[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency

[smooth]

Monero was worth roughly $2.20 not all that long ago, and now it is worth less than $.70.
Those who invested $2000 in your project here in the past few months now only have about $600 in investment value.
While I agree with people saying it isn't the devs job necessarily to maintain the price of a currency, I can't say these
facts should just be ignored.

Why is the price falling so much though? Mining reward is too high? I thought I read somewhere about mining botnets making up a large portion of the net hash rate of Monero, and the operators dump the Monero for BTC causing huge sell pressure.

For whatever reason its falling, isn't the price fall a serious problem? At this rate Monero will literally be worthless soon wouldn't it?

Take a look around. We're #12 on coinmarketcap which is right were we've been for months (in the #10-15 range).

[bigj]

since the past few months

Anything less than 3 years to measure success just wastes your time and gives bad results

I disagree.  It might have taken bitcoin years before it had any value but the landscape has changed.  Three years to measure success is ridiculous.  Cryptocurrencies are no longer just some geeky experiment like bitcoin was when it started.  The foundation has been poured.  Those building on that foundation will need to move quickly or get left behind.  Bitcoins history is just that.  To be successful going forward, a cryptocurrency will need to rapidly deploy features people want, create an infrastructure that will support it, and users willing to adopt it.  If a currency doesn't accomplish those things it will go nowhere.

I think one of the reasons for the exodus out of altcoins is that people have been speculating on the next bitcoin.  It's become apparent to many that the majority of all altcoins are just quick schemes to make money.  They all promise this and that, new features coming, etc...  None of the promises have come true.  None of the altcoins have succeeded in gaining any significant adoption and most likely none of them will.

If any cryptocurrency wants to be around in three years then it needs to offer something people want and it needs to offer it now.  If it doesn't it won't be around in three years, monero included.

Telling people it might take three years is like shooting yourself in the foot.  People aren't going to do that.  They are already losing patience as proven by the recent selling.  People want results now.  That's just a fact of life.

      

Why are human always acting almost irrational when it comes to economics?

[smooth]

since the past few months

Anything less than 3 years to measure success just wastes your time and gives bad results

I disagree.  It might have taken bitcoin years before it had any value but the landscape has changed.  Three years to measure success is ridiculous.  Cryptocurrencies are no longer just some geeky experiment like bitcoin was when it started.  The foundation has been poured.  Those building on that foundation will need to move quickly or get left behind.  Bitcoins history is just that.  To be successful going forward, a cryptocurrency will need to rapidly deploy features people want, create an infrastructure that will support it, and users willing to adopt it.  If a currency doesn't accomplish those things it will go nowhere.

I think one of the reasons for the exodus out of altcoins is that people have been speculating on the next bitcoin.  It's become apparent to many that the majority of all altcoins are just quick schemes to make money.  They all promise this and that, new features coming, etc...  None of the promises have come true.  None of the altcoins have succeeded in gaining any significant adoption and most likely none of them will.

If any cryptocurrency wants to be around in three years then it needs to offer something people want and it needs to offer it now.  If it doesn't it won't be around in three years, monero included.

Telling people it might take three years is like shooting yourself in the foot.  People aren't going to do that.  They are already losing patience as proven by the recent selling.  People want results now.  That's just a fact of life.

      

Why are human always acting almost irrational when it comes to economics?

Because human beings are not (entirely) rational?

[shojayxt]

since the past few months

Anything less than 3 years to measure success just wastes your time and gives bad results

I disagree.  It might have taken bitcoin years before it had any value but the landscape has changed.  Three years to measure success is ridiculous.  Cryptocurrencies are no longer just some geeky experiment like bitcoin was when it started.  The foundation has been poured.  Those building on that foundation will need to move quickly or get left behind.  Bitcoins history is just that.  To be successful going forward, a cryptocurrency will need to rapidly deploy features people want, create an infrastructure that will support it, and users willing to adopt it.  If a currency doesn't accomplish those things it will go nowhere.

