rpietila Altcoin Observer

[smooth]

Execoin released electrum wallet with stealth today, how does that compare to Monoro?

Source: http://www.electrum-exe.org/stealth/

Stealth addresses only provide a small component of transaction privacy. They allow you to reveal a public address (for example on a web site or forum signature) without that public address by itself being able to be used to identify all of your transactions.

This does nothing to prevent many other forms of blockchain analysis. For example, someone who sent you a transaction or to whom you send a transaction can trace that transaction to discover related ones. For example, if you pay for a glass of lemonade, the lemonade seller can trace back and see where you got your coins from, for example your salary or selling your house. When the lemonade seller uses those coins to buy supplies, his supplier can trace those coins back to identify his customers.

Both stealth addresses and some form of mixing to defeat tracing are needed to provide robust privacy.

[giveBTCpls]

I am sure everybody has heard the essential arguments by now;

Not true. It is not about calling your home beautiful. It is calling the other guy's home ugly.

You will see the same folks bashing other coins. It is a disease in altcoin world that can't be cured. Not sure how you got sucked into altcoins  

Because the only reason to use Bitcoin is to avoid legal taxes and other legal shit, therefore might as well use something anonymous aka Monero.

[ejinte]

Execoin released electrum wallet with stealth today, how does that compare to Monoro?

Source: http://www.electrum-exe.org/stealth/

Stealth addresses only provide a small component of transaction privacy. They allow you to reveal a public address (for example on a web site or forum signature) without that public address by itself being able to be used to identify all of your transactions.

This does nothing to prevent many other forms of blockchain analysis. For example, someone who sent you a transaction or to whom you send a transaction can trace that transaction to discover related ones. For example, if you pay for a glass of lemonade, the lemonade seller can trace back and see where you got your coins from, for example your salary or selling your house. When the lemonade seller uses those coins to buy supplies, his supplier can trace those coins back to identify his customers.

Both stealth addresses and some form of mixing to defeat tracing are needed to provide robust privacy.

Thanks for the break down

I am sure everybody has heard the essential arguments by now;

Not true. It is not about calling your home beautiful. It is calling the other guy's home ugly.

You will see the same folks bashing other coins. It is a disease in altcoin world that can't be cured. Not sure how you got sucked into altcoins  

Because the only reason to use Bitcoin is to avoid legal taxes and other legal shit, therefore might as well use something anonymous aka Monero.

That is not the only reason to use bitcoin. I think you should spend some more time on this forum.

[digitalindustry]

There you go kids , I tweeted this one to Robert J. Shiller



An interesting thing happened on the way to proving that decentralized free market distribution can find price stability.

http://kolinevans.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/an-interesting-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-proving-that-decentralized-free-market-distribution-can-find-price-stability/


if you only look at the pictures it could be helpful?

lets remember -:

-  Quark has had massive volume in its first year.

see if you can find the trends.

[darlidada]

XMR is just looking for a reason to go in bubble mode. At this point, anything could trigger it be it cryptsy adding it or an official GUI or whatever announcement they are gonna share with us in today's missive.

[Melbustus]

...
lets remember -:

-  Quark has had massive volume in its first year.
...

Quark was another tweak/clone coin, thus zero relevance to the current market dynamics of CN coins.

[Brilliantrocket]

XMR is just looking for a reason to go in bubble mode. At this point, anything could trigger it be it cryptsy adding it or an official GUI or whatever announcement they are gonna share with us in today's missive.

Hard to sustain a bubble when 22,000 coins are being mined everyday. A bubble would just invite botnets, who would promptly dump.

[darlidada]

XMR is just looking for a reason to go in bubble mode. At this point, anything could trigger it be it cryptsy adding it or an official GUI or whatever announcement they are gonna share with us in today's missive.

Hard to sustain a bubble when 22,000 coins are being mined everyday. A bubble would just invite botnets, who would promptly dump.

A bubble is not sustainable per se.

It's really difficult to discuss with people like you: because every time you write something, it's nothing of value, it's just noise.

[darkota]

XMR is just looking for a reason to go in bubble mode. At this point, anything could trigger it be it cryptsy adding it or an official GUI or whatever announcement they are gonna share with us in today's missive.

