|
the point is that you guys completely overestimate prices.
my project of reference in this wild wild west is counterparty - they also started with a very high price ~0.012 for a few weeks back in february and dropped over the course of time to around 0.0023 at the lowest point, now they are back at the prices at a more substantial level.
I see that it is little bit different here because of the level of inflation but if everything is done properly this project will fly, even with its current emission rate.
|
|
|
|
monero can by definition never be a premine.
it was here at day one with block one.
it was overly visible - we have at least 15 threads here, it is in the top 15 of coinmarketcap etc. pp.
bytecoin was a premine because it was not announced - they came here with 82% of mined coins.
even the always yesterdays at r/bitcoin were discussing monero as an implentation of sidechains....
But tell me, if Monero ever goes to mainstream, what will be the difference: Monero is not a premined but still like 80-90 % mined vs. Monero being 80-90 % mined due to premine? Who wants to buy a coin that is almost mined? Even bitcoin has problems to find new buyers and therefore the price is declining month after month. you don't buy a coin - you exchange one currency against another look the assumption regarding bitcoin as well as hopefully monero in the future is that these currencies fill a niche - so you are basically not exchanging for future appreciation but for the function it fills at that current point of time. |
|
|
|
|
monero can by definition never be a premine.
it was here at day one with block one.
it was overly visible - we have at least 15 threads here, it is in the top 15 of coinmarketcap etc. pp.
bytecoin was a premine because it was not announced - they came here with 82% of mined coins.
even the always yesterdays at r/bitcoin were discussing monero as an implentation of sidechains....
|
|
|
|
After I got involved in bitcoin, end of 2012, I've been spending significant time and efforts to vulgarize bitcoin (and cryptos at large) publicly. Most of the time with just enthousiasts, but also with media (including radio & tv & newspapers) and more recently with the (mostly financial) industry.
Being truly passionate, when I say "vulgarize" it implies in fact a kind of honest evangelism. I don't want to only inform those that are curious, I am humbly doing what I can for this idea to spread.
I can tell by experience this task would be way more difficult, some time painful to do, putting myself in potentially high discomfort during interviews, if bitcoin had gone trough what some of you want to do with monero emission schedule.
I completely agree. regarding cutting emission - you guys realize that the failure of declining prices is not done by the emission but by the probably to high expectations of the buyers at certain points of time in the past. we simply did wrong in pricing monero properly. if we cut now - how do we know that we cut properly? I am probably one of the least evangelizing persons of free markets in this forum - but here please let the market do the price finding, not some greedy investors who try to correct their personal failures |
|
|
|
|
do I get it right that they are in control of the coins from v1 aka xmr etc. and they cannot handle them because they do not have the possibility to allocate because these retards do not handle them the documents?
seriously this guy is beyond retarded - may he live forever
|
|
|
|
I assume that 95-99% of this forum would not have heard of bitcoin if the emission would have been infinite from the beginning. satoshis incentive design for bitcoin is from an economics perspective the schumpeterian wet dream for raising awareness for an invention.
For all I know, computer types were first attracted to bitcoin for the pleasure of helping to test a smart solution to an old technical problem. Then libertarians got interested because they saw in bitcoin a way to build an economy independent of government and banks. Then drug users and sellers adopted it as a way to pay for drugs without the DEA knowledge (so they thought). At some point, others noticed the value going up like crazy, and bought into it as a get-filthy-rich-quick scheme. I suspect that a majority of the people in this forum are from the latter group. The finite supply of bitcoins is important only for that group, because it is part of the argument that "proves" that the price will be astronomical one day. But it is not essential, even to them; that argument would have been only a little less convincing if the supply was programmed to increase 5%/year, forever. So much so, that they are not bothered by the current 5-10% inflation rate. you completely underestimate the power of market capitalization - even the get rich quick guys do their job. a higher market capitalization leads to higher level of investment around the technology, it leads to a better usability of the tokens aka "currency" - schumpeter once called a piece of gods work that money always moves to a place where it leads to the highest benefits (we can argue about that - but regarding technology and invention this probably true). the point is that the market capitalization does its job - bitcoin is a value network with the function to transfer money. the first does its job in creating the latter. even your investment in spam avoidance aka ripples would not be existent without this effects, this would probably be better for your personal wealth - but at least you are financing the development of quite a sound network aka ripple  |
|
|
|
|
what do you guys think of changetip?
