[XMR] Monero Speculation

[dnaleor]

Every altcoin is down against BTC. To me, that indicates the tides are turning, and soon that money will flow back into altcoins. Has that not been the case in every BTC reversal?

I agree, this will happen at some point, but previously it has happened after a longer rally in BTC. So I wouldn't really expect it to happen yet if history is any indication.

I kinda expect that the Next Bitcoin Bubble ^TM will be a lot slower due to more liquidity and more professional traders while people entering the crypto-sphere also exploring other options earlier and investing in promising alts earlier. So imho, the time is now.

We basically need 0.9 asap, followed by GUI+Trezor integration and a good functioning android app with xmr.to integration as a bonus.

[dnaleor]

Paying btc with xmr.to is only a temporary solution to the bigger problem of not being able to spend xmr directly.

I really don't consider that to be a problem, payment providers will jump in this gap. There are and will be dozens of different digital currencies, all with their own specifics. Monero's is privacy and fungibility. Monero to fiat or bitcoin makes no difference to me.

Don't really agree on this.
I kinda became a "monero maximalist" in the sense that in the long term, BTC won't be used as money because it isn't fungible.

the transition from BTC -> XMR will happen through people using XMR through services like xmr.to for paying anonymously.

[TheKoziTwo]

Nice volume and price up from what now looks like a definitive bottom test in spite of BTC rise...

Much more positive.

Not sure if it is the bottom. The price is around $0.4 for about a year now. It is one of the stablest coin in the world.

Is this how you feel better about your investment crashing? Justifying it by saying it's been stable in USD?
XMR has not been stable. It's been crashing hard. Except for a brief period in the pre-exchange era the price is at all time lows. I'm just sitting here hoping it won't break 0.001 support.

If XMR is not going to outperform BTC why not just own BTC instead? If it's USD you want it makes more sense to hold BTC as long as the ratio falls. I'm not going to be happy with XMR at $1, $10 or even $100 if the XMR/BTC ratio crashes. I never watch the USD price, is seems completely irrelevant.

A falling XMR/BTC ratio indicates failure to compete in the cryptocurrency space.

Lol, your statement is patently false. Everything (all commodities) including BTC are tied to USD. You may have fooled yourself into believing otherwise but that's all your doing is deluding yourself.

Not really no. What makes commodities tied to USD? Volume. Once USD is no longer being traded for said commodity, it renders it irrelevant. Now take a look at the volume of monero. It's pretty much all in the XMR/BTC pair, the volume on XMR/USD is almost zero. That makes BTC the most important comparison.

[smooth]

A falling XMR/BTC ratio indicates failure to compete in the cryptocurrency space.

Agree somewhat. Supply considerations play a role. This is obvious in the case of PoS coins which pay interest. It is expected that the price per unit will drop over time even if the value of a holding remains constant (increase in units). It is less obvious in the case of PoW, but I'm still not sure the metric of market cap ratio isn't as important as or more important than price ratio, although both are imperfect certainly.

[onemorexmr]

Not really no. What makes commodities tied to USD? Volume. Once USD is no longer being traded for said commodity, it renders it irrelevant. Now take a look at the volume of monero. It's pretty much all in the XMR/BTC pair, the volume on XMR/USD is almost zero. That makes BTC the most important comparison.

i often trade BTC/USD pair - but i only care about EUR
same with monero: just because most volume is in BTC/XMR doesnt mean its mainly valued in btc. its just more convenient to trade BTC/XMR than XMR/USD

[smooth]

Nice volume and price up from what now looks like a definitive bottom test in spite of BTC rise...

Much more positive.

Not sure if it is the bottom. The price is around $0.4 for about a year now. It is one of the stablest coin in the world.

Is this how you feel better about your investment crashing? Justifying it by saying it's been stable in USD?
XMR has not been stable. It's been crashing hard. Except for a brief period in the pre-exchange era the price is at all time lows. I'm just sitting here hoping it won't break 0.001 support.

If XMR is not going to outperform BTC why not just own BTC instead? If it's USD you want it makes more sense to hold BTC as long as the ratio falls. I'm not going to be happy with XMR at $1, $10 or even $100 if the XMR/BTC ratio crashes. I never watch the USD price, is seems completely irrelevant.

A falling XMR/BTC ratio indicates failure to compete in the cryptocurrency space.

