Monero (XMR) Speculation thread

[Brilliantrocket]

Investors aren't stupid, if they thing someone has enough coins to crash the whole market then they will simply stay away as the reward isn´t worth the immense risk.
The Instamine is currently ~40-50% and due to Darkcoins cheating of:
1) Capping the MAX coins after launch
2) Basing their reward on Nethash *

it will stay 40-50% for a long time...

But talk it good were you can, for sure real investors will read your posts and put millions in.

It was preannounced and there were many people mining. Coins were distributed through trading in the weeks following launch. So I doubt that the distribution is significantly different than XMR.

* Fun fact: Every faster miner for drk effectly caused the miners to mine LESS as everyone upgraded, the nethash gone higher and reached the 5 coins/reward limit; Damn that dude really got his economics right...

He has a background in finance.

[Brilliantrocket]

You guys are funny. I couldn't care less about the instamine. Try explaining the difference to someone who is not familiar with crypto. They won't care either. This is relevant, as that's where a good deal of new money will come from.

I hope you're trolling and not being serious. Explaining the concept of a premine/instamine to a layman is far easier than explaining almost anything else in crypto.

"Hey, this weird crypto thing, do you want to invest? But before you do I'll let you know, the guy that created it made it so he could collect 10% of the entire supply in a matter of days, it's that guy who will crash the price at the peak by selling the lot, happy investing!"

The concept of unfair distribution is one of the easier concepts to get your head around when explaining crypto.

Well sure, if you blatantly lie or creatively misrepresent, many interesting things can be accomplished. Monero was created with a crippled hash so that the devs could have a massive advantage in obtaining coins. They made secret, optimized miners that allowed them to divert a large % of the supply to themselves. Botnets mined a massive portion of the coin's supply. See how easy that is?

[drawingthesun]

* Fun fact: Every faster miner for drk effectly caused the miners to mine LESS as everyone upgraded, the nethash gone higher and reached the 5 coins/reward limit; Damn that dude really got his economics right...

He has a background in finance.

Argument from authority, learn why this logical fallacy holds.

I know several people in finance, some smart and some very not so smart. A background in finance can mean very little, a background in anything can mean nothing.

Look at the finance people that caused their banks to fail, look at the experts that told us crypto-currency would fail, look at all people that are experts and yet have been wrong time and time again.

Your arguments are getting worse and worse.

All I see is developer worship and the beginnings of a cult.

You guys are funny. I couldn't care less about the instamine. Try explaining the difference to someone who is not familiar with crypto. They won't care either. This is relevant, as that's where a good deal of new money will come from.

I hope you're trolling and not being serious. Explaining the concept of a premine/instamine to a layman is far easier than explaining almost anything else in crypto.

"Hey, this weird crypto thing, do you want to invest? But before you do I'll let you know, the guy that created it made it so he could collect 10% of the entire supply in a matter of days, it's that guy who will crash the price at the peak by selling the lot, happy investing!"

The concept of unfair distribution is one of the easier concepts to get your head around when explaining crypto.

Well sure, if you blatantly lie or creatively misrepresent, many interesting things can be accomplished. Monero was created with a crippled hash so that the devs could have a massive advantage in obtaining coins. Botnets mined a massive portion of the coin's supply. See how easy that is?

Except that DRK was instamined, and the only evidence against this fact is that the developer said it wasn't intentional, now you have to believe in the word of the person that benefits most from the instamine. The right thing to do would have been restart the coin.

Also Monero was released in the form it was given to the world by the Bytecoin development team, this is verifiable, Monero was almost an exact clone at birth. It was afterwards that the code was cleaned up.

An instamine is an intentional fast release of coins to benefit the developer. Remember with DRK the instamine was so bad because he made the initial block reward far higher than it should have been, in Monero nothing like this happened, the block reward was always correct, the initial code just not being optimized because of its bytecoin origins.

[smooth]

Damn that dude really got his economics right...

It was exactly right if you wanted to maximize the effect of the instamine.

Don't think that scammers are stupid. The best scammers are very, very smart.

[Brilliantrocket]

Argument from authority, learn why this logical fallacy holds.

I know several people in finance, some smart and some very not so smart. A background in finance can mean very little, a background in anything can mean nothing.

Look at the finance people that caused their banks to fail, look at the experts that told us crypto-currency would fail, look at all people that are experts and yet have been wrong time and time again.

Your arguments are getting worse and worse.

All I see is developer worship and the beginnings of a cult.

