rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[contagion]

The discussed bet about Monero is ambiguous. Define the "exist" metric.

It isn't really ambiguous. It's a English word that has a pretty well defined meaning. Any nodes or any users still using it, or something very close to that.

That is meaningless, because any one can make some nodes.

Even an exchange price is meaningless if all the volume is controlled by parties who want to prove the market cap is still above some level. As it approaches non-existence, such control is plausible.

I stand by my logic that it is ambiguous unless further qualified.

Immediately when I read "exist", I visualized an infinite asymptote. Existence is impossible to disprove (physics and philosophy) akin to the block chain fundamental that one can prove a transaction exists after a certain date of consensus, but it can't proved when the transaction did not exist.

As far as another bet on a million users or something, i don't have a strong opinion on it, so no reason to bet.

It is something the project leader should have an estimate of. I am not saying you are the project leader. I am not sure if there exists a project leader for Monero, based on the way you and others have emphasized autonomy from each other, but I can not disprove it unless I am omniscient.

[1714549684]

1714549684

[1714549684]

1714549684

[1714549684]

1714549684

[1714549684]

1714549684

[1714549684]

1714549684

[smooth]

The discussed bet about Monero is ambiguous. Define the "exist" metric.

It isn't really ambiguous. It's a English word that has a pretty well defined meaning. Any nodes or any users still using it, or something very close to that.

That is meaningless, because any one can make some nodes.

Not if the code doesn't even work because catastrophic bugs are uncovered and no one is maintaining it.

In any case I see no reason to belabor this. You already said you estimate a 5% chance of a million users, so clearly you must think there is far more than a 1% chance that it exists at all (maybe we define that as 5000+ users, which of course would include the 1m user case).

I think the original claim was trolling or if sincere then the oddsmaker is a terribly inept one. Either way not worth much attention.

[Odalv]

- there is less than 1% than monero can survive next 2 years

I would like you to give me 99-1 odds on a bet that Monero survives the next two years. According to your estimate this bet should be profitable to you.

How much are you willing to bet?

This reminds me why Odalv is on my ignore list. There has to be something seriously wrong in the logic of the guy if he can reconcile the following statements:

- Monero has 1% chance of survival
- smooth and rpietila together can cause its survival
- smooth and rpietila want to cause its survival.

I would understand if the coin's survival was an external event, like whether it rains or not. I don't have a haarpoon so cannot control it. But Monero's survival is just a decision of me, of smooth or of anyone else. No need to ask permission. Anyone can cause Monero to survive!

I give the chance of survival for 2 years to be about 50%. This is composed of a fatal flaw in CN tech and the "fair fork" risk.

And am willing to bet, with a well-defined "survival". It is a virtuous circle to bet for something that you can control.

> well-defined "survival".
550% adoption per year. ... not free fall to zero (0.0001).

[Odalv]

- there is less than 1% than monero can survive next 2 years

I would like you to give me 99-1 odds on a bet that Monero survives the next two years. According to your estimate this bet should be profitable to you.

How much are you willing to bet?

This reminds me why Odalv is on my ignore list. There has to be something seriously wrong in the logic of the guy if he can reconcile the following statements:

- Monero has 1% chance of survival
- smooth and rpietila together can cause its survival
- smooth and rpietila want to cause its survival.

I would understand if the coin's survival was an external event, like whether it rains or not. I don't have a haarpoon so cannot control it. But Monero's survival is just a decision of me, of smooth or of anyone else. No need to ask permission. Anyone can cause Monero to survive!

I give the chance of survival for 2 years to be about 50%. This is composed of a fatal flaw in CN tech and the "fair fork" risk.

And am willing to bet, with a well-defined "survival". It is a virtuous circle to bet for something that you can control.

Are you suggesting that it is better to ignore me ? ... I know, you can scam more people if they will follow your advices blindly

[contagion]

My estimate is the odds favor another bubble in Bitcoin eventually and thus ditto Monero.

The blackswan is a radical shift in crypto-currency due to some paradigm shift. Although odds appears to be low because for example we know how much work it is to deliver and we are reasonably cognizant of the genre of features that could be possible so it is unlikely we would be surprised, we also have to remember the motivation is potentially astronomical, yet also is the risk.