Lol, your statement is patently false. Everything (all commodities) including BTC are tied to USD. You may have fooled yourself into believing otherwise but that's all your doing is deluding yourself.

Okay, even if so, the BTC "commodity" increasing while the XMR "commodity" is falling or not rising (both relative to USD) indicates a failure of XMR to compete with BTC. I don't see the counterargument here.

[onemorexmr]

A falling XMR/BTC ratio indicates failure to compete in the cryptocurrency space.

Agree somewhat. Supply considerations play a role. This is obvious in the case of PoS coins which pay interest. It is expected that the price per unit will drop over time even if the value of a holding remains constant (increase in units). It is less obvious in the case of PoW, but I'm still not sure the metric of market cap ratio isn't as important as or more important than price ratio, although both are imperfect certainly.

in a matured market i'd agree. but neither btc nor monero is such a thing.
esp. the coming btc-halving and some of btc uncertainities (scalability, fungibility) make me disagree.

[smooth]

A falling XMR/BTC ratio indicates failure to compete in the cryptocurrency space.

Agree somewhat. Supply considerations play a role. This is obvious in the case of PoS coins which pay interest. It is expected that the price per unit will drop over time even if the value of a holding remains constant (increase in units). It is less obvious in the case of PoW, but I'm still not sure the metric of market cap ratio isn't as important as or more important than price ratio, although both are imperfect certainly.

in a matured market i'd agree. but neither btc nor monero is such a thing.
esp. the coming btc-halving and some of btc uncertainities (scalability, fungibility) make me disagree.

Don't all those things factor into what it means "to compete"?

[onemorexmr]

A falling XMR/BTC ratio indicates failure to compete in the cryptocurrency space.

Agree somewhat. Supply considerations play a role. This is obvious in the case of PoS coins which pay interest. It is expected that the price per unit will drop over time even if the value of a holding remains constant (increase in units). It is less obvious in the case of PoW, but I'm still not sure the metric of market cap ratio isn't as important as or more important than price ratio, although both are imperfect certainly.

in a matured market i'd agree. but neither btc nor monero is such a thing.
esp. the coming btc-halving and some of btc uncertainities (scalability, fungibility) make me disagree.

Don't all those things factor into what it means "to compete"?

yes and no
depends if its just hyped or a true rise
IMHO current btc uptrend is hyped because of the halving - i may be wrong ofc

edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1274750.0
i agree with jehst here.
if btc manages to break ath before halving: great future and the sky is the limit
if it doesnt i think btc will go down hard

atm i consider monero more safe then btc

[jehst]

edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1274750.0
i agree with jehst here.
if btc manages to break ath before halving: great future and the sky is the limit
if it doesnt i think btc will go down hard

atm i consider monero more safe then btc

thanks. most people in that thread seem to think that the idea of waiting until $1300 to buy is foolish. i must assume that they all think that there's a 100% chance that bitcoin will rise to $1300 in the short term and a near-zero chance bitcoin will fail.

 

[smooth]

edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1274750.0
i agree with jehst here.
if btc manages to break ath before halving: great future and the sky is the limit
if it doesnt i think btc will go down hard

atm i consider monero more safe then btc

thanks. most people in that thread seem to think that the idea of waiting until $1300 to buy is foolish. i must assume that they all think that there's a 100% chance that bitcoin will rise to $1300 in the short term and a near-zero chance bitcoin will fail.

I happen to like your theory although I think just breaking 1000 for more than day or two would already be pretty bullish.

[jehst]

edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1274750.0
i agree with jehst here.
if btc manages to break ath before halving: great future and the sky is the limit
if it doesnt i think btc will go down hard

atm i consider monero more safe then btc

thanks. most people in that thread seem to think that the idea of waiting until $1300 to buy is foolish. i must assume that they all think that there's a 100% chance that bitcoin will rise to $1300 in the short term and a near-zero chance bitcoin will fail.

I happen to like your theory although I think just breaking 1000 for more than day or two would already be pretty bullish.

$1000 is psychologically huge and is probably enough to ignite full-blown mania, but since it may only take two days to go from $1000 to breaking the all-time high, we may be talking about the same area (1200-1300) in either case.