I think one of the reasons for the exodus out of altcoins is that people have been speculating on the next bitcoin.  It's become apparent to many that the majority of all altcoins are just quick schemes to make money.  They all promise this and that, new features coming, etc...  None of the promises have come true.  None of the altcoins have succeeded in gaining any significant adoption and most likely none of them will.

If any cryptocurrency wants to be around in three years then it needs to offer something people want and it needs to offer it now.  If it doesn't it won't be around in three years, monero included.

Telling people it might take three years is like shooting yourself in the foot.  People aren't going to do that.  They are already losing patience as proven by the recent selling.  People want results now.  That's just a fact of life.

      

Why are human always acting almost irrational when it comes to economics?

Humans are irrational.  But in this case it's warranted.

I forgot to add this in my previous post.

When I first got involved in crypto there were 69 currencies listed on coinmarketcap with a total market cap of $ 13,890,378,655  https://web.archive.org/web/20140104141936/http://coinmarketcap.com/

There are now 545 currencies with a market cap of $ 5,192,835,057.

789% more currencies worth 37% of what 69 were worth January 8th 2014.

All of these currencies offered the moon but delivered nothing.  Why should people think any different of Monero or any other coin?  One thing is for sure, nobody's going to wait three years.

[rpietila]

If any cryptocurrency wants to be around in three years then it needs to offer something people want and it needs to offer it now.  If it doesn't it won't be around in three years, monero included.

Telling people it might take three years is like shooting yourself in the foot.  People aren't going to do that.  They are already losing patience as proven by the recent selling.  People want results now.  That's just a fact of life.

Monero is currently almost exclusively owned by people with a horizon of 3 years or more, as was Bitcoin 3 years ago.

Last time the owners were richly rewarded, let's see this time.

[Zabaglione]

Monero was worth roughly $2.20 not all that long ago, and now it is worth less than $.70.
Those who invested $2000 in your project here in the past few months now only have about $600 in investment value.
While I agree with people saying it isn't the devs job necessarily to maintain the price of a currency, I can't say these
facts should just be ignored.

Why is the price falling so much though? Mining reward is too high? I thought I read somewhere about mining botnets making up a large portion of the net hash rate of Monero, and the operators dump the Monero for BTC causing huge sell pressure.

For whatever reason its falling, isn't the price fall a serious problem? At this rate Monero will literally be worthless soon wouldn't it?

Take a look around. We're #12 on coinmarketcap which is right were we've been for months (in the #10-15 range).

Does that mean that all cryptocurrencies are falling in value? Why isn't Monero ahead of Darkcoin?

[TheKoziTwo]

Monero was worth roughly $2.20 not all that long ago, and now it is worth less than $.70.
Those who invested $2000 in your project here in the past few months now only have about $600 in investment value.
While I agree with people saying it isn't the devs job necessarily to maintain the price of a currency, I can't say these
facts should just be ignored.

Why is the price falling so much though? Mining reward is too high? I thought I read somewhere about mining botnets making up a large portion of the net hash rate of Monero, and the operators dump the Monero for BTC causing huge sell pressure.

For whatever reason its falling, isn't the price fall a serious problem? At this rate Monero will literally be worthless soon wouldn't it?

In the beginning there was not a lot of monero and demand was super high. New exciting technology that actually has merit is not something you see every day in the pump n dump altcoin space. Naturally it became very sought after by people, especially by large bitcoiners who previously may not have shown much interest in altcoins.

They are first and foremost investing in monero because they believe in the new and unique technology. The problem is, everybody wanted to grab a piece of the pie at once and thus the price was pushed high, probably too high, it lasted temporarily because large holders eventually had accumulated the moneros they wanted. A trend reversal combined with reality setting in (there are ~20k XMR generated every day) means the high price could not be sustained at this time. The adoption is not big enough and large bitcoiners can only sustain the price for so long. Now that the initial gold rush is over I speculate that many hold large bags of monero, and most are probably in the red too. Little willingness to invest more when already down a lot, so who will absorb the new coins?

