Could Monero replace Bitcoin soon?

[generalizethis]

I think toknormal is a troll. A subtle and uncharacteristically sophisticated troll. But a troll none the less.

You mean, don't feed him ?  

Or else he might write something really, really stupid, like (paraphrasing, don't feel like looking up the actual quotation) "cryptocurrencies don't use cryptography."

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one. He uses the "people need to see the money," argument without realizing that people haven't been watching money go in and out of their wallets since debit cards have become ubiquitous as money. The "new color of money" won the ad war without fiat even putting up a fight, so the plastic vault has been replaced with the black box of cryptography--his argument is that people need to see one transaction leads to another (all the way down to Satoshi) to accept that it is secure--what he fails to grasp is that most of us just watched two U.S. presidential candidates pull the "whatever my experts say" card during a national debate. No one who thinks that they are an authority figure gets the math behind CC's, let alone some last gasper Hodler who twist the simplest idea into a labyrinth of middle manager "overspeak."

[toknormal]

He uses the "people need to see the money," argument.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

(The chocolate teapot version of that is the "people don't need to see the money" argument   )

[Anon136]

I think toknormal is a troll. A subtle and uncharacteristically sophisticated troll. But a troll none the less.

You mean, don't feed him ?  

Or else he might write something really, really stupid, like (paraphrasing, don't feel like looking up the actual quotation) "cryptocurrencies don't use cryptography."

I decided he was a troll when someone pointed out that gold coins are an exact description of the sort of system he says cant work and it didn't phase him in the slightest.

[toknormal]

I decided he was a troll when someone pointed out that gold coins are an exact description of the sort of system he says cant work and it didn't phase him in the slightest.

I think you must have mist interpreted whatever post that was.

Gold coins are not obscured in any way and if they are, the "obscurity" is extrinsic, not intrinsic. i.e. it's in a safe, under the floorboards, in a vault, whatever. They are therefore a perfect example of what I've been arguing for since the start of this thread - that the priorities of anonymity and transparency should be decoupled in order to optimise the value of cryptocurrency.

If you have 2 gold coins which are indistinguishable, then they are perfectly fungible without recourse to obscurity.

[Anon136]

The "obscurity" is extrinsic.

If gold coins magically broadcasted the identity of their owners to everyone in the world they would have never even been adopted as money. It may be extrinsic as a physical characteristic, but its an intrinsic quality of its role as money.

[generalizethis]

The "obscurity" is extrinsic.

If gold coins magically broadcasted the identity of their owners to everyone in the world they would have never even been adopted as money. It may be extrinsic as a physical characteristic, but its an intrinsic quality of its role as money.

Imagine if your wife could smell the perfume of strippers on the gold coins you're inserting into a cam girl's virtual g-string--or worse, her lawyer who decides why bother going to court when you can settle for much more....

I don't know who Tok's talking to in the financial sector, but it ain't anyone who knows that privacy and security can't be "de - coupled" without significant loss to the whole point of having cash, which is a private contract validated by two parties that needs one of the parties to be made transparent in order for there to be a public record--or not, as is preferable in some cases.

[toknormal]

If gold coins magically broadcasted the identity of their owners to everyone in the world they would have never even been adopted as money. It may be extrinsic as a physical characteristic, but its an intrinsic quality of its role as money.

Blockchains no more broadcast the "identity" of a keyholder than gold does.

I know it's an obsessive propaganda point for worshippers of obscured blockchains to convince people that they do, but they don't.

No identity information whatsoever is to be found on chain. It has to be gleaned off-chain and even then the relationship between "owner" and "holder" is ambiguous. Granted, one can use patterns in the blockchain to augment off-chain information I have. For example, if I know you paid me from a certain address I can detect various addresses connected to that one. But that is as it should be and it doesn't mean you have to bury the entire blockchain because of some de-anonymisation paranoia since I still have no idea what the nature of those connections is. I have to glean everything I know from off-chain information.

Then, if I only make one transaction to another address, I've completely de-linked those funds as far that off-chain domain goes (which is where all the identity information is).

The folly of this design (as far as unbacked money goes) is to map the priorities of a banking model based on credit directly onto a blockchain, since in the credit model all the identity information IS stored "on chain". You then have to ditch a whole load of very valuable monetary properties just to support that one when in fact there are plenty of other approaches to mitigating even the address linkeage patterns on the blockchain itself.

As evidence of this look at bitcoin. It is 7 years old. That is a long time. It doesn't have any augmented fungibility features whatsoever and yet it remains largely anonymous. Block analysis techniques are improving sure, but they still only rely on OFF CHAIN information which gets more ambiguous every time any transaction is made. It isn't difficult therefore to conclude that a much more optimal approach to maintaining value and confidence is to keep the blockchain transparent AND anonymous at the same time using augmented fungibility techniques.

[zokizuan]

never Ever

[ajareselde]

No, is very hard this thing happen but maybe Monero can bump his price again. so I will keep an eye on this coin.

but i'm surely monero can't take over bitcoin.

There was never even a remote chance of it replacing bitcoin, and it seams that the price pump is over too. It dropped ~50% from peak price, and it seams there
will be a double bottom too, because it now begun to dive again.

In regards to bumping price up again - that's definitely possible, because the volume seams good enough to catch eye of the investors and speculators, but doubt it will
ever gain a stable price. The only ones that seam to be interested now are miners with older mining gear that cant mine ethereum due to lower amount of ram on their gpu's.