Hard to sustain a bubble when 22,000 coins are being mined everyday. A bubble would just invite botnets, who would promptly dump.

Better to have 22,000 coins mined per day until the block halves, to ensure a fair distribution, rather than having a 2million coin instamine in the first 24 hours(DRK)....

From what I've seen, there aren't that many botnets mining xmr. Since they use 32 bit machines, which mine hardly any coins per day, and the owners almost always sell their coins immediately, not wait for pumps..The highest botnet I've heard someone say was consisting of only 20 cpus...20 32 bit cpu's would mine 2 XMR per day with around 0.1 xmr per cpu...2. The difficulty is too high for botnets.

[illodin]

XMR is just looking for a reason to go in bubble mode. At this point, anything could trigger it be it cryptsy adding it or an official GUI or whatever announcement they are gonna share with us in today's missive.

Hard to sustain a bubble when 22,000 coins are being mined everyday. A bubble would just invite botnets, who would promptly dump.

Now let's not get into that we don't want darkota storming in with his endless "darkcoin's trivial anonymity" posts and other delusions.

EDIT: oops, too late

[rethink-your-strategy]

XMR is just looking for a reason to go in bubble mode. At this point, anything could trigger it be it cryptsy adding it or an official GUI or whatever announcement they are gonna share with us in today's missive.

Hard to sustain a bubble when 22,000 coins are being mined everyday. A bubble would just invite botnets, who would promptly dump.

So what you're saying is that XMR is unlikely to have a bubble, and will instead have a relative amount of price stability for a few years? Sounds like the complete opposite of a pump and dump and is instead putting coins into the hands of the people. Gosh.

[Its About Sharing]

XMR is just looking for a reason to go in bubble mode. At this point, anything could trigger it be it cryptsy adding it or an official GUI or whatever announcement they are gonna share with us in today's missive.

Hard to sustain a bubble when 22,000 coins are being mined everyday. A bubble would just invite botnets, who would promptly dump.

22,000 coins a day X .0026 (rough current price) = app. 52 BTC a day to sustain that price. The average volume on ONLY Poloniex has been over 100 BTC a day. There is a pretty good chance that darlidada might be on to something. Obviously someone has been dumping their coins as the volume is more than there. Since there was not the instamine as with some other coins  , there is a pretty good chance that if XMR continues to succeed as a CN coin, that we will see an appreciation in price. Eventually we will need wide adoption along with a nice GUI wallet and such. But till then, large pockets do appear to be moving in here.

I personally liked DRK coin at first but once the instamine information came out (should have done my DD) and once I (on my own) started thinking about the name, it hit me it probably never will be widely accepted. What further got me down on DRK was the lack of what it really sets out to do, be anonymous. I've appreciated the dialogue here.

Now, even though I feel this way, it does not mean that DRK won't succeed. I mean look at Dogy coin, not that it has succeeded, but it goes to show you that a meme coin can take off, at least for a time. And once all the Cryptos really do start to move (with BTC leading the way), I wonder if we actually will have a vast field of Alts and Andreas A. has described. Perhaps we will look back on this and say we were splitting hairs.

IAS

[equipoise]

XMR is just looking for a reason to go in bubble mode. At this point, anything could trigger it be it cryptsy adding it or an official GUI or whatever announcement they are gonna share with us in today's missive.

Hard to sustain a bubble when 22,000 coins are being mined everyday. A bubble would just invite botnets, who would promptly dump.

So what you're saying is that XMR is unlikely to have a bubble, and will instead have a relative amount of price stability for a few years? Sounds like the complete opposite of a pump and dump and is instead putting coins into the hands of the people. Gosh.

The price will vary, but can't stay too high for too long. Make it too profitable to mine and a lot of miners will come to mine it and sell it for BTC (and not only). Make it unprofitable to mine and you could make a good approximation of the miners supporting Monero for what it is; however, unprofitable to mine with the current XMR inflation per day is relative concept. 11% mined - 89% to go.

[smooth]

XMR is just looking for a reason to go in bubble mode. At this point, anything could trigger it be it cryptsy adding it or an official GUI or whatever announcement they are gonna share with us in today's missive.

Hard to sustain a bubble when 22,000 coins are being mined everyday. A bubble would just invite botnets, who would promptly dump.