[dnaleor]

edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1274750.0
i agree with jehst here.
if btc manages to break ath before halving: great future and the sky is the limit
if it doesnt i think btc will go down hard

atm i consider monero more safe then btc

thanks. most people in that thread seem to think that the idea of waiting until $1300 to buy is foolish. i must assume that they all think that there's a 100% chance that bitcoin will rise to $1300 in the short term and a near-zero chance bitcoin will fail.

that is clearly BS.
People who think that need to check the post-2011-bubble market. IIRC, BTC was around 5 USD in the first months of 2011 (the first time I ever checked the price... No I didn't buy), had a bubble during the year towards 10-12 USD and a crash back to 5 USD. Late 2011 it started rising again to 10-12 USD area (after that the 2 insane 2013 bubbles came).

The BTC bear market was very long (compared to previous bear markets) and there is more liquidity and professional traders.
I expect AT LEAST ONE failed attempt to the old all time highs with a crash to at least the 500 USD level.

Block halving is already priced in. If the block halving will do anything, it will be dropping of the hashrate and thus security will go down
Block halvings are nothing to celebrate. It only makes the "ponzi feeling" bigger for outsiders.

I still think everybody is ignoring that emission can become an issue for adoption, at leats short term. BTC is now mined > 2/3 and will be mined 75% in the summer of 2016. I still think an fixed emission right from to start until infinity is the best scheme long term. Hence I invested a bit in 1Credit (shameless pitch, but I really think that at least in theory, this would be better :p )

edit: that said, Monero emission isn't bad. It finds a middle ground between the "fixed from the start emission" and "limited BTC supply emission" schemes, which can both draw in BTC insiders and outsiders.

[dnaleor]

edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1274750.0
i agree with jehst here.
if btc manages to break ath before halving: great future and the sky is the limit
if it doesnt i think btc will go down hard

atm i consider monero more safe then btc

thanks. most people in that thread seem to think that the idea of waiting until $1300 to buy is foolish. i must assume that they all think that there's a 100% chance that bitcoin will rise to $1300 in the short term and a near-zero chance bitcoin will fail.

I happen to like your theory although I think just breaking 1000 for more than day or two would already be pretty bullish.

$1000 is psychologically huge and is probably enough to ignite full-blown mania, but since it may only take two days to go from $1000 to breaking the all-time high, we may be talking about the same area (1200-1300) in either case.

I'll probably be shorting 1300  (although depending on general sentiment) if this happens BEFORE halving.

[luigi1111]

edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1274750.0
i agree with jehst here.
if btc manages to break ath before halving: great future and the sky is the limit
if it doesnt i think btc will go down hard

atm i consider monero more safe then btc

thanks. most people in that thread seem to think that the idea of waiting until $1300 to buy is foolish. i must assume that they all think that there's a 100% chance that bitcoin will rise to $1300 in the short term and a near-zero chance bitcoin will fail.

that is clearly BS.
People who think that need to check the post-2011-bubble market. IIRC, BTC was around 5 USD in the first months of 2011 (the first time I ever checked the price... No I didn't buy), had a bubble during the year towards 10-12 USD and a crash back to 5 USD. Late 2011 it started rising again to 10-12 USD area (after that the 2 insane 2013 bubbles came).

The BTC bear market was very long (compared to previous bear markets) and there is more liquidity and professional traders.
I expect AT LEAST ONE failed attempt to the old all time highs with a crash to at least the 500 USD level.

Block halving is already priced in. If the block halving will do anything, it will be dropping of the hashrate and thus security will go down
Block halvings are nothing to celebrate. It only makes the "ponzi feeling" bigger for outsiders.

I still think everybody is ignoring that emission can become an issue for adoption, at leats short term. BTC is now mined > 2/3 and will be mined 75% in the summer of 2016. I still think an fixed emission right from to start until infinity is the best scheme long term. Hence I invested a bit in 1Credit (shameless pitch, but I really think that at least in theory, this would be better :p )

edit: that said, Monero emission isn't bad. It finds a middle ground between the "fixed from the start emission" and "limited BTC supply emission" schemes, which can both draw in BTC insiders and outsiders.

I'm not sure halving can really be priced in in advance, but don't have a big opinion.

For constant emission: I doubt it'll ever work. If there are no (real or perceived) benefits for early adopters, there probably won't ever be enough early adopters to get it off the ground, especially when competing with others that do provide benefits.

