Quote and my response from the speculation thread, where it was off-topic (thanks smooth for the heads-up) In my opinion the emission schedule should be decreased by 50 %.
For example, the current block reward is around 14 xmr - better to change it to 7 xmr.
It will help the dumping pressure and gives nice and steady growth for the coin.
The existing balances and total number of coins should not be touched but just give 100 % more time for the rest of emission.
Some would call it a community-fastmine. Not like I'm saying it's fundamentally bad, but it doesn't look clean. If something like that were to be done, and I'm not saying it is even on the table, it would have to be for better reasons, like the long term viability of the coin. Every time the issue has come up, though, it is always presented as a way to manipulate the market. That is a total non-starter. We could convert to a PoS shitcoin if we wanted, and not have to deal with any dumping at all. There is zero interest in doing that. Move on to one of the 1000+ of those if you want to be free from dumping. Alright, I'd like to chip in on that. Preliminary remark: Please assume good faith in what is about to follow. You can sometimes react a bit too abrasively - understandable given the constant attacks against this project, but not necessarily always a justified reaction to what you respond to. a) There are good reasons for thinking that a different emission would be desirable, put forward by members of this community that are not interested in a quick p&d, but instead have a long-term interest in this project. Note: I am not saying they are necessarily better than the arguments of the opposing side, but they are not all to be dismissed as "pump and dumpers GTFO". b) No one in his right mind is suggesting a quick curve change to prevent price from dropping. This is not supposed to be a quick fix to a temporary problem (like a flash crash), if it were to considered. It is a complex question that has to be seriously discussed before considering implementing it. c) The April vote made it clear that there would be a very real problem with a 'smooth' curve switch, in the sense that it would require somehow giving back coins that were mined "ahead" of the new curve. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that's not really a realistic option anymore. d) Which would mean a change in the emission curve would be discontinuous, should it come to that. Which, correctly mentioned here already, would possibly open up the door to "community fast-mine" accusations coming from outside (and maybe even inside, by community members that came here later). I am not convinced if that is the end of it, though: I still think that, should the community / economic majority favor a change in emission, referring back to that community choice would leave those accusation mostly impotent, but I understand that there are now two open questions: - do we want a change in emission? (if so, what are the pros/cons?) - can we afford a change in emssion? (as in: will the negative reactions be prohibitively expensive). |
|
|
|
Got no problem with an optional payout (and even setting it to non-zero as default in the official client).
The proposal I reacted to made no mention of it being a setting, i.e. optional, however.
Ah ok, so just to make sure everyone's on the same page, this is the screenshot from the Missive:  The idea was to make it "ticked" by default, and it's a per-wallet setting, but if people want to disable it or increase/decrease the percentage they can at any time. Before the GUI is even released, though, we wanted to add this in to simplewallet / rpcwallet - again, prompted during wallet creation, and configurable at any time. Now I know this seems like a small amount, and it won't do much difference, and you're right. This is not going to satisfy the immediate and large funding requirements. Which is why this is more of a longer-term thing to make sure we always have budget for ongoing efforts / maintenance. It does not preclude fundraising for specific features / tasks. Has my support, as long as it will always remain optional. Leaving it as 'opt-out' is also fine with me, we're adults who should be able to read/decide  |
|
|
|
I totally and completely reject the "cut emissions because we want less dumping" suggestion though. That is not a valid or useful reason to renegotiate a social contract.
Let's wrap this up though, unless someone can tie it directly in with speculation. Any further discussion should be on the main thread.
Wrote a post on this topic, but moved it to the main thread, good point, smooth. please see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg8874136#msg8874136 |
|
|
|
Oil is range locked imho, moves in 80-120 range.
So how paypal fundamentals going?)
We have a daily close below bb, with a target below weekly lower bb. Falling knife mode on.
Thanks. Still remember with happiness your July 2013 post, something like "guys, buy at $60, this is probably it" (not exactly your words). Will be waiting for a similar post when we reach the bottom of this one  EDIT: just to be clear guys: I don't expect a $60 retest. I expect that there will be a bottom below where we currently are, but almost certainly above $60 |
|
|
|
plus 1 for classical fundraising, minus... a lot for a forkraiser. As if we don't have enough detractors, just imagine what will happen if we build a payout into the protocol.
Who exactly is detracting BBR for it? I think we will have detractors for being (slightly) successful no matter what we do. I don't think the mining fundraiser is necessarily a bad idea nor would have any material change on the degree of hate directed against us. Got no problem with an optional payout (and even setting it to non-zero as default in the official client). The proposal I reacted to made no mention of it being a setting, i.e. optional, however. |
|
|
|
If a long wait is required, then it's not a tradable signal.
