rpietila Altcoin Observer

[coinits]

As regards what is money, only the gold medal is worthwhile. Silver is already cheap as shit. Bronze is not even counted since 2000 years.

=> Invest only in coins that have potential to be #1, or at least, #2. Others will just die.

Couldn't disagree more ie first statement, yet silver is for many and varied reasons better for use as money then gold (eg less likely for gov confiscation, industrial usage more important then gold so always will have a stable floor value).

your only reasoning for the other way round is the price vs USD ie silver is atm "cheap as shit"....thats almost non argument when it comes to use as a currency   

The precious metals market is rife with government and bankster fraud. Eventually their derivatives/paper metal holdings and fiat will burn in a rehypothecated shit storm driving precious metals through the roof. And always remember that you do not own it unless you have it in hand.

I keep a stash of PMs for wealth storage. Truthfully it is what lead me to the world of crytocurrency.

[1714570018]

1714570018

[1714570018]

1714570018

[1714570018]

1714570018

[kelsey]

As regards what is money, only the gold medal is worthwhile. Silver is already cheap as shit. Bronze is not even counted since 2000 years.

=> Invest only in coins that have potential to be #1, or at least, #2. Others will just die.

Couldn't disagree more ie first statement, yet silver is for many and varied reasons better for use as money then gold (eg less likely for gov confiscation, industrial usage more important then gold so always will have a stable floor value).

your only reasoning for the other way round is the price vs USD ie silver is atm "cheap as shit"....thats almost non argument when it comes to use as a currency   

The precious metals market is rife with government and bankster fraud. Eventually their derivatives/paper metal holdings and fiat will burn in a rehypothecated shit storm driving precious metals through the roof. And always remember that you do not own it unless you have it in hand.

I keep a stash of PMs for wealth storage. Truthfully it is what lead me to the world of crytocurrency.

similar here, alternatives to fiat such as precious metals is what led me to crypto and I still keep a percentage of my investment capital in (real) silver.

[megashira1]

As regards what is money, only the gold medal is worthwhile. Silver is already cheap as shit. Bronze is not even counted since 2000 years.

=> Invest only in coins that have potential to be #1, or at least, #2. Others will just die.

Couldn't disagree more ie first statement, yet silver is for many and varied reasons better for use as money then gold (eg less likely for gov confiscation, industrial usage more important then gold so always will have a stable floor value).

your only reasoning for the other way round is the price vs USD ie silver is atm "cheap as shit"....thats almost non argument when it comes to use as a currency   

The precious metals market is rife with government and bankster fraud. Eventually their derivatives/paper metal holdings and fiat will burn in a rehypothecated shit storm driving precious metals through the roof. And always remember that you do not own it unless you have it in hand.

I keep a stash of PMs for wealth storage. Truthfully it is what lead me to the world of crytocurrency.

similar here, alternatives to fiat such as precious metals is what led me to crypto and I still keep a percentage of my investment capital in (real) silver.

same here. trend goes precious metals onwards to crypto

[itod]

I think it has 10% chance to be #1 and 50% to be #2 in a few years.

I can't imagine a scenario were Bitcoin gets surpassed unless it is destroyed for some reason.

So my question is: your "10% Monero #1" scenario implies "Bitcoin dead", or something else?

Currently the scenario would be that Bitcoin becomes the government crypto, and the free world would adopt Monero. If the free world is larger than government, then it is possible that both of them flourish, even if Monero actually becomes larger.

There's a tiny chance that other crypto replaces the BTC as No #1, but it almost certainly will not be any of todays favorites for that place, no need to panic buy altcoins right now. If some PoS coin gains backup (simultaneously) from several big social networks and large digital players, like Facebook + Twitter + Netflix + Amazon + eBay + [you-name-it], and becomes their "official" payment option it may easily gain more volume than BTC. Chances that those big players align their interests are very slim, so the eventual future No #1 has to do it from the ground up. Mission (almost) impossible.

[dewdeded]

Unlikeley that companies will run an consensus based 100% true crypto currency, where they cant manipulate.

[Este Nuno]

As regards what is money, only the gold medal is worthwhile. Silver is already cheap as shit. Bronze is not even counted since 2000 years.

=> Invest only in coins that have potential to be #1, or at least, #2. Others will just die.

Couldn't disagree more ie first statement, yet silver is for many and varied reasons better for use as money then gold (eg less likely for gov confiscation, industrial usage more important then gold so always will have a stable floor value).

your only reasoning for the other way round is the price vs USD ie silver is atm "cheap as shit"....thats almost non argument when it comes to use as a currency   

The precious metals market is rife with government and bankster fraud. Eventually their derivatives/paper metal holdings and fiat will burn in a rehypothecated shit storm driving precious metals through the roof. And always remember that you do not own it unless you have it in hand.

I keep a stash of PMs for wealth storage. Truthfully it is what lead me to the world of crytocurrency.

similar here, alternatives to fiat such as precious metals is what led me to crypto and I still keep a percentage of my investment capital in (real) silver.

I doubt you're going to find rpietila is some kind of anti-silver proponent:

[rpietila]

Perhaps it is good to interpret my own post because it wasn't obvious:

As with metals, the #1 is really valuable, but the #2 is only about 1/50 as valuable. Others are not even counted.

So will it be with coins, therefore do not buy coins that aim to be #3.

[AlexGR]

Do you really think that having to premix coins is an advantage to a passive technology where u can just send them without ever caring about how it works?

No, that's a clear disadvantage. But the target is to be seamless, like you download the client, it does all the denominations automatically and then you are ready to go. It'll take much less than downloading / syncing the XMR blockchain, I assure you. So time is not an issue.

