I bought some at that dump. Today all my buy-orders got filled.
One at 265, one at 250 and the third at 230. Now I put some additional buys. I do not care if they do not get filled.

As soon as Monero becomes mainstream, it is easy to sell those coins to stronger hands.

I am sorry for the seller who sold me.  His hands were simply too shaky.

The good thing about monero is that there are real world projects going on (gaming industry).

I agree with the criticism that Monero needs adoption outside the crypto-community.
To be honest, I believe more in wider Monero adoption than wider bitcoin adoption. Bitcoin is like a tyronosaoros Rex which have died.

When Monero is more mainstream I am expecting mass exodus from Bitcoin-community towards Monero. However then it might be too late already. 

To become mainstream, the coin doesn't need to be technically the best possible but only satisfying.

However in my honest opinion we are talking way too little about the inflation aspect. There might arise a huge arguments of community premine if the coin is almost mined when the wider population will enter into the community. Obviously we do not need the current inflation rate for now, but I could see for example the rest of Monero mintage divided more evenly over the coming 100 years. This will guarantee there is not significiant mining done even after tens of years.
By this we can make Monero The Crypto coin since there will be more life expectancy.

Most people among my connections are crypto-virgins and as I have been talking them about bitcoin, they answear me in two ways: 1) It is a bubble, I wish I knew it when it costed like sub 10 usd 2) Bitcoin - so what (meaning: it doesn't bring anything new into my life, I have credit card which works fine and I have a bank account which also works fine)?

In my opinion, bitcoin is facing now huge challenges, it actually doesn't bring anything new for average Joe since via Credit cards you can do all the things you are doing via bitcoin. Personally the only thing which attracts me to bitcoin is the price increases - there is not enough essence in "innovation".
People who adopt bitcoin are doing it mostly due political reasons (they are liberals). Now as all the liberals have adopted bitcoin, how should it change its ideology to attract the masses who are not liberals.
What I am trying to say is that bitcoin adoption is based too much on political ideology instead of tech innovation (which it doesn't obviously have radically enough).

Monero is a right step forward. There are people who simply want to be background with their money and they want to hide their wealth.
Bitcoins can be confiscated but it is much harder to confiscate Moneros due to anonymity feature.

Personally I am against criminals and non-kosher money.
Therefore I am not willing to help in this.
I do not want to participate in sin.

When I said Monero needs SR type of businesses I didn't mean non-kosher money but businesses that have low running costs and are therefore able to become a bagholder - just like SR. I did not refer to dirty money here but clean money with businesses that are able to store coins without pouring them out into exchanges for fiat.
Risto's Crypto Kingdomn is this type of business - or Monero-auction house (where you need to pay your fees in form of xmr). I have plenty of this type of ideas but I do not have capability to start running them mainly because of lack of it-skills.

I fully support HYP.

+1

I am definetely pro-tipping.
But also Monero in order to create demand needs a new class of bagholders and this is easy to do via merchants selling non-tangible things like e-books, online-games, services etc. which have very small fiat-denominated running costs. Cost efficiency enables bagholding.
After all, the bagholding is the very bagbone of each currency.

From the perspective of development, we need more use for XMR.
Therefore I am hopeful for Risto's Crypto Kingndom project.

Bitcoin used to have Silk Road which brought constant demand for bitcoins, we need similar things for Monero. I think non-kosher money is not the way we should engage actively but this type of projects like Risto's one.
Those projects, when successfully monetized, will bring large amounts of money (I am talking here about not millions but tens of millions, even hundreds of millions usd). If the game is done optimally and it is marketed the best possible ways. it might be a huge success and bring tons of non-crypto people to Monero-community.

I am not capable to do coding and I do not have financial resources to do big projects like this but those who wish I hope they will do them. If you can code, then do.

Also, what I would like to see is a Monero-dedicated auction site (like ebay but in Moneros), then perhaps e-book library which forces one to buy moneros first in order to borrow e-books etc.
This type of services are the ones that will hoover the excessive Moneros from the Poloniex - now there is a flood of Moneros. Slightly below 20 000 Moneros are daily mined currently and I am sure some miners would like to do something with their moneros instead of directly dumping them into Poloniex.  

Of course I am assuming here the Monero services are not direct dumpers (like the major btc-merchants are just another way to dump the coins into the fiat-btc-markets).

In just a few years the block reward is merely <1 XMR/block.

As I said before, touching the total number of coins is touching in the fundamentals but touching in the emission curve is a fixing the problem of almost instamine.

For case number 2 there is a bitcoinlike solution: the whales and early guys sells to noobs.
The heart of the problem is that Monero becomes fully mined way too fast at current block reward.

The problem with changing the total coin supply is touching in the fundamentals of the coin and therefore much scarier idea than just slowing the emission rate down.
In other words, changing emission rate is like a fixing a bug (bug= too fast emission which can be seen there is no buyers for the daily mined coins and therefore a lot of emission and thus future network security power is wasted).