That's not what he meant with 'confirmation'. It's not a binary indicator like some average crossover, where 'lag' means 'less profit'. From what I understand, you would trade the smaller segments (waves? pardon my non-EW terminology) in between, while waiting for the larger ones to confirm (or not) the larger direction. So the confirmation time on the larger wave wouldn't (necessarily) affect the profitability of your trades in general. |
|
|
|
Anyone knows loaded's stance on bitcoin these days?
I know he had a shit load of coins, probably around 80k
Must feel pretty shitty to lose all that money when price is going down lol. unless he sold
I think he was caught up in the Gox implosion and hasn't been very talkative since. To quote the man himself: It was not sizable enough to warrant a flight to Japan. However, it is sizable enough to ruin my weekend.
|
|
|
|
This is so fucked up.. makes zero fucking sense anyone thinks there's a chance for sub 300?? I don't know if I will sell my whole fucking stash or leverage HARD if we would sub 300  How much are down from your original investment, in %, if I may ask? It looks to me like you're over-invested, and the best thing to do in all likelihood would be to reduce your position - not now maybe, but on the next larger rebound - to a size that makes you look at the market with less apprehension. I know it sounds somewhat counter-intuitive, but any chance you could see yourself doing that? Well my life savings are down about 40% but I also invested all my money(about 25% of life savings) on an average of about $120 so technically i'm not losing any money yet but I really don't wanna sell the coins I invested in at $120(they are in cold storage in several different banks) so you could say i'm down 40% with alot of money My plan was to get my initial investments out when we would go for the next bubble ($4-5k) So you're still up around 20% in total currently. At $300 though, you would be down around 20% in total. I understand the reluctance to sell at less than what you had planned. Try not to panic sell, I'd say, and give it at least a thought to sell a part of your position when price seems to recover again, to reduce your exposure. Good luck In reality, Podyx should add up all his BTC and add up all that he invested into it,including administrative and transaction costs - and that will give him his average cost per BTC. Then when he compares that number to the current price then he will know the exact percentage that he is either up or down. It is a little more complicated if taking all the various investments that a person has and then to figure whether up or down, but at least he would be able to provide a more specific estimate for the state of his BTC holdings. And, having only $4-5k invested is NOT a great amount.. in my thinking (but that amount is all relative to a person's total wealth and other assets and income earning potential, I suppose) High school algebra? Maybe even late elementary school? HEY!!!! We seem to have something in common!!! I also have math and some basic algebra skills; however, I still had concluded that Podyx had NOT provided sufficient (and non-contradictory) facts in order to really figure out the specifics regarding the up or down status of his BTC portfolio. Maybe I just need to be lead more? "Well my life savings are down about 40% but I also invested all my money(about 25% of life savings)" => ratio of investments known, 1 to 0.25 "I also invested all my money(about 25% of life savings) on an average of about $120" => investment sits at 450/120 of original value. "Well my life savings are down about 40%" => bought (on average) at 450/0.6 = 750, so investment now at 450/750 ==> (450/750+0.25*450/120)/1.25 = 1.23, he's up ~23% currently on the total investment (according to the numbers he gave. no further claim to correctness beyond that.) |
|
|
|
This is so fucked up.. makes zero fucking sense anyone thinks there's a chance for sub 300?? I don't know if I will sell my whole fucking stash or leverage HARD if we would sub 300 How much are down from your original investment, in %, if I may ask? It looks to me like you're over-invested, and the best thing to do in all likelihood would be to reduce your position - not now maybe, but on the next larger rebound - to a size that makes you look at the market with less apprehension. I know it sounds somewhat counter-intuitive, but any chance you could see yourself doing that? Well my life savings are down about 40% but I also invested all my money(about 25% of life savings) on an average of about $120 so technically i'm not losing any money yet but I really don't wanna sell the coins I invested in at $120(they are in cold storage in several different banks) so you could say i'm down 40% with alot of money My plan was to get my initial investments out when we would go for the next bubble ($4-5k) So you're still up around 20% in total currently. At $300 though, you would be down around 20% in total. I understand the reluctance to sell at less than what you had planned. Try not to panic sell, I'd say, and give it at least a thought to sell a part of your position when price seems to recover again, to reduce your exposure. Good luck In reality, Podyx should add up all his BTC and add up all that he invested into it,including administrative and transaction costs - and that will give him his average cost per BTC. Then when he compares that number to the current price then he will know the exact percentage that he is either up or down. It is a little more complicated if taking all the various investments that a person has and then to figure whether up or down, but at least he would be able to provide a more specific estimate for the state of his BTC holdings. And, having only $4-5k invested is NOT a great amount.. in my thinking (but that amount is all relative to a person's total wealth and other assets and income earning potential, I suppose) High school algebra? Maybe even late elementary school? |
|
|
|
This is so fucked up..
makes zero fucking sense
anyone thinks there's a chance for sub 300??
I don't know if I will sell my whole fucking stash or leverage HARD if we would sub 300 ???
