rpietila Altcoin Observer

[cAPSLOCK]

The admittedly quite clever campaign that used the fake pro-Monero trolls may have influenced BCX's initial reaction.

After the PM exchange was published, I believe BCX was just trying to save face.

Link?

[cAPSLOCK]

Sorry, but this makes no sense. 5% of today's hashrate could 51% attack the coin.

Seriously, all these discussions lately about changing fundamental stuff just because people are not happy with the price are tiring.
Changing the fundamentals of a coin because you want an immediate increase in price is wrong. Given the stability of XMR despite the fact that it is everything but user friendly for the average Joe, and all the attacks, I'd say the fundamentals in terms of emissions are about perfect.

 

AMEN

[smooth]

Sorry, but this makes no sense. 5% of today's hashrate could 51% attack the coin.

Seriously, all these discussions lately about changing fundamental stuff just because people are not happy with the price are tiring.
Changing the fundamentals of a coin because you want an immediate increase in price is wrong. Given the stability of XMR despite the fact that it is everything but user friendly for the average Joe, and all the attacks, I'd say the fundamentals in terms of emissions are about perfect.

 

AMEN

You know what would be an interesting experiment. Actually trying it. Because my theory is that a change like this would make the price go down, exactly the opposite of what people usually proposing such changes intend.

No, I'm not seriously suggesting this for XMR, but I would love to see the experiment happen.

[OrientA]

Sorry, but this makes no sense. 5% of today's hashrate could 51% attack the coin.

Seriously, all these discussions lately about changing fundamental stuff just because people are not happy with the price are tiring.
Changing the fundamentals of a coin because you want an immediate increase in price is wrong. Given the stability of XMR despite the fact that it is everything but user friendly for the average Joe, and all the attacks, I'd say the fundamentals in terms of emissions are about perfect.

 

AMEN

You know what would be an interesting experiment. Actually trying it. Because my theory is that a change like this would make the price go down, exactly the opposite of what people usually proposing such changes intend.

No, I'm not seriously suggesting this for XMR, but I would love to see the experiment happen.

Probably it is too late for XMR. I wonder if a new coin can try that. To reduce the risk of 51%, this coin could also use a GPU friendly algorithm.

[smooth]

Sorry, but this makes no sense. 5% of today's hashrate could 51% attack the coin.

Seriously, all these discussions lately about changing fundamental stuff just because people are not happy with the price are tiring.
Changing the fundamentals of a coin because you want an immediate increase in price is wrong. Given the stability of XMR despite the fact that it is everything but user friendly for the average Joe, and all the attacks, I'd say the fundamentals in terms of emissions are about perfect.

 

AMEN

You know what would be an interesting experiment. Actually trying it. Because my theory is that a change like this would make the price go down, exactly the opposite of what people usually proposing such changes intend.

No, I'm not seriously suggesting this for XMR, but I would love to see the experiment happen.

Probably it is too late for XMR. I wonder if a new coin can try that. To reduce the risk of 51%, this coin could also use a GPU friendly algorithm.

The conditions for it would like be hard to find, at least as I envision it.

The coin would have to be fairly well established, reasonably well known and widely understood, not have extreme concentration, with an active somewhat liquid market and at most moderate price manipulation. I believe all these conditions exist for XMR and some might disagree with that, but most other coins and especially new coins, would be far worse (likely few would disagree with that).

Under these conditions I believe a large cut in the short term rate of emissions would reduce the price.

Who knows if I'm right though.

[robinwilliams]

Under these conditions I believe a large cut in the short term rate of emissions would reduce the price.

Who knows if I'm right though.

darkcoin

[OrientA]

Sorry, but this makes no sense. 5% of today's hashrate could 51% attack the coin.

Seriously, all these discussions lately about changing fundamental stuff just because people are not happy with the price are tiring.
Changing the fundamentals of a coin because you want an immediate increase in price is wrong. Given the stability of XMR despite the fact that it is everything but user friendly for the average Joe, and all the attacks, I'd say the fundamentals in terms of emissions are about perfect.

 

You know what would be an interesting experiment. Actually trying it. Because my theory is that a change like this would make the price go down, exactly the opposite of what people usually proposing such changes intend.