What are you even talking about? His background in finance informed certain aspects of the coin's development, that's all. What you said might have made sense, if I had said " He has a background in finance, that is why Darkcoin will succeed". But that's not what I said. Reply to what I post, not what you wish I had posted.

Except that DRK was instamined, and the only evidence against this fact is that the developer said it wasn't intentional, now you have to believe in the word of the person that benefits most from the instamine. The right thing to do would have been restart the coin.

Also Monero was released in the form it was given to the world by the Bytecoin development team, this is verifiable, Monero was almost an exact clone at birth. It was afterwards that the code was cleaned up.

An instamine is an intentional fast release of coins to benefit the developer. Remember with DRK the instamine was so bad because he made the initial block reward far higher than it should have been, in Monero nothing like this happened, the block reward was always correct, the initial code just not being optimized because of its bytecoin origins.

How is that any sort of argument? We didn't write the code, so we can't be blamed for any potential abuse as a result of our choice to use it? In what fantasy world of yours does that make any sense whatsoever?

[Vanderi]

I remember .... Darkcoin ...

Aww that's cute.

[Brilliantrocket]

Now that I think about it, whoever created Bytecoin likely had optimized miners for their crippled hash function. Using a direct copy of their code would have enabled anyone with access to this miner to have a great advantage in mining Monero, as well. Bytecoin was tainted, they knew that. But what if we did a "fair" relaunch? Just conveniently fail to mention that the exact same fucking method used to make Bytecoin unfair could be applied to Monero! And no one would be the wiser! Now that's what I call a smart scam.

[drawingthesun]

Argument from authority, learn why this logical fallacy holds.

I know several people in finance, some smart and some very not so smart. A background in finance can mean very little, a background in anything can mean nothing.

Look at the finance people that caused their banks to fail, look at the experts that told us crypto-currency would fail, look at all people that are experts and yet have been wrong time and time again.

Your arguments are getting worse and worse.

All I see is developer worship and the beginnings of a cult.

What are you even talking about? His background in finance informed certain aspects of the coin's development, that's all. What you said might have made sense, if I had said " He has a background in finance, that is why Darkcoin will succeed". But that's not what I said. Reply to what I post, not what you wish I had posted.

Except that DRK was instamined, and the only evidence against this fact is that the developer said it wasn't intentional, now you have to believe in the word of the person that benefits most from the instamine. The right thing to do would have been restart the coin.

Also Monero was released in the form it was given to the world by the Bytecoin development team, this is verifiable, Monero was almost an exact clone at birth. It was afterwards that the code was cleaned up.

An instamine is an intentional fast release of coins to benefit the developer. Remember with DRK the instamine was so bad because he made the initial block reward far higher than it should have been, in Monero nothing like this happened, the block reward was always correct, the initial code just not being optimized because of its bytecoin origins.

How is that any sort of argument? We didn't write the code, so we can't be blamed for any potential abuse as a result of our choice to use it? In what fantasy world of yours does that make any sense whatsoever?

You mention that his background in finance informed parts of the code, and I guess you're bring that up because it's a good thing, my argument is that it isn't a good thing, it's a null thing, why bring it up in your argument at all?

Of course if you bring it up just because, for no reason to back up the brilliance of DRK, then why say it at all?

In regards to your second point, there is a world of difference:

Darkcoin: The developer makes it so that 10%~ of the entire supply is instamined via the use of a blockreward far far higher than it should be.

Monero: The code is so bad at the start that a possible better miner was mining the coin, however the crappy code was fixed quite quickly and at no point was the blockreward any different. The blockreward was not artificially pumped for an instamine.

If monero had started where the first week gave a blockreward of 5,000 Monero per block, then that is easily an instamine even if it was a mistake.

The difference is that Darkcoin spilt 10% of it's entire supply in a very short time, Monero took months to mine it's first 10%.

[Vanderi]

Now that I think about it, whoever created Bytecoin likely had optimized miners for their crippled hash function. Using a direct copy of their code would have enabled anyone with access to this miner to have a great advantage in mining Monero, as well. Bytecoin was tainted, they knew that. But what if we did a "fair" relaunch? Just conveniently fail to mention that the exact same fucking method used to make Bytecoin unfair could be applied to Monero! And no one would be the wiser! Now that's what I call a smart scam.

Yeah atleast it isn't such a longwinded theory compared to what the Monero shills say about their little baby amirite

[drawingthesun]

Now that I think about it, whoever created Bytecoin likely had optimized miners for their crippled hash function. Using a direct copy of their code would have enabled anyone with access to this miner to have a great advantage in mining Monero, as well. Bytecoin was tainted, they knew that. But what if we did a "fair" relaunch? Just conveniently fail to mention that the exact same fucking method used to make Bytecoin unfair could be applied to Monero! And no one would be the wiser! Now that's what I call a smart scam.

