rpietila Altcoin Observer

[aminorex]

at the moment we may be forming a very well structured cup-with-handle in XMR, with a buy point of 0040.

[1714602528]

1714602528

[kelsey]

PoW is an expression of value transfer (the expense of one resource to create another). I realize this is a major simplification, but if PoS can't represent some measure of GDP than it's security is irrelevant. It fails the most basic test.

With POW though is a true resource even being create to which the value is being transferred?
Funny thing about so many people in the western world is they perceive their work has to be worth something even when they create nothing of value.

[rpietila]

at the moment we may be forming a very well structured cup-with-handle in XMR, with a buy point of 0040.

Why not 0035? 

[rpietila]

Money cannot have an issuer that must be trusted.

However could a genuine trustless system even be possible?

Welcome to the forum! 

[Johnny Mnemonic]

PoW is an expression of value transfer (the expense of one resource to create another). I realize this is a major simplification, but if PoS can't represent some measure of GDP than it's security is irrelevant. It fails the most basic test.

With POW though is a true resource even being create to which the value is being transferred?
Funny thing about so many people in the western world is they perceive their work has to be worth something even when they create nothing of value.

If it wasn't valuable then the work wouldn't be done in the first place.

PoW is an expression of value transfer (the expense of one resource to create another). I realize this is a major simplification, but if PoS can't represent some measure of GDP than it's security is irrelevant. It fails the most basic test.

My CPoS scheme will directly test this hypothesis and will certainly fail if you are right. In contrast, perhaps cryptocurrencies are valuable solely because some people think they are valuable.

That would be nice, but fiat only works because it's centralized and policed. In a decentralized free market you cannot establish value out of thin air. I could be wrong.

[nakaone]

500k+ of volume and no comments on BitSharesX?  Seems people are getting in before the market peg features are rolled.

Quote from bytemaster:

In practice BitShares isn't a distributed system, it is more like coordinated synchronized time shared centralized system.  

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5402.msg72829#msg72829

I'll let others form their opinions.

despites that (and their cultish behaviour)- what do you guys think of the idea of using a digital token as a collateral to lend "dollars" into existence?

From an economists perspective I still have questions if bytemasters mechanism works well, it is a semi-prediction market But in case it works I see an IMMEDIATE coverage for "bitUSD", which will lead to massive liquidity. I think bitcoin should look very closely to this development; in my opion it would be the killerapp for cryptocurrencies.

That said there are a ton of uncertainties but let us wait for the development

[devphp]

what do you guys think of the idea of using a digital token as a collateral to lend "dollars" into existence?

This idea might work in the future, when/if tokens have more trust and credit worthiness than dollars.

[AnonyMint]

Money cannot have an issuer that must be trusted.

Bingo.

And currency can't all end up in the hands of the power-law distributed savers. It also has to be continuously debased so that spenders can spend. Savers and spenders are symbiotic.

You can claim that investors send the money back to spenders via wages, but the fact is they don't. They pool their money in usury interest bearing bonds, which is a form of mutual bondage (slavery) for both the lender and the borrower. That is a deeper, detailed mathematical analysis that I don't have time to reexplain right now. Refer to my older writings on the Hommel forum. There is a reason the Bible says you can only lend at interest to a stranger, not to one of your own.

In other words, savers will destroy themselves if left to their own natural behavior. Don't just look down on spenders, look down on savers too.

Money cannot have an issuer that must be trusted.

However could a genuine trustless system even be possible?

Based on designs I've explored, I believe yes. Except for adding new features, you need to trust a developer to take control. Once you are willing to lock the features into stone, it can run on autopilot if the features are resilient enough. When it eventually fails, you design a new currency learning from the past mistakes.

[Lohoris]

If it wasn't valuable then the work wouldn't be done in the first place.

If it wasn't profitable, it would likely not be done in the first place.
Quite different.

Profitable doesn't imply valuable.

PoW is an unsustainable ever escalating arms race.
Even during the cold war USA vs. USSR managed to understand that it wasn't a great idea.

(not implying PoS is a good idea. Just that PoW is leagues far from perfect)

[devphp]

And currency can't all end up in the hands of the power-law distributed savers. It also has to be continuously debased so that spenders can spend. Savers and spenders are symbiotic.

In NXT there are plans to implement Monetary System that will allow to create currencies (both PoS and PoW) on top of NXT that should gain additional value compared to NXT coins. This is supposed to work as an anti-deflation mechanism and help stakeholders diversify and distribute their stakes when they see more value in those currencies.

There are also incentives for stakeholders to invest in successful enterprises running on NXT Asset Exchange, because shares of successful companies can appreciate faster than NXT coins. Debts can also be settled in shares of enterprises, not just in NXT coins.