No, I'm not seriously suggesting this for XMR, but I would love to see the experiment happen.

Probably it is too late for XMR. I wonder if a new coin can try that. To reduce the risk of 51%, this coin could also use a GPU friendly algorithm.

The conditions for it would like be hard to find, at least as I envision it.

The coin would have to be fairly well established, reasonably well known and widely understood, not have extreme concentration, with an active somewhat liquid market and at most moderate price manipulation. I believe all these conditions exist for XMR and some might disagree with that, but most other coins and especially new coins, would be far worse (likely few would disagree with that).

Under these conditions I believe a large cut in the short term rate of emissions would reduce the price.

Who knows if I'm right though.

When a new coin is to be launched, the schedule of the block time can be coded and known publicly. The hash rate/difficulty will rise gradually. It will not get mined too instantly as the block time will reduce in the near future. Miner can wait until the block time reduces (or difficulty reduces). But in the mean time, the block reward will also reduce.

However the purpose of creating a coin is usually to make the coin creator rich fast. The creator will not have the patience to grow the coin and reap the rewards later.

[smooth]

Sorry, but this makes no sense. 5% of today's hashrate could 51% attack the coin.

Seriously, all these discussions lately about changing fundamental stuff just because people are not happy with the price are tiring.
Changing the fundamentals of a coin because you want an immediate increase in price is wrong. Given the stability of XMR despite the fact that it is everything but user friendly for the average Joe, and all the attacks, I'd say the fundamentals in terms of emissions are about perfect.

 

You know what would be an interesting experiment. Actually trying it. Because my theory is that a change like this would make the price go down, exactly the opposite of what people usually proposing such changes intend.

No, I'm not seriously suggesting this for XMR, but I would love to see the experiment happen.

Probably it is too late for XMR. I wonder if a new coin can try that. To reduce the risk of 51%, this coin could also use a GPU friendly algorithm.

The conditions for it would like be hard to find, at least as I envision it.

The coin would have to be fairly well established, reasonably well known and widely understood, not have extreme concentration, with an active somewhat liquid market and at most moderate price manipulation. I believe all these conditions exist for XMR and some might disagree with that, but most other coins and especially new coins, would be far worse (likely few would disagree with that).

Under these conditions I believe a large cut in the short term rate of emissions would reduce the price.

Who knows if I'm right though.

When a new coin is to be launched, the schedule of the block time can be coded and known publicly. The hash rate/difficulty will rise gradually. It will not get mined too instantly as the block time will reduce in the near future. Miner can wait until the block time reduces (or difficulty reduces). But in the mean time, the block reward will also reduce.

However the purpose of creating a coin is usually to make the coin creator rich fast. The creator will not have the patience to grow the coin and reap the rewards later.

Your idea of a slow block time that gradually decreases is fine, and also gradually increasing rewards. I see now harm in that at all. Those are probably good practices to follow on any new coin.

I was referring more to a large unexpected change in the emission rate on an existing coin.

[rpietila]

To move on, I have decided to erase the speculation of the recent troll attack towards XMR. I personally feel that the line of good taste was crossed and luckily I am in the position to clean it up in my threads.

In general, there is no way to get rid of trolls. Ignore and delete buttons make life more tolerable.

[TheFascistMind]

Thus it seems you are betting that BCX is lying. What caused you to place the odds higher that he is lying than not? It is very suspicious that he won't commit to reveal what he knows later if the exploit hasn't been sold and used by such a date in the future.

...This is a multi-faceted issue. The admittedly quite clever campaign that used the fake pro-Monero trolls may have influenced BCX's initial reaction.

Now we are already in a point where everyone actually involved wants to move on, and only the consumers of sensation media still want to dig deeper.

I agree, it appears BCX may have gotten suckered into something and wasn't prepared to take a hunch all the way to implementation.

And now they managed to suck me in too and want to see if my wild hunch has any merit.

P.S. Hope you noticed I have called the decline in the BTC correct twice now when you vehemently disagreed with me. Both times falling from $500s to the $300s. I helped the people in my group get out of BTC at $485. I actually told them in the $500s because I didn't pound the table hard enough.