So what you're saying is that XMR is unlikely to have a bubble, and will instead have a relative amount of price stability for a few years? Sounds like the complete opposite of a pump and dump and is instead putting coins into the hands of the people. Gosh.

The price will vary, but can't stay too high for too long. Make it too profitable to mine and a lot of miners will come to mine it and sell it for BTC (and not only). Make it unprofitable to mine and you could make a good approximation of the miners supporting Monero for what it is; however, unprofitable to mine with the current XMR inflation per day is relative concept. 11% mined - 89% to go.

This is incorrect. The amount of mining is constant, especially for XMR which has a decent difficulty adjustment algorithm

Take a look at this graph: http://monerochain.info/charts/blocktime
 
The block time hardly varies at all, despite there being huge changes in the hash rate at times.

If more people mine, the difficulty goes up and the amount mined quickly returns to the baseline.

This is one peculiar thing about bitcoin-style cryptos that makes them unlike other markets such as gold. If the gold price goes up, people mine more gold. But this doesn't happen with cryptos.

Since supply is constant, price is determined entirely by demand. If demand goes up, price goes up. If demand goes down, price goes down.

Which is why I continue to say that the way the price of the coin goes up is to make it more useful, or make it apparent that it will become more useful in the future. (The latter brings in speculators.)

[equipoise]

^I completely agree and still can't see what's the controversial.

[smooth]

^I completely agree and still can't see what's the controversial.

The only controversy is that you seem to think that the response of miners (increased mining) to price increases matters. I don't think mining is important at all.

What matters is whether people see enough of a future in this coin to invest (really speculate) in it, and at the present time with no practical uses that is all that matters. The rate of investment will determine the price.

Further, I'd add that 50 BTC/day is really not very much, and even a few hundred BTC/day could be readily achieved. There is a lot of money floating around in the crypto space already, and the really big hedge fund money that could easily move thousands of BTC per day hasn't even arrived yet.

[aminorex]

I don't think mining is important at all.

The cost of mining absolutely factors in to the willingness of miners to sell.  Any miner at scale who sold at a loss consistently would be bankrupted in short order, and cease to be a miner.

The exceptions to that logic are:  (1) anomalously low cost miners, and (2) enthusiast miners.  But while (2) may continue to mine when price is low, they have no motivation to sell.

(1) might be substantially composed of botnets.  But mining XMR with a botnet is like giving away half of your profits, because other coins are twice the yield right now.  It makes no sense to me.  I admit the point that switching a botnet to another coin is (1) a c&c risk, and (2) a slow process, like turning an aircraft carrier, but at this point you'd have to be lazy and dumb not to be mining vertcoin or something else with a substantially higher yield.  This condition has dragged on for more than a week now.

I don't think more than 25% of mined coins are being sold now, probably less each day.  Unfortunately I don't know of a way to determine the actual number because of the privacy design.  If anyone has a model that would allow to estimate the number of coins being added to supply each day, or access to exchange data regarding coin flow, I would love to hear about it.

I am utterly amazed that we can maintain nearly 1GH (the equivalent of about 10,000 desktops, or 5,000 desktops and 2,000 GPUs) of what must be, at this point, almost entirely enthusiast hashing.

Given that no more than 5500 xmr are being sold at 0028, that's only 15 btc/diem of burn.  There are 230 btc of bid on plx alone.  This is bullish as f*ck.

One way my analysis could be wrong big-time:  If most of the hash is botnet, and the controller(s) are big XMR holders, not just dumpers, they might withhold as much as they can without crimping their lifestyle, in expectation of higher future prices.  That makes them more like enthusiasts than scale miners, in their behaviour.  But if this were true, why have they dumped so low?  I have to think that the hash is mostly not botnet, and the botnets were dumping while they were large in the hash, but now represent either holders or a much smaller proportion of the hash than they did previously.

[smooth]

^I completely agree and still can't see what's the controversial.

The only controversy is that you seem to think that the response of miners (increased mining) to price increases matters. I don't think mining is important at all.

What matters is whether people see enough of a future in this coin to invest (really speculate) in it, and at the present time with no practical uses that is all that matters. The rate of investment will determine the price.