Except that many miners even weeks afterwards could mine using average CPU's, this points towards no hidden miner. I have a very old CPU and could mine a decent amount a month afterwards.

I guess you could analyse the Monero difficulty throughout its history, but I doubt you'll find evidence of a super private miner.

For example even now I can't mine a lot of XCN because of some private miner behind the scenes, normally you can tell if there is a scam going on by how much the average miner can make in the first month, if you can't mine anything then it shows that something is up, I never felt that happen with Monero, hence why we do not consider it a scam and have invested.

[Brilliantrocket]

Are we arguing semantics or what? Someone said that he got his economics right. I said he has a finance background, you know as an explanation to why he might not be a moron when it comes to economics?

[smooth]

Now that I think about it, whoever created Bytecoin likely had optimized miners for their crippled hash function. Using a direct copy of their code would have enabled anyone with access to this miner to have a great advantage in mining Monero, as well. Bytecoin was tainted, they knew that. But what if we did a "fair" relaunch? Just conveniently fail to mention that the exact same fucking method used to make Bytecoin unfair could be applied to Monero! And no one would be the wiser! Now that's what I call a smart scam.

In fact I have mentioned that the Bytecoin folks could have mined the other cryptonote coins using their optimized miner. That indeed could have been part of their plan from the start. There is no way to know.

The difference is that the rate of mining was not affected and only a tiny number of coins could have been mined in this way. It is simply not material, certainly not compared to DRK. Monero mined about 0.15% of its supply on the first day.

[drawingthesun]

Are we arguing semantics or what? Someone said that he got his economics right. I said he has a finance background, you know as an explanation to why he might not be a moron when it comes to economics?

I'm not sure, I haven't slept in days.

Perhaps I missed something, but I am not so sure he got his economics right, in fact I don't believe any CryptoCoin has got its economics right, but that is a discussion for another day.

[nakaone]

I was as well as brilliantrocket there when drk when you could buy 1k drk for 1btc - the projet was for a long time undervalued and then it rocketed, which was fine.

the point is: Evan was in a very early stage aware of cryptonote, even before monero started and at first he wanted to somewhat implement the technology due to its superiorty - I was very happy with that solution and it would have probably made all other cryptonotes useless. He finally decided not to implement it, which was in my opion the moment darkcoin died. He was aware of a superior technology and sticked to his half-baked solution for privacy - there are definetely on a technical level as well as on an economic level reasons for him not to implement: obviously masternodes and what he called economic policy would be useless, but he should as well as every educated member in the community be aware that privacy only works when it is as close to perfect as possible.

all the arguments that no one will care how it works are bullsh*t - you are not investing in a f*ckin television or a toaster where it really does not matter how it works. you are investing in a technology where the users are very sensitive to perfection.

I kept a very small amount of my initial investment in drk - but I think it will fail and the assumptions given by brilliantrocket are wrong for the reasons given above.

[Brilliantrocket]

Now that I think about it, whoever created Bytecoin likely had optimized miners for their crippled hash function. Using a direct copy of their code would have enabled anyone with access to this miner to have a great advantage in mining Monero, as well. Bytecoin was tainted, they knew that. But what if we did a "fair" relaunch? Just conveniently fail to mention that the exact same fucking method used to make Bytecoin unfair could be applied to Monero! And no one would be the wiser! Now that's what I call a smart scam.

In fact I have mentioned that the Bytecoin folks could have mined the other cryptonote coins using their optimized miner. That indeed could have been part of their plan from the start. There is no way to know.

The difference is that the rate of mining was not affected and only a tiny number of coins could have been mined in this way. It is simply not material, certainly not compared to DRK. Monero mined about 0.15% of its supply on the first day.

Mining with a secret, optimized miner over a period of several weeks could have easily produced a situation that rivals the DRK instamine in unfairness. The choices made in creating Monero facilitated this plan. I mean, this is truly the logic of a genius. BCN is unfair, so I'll just clone it without correct a major part of what made it unfair! And you guys call yourselves legitimate.

[celestio]

Now that I think about it, whoever created Bytecoin likely had optimized miners for their crippled hash function. Using a direct copy of their code would have enabled anyone with access to this miner to have a great advantage in mining Monero, as well. Bytecoin was tainted, they knew that. But what if we did a "fair" relaunch? Just conveniently fail to mention that the exact same fucking method used to make Bytecoin unfair could be applied to Monero! And no one would be the wiser! Now that's what I call a smart scam.