You see, the emission is very high, and it makes it difficult for monero to rally high and stay there. There is simply too much pressure at this time. The only way to change that is to increase adoption or make current holders invest more. Another solution that has been suggested for voting is changing emission to make the coins spread out over a longer period of time. That will put less pressure on the price in regards to mined coins, however there are other issues with doing so which must be contemplated.

Personally I see any sub 0.002 as a good entry point. I have been buying a little all the way down and intend to continue to do so. It's hard to predict the bottom, but there are certainly things planned which can trigger new interest. Every coin has up and downs, make sure to take advantage of each.  

[shojayxt]

If any cryptocurrency wants to be around in three years then it needs to offer something people want and it needs to offer it now.  If it doesn't it won't be around in three years, monero included.

Telling people it might take three years is like shooting yourself in the foot.  People aren't going to do that.  They are already losing patience as proven by the recent selling.  People want results now.  That's just a fact of life.

Monero is currently almost exclusively owned by people with a horizon of 3 years or more, as was Bitcoin 3 years ago.

Last time the owners were richly rewarded, let's see this time.

It is?  Then why all the selling and people complaining about the price?


If you use the history of bitcoin to justify holding any new cryptocurrency you'll end up holding worthless coins in three years.  What worked for bitcoin or the history of bitcoin will never be repeated.  But good luck.

[smooth]

You see, the emission is very high, and it makes it difficult for monero to rally high and stay there. There is simply too much pressure at this time. The only way to change that is to increase adoption or make current holders invest more. Another solution that has been suggested for voting is changing emission to make the coins spread out over a longer period of time. That will put less pressure on the price in regards to mined coins, however there are other issues with doing so which must be contemplated.

To go high and stay high something needs to change. But to stop the pressure all that is needed is for the price to drop. Then less demand is needed to absorb the 20k coins.

Also, with the fast emission the decline in emission is also fast. So another solution is to simply wait for the 20k to decline. At the start it was 25k. This is something to consider with respect to the suggestion to reduce it -- slower emission means slower decline in emission.

[onemorebtc]

If any cryptocurrency wants to be around in three years then it needs to offer something people want and it needs to offer it now.  If it doesn't it won't be around in three years, monero included.

Telling people it might take three years is like shooting yourself in the foot.  People aren't going to do that.  They are already losing patience as proven by the recent selling.  People want results now.  That's just a fact of life.

Monero is currently almost exclusively owned by people with a horizon of 3 years or more, as was Bitcoin 3 years ago.

Last time the owners were richly rewarded, let's see this time.

It is?  Then why all the selling and people complaining about the price?


If you use the history of bitcoin to justify holding any new cryptocurrency you'll end up holding worthless coins in three years.  What worked for bitcoin or the history of bitcoin will never be repeated.  But good luck.

i don't complain about the price
imho the way "fast new feature fast to market next exchange..." is the reason why most altcoins fail.
it just takes a while to get adopted. there is nothing anybody can do about it. if anybody tries to force it faster it just fails harder

[smooth]

If any cryptocurrency wants to be around in three years then it needs to offer something people want and it needs to offer it now.  If it doesn't it won't be around in three years, monero included.

Telling people it might take three years is like shooting yourself in the foot.  People aren't going to do that.  They are already losing patience as proven by the recent selling.  People want results now.  That's just a fact of life.

Monero is currently almost exclusively owned by people with a horizon of 3 years or more, as was Bitcoin 3 years ago.

Last time the owners were richly rewarded, let's see this time.

It is?  Then why all the selling and people complaining about the price?


If you use the history of bitcoin to justify holding any new cryptocurrency you'll end up holding worthless coins in three years.  What worked for bitcoin or the history of bitcoin will never be repeated.  But good luck.

Nobody is expecting history to be repeated. But the idea that it takes time (years) to build something truly useful has nothing to do with history. Anything but a pump-and-dump takes more than a few months to build. People need to come up with useful ideas, organize, and build them out. That takes time. Some of that is already ongoing. If you can't wait you are in the wrong place.

