[XMR] Monero Speculation

[nioc]

How is MoneroDice doing? I have not played there but am interested in hearing the usage stats if they can be shared

http://monerodice.pd.to/charts.php

Oh wow... -20,000+ XMR at one point.  That would be enough to have me sweating as an administrator for the site.  Though as long as it gets people using XMR and not holding it as an investment tool on polo then it's all good.

So far the players appear to be more lucky than the investors.

Traffic has been light because as I understand it they are not promoting MoneroDice until 0.9 is released which will make Monero usable for the majority of people.   

The maximum bet is 10% of the site bankroll so variance to a large degree depends on the luck of the big bettors.  Hopefully they are not all as lucky as othe

Investment seems to be a somewhat long term commitment now.  The more traffic there is the less variance there will be for the site.  I don't think there are any small casinos left in Las Vegas but when there were the casino could have a losing day! 

Maybe we should bet on when 0.9 will be released

[owm123]

Maybe we should bet on when 0.9 will be released

Just yesterday on reddit this question was asked:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3pladk/is_there_any_expected_time_when_09_is_released/

[nioc]

Maybe we should bet on when 0.9 will be released

Just yesterday on reddit this question was asked:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3pladk/is_there_any_expected_time_when_09_is_released/

Details of the process were given but ofc no time was so I think we can bet.

The only thing that seemed definitive is that gagging a fluffy pony = animal abuse.


As far as speculation, btc is rising seemingly due to http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-is-exempt-from-vat-says-european-court-of-justice/

Monero is holding it's recent lows of the last 3 days in the 140s where I bought another brick for my Monero house.  The extension is virtually complete.

[medusa13]

If BTC breaks 275 all alts* will get hammered hard. At some point they will bottom (regardless of BTC price action) and then they will bubble.

If BTC goes below 230 I expect XMR to rally hard too.

*(The alts that I have under my trading radar are XMR, BTS, ETH, XRP & a bit NXT - I am afraid that the latter may never bounce, so I am watching only for the moment..)

I am expecting a bit of a downturn after the next run past 270, over a couple/few days.  It could dive to near 255 in the meantime, but on a weekly basis, I expect BTC to go to ~292 over the next lune/seqsuilune before what might be the last pre-halving downleg.  XMR hoarders should accumulate BTC when it drops nearer 250, and spend it on XMR when it nears 290, if that scenario is correct.

just to make this clear since my english is that bad:

Since we hit 275 now, you say we go revisit ~250 and then go to 290 and then down (down to where) ?

i think this is a very good tactic as long as the correlation between xmr and btc stays the same like in the past few months. sounds very realistic and seems to unfold nicely until now, but lets see

thank you

good to see the btc bulls are out

[americanpegasus]

First of all, celebration for another page that is a power of two: 512!!!  
  
See you guys at page 1024 in a year.  
  
Also, because of this ruling: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-22/bitcoin-virtual-currency-exchange-is-tax-free-eu-court-says-ig21wzcd  
  
...maybe we won't all pay insane taxes on our Monero capital gains after all.  That would be pretty much the biggest loophole of all time: become a billionaire off speculating in a new currency that grows to be a world standard.... pay no taxes as a result.  Spend 35% of your gains on building a to-scale replica of King's Landing in Oklahoma.  We just need the US to recognize cryptocurrencies as currency now and not as commodities (I wonder if those who paid taxes previously can apply for refunds in this case).

[rpietila]

...maybe we won't all pay insane taxes on our Monero capital gains after all.

That ruling was VAT, no capital gains. Significant nevertheless.

(In Finland where I used to live, individuals are liable for capital gains tax even if their USD has appreciated against EUR before spending it. I would assume this is not widely reported though.)

[americanpegasus]

That ruling was VAT, no capital gains. Significant nevertheless.

(In Finland where I used to live, individuals are liable for capital gains tax even if their USD has appreciated against EUR before spending it. I would assume this is not widely reported though.)