[dinofelis]

I think toknormal is a troll. A subtle and uncharacteristically sophisticated troll. But a troll none the less.

You mean, don't feed him ?  

Or else he might write something really, really stupid, like (paraphrasing, don't feel like looking up the actual quotation) "cryptocurrencies don't use cryptography."

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

Indeed, I give up.

[Anon136]

If gold coins magically broadcasted the identity of their owners to everyone in the world they would have never even been adopted as money. It may be extrinsic as a physical characteristic, but its an intrinsic quality of its role as money.

Blockchains no more broadcast the "identity" of a keyholder than gold does.

I know it's an obsessive propaganda point for worshippers of obscured blockchains to convince people that they do, but they don't.

Sorry but this is just wrong. To an analysts the blockchain is a giant puzzle with some pieces missing but all of the information necessary to fill in almost all of those missing peaces with reasonable accuracy.

[toknormal]

To an analysts the blockchain is a giant puzzle with some pieces missing but all of the information necessary to fill in almost all of those missing peaces with reasonable accuracy.

This is a very unqualified and ambiguous statement.

It's true that it is a type of "puzzle" in terms of patterns. But think for a moment what you are implying with the phrase "reasonable accuracy". The "solution domain" you allude to, lies OUTWITH the blockchain itself - i.e. off chain, in the real world. You are using a data file which contains nothing but digits - totally anonymous, with no identity information in it whatsoever to try to discover information about a vastly more complex, more rapidly changing and completely open system that lies outwith it. You can solve the blockchain "puzzle" all you like and still know very little about the ultimate solution domain.

One thing that the obscurity bandwagon likes to push on people is the idea that a blockchain "addresses" are synonymous with an individual - i.e. if you can know something about that address you can know something about that individual. In extreme cases the analogy even drifts into use of personal pronouns for blockchain addresses and attempts to allude to the idea that linking one address to the next is the same as "de-anonymising" an individual.

It's a kind of Emperor's clothes like effort to push a technology that was never conceived of to engender monetary value but rather to "protect and hide" a record keeping system for non-anynymous, bank-backed money. The truth is that a single transfer from one address to another is all thats needed to "reset" the puzzle as far as the real world is concerned. You can know everything you like about one address and absolutely nothing about the next one that gets transferred to - not with the most advanced blockchain crawlers imaginable.

Blockchain crawlers will mitigate the fungibility of transparent blockchains - thats true, and there are equally rapidly emerging solutions to this that don't involve throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But what they will not do is "de-anonymise" everybody overnight with "reasonable accuracy" because the "puzzle pieces" you cite are not on-chain.

[European Central Bank]

xmr is like all the other big alts. there was a giant pump and it'll settle at a price level way higher than when it was sleeping but considerably lower than the crazy peaks.

I think the near future is gonna be bitcoin's time to shine again. the alts will have their day again but by the time that comes bitcoin's gonna be on a higher plain and toppling it'll be an even more remote prospect. 

[artows21]

It could maybe in some years, but for sure not for now. Buying Monero now might be like buying bitcoins at 20$, but you'll have to wait a few years to see some real profit.

[N-rG]

Can the XMR transaction fee actually changed by the devs or is it fix forever?

[gkv9]

Can the XMR transaction fee actually changed by the devs or is it fix forever?

I think devs have the authority that they can crack the code and change anything in Monero, but I think they ain't active enough...
Because if you can burn few coins out of total number of coins, then changing transaction fee should not be an issue...

[0day]

It could maybe in some years, but for sure not for now. Buying Monero now might be like buying bitcoins at 20$, but you'll have to wait a few years to see some real profit.

You maybe right that buying monero at think time is like buying bitcoin at $20 and it may happen that in the future monero will get a place which now having bitcoin but keep in mind that in that stage bitcoin will not be in that place where it is now. But bitcoin will be a more established currency and will be a most used currency and maybe bitcoin would be in place of dollar at least in digital world.

[owlcatz]

Can the XMR transaction fee actually changed by the devs or is it fix forever?

Pretty sure it was changed in the last release, no? I see it only costs me like .01 XMR per tx that I have done since update.

Now if poloniex would change their .20 withdraw fee, that would be even better.

[Febo]

Can the XMR transaction fee actually changed by the devs or is it fix forever?

Pretty sure it was changed in the last release, no? I see it only costs me like .01 XMR per tx that I have done since update.

Now if poloniex would change their .20 withdraw fee, that would be even better.

I think old minimum fee was 0.01XMR new is 5 times less. 0.002XMR.

Poloniex will probably reduce fee with long delay. They earn on them. So why would they hurry?

The price of Monero is now 7.61$ at the moment of speaking. So I believe that it will be very hard for Monero to replace Bitcoin soon.

Maybe you found lowest Monero price ever. Maybe you will never have chance to get Monero under $8

[Spoetnik]

It could maybe in some years, but for sure not for now. Buying Monero now might be like buying bitcoins at 20$, but you'll have to wait a few years to see some real profit.

And who is going to do that ?

NOBODY.

that is not what people are here for.  

blah blah blah dumped and bought NAV ...get it ?

The only people long term bag holding are the guys who bought them and AMDE the coin long ago.
Just like Ethereum etc..

What you think the vocal loud mouths bought in at 20 bucks a coin ?
uhhhmm no they bought them dirt cheap pennies on the dollar years ago.

PS:
Topic ?

Uhhh NO