[liteon]

Price is lowest in history of Monero.
There is a hope?
I don't see it.
Anyway, will mine it a bit more days.
Days not months.

[Zabaglione]

Monero was worth roughly $2.20 not all that long ago, and now it is worth less than $.70.
Those who invested $2000 in your project here in the past few months now only have about $600 in investment value.
While I agree with people saying it isn't the devs job necessarily to maintain the price of a currency, I can't say these
facts should just be ignored.

Why is the price falling so much though? Mining reward is too high? I thought I read somewhere about mining botnets making up a large portion of the net hash rate of Monero, and the operators dump the Monero for BTC causing huge sell pressure.

For whatever reason its falling, isn't the price fall a serious problem? At this rate Monero will literally be worthless soon wouldn't it?

In the beginning there was not a lot of monero and demand was super high. New exciting technology that actually has merit is not something you see every day in the pump n dump altcoin space. Naturally it became very sought after by
You see, the emission is very high, and it makes it difficult for monero to rally high and stay there. There is simply too much pressure at this time. The only way to change that is to increase adoption or make current holders invest more. Another solution that has been suggested for voting is changing emission to make the coins spread out over a longer period of time. That will put less pressure on the price in regards to mined coins, however there are other issues with doing so which must be contemplated.

Well if emission is very high as you say, then why haven't we lowered it? What issues could possibly arise? Surly the problems that arise would be smaller than the big problem of the ever decreasing price.

You see, the emission is very high, and it makes it difficult for monero to rally high and stay there. There is simply too much pressure at this time. The only way to change that is to increase adoption or make current holders invest more. Another solution that has been suggested for voting is changing emission to make the coins spread out over a longer period of time. That will put less pressure on the price in regards to mined coins, however there are other issues with doing so which must be contemplated.

To go high and stay high something needs to change. But to stop the pressure all that is needed is for the price to drop. Then less demand is needed to absorb the 20k coins.

Also, with the fast emission the decline in emission is also fast. So another solution is to simply wait for the 20k to decline. At the start it was 25k. This is something to consider with respect to the suggestion to reduce it -- slower emission means slower decline in emission.

And what exactly is wrong with a slower decline in emission? Wouldn't that mean a more stable price, which is what I'd expect you'd want for a non pump and dump coin. I really do think that reducing emission would be a good idea at this point.

[TheKoziTwo]

Monero was worth roughly $2.20 not all that long ago, and now it is worth less than $.70.
Those who invested $2000 in your project here in the past few months now only have about $600 in investment value.
While I agree with people saying it isn't the devs job necessarily to maintain the price of a currency, I can't say these
facts should just be ignored.

Why is the price falling so much though? Mining reward is too high? I thought I read somewhere about mining botnets making up a large portion of the net hash rate of Monero, and the operators dump the Monero for BTC causing huge sell pressure.

For whatever reason its falling, isn't the price fall a serious problem? At this rate Monero will literally be worthless soon wouldn't it?

In the beginning there was not a lot of monero and demand was super high. New exciting technology that actually has merit is not something you see every day in the pump n dump altcoin space. Naturally it became very sought after by
You see, the emission is very high, and it makes it difficult for monero to rally high and stay there. There is simply too much pressure at this time. The only way to change that is to increase adoption or make current holders invest more. Another solution that has been suggested for voting is changing emission to make the coins spread out over a longer period of time. That will put less pressure on the price in regards to mined coins, however there are other issues with doing so which must be contemplated.

Well if emission is very high as you say, then why haven't we lowered it? What issues could possibly arise? Surly the problems that arise would be smaller than the big problem of the ever decreasing price.

As smooth pointed out, the price only will decrease until the emission can be absorbed. The lower the price, the less money is required to absorb it. It's that, or more adoption. Changing emission is problematic. Can you imagine bitcoin changing block rewards to 1 BTC today? It would upset a lot of people.