I think we probably now have THE first power app - look at reddit etc. and imagine what is happening when we start spreading love on facebook etc.
|
|
|
|
THIS is what Bitcoin is. The ability of Random Matrix Math to solve the human greed factor. The flaw is not the money. It's US.
People often suggest there is a greater "Math" behind why bitcoin is limited in supply. Basically it is a few lines of code in the protocol an the fact that the majority of miners and users follow that protocol. It is horribly trivial to change the supply of bitcoin to an arbitrary amount if there was enough backing by the community for it. Saying it is impossible to change is having a fundamental misunderstanding of how or why bitcoin works What you say may be true. But bitcoin's value proposition lies in those few lines of code. And that is why they will never be changed. Bitcoin was meant to be an e-payment method (decentralized, trutless, etc.). A fixed bitcoin supply is not necessary for that goal. Indeed, bitcoin is being used in that role, in spite of still having 10%/year inflation (and even higher in the past). And dollars and euros work fine as payment methods, in spite of their "horrendous" 1-2%/year inflation rate. Thus, the argument that "raising the emission limit would destroy the value of bitcoin" does not sound convincing. Hoarders would be very unhappy, of course. Miners, however, may someday find it advantageous, especially by the time they are expected do depend on transaction fees instead of block rewards. Block reward is steady and predictable, whereas fees depend on transaction volume -- which will probably shrink substantially if fees became mandatory. People who use bitcoin for payments may not care, or may prefer block rewards because they provides "free" transactions. It has been argued that, if some miners tried to change the protocol, the rest of the network would stick to the old one. However, this correction mechanism has never been tested, and it seems difficult to predict what would happen, in all possible scenarios. (After all, it was "proved", with the same certainty, that altcoins would die as soon as they were born.) What if those "some miners" had 70% of the hash rate? What if a large subset of the users became convinced that the change was necessary for the health of the network, or got some immediate benefit from it (such as no-fee transactions)? What if payment processors and merchants accepted only the "new" bitcoin? (By the way, some bitcoiners seem to be trying to convince people to adopt bitcoin by telling them that money sucks. I sense a problem with that marketing strategy: it seems that many people have used money sometime in their lives, and may even have enjoyed the experience -- unlikely as that may sound. ) you are a well respected academic in your field of study - but please do this place a favour and step a little bit back when you are speaking about fields of study which are not your profession. your understanding of economics is at best narrow minded and at worst simply wrong. this is partially true for this comment as well. I assume that 95-99% of this forum would not have heard of bitcoin if the emission would have been infinite from the beginning. satoshis incentive design for bitcoin is from an economics perspective the schumpeterian wet dream for raising awareness for an invention. |
|
|
|
Just check the top 100 chart, big guys are constantly increase their holding, regardless of price
That's not a good thing if it's true.  explain Do you want greater distribution of btc, or less people holding more coins? A few people already own most of the btc, so if his claim is true, the distribution of btc is getting more lopsided than it already is. I want less. If the majority of the coins are locked away in someones digital vault then the price will be higher than if everyone had a more or less even share. There will never be a communistic distribution of money in a free market. Someone will always have more, be better than others at making money. And that's how it should be. All according to plan most likely. Greater distribution of btc to a bigger userbase is what I was referring to. Something that is mostly locked away in a few people's vaults is not money. Money is used to exchange goods and services. BTC is not money. I'd describe it as money-like virtual commodity. small investors buy coins when the price is rising, big investors buy them when the price is falling. this huge downswing is nothing but a sheep-raping for 10 months - the distribution is worser than before. but that is not a problem of bitcoin, it is an inherent quality of capitalism. I do not like it but I can live with it |
|
|
|
The weaknesses of this approach are obviously its simplifications - how do we measure utility of privacy etc. pp, but as an illustration, I guess it is sound
And much appreciated. Thank you. It will serve as a stimulus for further work in this vein. what is an interesting question is the quality of agent 1 or user 1 - I think some guys already tried that. xmr is from what I have seen here the most supported altcoin by realtively early bitcoin investors. I think it is safe to say that an agent being in crypto since 2010 or 2011 is worth more than a newbie who joined 2013 or 2014. Maybe power law in this case is a good indicator. |
|
|
|
What was the ath, anybody remember¿
I think it peaked at ~0.024 when it was first traded. yep and it was around the range traded now for maybe a week or so. but what needs to be said here is that a) the market segment was maybe by a maginitude more bullish and b) most people were not able to move their coins to an exchange at that time because it was as complicated as building a rocket  |
|
|
|
I think the problem is the accumulators of the coin feel much poorer with btc at 330 vs 450. My guess is that many of them are moving significant sums into fiat out of fear.
