[XMR] Monero Speculation

[oblox]

Yes, it is a miracle if XMR is listed at btc-e

It will eventually, its only a matter of time!!  Obviously the sooner the better.

I'll believe it when I see it. So many people have said that over the years and they have been adamant about keeping what coins they have already. Most likely coming from the fact that it's LTC's bread and butter.

[iCEBREAKER]

Right now the only exchange monero is actually being traded is Poloniex.

And the limits and credential requirements probably killed volume there...

And we still dont have a serious exchange for fiat. I would be trading 10 times more if there was a fiat/xmr exchange...

For the benefit of noobs, this should be said more often.  The implications are staggering.

Now that the full node isn't a RAM hog, I expect to see XMR added to more exchanges, including ones with fiat deposit services.

We've done very well on Poloniex; XMR volume allowed them to repay the funds stolen and positioned them to be the main ETH nexus.

But if we can get airborne on a single relatively obscure exchange, it's possible being listed on larger ones will take us to the moon.

BTC-e and chill.   Bitfinex and Kraken FTW. 

[ArticMine]

Very interesting article on the Bitcoin blocksize issue by Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-economics-are-changing-1451315063 No mention of Monero but the following quote near the end of the article is very significant.

And finally, to remove long term moral hazard, core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands.

[iCEBREAKER]

Very interesting article on the Bitcoin blocksize issue by Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-economics-are-changing-1451315063 No mention of Monero but the following quote near the end of the article is very significant.

And finally, to remove long term moral hazard, core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands.

Given the spectacular failure of the Gavinista Reddit Army's rabble-rousing populist assault on 1MB, I'd say BTC's block size limit is firmly "in the realm of software, outside of human hands."

Due to the nature of antifragility, the 1MB limit is now more set in stone than before the (adversarial) attempted XT governance coup began.   

I'm very happy both approaches are being experimented with, as Monero's dynamic approach and BTC's static variable compete in the Darwinian/meritocratic marketplace.

[ArticMine]

...

Given the spectacular failure of the Gavinista Reddit Army's rabble-rousing populist assault on 1MB, I'd say BTC's block size limit is firmly "in the realm of software, outside of human hands."

Due to the nature of antifragility, the 1MB limit is now more set in stone than before the (adversarial) attempted XT governance coup began.   

I'm very happy both approaches are being experimented with, as Monero's dynamic approach and BTC's static variable compete in the Darwinian/meritocratic marketplace.

My bet is with Monero's dynamic approach.

[iCEBREAKER]

...

Given the spectacular failure of the Gavinista Reddit Army's rabble-rousing populist assault on 1MB, I'd say BTC's block size limit is firmly "in the realm of software, outside of human hands."

Due to the nature of antifragility, the 1MB limit is now more set in stone than before the (adversarial) attempted XT governance coup began.   

I'm very happy both approaches are being experimented with, as Monero's dynamic approach and BTC's static variable compete in the Darwinian/meritocratic marketplace.

My bet is with Monero's dynamic approach.

My bet is with a 50/50 hedge.  Buy the sector, not the firm.

I can't do the BitcoinObituary thing, when all it's done so far is exhibit antifragility at every opportunity and enjoys a first mover advantage involving 6 years of demonstrated success.

My intuition is transparent and opaque ledgers both have roles to play in disrupting/replacing fiat and the BIS shitlords who print it.

[XMRpromotions]

...

Given the spectacular failure of the Gavinista Reddit Army's rabble-rousing populist assault on 1MB, I'd say BTC's block size limit is firmly "in the realm of software, outside of human hands."

Due to the nature of antifragility, the 1MB limit is now more set in stone than before the (adversarial) attempted XT governance coup began.   

I'm very happy both approaches are being experimented with, as Monero's dynamic approach and BTC's static variable compete in the Darwinian/meritocratic marketplace.

My bet is with Monero's dynamic approach.

That is a great quote. It is good to know Monero will never have a block size civil war such as Bitcoin is dealing with now.