[BanditryAndLoot]

When I first got involved in crypto there were 69 currencies listed on coinmarketcap with a total market cap of $ 13,890,378,655  https://web.archive.org/web/20140104141936/http://coinmarketcap.com/

There are now 545 currencies with a market cap of $ 5,192,835,057.

789% more currencies worth 37% of what 69 were worth January 8th 2014.

All of these currencies offered the moon but delivered nothing.  Why should people think any different of Monero or any other coin?  One thing is for sure, nobody's going to wait three years.

Is it rational to expect the moon though, when only one out of 69 currencies, and now only one out of >545 currencies and a few assets has actually delivered?

Even at the time you started, 1 out of 69 isn't the greatest odds when you're led to believe that everyone is offering only the moon.

Now, at 1 in 545, the chances of offering the moon are much less, if you were to randomly throw money at these things.

When bitcoin started, it offered a cryptocurrency. Investors saw the moon. Chances back then were likely 1 in 1, or even 1 in 5, and the ticket was cheap.

With the complete disregard for the technical offerings of some of these things, and incessant talks about the moon, I have only been left with the thought that everyone here is absolutely irrational. I say irrational, because >99% is basically everyone.

Especially when they're offering, for the most part, something you already have, or think you have, in your bank account .. and tend to think very very little about what it is or where it came from .. just that you need it to live and you need more of it to make more of it.

I mean, there's very few moons out there. Earth has one, Saturn has (62?) moons. So the idea that we're even talking about potentially legitimate alternative cryptocurrencies offering the moon means most of us are on another damn planet in regards to where our heads are at.

With that in mind, I must admit that I likely would have had to pay to be on another planet, as I'm pretty sure I started on earth. so my fee paid is in grabbing a rational amount of just about anything that pokes out of bitcoins shadow and seeing what they did.

I like this one, because the developers were there when I had questions, and have been there when I've had more questions. I'm convinced that they'll continue to be here when I have even more questions. That's important .. that they're here and responsive and helpful, because they've convinced me that they'll likely always be here. That's just as important as innovation, of which they have also provided. Electrum seeds, i2p development, GUI development, core protocol development, seeding a community, there's lists of things that have been provided. Not many of these things were available for the US dollar for a few hundred years, save for seeding a community, so I think we're pretty on track here.

Worst comes to worst, it's just tulips

[shojayxt]

If any cryptocurrency wants to be around in three years then it needs to offer something people want and it needs to offer it now.  If it doesn't it won't be around in three years, monero included.

Telling people it might take three years is like shooting yourself in the foot.  People aren't going to do that.  They are already losing patience as proven by the recent selling.  People want results now.  That's just a fact of life.

Monero is currently almost exclusively owned by people with a horizon of 3 years or more, as was Bitcoin 3 years ago.

Last time the owners were richly rewarded, let's see this time.

It is?  Then why all the selling and people complaining about the price?


If you use the history of bitcoin to justify holding any new cryptocurrency you'll end up holding worthless coins in three years.  What worked for bitcoin or the history of bitcoin will never be repeated.  But good luck.

Nobody is expecting history to be repeated. But the idea that it takes time (years) to build something truly useful has nothing to do with history. Anything but a pump-and-dump takes more than a few months to build. People need to come up with useful ideas, organize, and build them out. That takes time. Some of that is already ongoing. If you can't wait you are in the wrong place.

I'm in the wrong place?  Where should I be?  

All I'm saying is that you have a window of opportunity and it's much less than three years.  I'm not one of those complaining about price.  I'm just stating what I think is a widespread sentiment regarding altcoins in general.  Why would someone wait three years when bitcoin already exists?  In three years bitcoin could very well have incorporated all the features that all these altcoins claim to offer or will offer.  Time is not on Monero's or any altcoins side.  But I guess we'll all know in a few years.  

[Zabaglione]

Monero was worth roughly $2.20 not all that long ago, and now it is worth less than $.70.
Those who invested $2000 in your project here in the past few months now only have about $600 in investment value.
While I agree with people saying it isn't the devs job necessarily to maintain the price of a currency, I can't say these
facts should just be ignored.

