[XMR] Monero Speculation

[dEBRUYNE]

To go back to some price speculation, the weekly MACD has flipped to green, which is pretty exciting. It flipped 3 times in our history, all 3 times it was precedent to, or during, a (major) rally.

Since bitcoinwisdom doesn't have all the data available crypttrader seems a broken for the last few days, I'll use two charts.

First, crypttrader, so the start is also observable:



Second, bitcoinwisdom, for the current trend:



The long downslide also seems to be broken:



FYI: I use log scale on all the charts, because it gives a more appropriate image in my opinion. Certainly in high volatility markets such as crypto.

[TPTB_need_war]

Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. 3. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.

3. Maybe, maybe not. You are making an absolute statement, but I haven't seen particularly convincing evidence.

Thanks.

This is an interesting point to ponder. Could a revolutionary crypto coin succeed without the MSM (e.g. Bittorrent), or would the MSM cover something which was not helping the professional miners rape the Bitcoin investors to the tune of $300 million annually?

I think all of us are somewhat unrealistic (unless we were just here to mine the speculators).

This indeed worries me. It is difficult to justify killing myself to code in order to try to create revolution and then think it could all fail just because the MSM holds all the power.

I am not sure which way I am leaning on this issue. My gut tells me "It Is Just Time" for something revolutionary to happen. But my gut is very ill. Lol.

[jwinterm]

LOL you think xmr can hit the same price as Dash or what?

Well, eventually it will- when dash starts it's long way down....

With what? One update "bug fixing" per year from Lousy Monero developers or is it with spamming Dash ANN thread with hate messages from Monero supporters including you're developer Smooth?


Edit : Monero needs a new development team and a new marketing vision.

Oh my days! 

Maybe when Greg Maxwell and Wladimir van der Laan and Matt Corallo (and possibly others) quit working on Bitcoin because the block size gets increased they can come work on Monero full time

[TPTB_need_war]

Maybe when Greg Maxwell and Wladimir van der Laan and Matt Corallo (and possibly others) quit working on Bitcoin because the block size gets increased they can come work on Monero full time

Are you trying to kill Monero with a political Trojan Horse? 

[pa]

Maybe when Greg Maxwell and Wladimir van der Laan and Matt Corallo (and possibly others) quit working on Bitcoin because the block size gets increased they can come work on Monero full time

Are you trying to kill Monero with a political Trojan Horse? 

See: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3f3tnj/given_all_the_ingratitude_rbitcoin_is_giving_the/

[TPTB_need_war]

Maybe when Greg Maxwell and Wladimir van der Laan and Matt Corallo (and possibly others) quit working on Bitcoin because the block size gets increased they can come work on Monero full time

Are you trying to kill Monero with a political Trojan Horse?  

See: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3f3tnj/given_all_the_ingratitude_rbitcoin_is_giving_the/

Smooth's comment there catches my attention because it is conceptually perfect this notion that since this benefits the world then open source is the correct way that any one can contribute and together we can build something. And we can all profit by holding the coin and/or the ecosystem benefits of having the coin.

Unfortunately the economics and politics don't seem to be working out that way. Currency requires the participation of the majority.

Perhaps the missing ingredient was instant microtransactions so that the sucker could just blast off in the network effects arena. That is my bet if I proceed.

Seems to me that Bitcoin lost momentum (and encouraged forks such as Blockstream) when it failed to solve the key scaling features.

Contrary to CoinHoarder's total smearing of me in the other thread, I still see a huge possible window of opportunity.

How to make something like that happen without burdening it with too many cooks (devs) too early yet also not be ignored by the other smart devs because either they are correct that I am not worthy of their attenion or otherwise being a potential mortal threat to their vested interests if I was worthy. As smooth says, people have a difficult time seeing what they are paid (or vested) to not see.

Also I don't like this idea by Monero devs that they need the Bitcoin core devs (although nullc seems to be a really smart dude....isn't that gmaxwell?). You have enough smart guys already, but you need to have the right design. More smart guys will just be too many cooks in the kitchen and bog you down in endless discussions.

We need a leader (a new Satoshi) who can implement all by himself. I don't know if I am that guy. Probably not (too ill, over a decade since I have completed a major project, not even a cryptographer).

Apologies I am rambling because been awake too many hours. Maybe there is a morsel or two of coherence above.

Edit: I think my point is none of us are Satoshi. Certainly not gmaxwell nor Adam Back. As smart as they are in narrow fields such as cryptography, they have both proved they can totally screw up Bitcoin and don't have the leadership nor holistic design sense to be vanguard in revolution. When I read Adam Back's publicized and politicized exchanges over the block size issue, I just cringe (hey the entire point of trustless decentralization was we wouldn't need such soap opera spokesmen so I would rather hear some paradigm-shift technical solution that eliminates the need for any politics whatsoever, e.g. Linus adopted decentralized version control of Git to rid himself of being the only one with write permission on the Linux repository...as he says that many people value his repository but  they are welcome to grab from anyone else's so that no one has a monopoly).