Touching the number of coins is inflationary and touching the emission curve is simply fixing the problem that we have (community pre-mine).

I think the main argument on changing the emission is the coin will die in a few years when it is almost mined into dryness.
Sure I can take the current inflation and buy little by little more but then there is an issue of community premine, too.
It is fairer for the next adoptors to get some inflation, too. They most likely do not want to be the reason for price increase.

Touching the total coin supply is too horryfying idea even to consider.

You guys want me to remove the manipulative wall?  

Yup.
Monero community consists currently closer to 10 000 members rather than a few dozens.
There are tons of members who are outside bitcointalk. 

Yup. I am out of the stupid argument about pure economics and semantics.
My conclusion for this large OT-branch here is that why not put Monero into the bullish trend by adjusting the supply to the demand. If there is no demand for all the supplied coins (ie price goes down), there is no reason to supply too many coins. Those coins can be "saved" to later days when there is more demand.
Also, if it is made sure the supply is slightly below the demand, it makes the marketcap rising (some may want to dump but this need to be considered when re-evaluating the coin mintage).

For the adoption, it is better to make it constantly rising (it can be made only by adjusting the supply vs demand framework).

You are not making any point but only yelling like the worst internet troll. 

Is the whole argument here merely on the definition of words?

Are you satisfied if I replace the word inflation by "increase of CPI"? It is longer way to write it so I prefer using term inflation (=inflating prices).
Sounds like the problem here is semantical.

ECB is printing money indeed but as I told you, it doesn't help real economy since the money is not channeled to real economy but to securities. I feel myself very retarded when I have to repeat myself.

Indeed I prefer lower volatility to higher volatility. Generally high volatility asset cannot efficiently serve as money - currency perhaps but not money.
No rich person will invest significiant amount of money in currency that can tomorrow become worthless or 10 times more valuable. Those who invest in such instruments are called gamblers. They could as well to Las Vegas playing their money in roulette.
I am not one of those.


The devs can do things that will increase the marketcap of Monero. If they are unwilling to increase it by lowering the blockreward enough for more scarce coin, I am neither not that willing to donate. I donate based on results, not promises.

In Europe the inflation is much less than 2 % (I think even below 1 % currently).
The problem is that despite Central Banks are trying push the money into the economy, it doesn't go all the way through but rather to assets and securities (stock markets keep rising and many companies are breaking their ATHs only because investors have cheap money but no places to invest it).
In Finland the car dealerships are offering 0 % loans and still complaining that there is not (enough) sales.
The Central Bank has lowered the deposit rate below 0 but still banks are not so much lending money as they should.

The difference between free markets and Keynesian approach is that Keynesians do not prefer so much volatility (the governement should increase their spending when business cycle is at low point). Keynesians do not suggest to waste money (this is a misunderstanding) but exploiting the opportunity to get cheap labor for building roads, hospitals, schools etc which are necessary. It is good for the labor force - they get job in down cycle from the governement and when the cycle turns, they get similar jobs from the private sector.
Wasting resources is something that Keynesians have to be avoided.

Yup. The problem of free markets is that it is not a perfect like Chicago school suggests.
The free rider problem is something that the free markets cannot fix.
In this specific case, however, Monero's main problem is its low marketcap and thus the hardness to get some serious dollars out of the community for development.
Personally I am ready to donate as soon as my monero wealth grows in a significiant level in value (I want higher purchasing power for my moneros so that smaller donation will count more).

But, the problem of free rider is just one critisism of free markets.
I am not purely Keynesian or purely Chicago school because both have their problems.

I haven't in this recent dump, but if it gets too low I might be forced to despite I have not that much desire to accumulate too large bag. I prefer others also buying, not me alone. 
But you are right, recently I haven't been buying, I am neutral in my own position (no sell no buy).

I am majoring in economics at university of Helsinki in the faculty of Social Sciences (valtiotieteellinen tiedekunta). It is quite hard to get in there.   I think fiat money system's advantages surpasses its disadvantages as long as the inflation is in control. Debt based system is not good one but fiat system is since it forces people buying right now instead of waiting eternally. Those who want to save money can do it in gold or silver, fiat money is not the right tool for it at least for more than a few years generally. Economy needs small inflation in order to function. On the other hand, if the inflation is too high it is also problematic. ECB targets 2 % inflation which is optimal in my opinion (not too high but not too low neither).
It is well-known fact that crypto is a pyramid but to say it is ponzi is not legit IMO.

All I said, the price of xmr should go up which encourages people buying the coin and thus increases the marketcap.
If the price is in bearish trend, it is rational to postpone the buys and if the price is going up it is rational to buy immediately.
The challenge is to find the exact rate of emission which goes along with the pace of adoption. Ideally the emission should be a little lower than the adotion rate since some long term bagholders might want to sell and it shouldn't cause volatility too much ideally so there should be constant shortage of the coins in the market in order to keep the marketcap rising.

Also, there is no incentive to dump coins if the coin price is rising steadily because of the opportunity cost of loosing some of the gains.