Further, I'd add that 50 BTC/day is really not very much, and even a few hundred BTC/day could be readily achieved. There is a lot of money floating around in the crypto space already, and the really big hedge fund money that could easily move thousands of BTC per day hasn't even arrived yet.

The cost of mining absolutely factors in to the willingness of miners to sell.  Any miner at scale who sold at a loss consistently would be bankrupted in short order, and cease to be a miner.

By the same logic, any miner at scale who doesn't sell would also be bankrupted.

The only exception would be a miner who covers his operating costs by way of capital investment.

Approximately 22.6K XMR are coming into existence by mining every day. It doesn't matter what mining costs are, nor does it matter how many miners compete for that 22.6K. The same 22.6K is coming into existence, and needs to either be held by a miner (who then must invest to cover his own operating costs), or by other investors. 100% of the coins will end up being held by someone, and that holder is an net investor.

In the short term the relationship between difficulty and price affects miners entering and existing the mining business, but it does not affect price. This was explained by dga here (I think, although it might have been on the XMR or BBR threads). It has also been demonstrated by a real academic study that statistically demonstrated a causal link from price to difficulty but not from difficulty to price (though for the past several months I have been unable to locate a link to said study).

As explained earlier here by rpietila and myself, there is little difference between the miner himself investing, and the miner selling (directly or indirectly) to an investor. Either way the investment must occur because someone believes it to offer a favorable return. This sort of specialization can be natural and normal and desirable, but vertical integration between mining and investing can also at times be desirable.

The bottom line is that price is determined (nearly -- excluding minor short term fluctuations in supply) entirely by demand to invest in the coin.

[smooth]

One way my analysis could be wrong big-time:  If most of the hash is botnet, and the controller(s) are big XMR holders, not just dumpers, they might withhold as much as they can without crimping their lifestyle, in expectation of higher future prices.  That makes them more like enthusiasts than scale miners, in their behaviour.

I agree with this.

But if this were true, why have they dumped so low?

I do not agree with this. The price is not "low" or "high." The price is what is is, which is a balance between the 22.6K coins mined per day and the willingness of investors (in which you may include various categories: whales, enthusiasts, short term speculators/traders, etc.) to make a net investment in this coin of about 50 BTC per day. If demand for such investment increases to 100 BTC per day, then the price of the coin will double. If demand drops to 25 BTC per day, the price will drop in half.

I have to think that the hash is mostly not botnet, and the botnets were dumping while they were large in the hash, but now represent either holders or a much smaller proportion of the hash than they did previously.

I have no idea how much is botnets, and I don't really see any way to ever know, but I certainly think it is plausible that botnet owners might be bullish on the coin and therefore be making a decision to hold some of it rather than sell. Or it could be that they are selling through exchanges and privately. There is substantial demand to buy this coin in private off-exchange deals, I can tell you that from personal experience.

[aminorex]

By the same logic, any miner at scale who doesn't sell would also be bankrupted.

This is the enthusiast category.  They are not mining for profit, but to support the network.  They will buy XMR at a premium with their plant and power, because they are long-term holders.  
Yes, this is the economic equivalent of buying at a higher price.  They are not at scale, so they can afford it.  I am in this category.  The behaviour is fundamentally different from other categories of rationally self-interested miner.

In the short term the relationship between difficulty and price affects miners entering and existing the mining business, but it does not affect price. This was explained by dga here (I think, although it might have been on the XMR or BBR threads). It has also been demonstrated by a real academic study that statistically demonstrated a causal link from price to difficulty but not from difficulty to price (though for the past several months I have been unable to locate a link to said study).

dga made a good case, but I am completely unconvinced, because he didn't address my point:  When some actors are not acting in a rationally self-interested manner, the economy is dramatically different.  If the majority of miners are not acting in a rationally self-interested manner, it will be an economy from Mars, totally alien.

there is little difference between the miner himself investing, and the miner selling (directly or indirectly) to an investor.

This I agree with.

Either way the investment must occur because someone believes it to offer a favorable return. This sort of specialization can be natural and normal and desirable, but vertical integration between mining and investing can also at times be desirable.

This, I do not.  My mining behaviour is invariant, inelastic, not price sensitive.  It does not relate to expectation of return in any way, because my horizon is effectively infinite.