Why is the price falling so much though? Mining reward is too high? I thought I read somewhere about mining botnets making up a large portion of the net hash rate of Monero, and the operators dump the Monero for BTC causing huge sell pressure.

For whatever reason its falling, isn't the price fall a serious problem? At this rate Monero will literally be worthless soon wouldn't it?

In the beginning there was not a lot of monero and demand was super high. New exciting technology that actually has merit is not something you see every day in the pump n dump altcoin space. Naturally it became very sought after by
You see, the emission is very high, and it makes it difficult for monero to rally high and stay there. There is simply too much pressure at this time. The only way to change that is to increase adoption or make current holders invest more. Another solution that has been suggested for voting is changing emission to make the coins spread out over a longer period of time. That will put less pressure on the price in regards to mined coins, however there are other issues with doing so which must be contemplated.

Well if emission is very high as you say, then why haven't we lowered it? What issues could possibly arise? Surly the problems that arise would be smaller than the big problem of the ever decreasing price.

As smooth pointed out, the price only will decrease until the emission can be absorbed. The lower the price, the less money is required to absorb it. It's that, or more adoption. Changing emission is problematic. Can you imagine bitcoin changing block rewards to 1 BTC today? It would upset a lot of people.

I see your point, but is emission really a problem with Bitcoin? because apparently it is for Monero. If the reduction of emission of Monero isn't happening because the community won't be happy, then why don't we ask them if they actually will be happy or not? I mean, Monero is still in its infancy so it can't be too bad. I'm sure most would agree that the selling pressure of Monero has been quite overwhelming. I think most people will want a higher and more stable price too.

[smooth]

If any cryptocurrency wants to be around in three years then it needs to offer something people want and it needs to offer it now.  If it doesn't it won't be around in three years, monero included.

Telling people it might take three years is like shooting yourself in the foot.  People aren't going to do that.  They are already losing patience as proven by the recent selling.  People want results now.  That's just a fact of life.

Monero is currently almost exclusively owned by people with a horizon of 3 years or more, as was Bitcoin 3 years ago.

Last time the owners were richly rewarded, let's see this time.

It is?  Then why all the selling and people complaining about the price?


If you use the history of bitcoin to justify holding any new cryptocurrency you'll end up holding worthless coins in three years.  What worked for bitcoin or the history of bitcoin will never be repeated.  But good luck.

Nobody is expecting history to be repeated. But the idea that it takes time (years) to build something truly useful has nothing to do with history. Anything but a pump-and-dump takes more than a few months to build. People need to come up with useful ideas, organize, and build them out. That takes time. Some of that is already ongoing. If you can't wait you are in the wrong place.

I'm in the wrong place?  Where should I be?  

All I'm saying is that you have a window of opportunity and it's much less than three years.  I'm not one of those complaining about price.  I'm just stating what I think is a widespread sentiment regarding altcoins in general.  Why would someone wait three years when bitcoin already exists?  In three years bitcoin could very well have incorporated all the features that all these altcoins claim to offer or will offer.  Time is not on Monero's or any altcoins side.  But I guess we'll all know in a few years.  

Maybe I misunderstood the discussion. I certainly wouldn't wait three years for any progress at all, but that progress will happen over a period of years.

[smooth]

When I first got involved in crypto there were 69 currencies listed on coinmarketcap with a total market cap of $ 13,890,378,655  https://web.archive.org/web/20140104141936/http://coinmarketcap.com/

Is it rational to expect the moon though, when only one out of 69 currencies, and now only one out of >545 currencies and a few assets has actually delivered?

He's saying that he got involved at the top of the market and Bitcoin certainly hasn't "delivered" what he is looking for which is high and increasing prices. So that would be 0/69 at this point.

Get involved at the top of any market and things will look bleak later from that perspective. Quite understandable.

[smooth]

Price is lowest in history of Monero.

No its not. I sold 100 coins for 0.005 (price = 0.00005)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577296.0