On the larger (longer) cycle, has any one figured out how to scale CN's ring signatures to 200 million users?

Yes we have. No we aren't going to tell you how.

I don't even know that people want that though, which makes it a questionable focus. I'm sure you feel differently, so best of luck trying to create this mass scale consumer-driven solution you seem to envision (and I mean that sincerely -- I hope you succeed).

Honestly most are pretty happy with credit cards (would be better with a bit stronger security but that is an implementation detail), Apple Pay, Paypal, etc. Decentralization is interesting and has compelling advantages, but getting ordinary people to actually care about that difference seems an uphill battle, and the natural market for this technology seems elsewhere.

You won't get the developed world to take an interest as a currency, rather only as an investment.

The developing world doesn't have credit cards. They also are interested in $5 a day in extra income.

Did you know filipinos spend more feeding their pigs than they sell for thus no profit? Yet they still raise pigs. Why? Because it is a savings account.

[smooth]

You won't get the developed world to take an interest as a currency, rather only as an investment.

The developing world doesn't have credit cards. They also are interested in $5 a day in extra income.

Did you know filipinos spend more feeding their pigs than they sell for thus no profit? Yet they still raise pigs. Why? Because it is a savings account.

The world is getting smaller, quickly. As you say, Apple, Paypal, etc. are rapidly targeting the developing world. You have a few other such solutions there or going there as well, such as M-Pesa.

It still isn't clear to me that the developing world wants decentralized currency. Once the same or similar services from the developed are available there, consumers will likely make the same choices.

Credit cards are going away in the developed world too, or more properly becoming a speciality product for high end individuals and businesses. The mass market is increasingly debit, including the somewhat recent trend toward prepaid debit. In part because the masses are increasingly not credit worthy. The original point is valid for "payment cards" though.

[smooth]

I believe he did not exactly mean that there is a serious and fatal exploit that is certainly exploitable and sure to kill the coin. He did not say it, and the world does not work that way.

He did say it, using almost exactly those words.

Most are what I call annoyance attacks, that would be fixed and the coin would probably survive, but one is a coin killer.

[TheFascistMind]

You won't get the developed world to take an interest as a currency, rather only as an investment.

The developing world doesn't have credit cards. They also are interested in $5 a day in extra income.

Did you know filipinos spend more feeding their pigs than they sell for thus no profit? Yet they still raise pigs. Why? Because it is a savings account.

The world is getting smaller, quickly. As you say, Apple, Paypal, etc. are rapidly targeting the developing world. You have a few other such solutions there or going there as well, such as M-Pesa.

It still isn't clear to me that the developing world wants decentralized currency. Once the same or similar services from the developed are available there, consumers will likely make the same choices.

Credit cards are going away in the developed world too, or more properly becoming a speciality product for high end individuals and businesses. The mass market is increasingly debit, including the somewhat recent trend toward prepaid debit. In part because the masses are increasingly not credit worthy. The original point is valid for "payment cards" though.

And none of them are giving away $billions "for free" in $5 daily morsels to rocket launch the inertia.

Distribution is the key. How many times have I told you this.

[devphp]

No you don't want to try it, I have seen this experiment happen before, it was after Dogecoin decided not to fix the emission limit, I remember some whales talked to the devs to reconsider at no avail, the result you see today, a dying coin with no hopes, with a community getting its fix of small good news and micro pumps once in a while. A coin need whale and investors.

Parroting the 'emission limit' argument without actually understanding what it's about reveals lack of thought. It's not the emission limit per se that counts, it's predictability of emission that is important as opposed to unpredictable emission we can witness in fiat that crypto currency enthusiasts usually refer to. It's the unpredictable "at-central-banks'-whim" emission that leads to inflated prices of goods and rapidly depreciating currency.