It is very difficult to appraise that blackswan risk. I think the bet on the next bubble and Monero leading the anonymous sector remains a reasonable and rational bet (given that only ring sigs meet the End-to-End principle and only they are potentially Sybil attack resistant, but as you know I find fault in current Cryptonote coins in this regard). But do remember it is not a 100% certainty.

I agree the 99% catastrophic, binary outcome for Monero seems to be more hate (or envy) than logic. I don't even know if I could weight the blackswan at 1% probability and I even have an inside vantage point on one possible unlikely entrant.

However, I am disappointed with Monero because I don't think it will be sufficient to deal with what is coming (for many reasons and smooth is aware of some of my logic). See my latest post in the Mad Max thread. This is getting very ominous. I realize you can only do what you can do. So all the ranting I could do isn't worth as much as those who build what they can.

P.S. my 5% probability estimate on Monero reaching a million users within 2 years incorporates very rough intuitive gut feel at the probability of timely improvements to Monero.

[wpalczynski]

Hi,

Anonymint, how come you keep switching usernames when posting on this forum?  You have some interesting ideas you contribute and posing under all these different usernames makes it somewhat difficult to find your previous posts.

Cheers!

W.

My estimate is the odds favor another bubble in Bitcoin eventually and thus ditto Monero.

The blackswan is a radical shift in crypto-currency due to some paradigm shift. Although odds appears to be low because for example we know how much work it is to deliver and we are reasonably cognizant of the genre of features that could be possible so it is unlikely we would be surprised, we also have to remember the motivation is potentially astronomical, yet also is the risk.

It is very difficult to appraise that blackswan risk. I think the bet on the next bubble and Monero leading the anonymous sector remains a reasonable and rational bet (given that only ring sigs meet the End-to-End principle and only they are potentially Sybil attack resistant, but as you know I find fault in current Cryptonote coins in this regard). But do remember it is not a 100% certainty.

I agree the 99% catastrophic, binary outcome for Monero seems to be more hate (or envy) than logic. I don't even know if I could weight the blackswan at 1% probability and I even have an inside vantage point on one possible unlikely entrant.

However, I am disappointed with Monero because I don't think it will be sufficient to deal with what is coming (for many reasons and smooth is aware of some of my logic). See my latest post in the Mad Max thread. This is getting very ominous. I realize you can only do what you can do. So all the ranting I could do isn't worth as much as those who build what they can.

P.S. my 5% probability estimate on Monero reaching a million users within 2 years incorporates very rough intuitive gut feel at the probability of timely improvements to Monero.

[prophetx]

anyone know the people running btc38?

PM me

[rpietila]

Anonymint, how come you keep switching usernames when posting on this forum?  You have some interesting ideas you contribute and posing under all these different usernames makes it somewhat difficult to find your previous posts.

Other people are trying to appear as AnonyMint. This was first found out with the BCX-XMR debate, where we concluded that all the major other actors were bought accounts, or impostors, and played by one group. Why on earth? That's still to be found out. At least Monero price is down so the attack did accomplish something, although I doubt it would have been much different anyway.

[contagion]

Anonymint, how come you keep switching usernames when posting on this forum?

I requested AnonyMint be closed (didn't think of the fact that I could just scramble my password) which Theymos apparently granted, because at the time I was so ill with debilitating Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (accompanies migraines and abdominal pain too which makes concentration impossible) and I was wasting the precious little productive time I had writing in a forum instead of coding. Also I think a reputation is a crutch for the incapable. I hence dropped (or set aside) my feeble effort on an altcoin and began programming an Android contacts and messaging privacy application (which of course I could also leverage to kickstart an altcoin perhaps) so I can shore up my finances given my silver and gold has been partially stolen from me (I at one time had 18,000 ounces of physical silver and yes I was placing sell orders from $48 down and was entirely out in the high $20s, but never received some of the proceeds). The #1 competitor in the Android app category I have chosen has 10 million downloads and charges $10 annual license fee. My past experience with download software is roughly a 2 - 5% conversion rate, so they must be earning in excess of $1 million annually. Their app is missing many features. Shouldn't be difficult to shore up my dwindling savings (hopefully by January). In spite of being in danger financially, I continue to do several $100s of charity each month in the Philippines (for which I have retained all the padala money transfer receipts for the donations I haven't given in cash personally).