[Lohoris]

Perhaps it is good to interpret my own post because it wasn't obvious:

As with metals, the #1 is really valuable, but the #2 is only about 1/50 as valuable. Others are not even counted.

So will it be with coins, therefore do not buy coins that aim to be #3.

Makes sense.

Though, if I think COIN1 and COIN2 have both 50% chances of becoming #2, it makes sense to invest half in one and half in another (while keeping most funds in #1 anyway).

[rpietila]

Perhaps it is good to interpret my own post because it wasn't obvious:

As with metals, the #1 is really valuable, but the #2 is only about 1/50 as valuable. Others are not even counted.

So will it be with coins, therefore do not buy coins that aim to be #3.

Makes sense.

Though, if I think COIN1 and COIN2 have both 50% chances of becoming #2, it makes sense to invest half in one and half in another (while keeping most funds in #1 anyway).

Exactly. What coins do you regard as having it?

[klee]

Perhaps it is good to interpret my own post because it wasn't obvious:

As with metals, the #1 is really valuable, but the #2 is only about 1/50 as valuable. Others are not even counted.

So will it be with coins, therefore do not buy coins that aim to be #3.

Makes sense.

Though, if I think COIN1 and COIN2 have both 50% chances of becoming #2, it makes sense to invest half in one and half in another (while keeping most funds in #1 anyway).

Exactly. What coins do you regard as having it?

Only decentralised ones or centralised too included (like XRP, STR)?

[Lohoris]

Exactly. What coins do you regard as having it?

I don't have specific coins right now; I think there are three very important factors that will lead coins to success: decentralization, anonymity, and sustainability.

Currently AFAIK no coin is successfully doing all three, and I'm not sure neither if they will be enough, nor if they are actually achievable or maybe mutually-exclusive, nor if they are all necessary.

But that's what I watch for.

[Lohoris]

Only decentralised ones or centralised too included (like XRP, STR)?

Well, technically XRP is premined but not centralised, AFAIK.
Maybe de-facto it is, but if it was successful new nodes could have come up quite easily. Afain, AFAIK.

[klee]

Only decentralised ones or centralised too included (like XRP, STR)?

Well, technically XRP is premined but not centralised, AFAIK.
Maybe de-facto it is, but if it was successful new nodes could have come up quite easily. Afain, AFAIK.

Well ok, I think you know what I mean 

[othe]

Do you really think that having to premix coins is an advantage to a passive technology where u can just send them without ever caring about how it works?

No, that's a clear disadvantage. But the target is to be seamless, like you download the client, it does all the denominations automatically and then you are ready to go. It'll take much less than downloading / syncing the XMR blockchain, I assure you. So time is not an issue.

SPV Clients for XMR are instant, no need to wait, sorry but point isn´t valid.
Same as for Bitcoin, who runs a fullnode? I not, i run Electrum.
The ones running Bitcoin QT/Monero full have it running 24/7 anyway, its always synced.

And no you aren´t ready to go after your funds are denominated, to archive at least a good privacy you have to denominate them on every big transfer and have to use coincontrol to send them, so they never get mixed/linked with each other.

[illodin]

And no you aren´t ready to go after your funds are denominated, to archive at least a good privacy you have to denominate them on every big transfer and have to use coincontrol to send them, so they never get mixed/linked with each other.

Actually the wallet even at this stage will take care of this, you don't have to fiddle with coin control and you can't accidentally send non-anonymized coins. If you try to send more coins than the wallet has managed to anonymize (for example you send most of your coins, and then receive a transfer, and then try immediately sending most of your coins again), it will let you know.

[othe]

And no you aren´t ready to go after your funds are denominated, to archive at least a good privacy you have to denominate them on every big transfer and have to use coincontrol to send them, so they never get mixed/linked with each other.

Actually the wallet even at this stage will take care of this, you don't have to fiddle with coin control and you can't accidentally send non-anonymized coins. If you try to send more coins than the wallet has managed to anonymize (for example you send most of your coins, and then receive a transfer, and then try immediately sending most of your coins again), it will let you know.

It´s not that easy.

Let´s say i have 1000 anonymized, i want to make 2 payments of 500 DRK.
After the first payment of 1 x 500 DRK i get a change back, this change can link the second transaction to the first. If the change is not sent back anonymized coins i have too less coins for the second transfer
In both cases the behaviour is annoying for users in the first it´s even dangerous.

[Majormax]

Exactly. What coins do you regard as having it?

I don't have specific coins right now; I think there are three very important factors that will lead coins to success: decentralization, anonymity, and sustainability.

Currently AFAIK no coin is successfully doing all three, and I'm not sure neither if they will be enough, nor if they are actually achievable or maybe mutually-exclusive, nor if they are all necessary.

But that's what I watch for.

There is a chance that the winner comes from left field, with a combination of elements which cannot yet be predicted. ... or it could be an existing coin,currently ignored because it's genetics are 'too silly' or considered impossible for success (until changing conditions make it the top survivor) .. Just like real life evolution.


I hold about 70 different, including many which would be instantly dismissed out-of-hand by serious analysts. Being involved in the discussion and watching development really helps in understanding how success happens: it doesn't always submit to rational analysis.

[Este Nuno]

Is it theoretically possible to fork Bitcoin and implement ring signatures? Or is the current protocol something that fundamentally can't be adapted in that way?

Is it the type of thing that's 'possible', but so difficult that you would just be better off writing something from scratch al la CN?

[othe]

Everything in software is possible but that would simply stop all Bitcoin applications to work with it...
Even the QT gui would have to be changed a lot and if you end then with better code is really questionable, i like the approach of having different codebases, even if its more work int he beginning.