How much are down from your original investment, in %, if I may ask? It looks to me like you're over-invested, and the best thing to do in all likelihood would be to reduce your position - not now maybe, but on the next larger rebound - to a size that makes you look at the market with less apprehension. I know it sounds somewhat counter-intuitive, but any chance you could see yourself doing that? Well my life savings are down about 40% but I also invested all my money(about 25% of life savings) on an average of about $120 so technically i'm not losing any money yet but I really don't wanna sell the coins I invested in at $120(they are in cold storage in several different banks) so you could say i'm down 40% with alot of money My plan was to get my initial investments out when we would go for the next bubble ($4-5k) So you're still up around 20% in total currently. At $300 though, you would be down around 20% in total. I understand the reluctance to sell at less than what you had planned. Try not to panic sell, I'd say, and give it at least a thought to sell a part of your position when price seems to recover again, to reduce your exposure. Good luck :) |
|
|
|
This is so fucked up.. makes zero fucking sense anyone thinks there's a chance for sub 300?? I don't know if I will sell my whole fucking stash or leverage HARD if we would sub 300 How much are down from your original investment, in %, if I may ask? It looks to me like you're over-invested, and the best thing to do in all likelihood would be to reduce your position - not now maybe, but on the next larger rebound - to a size that makes you look at the market with less apprehension. I know it sounds somewhat counter-intuitive, but any chance you could see yourself doing that? |
|
|
|
the disadvantage is that monero could be accused of ninjamine/premine... The early adopters would have gotten twice the ammount from mining...
I see. And here I was worried it would be a bad idea for some mathematical reason ("No tx propagation! Without integration!" /chant). Don't really see the risk of ninjamine accusation as that likely tbh. After all, it would ideally be a community vote deciding on the change of emission, not a top down decision by the devs. |
|
|
|
Even the most dedicated (group) of buyers will need to spend some real effort to overcome that pull.
This basically ensures that no artificial pump on Monero will be profitable. If it pumps, the reason must be real outside investment entering in (current holders are already used to these prices and not likely to buy in higher - same as with BTC by the way). I believe the right course of action is to enable the said investment, by several ways, of which I am also involved in some. Not disagreeing here. I still would have preferred if the outcome of the April vote would have elected a curve closer to that of Bitcoin, but what we have is what we have. And one of the advantages is the one you bring up. Exactly. I also lament the outcome of the April vote, but I wasn't there to influence it  well, just consider the fact that some people already bought a few thousand XMR and that their balances would be halved with the changing of the emission scheme... So if you bought 18000 XMR (called BMR back then) because you wanted to own 1/1000th of the total supply, you would have 9000 XMR after the change, while the total supply remained 18 million. Not very fair, imho You're referring to the April proposal, where miners were supposed to "give back" a number of coins depending on which curve (other than the original) would have been chosen, right? I'm not completely sure why that would be the only option. Is it absolutely necessary to have a continuous function generating the coins over the entire lifetime of a currency? Would it break something I cannot think of right now making a clean break and saying: before coin N, emission was according to curve 1, after coin N, emission will follow curve 2? |
|
|
|
|
plus 1 for classical fundraising, minus... a lot for a forkraiser. As if we don't have enough detractors, just imagine what will happen if we build a payout into the protocol.
That said, I'm kinda out of the loop here: is there a Bitcoin accepting Kickstarter-like site in the wild?
What about the Mike Hearn 'alternative to the BTC foundation' project, that is supposed to combine community decision making with fundraising? Any ETA on that, and whether it'll be usable by alts?
|
|
|
|
Even the most dedicated (group) of buyers will need to spend some real effort to overcome that pull.
This basically ensures that no artificial pump on Monero will be profitable. If it pumps, the reason must be real outside investment entering in (current holders are already used to these prices and not likely to buy in higher - same as with BTC by the way). I believe the right course of action is to enable the said investment, by several ways, of which I am also involved in some. Not disagreeing here. I still would have preferred if the outcome of the April vote would have elected a curve closer to that of Bitcoin, but what we have is what we have. And one of the advantages is the one you bring up. |
|
|
|
I did notice adding up all the XMR donations in the thread rptellia created was quite a bit more than 25 BTC (more like 40?) so I guess you must've exchanged them at lower rates to pay for expenses?
Yes - rates are at-the-time that the expense needs to be paid, so obviously donations took a beating when the exchange rate was quite a bit lower. I think it would be a great PR move to somehow make how much "in the hole" the project is as far as what the devteam has spent on what more visible. I know it's a labor of love but in my opinion it should be fully funded. Maybe making it visible that the people doing the technical work are also pulling the financial load will help resolve that.
Or maybe not too. People are greedy to the point of hurting themselves.