[dnaleor]

For constant emission: I doubt it'll ever work. If there are no (real or perceived) benefits for early adopters, there probably won't ever be enough early adopters to get it off the ground, especially when competing with others that do provide benefits.

a constant emission scheme would temper speculative investment a lot in the first years, which should result in building the tech, building people who are interested in the tech, building a decentralized mining network because development of ASICs wouldn't be worth it (yet).

on the other hand, this would probably result in lower security as well, in the first years.

maybe Monero has indeed the best of both worlds. Time will tell.

[chennan]

For constant emission: I doubt it'll ever work. If there are no (real or perceived) benefits for early adopters, there probably won't ever be enough early adopters to get it off the ground, especially when competing with others that do provide benefits.

a constant emission scheme would temper speculative investment a lot in the first years, which should result in building the tech, building people who are interested in the tech, building a decentralized mining network because development of ASICs wouldn't be worth it (yet).

on the other hand, this would probably result in lower security as well, in the first years.

maybe Monero has indeed the best of both worlds. Time will tell.

I've never quite understood the mining emission of monero to its full extent. So if there are dynamic blocks that keep readjusting to the needs at that specific time (or atleast that's my understanding) then, does that mean there are limits that monero sets? Is there a pretty laid out set of information about moneros emission curve in general out there that I could read more on the matter?

[luigi1111]

For constant emission: I doubt it'll ever work. If there are no (real or perceived) benefits for early adopters, there probably won't ever be enough early adopters to get it off the ground, especially when competing with others that do provide benefits.

a constant emission scheme would temper speculative investment a lot in the first years, which should result in building the tech, building people who are interested in the tech, building a decentralized mining network because development of ASICs wouldn't be worth it (yet).

on the other hand, this would probably result in lower security as well, in the first years.

maybe Monero has indeed the best of both worlds. Time will tell.

I've never quite understood the mining emission of monero to its full extent. So if there are dynamic blocks that keep readjusting to the needs at that specific time (or atleast that's my understanding) then, does that mean there are limits that monero sets? Is there a pretty laid out set of information about moneros emission curve in general out there that I could read more on the matter?

The max block size is dynamic, but that only affects the emission if miners go over the median. Since emission is based on current supply, the penalties paid for creating an oversized block get absorbed over time by miners.

[smooth]

For constant emission: I doubt it'll ever work. If there are no (real or perceived) benefits for early adopters, there probably won't ever be enough early adopters to get it off the ground, especially when competing with others that do provide benefits.

a constant emission scheme would temper speculative investment a lot in the first years, which should result in building the tech, building people who are interested in the tech, building a decentralized mining network because development of ASICs wouldn't be worth it (yet).

on the other hand, this would probably result in lower security as well, in the first years.

maybe Monero has indeed the best of both worlds. Time will tell.

I've never quite understood the mining emission of monero to its full extent. So if there are dynamic blocks that keep readjusting to the needs at that specific time (or atleast that's my understanding) then, does that mean there are limits that monero sets? Is there a pretty laid out set of information about moneros emission curve in general out there that I could read more on the matter?

The two places are the first post on the Monero ANN thread which has the formula and a link to a graph, as well as the cryptonote white paper, which discusses the reward penalty mechanism for growing the block size (section 6.2.3).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0
http://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

[smooth]

For constant emission: I doubt it'll ever work. If there are no (real or perceived) benefits for early adopters, there probably won't ever be enough early adopters to get it off the ground, especially when competing with others that do provide benefits.

a constant emission scheme would temper speculative investment a lot in the first years, which should result in building the tech, building people who are interested in the tech, building a decentralized mining network because development of ASICs wouldn't be worth it (yet).

on the other hand, this would probably result in lower security as well, in the first years.

maybe Monero has indeed the best of both worlds. Time will tell.

The issue is you have to motivate people to get involved with something that, in the beginning, is really nothing. 1Credit? I mean nothing against it. There is infinite emission to happen in the future, so I don't feel shut out. I also don't feel any urgency. If I wait a year, or two, or three, there will still be infinite emission in the future.

Obviously this is oversimplified, and good marketing could create motivation; scarcity and "get in early" aren't the only ways to attract people. Still this seems like a major obstacle both in the abstract and in practice.