Fraud is rampant.

I scrambled the passwords of TheFascistMind and other recent usernames trying to discipline myself to not waste time on the forum.

UnunoctiumTesticles was banned last week and I suspect Rpietila may have played a role in that, but I have no proof only a suspicion. I tried to sign up another username and it was immediately banned. I took a breather and then signed up contagion making sure my first post was too important to ban.

P.S. rpietila all the other usernames were mine, and you didn't pay the 2.5 BTC and defrauded the written contract you made in PM with TheFascistMind. I thought BCX's threat was real. It was only after I made that effort that I realized he was bluffing. I did not act in bad faith nor dishonestly.


P.S.S. It is important to understand that we hackers don't really focus on storing money. That is not where our mind is most of the time. So that among other details such where I am located, will explain for example why 18,000 oz of silver was not stored in my possession. Precious metals are clearly a dinosaur. They are too debilitating and cumbersome.

[rpietila]

P.S. rpietila all the other usernames were mine, and you didn't pay the 2.5 BTC and defrauded the written contract you made in PM with TheFascistMind. I thought BCX's threat was real. It was only after I made that effort that I realized he was bluffing. I did not act in bad faith nor dishonestly.

What?! I asked the payment details in my PM to TheFascistMind (and never got them). Obviously I cannot take them from anyone else just because he claims to be a person I owe money.

[contagion]

P.S. rpietila all the other usernames were mine, and you didn't pay the 2.5 BTC and defrauded the written contract you made in PM with TheFascistMind. I thought BCX's threat was real. It was only after I made that effort that I realized he was bluffing. I did not act in bad faith nor dishonestly.

What?! I asked the payment details in my PM to TheFascistMind (and never got them). Obviously I cannot take them from anyone else just because he claims to be a person I owe money.

Payment details were sent in a PM several times with all subsequent PMs not receiving a reply from you. Haha, nice excuse (you won't take them from another username that is clearly me or which you can easily verify by asking me questions about details only I would know from when we used to be friends). I guess you are short on funds. Rather I assume you felt I was taking advantage (if so, that is a stingy myopia, because I was genuinely trying to find and suggest solutions to flaws and I did meet the precise requirement of the simple contract we stipulated).

And you even replied to the first (not subsequent) stating you didn't do such payments immediately and they get done within 14 days. Nothing ever arrived. The mods hereby have my permission to review the PMs in any of my accounts if you need some assistance to verify.

And that contract was when BTC was higher ($600 afair), because I immediately cashed out the BTC I did receive from the others who honored their contract.

My BTC address has never changed, since the time you are were giving me BTC to distribute to typhoon victims. It is a localbitcoins account in the name on my birth certificate (my real name which you know as matter of fact). So your implied claim about not being able to verify my identity fails on several levels.

P.S. I don't expect any BTC from you now. I moved on. I wasn't intending to bring it up, but you do by stating that the other accounts were not AM, but they were all me. So if that was the delusion you were using to support your fraud on me, then it is hereby refuted.

P.S.S. Apparently the same region of the Philippines was well prepared when another super typhoon hit this month. So improvement has been achieved.


Edit: I am okay with the outcome because the technical insight shared which fulfilled the requirements of the contract (which your Monero developers may or may not think is of limited value) also elucidated to myself how to do ring signatures correctly (which IMO no Cryptonote coins do yet afaik). I nearly always prefer increased knowledge over remuneration, if the two conflict.

[Roccker]

Price low,
number of bitcoin adresses all time-highish

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-unique-addresses?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=1&address=

[Parazyd]

I don't think the amount of used Bitcoin addresses matters in relation to anything. There's been a big number of Bitcoin mixers lately though. Maybe it's because of that.