If we understand the reasoning that led to certain details of the design (like the 1 MB limit and the abrupt halvings of the reward) we have a better chance of predicting what would happen if we changed them.  

Those who want to reform bitcoin so that it replaces VISA or ACH should put bitcoin aside and start the design such a system from scratch, choosing at each step the gears and rivets that are better suited to those goals.  But, first, they should justify why the world needs a better option for those goals and why they think that they can design one.

(That said: in fact, I believe that, as a software engineer, Satoshi, was much better than Gavin and Mike, who are much better than all the Blockstream developers -- who are totally incompetent and irresponsible in that regard.)

Seems to me he is saying that Blockstream may be technically knowledgeable yet incompetent and irresponsible in terms of holistic issues, marketing issues, focus, etc..

[smooth]

Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.

No, because they really didn't.

They started covering it only after it starting making new highs in 2013. They covered a bit of the Silk Road and MtGox stuff, but never in a manner that promoted Bitcoin at all. The latter was often mis-reported as Bitcoin having failed or gone bankrupt or something.

Since the price sagged in 2014, they barely cover it at all. Occasionally there is something in business news (WSJ, Bloomberg, etc.) but that's about it. Hearn's piece in the NYT was unusual, and again negative.  A lot of the (business) coverage now avoids mentioning Bitcoin at all and talks about "the blockchain" (of course, that's where most of the VC money is going too).

I don't see the MSM promoting Bitcoin at all. If Bitcoin enjoys further success from here it will without (short term) help from MSM/elite.

You can still find non-tech people or even some tech people who have never heard of it, or think it failed in 2014. Some techie I know outside of crypto recently owed me $20. I asked if he wanted to send Bitcoin instead of Paypal, etc. and he had no clue whatsoever. Pretty common.

[iCEBREAKER]

Maybe when Greg Maxwell and Wladimir van der Laan and Matt Corallo (and possibly others) quit working on Bitcoin because the block size gets increased they can come work on Monero full time

Team Dash already has dibs on XT's Mike Hearn.  It's only fair Monero gets the unappreciated/disgruntled guys from Core!   

[TPTB_need_war]

Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.

No, because they really didn't.

They started covering it only after it starting making new highs in 2013. They covered a bit of the Silk Road and MtGox stuff, but never in a manner that promoted Bitcoin at all. The latter was often mis-reported as Bitcoin having failed or gone bankrupt or something.

Since the price sagged in 2014, they barely cover it at all. Occasionally there is something in business news (WSJ, Bloomberg, etc.) but that's about it. Hearn's piece in the NYT was unusual, and again negative.  A lot of the (business) coverage now avoids mentioning Bitcoin at all and talks about "the blockchain" (of course, that's where most of the VC money is going too).

I don't see the MSM promoting Bitcoin at all. If Bitcoin enjoys further success from here it will without (short term) help from MSM/elite.

You can still find non-tech people or even some tech people who have never heard of it, or think it failed in 2014. Some techie I know outside of crypto recently owed me $20. I asked if he wanted to send Bitcoin instead of Paypal, etc. and he had no clue whatsoever. Pretty common.

The MSM drove the bubble in 2013. And now they drive the long-winded collapse. Perfectly fits with the model I presented for the Chinese elite (who we are know are in bed with the Western elite, e.g. see Nelson Rockefeller spends most of his time over there now and he was the one who told Aaron Russo the plan for 9/11 and Bitcoin before it happened).

I am often amazed smooth how you can be so intelligent in so many areas yet totally blinded in others. I mean you don't even acknowledge the potential timing correlation I just pointed out.

I actually hope you are correct and that my suspicions are paranoia.

[smooth]

Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.

No, because they really didn't.

They started covering it only after it starting making new highs in 2013. They covered a bit of the Silk Road and MtGox stuff, but never in a manner that promoted Bitcoin at all. The latter was often mis-reported as Bitcoin having failed or gone bankrupt or something.

Since the price sagged in 2014, they barely cover it at all. Occasionally there is something in business news (WSJ, Bloomberg, etc.) but that's about it. Hearn's piece in the NYT was unusual, and again negative.  A lot of the (business) coverage now avoids mentioning Bitcoin at all and talks about "the blockchain" (of course, that's where most of the VC money is going too).

I don't see the MSM promoting Bitcoin at all. If Bitcoin enjoys further success from here it will without (short term) help from MSM/elite.

You can still find non-tech people or even some tech people who have never heard of it, or think it failed in 2014. Some techie I know outside of crypto recently owed me $20. I asked if he wanted to send Bitcoin instead of Paypal, etc. and he had no clue whatsoever. Pretty common.

The MSM drove the bubble in 2013.

That's not my recollection at all, and I was here, actively mining and trading. They were late to it. Followers, not drivers.

Now as for what actually did start it and drive it, that's a whole other ball of yarn. MtGox issues, China speculation, Silicon Valley heavy hitters buying in, reduced supply from the halvening, the transition to ASICs. I've heard all these theories and more. Who knows.

