he’s ready to concede that the bears have lost control.
Vinny explained that “I’m not buying any bounce right now that doesn’t go to around $6,200 and stays there for at least 24-48 hours as being the end of the bear market cycle.”
Also, Vinny like most crypto enthusiasts concedes that the bitcoin price is near the bottom of the bear market cycle. However, it could have more bouncing to go. His assertion is based on history that bitcoin hasn’t escaped a bear market until the price is two times higher than the bottom. Hence, the current circle could still fall below the mark of $3,100, and $6,200 mark is the clear coast of the bull run. Vinny stated that “There’s absolutely a chance we could go below $3,000. I don’t think the bear market cycle is necessarily over.”Read in full https://www.btcnn.com/news/vinny-lingham-bitcoin-could-still-crash-below-3000/ |
|
|
|
|
@bigslimvdub. That is a better update than your last state of Aeon. It is also very good to see that you understand the issue and that you have responded well.
Also, Asic resistance is not unsuccesful only to cryptonote coins, but to all cryptocoins.
|
|
|
|
|
@tromp. I reckon they need some feeding or no one would be bumping this thread and increase this project's visibility hehehe. Trolls also give us the opportunity to defend and show everyone what is good about the project.
@Privcy Foundation. Here trolly trolly trolly.
|
|
|
|
Stop grinning, is this really the low? or are you all being fooled?
Maybe. # The cause of a good amount of the dumping is from the miners themselves because it would be safer for them to sell and hold every grin they mine in bitcoin, also because bitcoin holds value much better than grin does.
But isn't that the case for all newborn minable coins? Numbers are nice.  # Grined. Agreed that it might be the case for new minable coins, however, it might take a longer time for grin to become the miners' first choice as a store of value because it is inflationary and also because bitcoin will always store value better than grin until grin has higher demand and a 1% inflation rate. |
|
|
|
Don't want to pour water on anyone but would that still hold true if we used any of the days to calculate? Purely out of curiosity, but I was almost certain w had a week of losses before the 5k spike. Is this also the time to begin listening to Tom Lee's advice again and start looking for a bitcoin bear to make fun hehehe?
I reckon most of us only begin listening when everyone is dumping which ends in losses.
When did we ever start listening to Tom Lee? Someone forgot to tell me, I'm still on the McAfee bandwidth. Was thinking to switch allegiance to Changpeng for a while until he started with that FOMO comment. Pompliano's already taken out the champagne it seems, if his busy Twitter's anything to go by. Why I even know this isn't sad, right? I am certain once upon a time some of us did. I remember posting some Tom Lee bullish articles and ridiculing them on January to March 2018. I got some negative replies from some people. They must be the Tom Lee followers hehehe. |
|
|
|
It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.
lower fees doesn't equate to equal security. if people want to opt for shitcoin security then they'll keep getting 51% attacked as we often see today. bitcoin's level of reliability is unparalleled and i think history shows there is a steady and growing demand for it, even within a sea of altcoins that are cheaper to use. I reckon you should read my thread and try to understand the issue. This is not about the low fees. It is about the opposite. If fees are very high, there might be less people using bitcoin. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5101017.msg49375019#msg49375019"lower fees" refers to "lower fees to use altcoins". that's precisely what you're discussing, is it not? your argument is that high fees will deter usage of bitcoin (in favor of altcoins). i think all evidence so far---such as the positive correlation between price and fees---disagrees with you. i also think your argument doesn't account for the fact that no altcoin can measure up to bitcoin's security and reliability. that's what people are willing to pay much higher fees for. i read your thread and responded there ages ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5101017.msg49493642#msg49493642It disagrees with me right now, yes, however if all the coins have been mined, I reckon it would be time to revisit this issue. Also, I am not questioning bitcoin's reliability. I am discussing bitcoin's monetary policy and how it can sustain its security from fees alone. @BitHodler. I reckon the Lightning Network would be similar to altcoins competing versus bitcoin for transactions. In any case, I would like everyone to read grin's monetary policy. https://github.com/mimblewimble/docs/wiki/Monetary-Policy |
|
|
|
|
Is this also the time to begin listening to Tom Lee's advice again and start looking for a bitcoin bear to make fun hehehe?
I reckon most of us only begin listening when everyone is dumping which ends in losses.
|
|
|
|
|
@LTU_b, @slocker. I would then speculate that Sebastian might make the transfer to Mercedes. However, with the new engine specifications beginning on 2021, he might be driving for only the 2nd fastest car again hehehehe.
|
|
|
|
Is the basic research knowing that the miners will be paid 100% in transaction fees when all the coins eventually are mined? Some argue that it is sustainable because miners can choose which transactions they want to include in the block.
It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.
Bitcoin also have a second layer solution that competes with other Alt coins with lower fees and it is called the Lightning Network.  Bitcoin developers are not sitting on their hands, waiting for other Alt coins to take it's crown, they are constantly adding new features to compete with these coins. Bitcoin miners have two options to generate a income now, 1. Mining for the Block rewards and also transaction fees, 2. Hosting a LN node and gaining some small income from that too.  However the Lightning Network also competes versus the miners for fees. It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.
lower fees doesn't equate to equal security. if people want to opt for shitcoin security then they'll keep getting 51% attacked as we often see today. bitcoin's level of reliability is unparalleled and i think history shows there is a steady and growing demand for it, even within a sea of altcoins that are cheaper to use. I reckon you should read my thread and try to understand the issue. This is not about the low fees. It is about the opposite. If fees are very high, there might be less people using bitcoin. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5101017.msg49375019#msg49375019@Betwrong. In your fictional example no one wants to hold the other coin. That is not what occurs in our world, however. In any case, part of why I am asking and arguing is because of grin's monetary policy. Tail emission may be required for long term stability
Currencies with set supply are extremely experimental. Miners likely need incentives to secure the chain beyond only fees. Note: currency deflation is historically not a good thing.
Sound money has more to do with transparent emission than a capped supply
One of the pitfalls of monetary inflation in fiat currencies is governments can inflate the monetary supply on a whim. This has been used to disastrous effect throughout history. A non-sovereign, open source, consensus based currency solves this issue by making the emission policy well known ahead of time, and makes it difficult if not impossible to change. Based on this definition of soundness, Grin is just as much "sound money" as Bitcoin. Removing central authorities with arbitrary control is much more what makes Bitcoin important than the arbitrary amount of its capped supply.
Nick Szabo commented on Bitcoin's fixed supply that "a wide variety of supply algos would have worked, as long as they are predictable. […] Security/trust min[imization] is responsible for more of the value".https://github.com/mimblewimble/docs/wiki/Monetary-Policy |
|
|
|
|
Also, grin's monetary policy is something worth anticipating in 10 years from a cryptoeconomics perspective. It might have the answers if bitcoin begins to have problems on the sustainability of its security from mining fees alone.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