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

[ArticMine]

...maybe we won't all pay insane taxes on our Monero capital gains after all.

That ruling was VAT, no capital gains. Significant nevertheless.

(In Finland where I used to live, individuals are liable for capital gains tax even if their USD has appreciated against EUR before spending it. I would assume this is not widely reported though.)

It is a very significant and also common sense ruling. Otherwise the VAT would simply not work.  This leaves Australia as the country trying to collect GST on crypto currency. The reason levying VAT or GST on crypro currency does not work is that people can legally avoid the tax by registering as a VAT or GST business.  In order for VAT or GST to work one cannot tax the medium of exchange or "money".

My reading of Canada's GST legislation is that the definition of money is broad enough to include crypto currency in the definition of "money".

[owm123]

...maybe we won't all pay insane taxes on our Monero capital gains after all.

That ruling was VAT, no capital gains. Significant nevertheless.

(In Finland where I used to live, individuals are liable for capital gains tax even if their USD has appreciated against EUR before spending it. I would assume this is not widely reported though.)

It is a very significant and also common sense ruling. Otherwise the VAT would simply not work.  This leaves Australia as the country trying to collect GST on crypto currency. The reason levying VAT or GST on crypro currency does not work is that people can legally avoid the tax by registering as a VAT or GST business.  In order for VAT or GST to work one cannot tax the medium of exchange or "money".

My reading of Canada's GST legislation is that the definition of money is broad enough to include crypto currency in the definition of "money".

Australia is always like 5 years behind the rest of the world in everything, unfortunately.

[smoothie]

I thought this would be relevant as Monero is much more private/fungible:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak1iojpiHpM&feature=youtu.be&t=33m6s

Andreas A. seems to believe that bitcoin can work on its "fungibility".  

Andreas: "We need to address the issue of fungibility..."

      ...     "the metric of economic inclusion is very much affected by the fungibility and black lists ..."

Also...

Dr. Adam Back says in regards to Bitcoin (in Feb 2014) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dAdI3Gzodo&feature=youtu.be&t=28m31s

"Weak fungibility: Feature & bug"


"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect"


"Bitcoin privacy is fragile (Shamir & Dorit network analysis)"


By Dr. Adam Back's definition of fungibility PLUS(+) his statement of "Bitcoin privacy is fragile" you therefore can deduce Dr. Adam Back also believes that Bitcoin's fungibility is also fragile.




If monero and bitcoin started out with the same user base initially (of course this is not true) do we think bit coin or Monero would be more well adopted?

I don't know the answer to this. But I tend to think that if a crypto-coin offers the option of privacy and the other does not in the same magnitude of privacy then it therefore means Bitcoin (the coin that does not have privacy enabled by default) is inferior to Monero.

Just my two cents for today.  

[ArticMine]

Bitcoin still has to deal with the related issues of the 1 MB blocksize limit and the development of a fee market for when the emission runs out. Both of these issues will over time prove to be fatal. Monero has both of them fixed. Bitcoin can buy some time by increasing the blocksize limit in a hard fork, but I do not see a solution to the question of securing the network once the emission runs out.

The privacy / fungibility of Monero will in the end turn out to be by comparison just a bonus.

[americanpegasus]

I am having a conundrum regarding Bitcoin. 
 
On one hand I can see how once rewards decrease for Bitcoin that miners start looking elsewhere to point their computers.  I can also see how Bitcoin not be capable of sustaining large transaction volumes leads to less transactions.  With few transactions and no one paying sufficient transaction fees to the miners, the entire network collapses. 
 
I can also see how with a fee based economy, the right to include transactions on the ledger must be kept at a premium to encourage miners.... 
 
I am thoroughly confused and not sure what I believe will eventually happen to Bitcoin now.