[ArticMine]

...

My bet is with a 50/50 hedge.  Buy the sector, not the firm.

I can't do the BitcoinObituary thing, when all it's done so far is exhibit antifragility at every opportunity and enjoys a first mover advantage involving 6 years of demonstrated success.

My intuition is transparent and opaque ledgers both have roles to play in disrupting/replacing fiat and the BIS shitlords who print it.

I know it is tough. I felt the same way for quite a while, and even today I still hold a token amount of Bitcoin and run a full Bitcoin node, on the core network. The hard reality is however that I cannot ignore facts and must put emotion aside. The strongest bet for a transparent ledger may be Dogecoin since it has a tail emission already in place and consequently could implement a Monero style adaptive blocksize without seriously disrupting its social covenant.

What troubles me with Bitcoin is that the long term is not handled, so a strong hands hold / average down strategy may not work.  

[iCEBREAKER]

Monero will never have a block size civil war such as Bitcoin is dealing with now.

Unless something like Actual Widespread Adoption happens before effective pruning, and the blockchain becomes too large for anything outside of a data center.

Then we get to bicker about whether to increase the penalty or set a limit or do segwit.

Let's not indulge in It Can't Happen Here happy talk.  Such a conclusion assumes facts not yet in evidence.

[smooth]

Monero will never have a block size civil war such as Bitcoin is dealing with now.

Unless something like Actual Widespread Adoption happens before effective pruning, and the blockchain becomes too large for anything outside of a data center.

Then we get to bicker about whether to increase the penalty or set a limit or do segwit.

Let's not indulge in It Can't Happen Here happy talk.  Such a conclusion assumes facts not yet in evidence.

That, and just because we don't have a "block size civil war" doesn't mean we can't have a "{something-other-than-blocksize} civil war".

[jehst]

Monero will never have a block size civil war such as Bitcoin is dealing with now.

Unless something like Actual Widespread Adoption happens before effective pruning, and the blockchain becomes too large for anything outside of a data center.

Then we get to bicker about whether to increase the penalty or set a limit or do segwit.

Let's not indulge in It Can't Happen Here happy talk.  Such a conclusion assumes facts not yet in evidence.

That, and just because we don't have a "block size civil war" doesn't mean we can't have a "{something-other-than-blocksize} civil war".

The emission debate raged for most of xmr's history. With dynamic blocksize and emission and tail emission settled, it's hard to imagine what else moneroites will have to argue over.

[ArticMine]

There is one important difference here. In the Monero civil war over emission both options were actually viable from technical and economic point of views over the long term. In the Bitcoin civil war over blocksize none of the options presented are viable technically or economically over the long term

Edit: In the article by Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen I cited previously the problem is correctly identified however no solution to the problem is presented.

[rpietila]

There is one important difference here. In the Monero civil war over emission both options were actually viable from technical and economic point of views over the long term. In the Bitcoin civil war over blocksize none of the options presented are viable technically or economically over the long term 

Monero civil war is about drinking Bordeaux from 1990 or 1973 when only one will be opened.

Bitcoin civil war is about unsuccessfully trying to find source of potable water.

[smoothie]

I figured I would post this here since it sort of deals with the usage of XMR and its price being reflected by this use case of the thread linked below:

there is no other way other than mixing, it is what it was done with the siezed coins from us marshal office in 2014

future solution
make silk road only use 'dash' (darkcoin)
then let the druggies play with dash coins illegally and then swap for clean bitcoins. that way bitcoin doesnt touch silkroad directly

Why use Dash when it is documented by multiple users that sending say 1000 DASH takes several days using "DARKSEND".

hi folks,

using darksend for the first time and have to say its takin ages to complete. i set it to four rounds and its mixing since 20h now!

This user ^ sent me a PM saying it took several days although his post here says 20 hours (I'm guessing that it was with a smaller amount of dash.) Which makes it appear that the larger the transaction, the longer it takes.