It is kinda frustrating to see other projects raise hundreds and thousands of BTC based on a whim and a promise...but then again, it does change the dynamic as respects the integrity of the project. If we're perpetually in the negative there's nobody's money we can run away with:-PAmusing as that thought is, it's not a permanently viable solution. I will add my share to the fund in BTC (not exactly now, I'm a bit short for that), but I hope there are some plans to accompany meeting one of the larger goals (official GUI release, for example) with a more concerted fundraiser. Yes? |
|
|
|
Does that make some sense?
It does, and thanks you for that dedicated answer. I always enjoy your cautiousness. I have similar bearish sentiment except for the time-frame, 6 months seems too long in such an evolving market with all the institutional money allegedly about to enter the game (which has an impact no matter what). I expect price surges when the market decide to react to the news... or to the absence of reaction. It lags surely, but not for 6 months with such an already long correction behind us. Might take 2-3 months for a clear breakout, maybe faster if a capitulation occur when we retest the 442 resistance. I'd love to go further but I don't want to derail that thread too much. Either way even if XMR follows BTC it might be able to outperform it aka tank less if down/skyrocket more if up. I like that some people are buying large sum of XMR though they never touched Bitcoin. Agreed mostly on both points. The time frame is the vaguest part of my already vague post Rallies can pick up unbelievable speed in almost no time, I should be getting used to that by now. Agreed as well on the second point: vastly smaller market cap, liquidity and thinner order book means similar action can have greater impact on Monero. The emission curve puts a bit of a damper on that, though. Even the most dedicated (group) of buyers will need to spend some real effort to overcome that pull. |
|
|
|
if you're going to post that you're pessimistic about 6 months price of btc (without backing it up), then it should be your most likely scenario
Not really. The total weight of mostly bearish scenarios is probably higher at the moment in my mind than the bullish ones, for a 6 month time frame. Which doesn't necessarily imply that a single bearish one is the most likely. And even then, you'd be a fool to trade (solely) on such a vague prediction. I know I don't. But I guess the notion "everyone in here purely talks book" is so deeply entrenched, it's hard to get out of people's heads. |
|
|
|
Not to be a spoilsport, but I don't think Monero is in a position yet where it can completely decouple from the larger Bitcoin price trend (no alt can, except for intermediate fluctuation, imo). Which means constant, or only slightly decreasing XMR prices in the next 6 months might be conditional on BTC performance during that period, which I'm pretty pessimistic about.
I'm trying to find where you posted the analysis on which you base your current bearish sentiment, I usually enjoy looking at your interpretations. I agree about the correlation between BTC and XMR but why so pessimistic about the next 6 months? That's quite a long time in BTC-world and even longer in alt-space. (Disclaimer: the following is mainly BTC speculation, so potentially off-topic, but by my assumption that BTC trends influence XMR trends, it should be considered on-topic) Yes, you're right. Didn't post anything "substantial" on that topic for a while. Pretty time consuming, and Ryn is doing a fantastic job on the technicals in his EW thread and is a lot more dedicated (and experienced, and most likely also profitable) than I ever was. Aside from the effort, I prefer posting at least somewhat optimistic observations. Like I did in mid May, before the rally. And again in late June when I tried to put my "reversal indicator" to use to figure out if and when we'd rally again... what I'm getting at is that I don't feel like pouring oil on fire too much in an already somewhat bleak situation. The short version is that I see a lot of similarities between the current market and the end of the 2011 bear market. Note: I'm talking technicals, not fundamentals. Worse, we fail to overcome even the earliest resistances. Selling pressure during additional capitulation events is in fact decreasing, as has been pointed out correctly, but very little buying pressure follows. Add to that what appears to be relentless low level selling pressure (either from miners directly, or from off-exchange accumulators keeping a lid on market price), and we don't appear to be getting out of this rut. I'm not really expecting a new capitulation event going below the previous $340 bottom, but at the very least I am willing to entertain the idea that the way out of this bear market will be slower than most are comfortable with. Leading to the occasional smaller capitulation event along the road. That's where my 6 months figure came from: I consider that a realistic time frame long enough for the market to regain confidence after a period like this. Note please what I am not saying: that this is the only possible, or even the most likely scenario in my books. My "pessimistic for 6 months" remark was in response to a statement about XMR price, and I pointed out that, in my opinion, XMR price is (still) linked to larger BTC trends, so I don't believe the former can be described or predicted in isolation from the latter. Which means that if I have doubts about BTC recovery, I must have doubts about the mid term XMR development as well. Does that make some sense? |
|
|
|
|
Not to be a spoilsport, but I don't think Monero is in a position yet where it can completely decouple from the larger Bitcoin price trend (no alt can, except for intermediate fluctuation, imo). Which means constant, or only slightly decreasing XMR prices in the next 6 months might be conditional on BTC performance during that period, which I'm pretty pessimistic about.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