The general consensus seems to me people are thinking btc is going to the 200 range & maybe lower. If that's the case it doesn't make sense to invest. I expected rptellia to go backwards on putting a 100btc buywall.
its still very noteworthy and to me strange that XMR is getting so less support, so many very, very bad coins and crypto-related projects or out right scams got overfunded (with xx000 BTC) XMR on the other side, has real strong fundamentals and solid potential and is getting no support, mad world IHMO why do you think it gets no support? it is still around ~12th place on coinmarketcap. and you can even assume that a distribution which is fair is leading to higher pressure on the sell side in a downswing. the inflation is sick high and the visible part of the development is slow I still say it is the project with the highest expected value long term. |
|
|
|
maybe too early to say - but I think no it is not a serious competitor |
|
|
|
i agree, we need marketing soon. but slides and everything needed can already be produced now i too feel this will be really huge. the tech is superior, dev team is honest, community is grown up and coin is fair. I think that we have to do 3 things first + GUI: better usability shows that XMR tech is mature and easy for mass market (== user adoption == liquidity) + Database: amount of memory required for XMR wallet is not trivial any more + Multi-signature: some deep web merchants may need it to protect their buyers Amen to that. The first point is actually an important one. it is crucial - crosspost from xmr economics technology choice gameI want to share a different approach from the more or less empirical driven approach by risto why monero could be the special one. It is more in the tradition of evolutionary economics and game theory. I think it is quite a helpful approach to make sense of these uncertain markets and should be easy to understand even without an education as economist - I taught it to m.a. students which did not have a background in economics. probably even a guidance regarding development can be derived by it. we need a few assumptions: 1.) the success of cryptoprotocols especially currencies is driven by network effects 2.) there is a niche for a decentralized private ledger and this niche cannot be filled by bitcoin (otherwise we could stop here) 3.) there is a competitors on the market, existent, or coming in the future 4.) the utility of a network grows with the number of participants  5.) we have two competing technologies, in this case monero and zerocash and three different agents 6.) we assume that zerocash is even superior to monero (zerocash is a placeholder for all coming superior private decentralized ledger) 7.) we assume that two agents coordinated on the inferior technology (in this case monero) get the same utility as the one coordinated on the superior technology, whereas three agents coordinated on the inferior technology get as much as two on the superior technology  8.) T1 = Zerocash > T2= Monero 9.) utility: numerical example 1T1=2, 2T1=3 3T1=4; 1T2=1 2T2=2 3T2=3 10.) 3T1 with the utility of 4,4,4 is obviously a nash-equilibrium, what is more important is that 3T2 with 3,3,3 is a nash-equilibrium as well, in this case the utility of the network outweights the superiority of the technology What is important to understand is that we should make very sure that we get the second agent, if we reached this stadium and the rest is relatively sound the war is won. The guidance is obviously that we need a gui to include more people of the agent 2 case. At this point there is no serious competitor, but this will probably change in the future. We do not need to be feared as long as we manage to get agent 2. This illustration also shows why bitcoiners do not need to be feared of any altcoins - the war over the transparent ledger is won. The weaknesses of this approach are obviously its simplifications - how do we measure utility of privacy etc. pp, but as an illustration, I guess it is sound |
|
|
|
|
what is the best way to buy bitcoins now?