In fact I have mentioned that the Bytecoin folks could have mined the other cryptonote coins using their optimized miner. That indeed could have been part of their plan from the start. There is no way to know.

The difference is that the rate of mining was not affected and only a tiny number of coins could have been mined in this way. It is simply not material, certainly not compared to DRK. Monero mined about 0.15% of its supply on the first day.

Mining with a secret, optimized miner over a period of several weeks could have easily produced a situation that rivals the DRK instamine in unfairness. The choices made in creating Monero facilitated this plan. I mean, this is truly the logic of a genius. BCN is unfair, so I'll just clone it without correct a major part of what made it unfair! And you guys call yourselves legitimate.

Uh Yea...

No one in their right mind, would buy a 86% premined coin where a few people own the majority of coins. Just like after the hype is over, no one in their right minds would buy a 50% isntamined coin

[Vanderi]

Are we arguing semantics or what? Someone said that he got his economics right. I said he has a finance background, you know as an explanation to why he might not be a moron when it comes to economics?

Bro you need to tone it down a little, I think this is getting to you in an, you know, unhealthy way. Ugly words like "f*cking" and "moron" are creeping into your posts and the posting frequency seems a bit high too.

I guess you are bashing your keyboard right now? Are you bashing your keyboard?

This is not arguing but a civilised discussion, be noted.
And to be more precise, Risto has called out for Monero speculation in the thread.
It seems you are derailing badly, yourself even.

Just keep those DC bags close and believe for the best. We will leave you alone, promise.

[Brilliantrocket]

all the arguments that no one will care how it works are bullsh*t - you are not investing in a f*ckin television or a toaster where it really does not matter how it works. you are investing in a technology where the users are very sensitive to perfection.

And how might we gauge perfection, as it relates to anonymous currencies? Untraceability. If you can't demonstrate tracing a Darkcoin transaction, then insofar as 99+% of people care, Darkcoin is perfect.

[smooth]

Mining with a secret, optimized miner over a period of several weeks could have easily produced a situation that rivals the DRK instamine in unfairness. The choices made in creating Monero facilitated this plan. I mean, this is truly the logic of a genius. BCN is unfair, so I'll just clone it without correct a major part of what made it unfair! And you guys call yourselves legitimate.

No it couldn't because:

1. It probably didn't happen at all for the reason explained by drawingthesun a few posts back. Many regular folks were able to mine a lot right from the start and for several weeks going forward. The amount that could have been skimmed off couldn't have been much.

2. The difficulty was low despite a good adjustment algorithm that kept the rate of blocks close to the target (<10% overshoot on the first day, other days probably less). If someone was mining with a high hash rate it would have increased the difficulty. It didn't happen. Take a look at the difficulty chart on monerochain. It barely even budged for two weeks.

3. Even over several weeks the total amount mined was not that high. The TOTAL amount mined in the first three weeks was about 2.5%. Since we know that many independent miners got significant amounts, the amount any secret scam miner could have taken out of this 2.5% total would have been very, very low. Almost certainly well under 1%

That does not compare to DRK, not even close.

[Brilliantrocket]

Mining with a secret, optimized miner over a period of several weeks could have easily produced a situation that rivals the DRK instamine in unfairness. The choices made in creating Monero facilitated this plan. I mean, this is truly the logic of a genius. BCN is unfair, so I'll just clone it without correct a major part of what made it unfair! And you guys call yourselves legitimate.

No it couldn't because:

1. It probably didn't happen at all for the reason explained by drawingthesun a few posts back. Many regular folks were able to mine a lot right from the start and for several weeks going forward. The amount that could have been skimmed off couldn't have been much.

2. The difficulty was low despite a good adjustment algorithm that kept the rate of blocks close to the target (<10% overshoot on the first day, other days probably less). If someone was mining with a high hash rate it would have increased the difficulty. It didn't happen. Take a look at the difficulty chart on monerochain. It barely even budged for two weeks.

3. Even over several weeks the total amount mined was not that high. The TOTAL amount mined in the first three weeks was about 2.5%. Since we know that many independent miners got significant amounts, the amount any secret scam miner could have taken out of this 2.5% total would have been very, very low. Almost certainly well under 1%

That does not compare to DRK, not even close.

I'll have to do a bit of digging in the Monero thread to confirm, but to me it seems that the BCN devs would have been brain dead not to take advantage of such a prospective opportunity.