Just use Monero (XMR). Use a mixin above 10 when sending a transaction and it takes a few seconds to send.

[smoothie]

Monero will never have a block size civil war such as Bitcoin is dealing with now.

Unless something like Actual Widespread Adoption happens before effective pruning, and the blockchain becomes too large for anything outside of a data center.

Then we get to bicker about whether to increase the penalty or set a limit or do segwit.

Let's not indulge in It Can't Happen Here happy talk.  Such a conclusion assumes facts not yet in evidence.

That, and just because we don't have a "block size civil war" doesn't mean we can't have a "{something-other-than-blocksize} civil war".

Very true.

Hopefully by watching the civil war in Bitcoin take place from the side lines (like I have decided to do for months now) and the pitfalls and mistakes that are made can be avoided or mitigated as much as possible going forward.

[smoothie]

Very interesting article on the Bitcoin blocksize issue by Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-economics-are-changing-1451315063 No mention of Monero but the following quote near the end of the article is very significant.

And finally, to remove long term moral hazard, core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands.

Well I guess Monero has the first mover advantage when it comes to dynamic block size. 

It almost appears that some prominent bitcoin devs/etc are actively ignoring Monero and what it brings to the table.

But that's okay. The technology will live on despite people's ignorance.

[dnaleor]

...

My bet is with a 50/50 hedge.  Buy the sector, not the firm.

I can't do the BitcoinObituary thing, when all it's done so far is exhibit antifragility at every opportunity and enjoys a first mover advantage involving 6 years of demonstrated success.

My intuition is transparent and opaque ledgers both have roles to play in disrupting/replacing fiat and the BIS shitlords who print it.

I know it is tough. I felt the same way for quite a while, and even today I still hold a token amount of Bitcoin and run a full Bitcoin node, on the core network. The hard reality is however that I cannot ignore facts and must put emotion aside. The strongest bet for a transparent ledger may be Dogecoin since it has a tail emission already in place and consequently could implement a Monero style adaptive blocksize without seriously disrupting its social covenant.

What troubles me with Bitcoin is that the long term is not handled, so a strong hands hold / average down strategy may not work.  

lol 
First time I noticed this

But for DOGE to become widely accepted, it needs a name change. No serious financial people will invest in something called "Dogecoin"

[smooth]

...

My bet is with a 50/50 hedge.  Buy the sector, not the firm.

I can't do the BitcoinObituary thing, when all it's done so far is exhibit antifragility at every opportunity and enjoys a first mover advantage involving 6 years of demonstrated success.

My intuition is transparent and opaque ledgers both have roles to play in disrupting/replacing fiat and the BIS shitlords who print it.

I know it is tough. I felt the same way for quite a while, and even today I still hold a token amount of Bitcoin and run a full Bitcoin node, on the core network. The hard reality is however that I cannot ignore facts and must put emotion aside. The strongest bet for a transparent ledger may be Dogecoin since it has a tail emission already in place and consequently could implement a Monero style adaptive blocksize without seriously disrupting its social covenant.

What troubles me with Bitcoin is that the long term is not handled, so a strong hands hold / average down strategy may not work.   

lol 
First time I noticed this

But for DOGE to become widely accepted, it needs a name change. No serious financial people will invest in something called "Dogecoin"

LOL @ the bold

Anyway, a chain can easily be renamed or packaged by a shiny wrapper (alternate client with a more "respectable" name, same chain).

[dnaleor]

I thought I would never say this, but investing a small % of your crypto in DOGE as a hedge seems reasonable now.
of course, XMR is a way better hedge than DOGE.
And for people who have a low net worth, having more XMR than BTC can even be reasonable.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I thought I would never say this, but investing a small % of your crypto in DOGE as a hedge seems reasonable now.
of course, XMR is a way better hedge than DOGE.
And for people who have a low net worth, having more XMR than BTC can even be reasonable.

I'm sure most of us have more XMR than BTC.