an unregulated exchange somewhere in slovenia
localbitcoins with a sick mark-up (good luck buying more than 100 there)
how fucking bearish is this market? an etf opens the door for users who do not trust the two above for investing in bitcoin
we are all internet kiddies and used to these complexities around buying which we are facing nowadays - but most people aren't.
the argument that they use their bitcoins available for dumping is beyond retarded - they are worth maybe around 30 million at this point of time. a small fund from my local bank targeting inflation is worth that.
|
|
|
|
|
regarding regulatory framework:
besides xcp and bitcoin, what is issued on the counterparty protocol are IOUs - counterparty manages to minimize the clearinghouse risk, but you still need to trust the issuer of the IOU - this cries out for a mechanism to minimize the risk.
regulating the issuer is a useful step. when the direction of counterparty was not that clear back in march, someone proposed a decentralized rating agency to manage the risk explained above. I think if the regulation gets somewhat useful this project will be valueable in a way we cannot even imagine at this point of time.
|
|
|
|
technology choice gameI want to share a different approach from the more or less empirical driven approach by risto why monero could be the special one. It is more in the tradition of evolutionary economics and game theory. I think it is quite a helpful approach to make sense of these uncertain markets and should be easy to understand even without an education as economist - I taught it to m.a. students which did not have a background in economics. probably even a guidance regarding development can be derived by it. we need a few assumptions: 1.) the success of cryptoprotocols especially currencies is driven by network effects 2.) there is a niche for a decentralized private ledger and this niche cannot be filled by bitcoin (otherwise we could stop here) 3.) there is a competitors on the market, existent, or coming in the future 4.) the utility of a network grows with the number of participants 5.) we have two competing technologies, in this case monero and zerocash and three different agents 6.) we assume that zerocash is even superior to monero (zerocash is a placeholder for all coming superior private decentralized ledger) 7.) we assume that two agents coordinated on the inferior technology (in this case monero) get the same utility as the one coordinated on the superior technology, whereas three agents coordinated on the inferior technology get as much as two on the superior technology 8.) T1 = Zerocash > T2= Monero 9.) utility: numerical example 1T1=2, 2T1=3 3T1=4; 1T2=1 2T2=2 3T2=3 10.) 3T1 with the utility of 4,4,4 is obviously a nash-equilibrium, what is more important is that 3T2 with 3,3,3 is a nash-equilibrium as well, in this case the utility of the network outweights the superiority of the technology What is important to understand is that we should make very sure that we get the second agent, if we reached this stadium and the rest is relatively sound the war is won. The guidance is obviously that we need a gui to include more people of the agent 2 case. At this point there is no serious competitor, but this will probably change in the future. We do not need to be feared as long as we manage to get agent 2. This illustration also shows why bitcoiners do not need to be feared of any altcoins - the war over the transparent ledger is won. The weaknesses of this approach are obviously its simplifications - how do we measure utility of privacy etc. pp, but as an illustration, I guess it is sound
|
|
|
|
Patrick Byrne - Overstock.com Inc. - CEO
I was here on page 2 of the announcement thread back in january, when come-from-beyond linked it from the nxt thread. I just understood the basic idea of xnova and phantom and decided to burn a few btc. What was much clearer even back then for me was that these guys really had an idea what they were talking about and the intellectual capabilities to achieve this without living in utopia. the discussion about the purpose of the blockchain with luke-jr in this thread and especially one post of xnova was so remarkable that I decided to share it with friends. Less than 10 months (!!!) later a-half-a-billion nasdaq companies ceo praises this protocol. I basically have three major positions in these crypto-protocols, the other two besides counterparty are driven by deduction, which is in my opinion the best way to handle these uncertain markets. the decision for counterparty is more driven by trust than deduction. I do not want to sound overly enthusiastic and I still have open questions, but if one team is capable of reaching this almost utopian status of disrupting the most powerful market in the world, it will probably be these guys. |
|
|
|
|
if it networks a price of around 5-20 xmr per btc is reasonable.
we all do not know what the future brings in dollar terms - what we probably know is that there is a) a niche for this coin and b) there is no real competitor at this point of time. I personally think that a) does not change regarding b) I asumme it will be a fight of two networks, monero has a first mover advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