[smoothie]

Bitcoin still has to deal with the related issues of the 1 MB blocksize limit and the development of a fee market for when the emission runs out. Both of these issues will over time prove to be fatal. Monero has both of them fixed. Bitcoin can buy some time by increasing the blocksize limit in a hard fork, but I do not see a solution to the question of securing the network once the emission runs out.

The privacy / fungibility of Monero will in the end turn out to be by comparison just a bonus.

As Trace Mayer eluded to, transaction privacy is much more of an important topic with bitcoin than the block size as of right now.

Emission of bitcoin won't run out for what like 4 decades? I dont know the exact number of years.

Bitcoin transactions aren't taking up the full 1MB yet but at the same time there has been countless hours of discussions, trolling, conferences, travel, phone calls etc that are all billable hours yet it isn't that big of an issue to the people hiring bitcoin to do what it is they want bitcoin to do.

[wpalczynski]

I am having a conundrum regarding Bitcoin. 
 
On one hand I can see how once rewards decrease for Bitcoin that miners start looking elsewhere to point their computers.  I can also see how Bitcoin not be capable of sustaining large transaction volumes leads to less transactions.  With few transactions and no one paying sufficient transaction fees to the miners, the entire network collapses. 
 
I can also see how with a fee based economy, the right to include transactions on the ledger must be kept at a premium to encourage miners.... 
 
I am thoroughly confused and not sure what I believe will eventually happen to Bitcoin now.

Either it attains a sufficient valuation where even a small percentage fee will be rewarding for miners, be subsidized by govt entities (centralized mining), or perish.

[chennan]

I am having a conundrum regarding Bitcoin. 
 
On one hand I can see how once rewards decrease for Bitcoin that miners start looking elsewhere to point their computers.  I can also see how Bitcoin not be capable of sustaining large transaction volumes leads to less transactions.  With few transactions and no one paying sufficient transaction fees to the miners, the entire network collapses. 
 
I can also see how with a fee based economy, the right to include transactions on the ledger must be kept at a premium to encourage miners.... 
 
I am thoroughly confused and not sure what I believe will eventually happen to Bitcoin now.

I can completely see where you're coming from on this, but one thing I would like to point out is that the halving that's coming about in 2016 is only the second one... So in that sense, bitcoins still remain somewhat very profitable to miners if they are looking at the "long term" speculation of bitcoins prices, and seeing it as a mainstay in public online transactions.

I don't necessarily think that when 2016 comes, miners will point there hashing power to another coin, because bitcoin still remains the more profitable source of income (by a long shot) compared to other coins.  If you compare bitcoin to the next leading alternative in terms of fiat prices (litecoin), you have $275/coin vs. $3/coin. To me, I would speculate that miners will always point their computers toward bitcoin because of this.

[kazuki49]

I don't necessarily think that when 2016 comes, miners will point there hashing power to another coin, because bitcoin still remains the more profitable source of income (by a long shot) compared to other coins.  If you compare bitcoin to the next leading alternative in terms of fiat prices (litecoin), you have $275/coin vs. $3/coin. To me, I would speculate that miners will always point their computers toward bitcoin because of this.

The problem is Bitcoin miners are no small guys anymore, these are long gone from the scene, the corporations run the show now. And you can't use Bitcoin ASICs to mine anything BUT Bitcoin, the rise of Monero and cryptonight may also be the rise of the small miners again.

[owm123]

I thought this would be relevant as Monero is much more private/fungible:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak1iojpiHpM&feature=youtu.be&t=33m6s

Andreas A. seems to believe that bitcoin can work on its "fungibility".  

Andreas: "We need to address the issue of fungibility..."

      ...     "the metric of economic inclusion is very much affected by the fungibility and black lists ..."

Also...

Dr. Adam Back says in regards to Bitcoin (in Feb 2014) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dAdI3Gzodo&feature=youtu.be&t=28m31s

"Weak fungibility: Feature & bug"


"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect"


"Bitcoin privacy is fragile (Shamir & Dorit network analysis)"


By Dr. Adam Back's definition of fungibility PLUS(+) his statement of "Bitcoin privacy is fragile" you therefore can deduce Dr. Adam Back also believes that Bitcoin's fungibility is also fragile.