Both of these mechanisms are supposed to help with distribution and fight centralization of stakes. I guess it will take a few years before we find out if it worked

[AnonyMint]

If it wasn't valuable then the work wouldn't be done in the first place.

If it wasn't profitable, it would likely not be done in the first place.
Quite different.

Profitable doesn't imply valuable.

PoW is an unsustainable ever escalating arms race.

I told everyone upthread, the only way to make PoW work decentralized, is to make it entirely unprofitable. That is the last hint you are going to get.

[drawingthesun]

If it wasn't valuable then the work wouldn't be done in the first place.

If it wasn't profitable, it would likely not be done in the first place.
Quite different.

Profitable doesn't imply valuable.

PoW is an unsustainable ever escalating arms race.

I told everyone upthread, the only way to make PoW work decentralized, is to make it entirely unprofitable. That is the last hint you are going to get.

So is the hint that PoS or something similar is the only solution? Satoshi chose PoW because of the greed incentive, he believed that the monetary attraction would bring enough people to the table that they would outpace any attacker.

If PoW is unprofitable, then the only miner will be someone mining for no profit, most likely an attacker.

[nakaone]

what do you guys think of the idea of using a digital token as a collateral to lend "dollars" into existence?

This idea might work in the future, when/if tokens have more trust and credit worthiness than dollars.

I think even without that it could work, simply by the transparancy as well as the fungibility of the collateral. I spend dozens of hours in february to work through bitshares' idea and I have to admit that I like the idea of building a collateral on a blockchain very much. That said I still have doubts regarding the mechanism as well as the team and the community of bitshares.

[aminorex]

at the moment we may be forming a very well structured cup-with-handle in XMR, with a buy point of 0040.

Why not 0035? 

The classic instructions for cnh are to buy when the handle passes the rim of the cup, as this confirms the pattern, making a failure of the pattern less likely.  Of course if you are a lnet XMR accumulator, the 35 entry is 14% better than the 40 entry, if the pattern fulfills, and given that any actual reversal has roughly no chance of taking 14% off the current price, the cost of waiting on this occassion is excessive.  But the cnh rule as classically practiced is insensitive to those details.

[AnonyMint]

If PoW is unprofitable, then the only miner will be someone mining for no profit...

Correct.

...most likely an attacker.

I believe incorrect.

[Globb0]

Once you are willing to lock the features into stone, it can run on autopilot if the features are resilient enough. When it eventually fails, you design a new currency learning from the past mistakes.

Maybe in theory, but the reality of hacking is that it is also an arms race. You need some reactive protection element or you may be starting again all too often.

POW as an ever increasing resource drain could easily contribute to ruining the planet, I suppose a check might be when it realy no longer makes financial sense they stop. Nice that some POW at least try to create something meaningful that can be used elsewhere, like scientific research.

Talking of integration projects/technologies, like heaters that could mine some of their running costs, perhase this is the best future.

To find synergies and complementary relationships that make the meaningless meaningful and become a part of the process.

Phil

[AnonyMint]

POW as an ever increasing resource drain could easily contribute to ruining the planet

If you knew my solution, you would know that is false. There are not an unbounded number of people in the world. Remember I said it is unprofitable, so no one has an incentive to invest more. My solution is essentially one person one vote, but not in the way you would normally assume.

Surely I have given enough hints, you can deduce now what I have in mind. Any further incorrect assumptions, will not be corrected.

[Queeq]

If you knew my solution, you would know that is false. There are not an unbounded number of people in the world. Remember I said it is unprofitable, so no one has an incentive to invest more. My solution is essentially one person one vote, but not in the way you would normally assume.

Surely I have given enough hints, you can deduce now what I have in mind. Any further incorrect assumptions, will not be corrected.

How would you identify a person? How to distinguish it from a computer or other virtual entity? IIRC there were some kind of coins that implemented proof of identity based on face recognition and web of trust. Never heard where it went so it must be safe to assume that they failed.

[rpietila]

POW as an ever increasing resource drain could easily contribute to ruining the planet

Debt "money" (fiat) is the greatest contributor to misallocation and waste. Good thing is, anything is a step to the better in this arena.

[SlipperySlope]

I have three GPU mining rigs ready to heat my Colorado mountain home should GPU-algorithm coins ever again be profitable to mine, but I doubt that I will ever take them out of storage.

It is profitable to mine XMR.

Thanks!!

I have 5 280x GPU cards, which should get 450 h/sec each. According to an XMR mining calculator, that works out to .22 BTC per month. It would not pay my electric bill in Austin, Texas, but is very satisfactory as a noisy space heater that offsets my electric heating bill in my Colorado mountain home over the winter. An additional expense is maintaining the internet service when I am not there.