[molecular]

I don't think the amount of used Bitcoin addresses matters in relation to anything. There's been a big number of Bitcoin mixers lately though. Maybe it's because of that.

hd wallets are starting to get used more and more, too. That should put some upward pressure on the address count, too.

[smooth]

I'd look to transaction count relative to number of addresses. While it is possible they could move in tandem due to independent factors, it is somewhat unlikely. So far it looks like both point to increased usage, and anecdotal factors (bitpay/coinbase signups) seem to support that. The rate of growth is modest though, in line with historical trends rather than accelerating.

[aminorex]

I'd look to transaction count relative to number of addresses. While it is possible they could move in tandem due to independent factors, it is somewhat unlikely. So far it looks like both point to increased usage, and anecdotal factors (bitpay/coinbase signups) seem to support that. The rate of growth is modest though, in line with historical trends rather than accelerating.

The network value factor lends the price attractor its parabolic progress during linear network expansion.  Anything which is not a decline in adoption rate is massively bullish in the long run.  Just a matter of time.

[thefunkybits]

I don't think the amount of used Bitcoin addresses matters in relation to anything. There's been a big number of Bitcoin mixers lately though. Maybe it's because of that.

hd wallets are starting to get used more and more, too. That should put some upward pressure on the address count, too.

also exchanges starting to make a new address after every deposit (and users getting smarter and doing the same)

[contagion]

I believe rpietila and I are on the verge of sorting out our misunderstanding.

I was not asked to do the following. I do it on my own initiative.

I want to recognize publicly my actions (as evident in this forum) may not always appear perfectly stable, consistent, comprehensible, positive, and constructive. Although I could offer explanations in many cases which could perhaps correct misunderstandings and support that I am usually (or capable of being) stable, comprehensible, positive, and constructive, I would be dishonest with myself if I didn't admit that I have fault (e.g. at times taking on the role of antagonist) and especially to emphasize that an illness has exasperated my level of financial, physical, emotional, and mental stress. I know rpietila is intimately knowledgeable about how a stressful situation can go awry and the importance of recognizing and dealing with our own culpability in spite of the unfairness of serendipity at times. Apologies this statement is so abstract, because life is not as absolute as we want it to be. We need to be somewhat flexible to chaos. Nevertheless, I am cognizant of (although not perfectly compliant with) the criticality of consistent performance in business and ethics. Mea culpa on my part in terms of the perception of the above attributes.

So that this will not flair up again, I am cognizant of the way my actions must change on this forum not as much because of blame, but more so in the interests of not causing non-constructive detractions so as to maintain optimum production on the mutual goals of bolstering free markets thus (and) spreading good will even if at times we contribute and go about achieving those goals with differing experimentation and strategies.

But groupthink is rigor mortis. So who will speak up? The way to lead is to not criticize another's work, but to deliver a work that they potentially adopt. Analogous to how scolding a child is destructive, whereas leading the child to a new understanding is constructive. A tired sick person can revert to sulking instead. Not constructive.

[contagion]

I'd look to transaction count relative to number of addresses. While it is possible they could move in tandem due to independent factors, it is somewhat unlikely. So far it looks like both point to increased usage, and anecdotal factors (bitpay/coinbase signups) seem to support that. The rate of growth is modest though, in line with historical trends rather than accelerating.

The network value factor lends the price attractor its parabolic progress during linear network expansion.  Anything which is not a decline in adoption rate is massively bullish in the long run.  Just a matter of time.

May I kindly suggest Nokia (Symbian) and Apple (iOS) didn't prove that installed base network effects in 2008 were unassailable. Android was a paradigm shift. The smartphone market battle is over given Android is approaching 80% market share and a billion users. The crypto-currency market battle has only just begun. It appears possible the same category of weakness may exist for Bitcoin et al, as did for iOS and Symbian; they may not be optimally open ecosystems thus scale less than optimally. I can't state this with certainty, but it is something worth pondering.

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/chart32-640x429.jpg

[fairglu]

Price low,
number of bitcoin adresses all time-highish

Growth in number of address is becoming very regular though, which would point to automated generation (exchanges, mixers, etc.)

Previously the irregular variations were more of an indicator of humans activity being behind the change.