If monero and bitcoin started out with the same user base initially (of course this is not true) do we think bit coin or Monero would be more well adopted?

I don't know the answer to this. But I tend to think that if a crypto-coin offers the option of privacy and the other does not in the same magnitude of privacy then it therefore means Bitcoin (the coin that does not have privacy enabled by default) is inferior to Monero.

Just my two cents for today.  

As it happens, now there is a thread on reddit, claiming the opposite: "Bitcoin has no fungibility problem"
https://en.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ptbx1/bitcoin_has_no_fungibility_problem/

[wpalczynski]

I thought this would be relevant as Monero is much more private/fungible:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak1iojpiHpM&feature=youtu.be&t=33m6s

Andreas A. seems to believe that bitcoin can work on its "fungibility".  

Andreas: "We need to address the issue of fungibility..."

      ...     "the metric of economic inclusion is very much affected by the fungibility and black lists ..."

Also...

Dr. Adam Back says in regards to Bitcoin (in Feb 2014) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dAdI3Gzodo&feature=youtu.be&t=28m31s

"Weak fungibility: Feature & bug"


"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect"


"Bitcoin privacy is fragile (Shamir & Dorit network analysis)"


By Dr. Adam Back's definition of fungibility PLUS(+) his statement of "Bitcoin privacy is fragile" you therefore can deduce Dr. Adam Back also believes that Bitcoin's fungibility is also fragile.




If monero and bitcoin started out with the same user base initially (of course this is not true) do we think bit coin or Monero would be more well adopted?

I don't know the answer to this. But I tend to think that if a crypto-coin offers the option of privacy and the other does not in the same magnitude of privacy then it therefore means Bitcoin (the coin that does not have privacy enabled by default) is inferior to Monero.

Just my two cents for today.  

As it happens, now there is a thread on reddit, claiming the opposite: "Bitcoin has no fungibility problem"
https://en.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ptbx1/bitcoin_has_no_fungibility_problem/

A bunch of jokers in  that reddit thread.

[owm123]

I thought this would be relevant as Monero is much more private/fungible:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak1iojpiHpM&feature=youtu.be&t=33m6s

Andreas A. seems to believe that bitcoin can work on its "fungibility".  

Andreas: "We need to address the issue of fungibility..."

      ...     "the metric of economic inclusion is very much affected by the fungibility and black lists ..."

Also...

Dr. Adam Back says in regards to Bitcoin (in Feb 2014) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dAdI3Gzodo&feature=youtu.be&t=28m31s

"Weak fungibility: Feature & bug"


"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect"


"Bitcoin privacy is fragile (Shamir & Dorit network analysis)"


By Dr. Adam Back's definition of fungibility PLUS(+) his statement of "Bitcoin privacy is fragile" you therefore can deduce Dr. Adam Back also believes that Bitcoin's fungibility is also fragile.




If monero and bitcoin started out with the same user base initially (of course this is not true) do we think bit coin or Monero would be more well adopted?

I don't know the answer to this. But I tend to think that if a crypto-coin offers the option of privacy and the other does not in the same magnitude of privacy then it therefore means Bitcoin (the coin that does not have privacy enabled by default) is inferior to Monero.

Just my two cents for today.  

As it happens, now there is a thread on reddit, claiming the opposite: "Bitcoin has no fungibility problem"
https://en.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ptbx1/bitcoin_has_no_fungibility_problem/

[GingerAle]

i think its reassuring to know that monero is now the de-facto opaque blockchain. On that reddit, it is referenced as such, and in the recent iota ANN someone said something like "is it transparent like bitcoin or opaque like monero".

and this all without MRL4.

hardfork gonna make it crazy up in here.