Many people will be proven wrong on Dogecoin in the near future. They don't understand that Dogecoin simply shortcut the distance and jumped straight to year 2020 in Bitcoin's life when Bitcoin's yearly emission volume/total supply would also become similar to what Dogecoin is scheduled to have in the coming 3 months. Of course, PoS coins jump to that state at Genesis block, but because PoW enthusiasts do not like those, it's fine, I don't mention those. However, provided we try to stay objective, there is no justification not to see Bitcoin's future in what Dogecoin does now. If you bet on Dogecoin demise now, it means you bet on Bitcoin demise in 5 years. Either that, or you just sold Doges at 20 satoshi and now you're pissed about it

[OrientA]

Parroting the 'emission limit' argument without actually understanding what it's about reveals lack of thought. It's not the emission limit per se that counts, it's predictability of emission that is important as opposed to unpredictable emission we can witness in fiat that crypto currency enthusiasts usually refer to. It's the unpredictable "at-central-banks'-whim" emission that leads to inflated prices of goods and rapidly depreciating currency.

Many people will be proven wrong on Dogecoin in the near future. They don't understand that Dogecoin simply shortcut the distance and jumped straight to year 2020 in Bitcoin's life when Bitcoin's yearly emission volume/total supply would also become similar to what Dogecoin is scheduled to have in the coming 3 months. Of course, PoS coins jump to that state at Genesis block, but because PoW enthusiasts do not like those, it's fine, I don't mention those. However, provided we try to stay objective, there is no justification not to see Bitcoin's future in what Dogecoin does now. If you bet on Dogecoin demise now, it means you bet on Bitcoin demise in 5 years. Either that, or you just sold Doges at 20 satoshi and now you're pissed about it

The predictability of emission is very important as the market can adjust the price of the coin accordingly.

[TheFascistMind]

You won't get the developed world to take an interest as a currency, rather only as an investment.

The developing world doesn't have credit cards. They also are interested in $5 a day in extra income.

Did you know filipinos spend more feeding their pigs than they sell for thus no profit? Yet they still raise pigs. Why? Because it is a savings account.

The world is getting smaller, quickly. As you say, Apple, Paypal, etc. are rapidly targeting the developing world. You have a few other such solutions there or going there as well, such as M-Pesa.

It still isn't clear to me that the developing world wants decentralized currency. Once the same or similar services from the developed are available there, consumers will likely make the same choices.

Credit cards are going away in the developed world too, or more properly becoming a speciality product for high end individuals and businesses. The mass market is increasingly debit, including the somewhat recent trend toward prepaid debit. In part because the masses are increasingly not credit worthy. The original point is valid for "payment cards" though.

And none of them are giving away $billions "for free" in $5 daily morsels to rocket launch the inertia.

Distribution is the key. How many times have I told you this.

And don't forget that the market cap != amount of funds invested, so that "free" can be paid either by the investors (if price is declining) or by the all billions of holders of fiat (if the price is increasing)! That was the gargantuan insight.

Also this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=777213.msg8899072#msg8899072

Now I've shared so please don't make me pay for my cooperation by stealing from me. Surely if I've gotten that far, you need me so join me don't steal my ideas.

[Zer0Sum]

VIA tally = 17 Pietila Points

Monero tally = 18   

VIA loses points for being small, but a tiny cap doubles more easily...

McRisto is the General of the Monero Truther Army...
That has literally trashed BCTalk with a sick Misinformation Campaign...
And this poll is carefully crafted FALLACY designed to make Monero look good.

*** Posted by a hardcore Monero Stooge who is spamming the VIA thread ***.
Keep this toxic garbage AWAY  FROM  VIA...
All Monero references should be deleted from the VIA thread.

VIA is a great coin with a fabulous network and Gen 2.0 services rolling out...
Monero is a one trick anon pony... with no wallet, no security and every botnet gunning for it.

Peter Todd had tweeted that the base Monero code is "atrocious"...
Meaning it's a maintenance/security nightmare...
And would have been scrapped and re-written by professionals.

[TheFascistMind]

Can anyone loan me Monero? How much and what are the terms? PM me please.

[Este Nuno]

Can anyone loan me Monero? How much and what are the terms? PM me please.

Uh oh...

Any particular reason you're choosing to do this now?

[Cryptobro]

Can anyone loan me Monero? How much and what are the terms? PM me please.

Uh oh...

Any particular reason you're choosing to do this now?

lol, indeed...
term a) Please don't kill the coin