EDIT: If you are saying that an elite drove it behind the scenes, that may be possible. But the mainstream media did not drive it with public coverage.

[TPTB_need_war]

Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.

No, because they really didn't.

They started covering it only after it starting making new highs in 2013. They covered a bit of the Silk Road and MtGox stuff, but never in a manner that promoted Bitcoin at all. The latter was often mis-reported as Bitcoin having failed or gone bankrupt or something.

Since the price sagged in 2014, they barely cover it at all. Occasionally there is something in business news (WSJ, Bloomberg, etc.) but that's about it. Hearn's piece in the NYT was unusual, and again negative.  A lot of the (business) coverage now avoids mentioning Bitcoin at all and talks about "the blockchain" (of course, that's where most of the VC money is going too).

I don't see the MSM promoting Bitcoin at all. If Bitcoin enjoys further success from here it will without (short term) help from MSM/elite.

You can still find non-tech people or even some tech people who have never heard of it, or think it failed in 2014. Some techie I know outside of crypto recently owed me $20. I asked if he wanted to send Bitcoin instead of Paypal, etc. and he had no clue whatsoever. Pretty common.

The MSM drove the bubble in 2013.

That's not my recollection at all, and I was here, actively mining and trading. They were late to it. Followers, not drivers.

Oh come on I joined the forum in March 2013, because the fervor was picking up steam.

And the MSM did the 10,000 bitcoins for one pizza promotion that drove the first bubble, which even I heard of and I wasn't paying attention to much of anything at that time (I was off on other tangents including start of my health decline, learning Haskel, silver business, etc). I didn't even know about the first bubble though until 2013. Or maybe I had seen one story in the MSM that Bitcoin had dived from $30 to $2.

Do we have a different definition of MSM? I mean any organized news outfit (that depends on funding) that isn't a Drudge report done by one man.

[smooth]

Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.

No, because they really didn't.

They started covering it only after it starting making new highs in 2013. They covered a bit of the Silk Road and MtGox stuff, but never in a manner that promoted Bitcoin at all. The latter was often mis-reported as Bitcoin having failed or gone bankrupt or something.

Since the price sagged in 2014, they barely cover it at all. Occasionally there is something in business news (WSJ, Bloomberg, etc.) but that's about it. Hearn's piece in the NYT was unusual, and again negative.  A lot of the (business) coverage now avoids mentioning Bitcoin at all and talks about "the blockchain" (of course, that's where most of the VC money is going too).

I don't see the MSM promoting Bitcoin at all. If Bitcoin enjoys further success from here it will without (short term) help from MSM/elite.

You can still find non-tech people or even some tech people who have never heard of it, or think it failed in 2014. Some techie I know outside of crypto recently owed me $20. I asked if he wanted to send Bitcoin instead of Paypal, etc. and he had no clue whatsoever. Pretty common.

The MSM drove the bubble in 2013.

That's not my recollection at all, and I was here, actively mining and trading. They were late to it. Followers, not drivers.

Oh come on I joined the forum in March 2013, because the fervor was picking up steam.

And the MSM did the 10,000 bitcoins for one pizza promotion that drove the first bubble.

The first bubble was in mid 2011. I was here for that too. There was NO mainstream coverage at all. If you didn't find out about it from word of mouth or techie sites like slashdot (not at all mainstream then), you didn't find out about it all. The first article in Wired I can find was June 2011, but even that was post-bubble (May).

Coverage was still sparse even in early 2013. The main coverage around that time was 2013 was of Schumer calling to ban it because of silk road, but that coverage mostly dies out when the price dropped again. The pizza coverage you are talking about was specifically coverage of the bubble that was already happening ("The pizza now worth a million dollars!")

Mainstream covers stuff, including Bitcoin, that bubbles (or sometimes crashes). Other than that they mostly ignore it. Chinese stock market being another perfect example. Pretty much no coverage unless it is making new highs or new lows.

[TPTB_need_war]

Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.

No, because they really didn't.

They started covering it only after it starting making new highs in 2013. They covered a bit of the Silk Road and MtGox stuff, but never in a manner that promoted Bitcoin at all. The latter was often mis-reported as Bitcoin having failed or gone bankrupt or something.

Since the price sagged in 2014, they barely cover it at all. Occasionally there is something in business news (WSJ, Bloomberg, etc.) but that's about it. Hearn's piece in the NYT was unusual, and again negative.  A lot of the (business) coverage now avoids mentioning Bitcoin at all and talks about "the blockchain" (of course, that's where most of the VC money is going too).

I don't see the MSM promoting Bitcoin at all. If Bitcoin enjoys further success from here it will without (short term) help from MSM/elite.

You can still find non-tech people or even some tech people who have never heard of it, or think it failed in 2014. Some techie I know outside of crypto recently owed me $20. I asked if he wanted to send Bitcoin instead of Paypal, etc. and he had no clue whatsoever. Pretty common.

The MSM drove the bubble in 2013.

That's not my recollection at all, and I was here, actively mining and trading. They were late to it. Followers, not drivers.

Oh come on I joined the forum in March 2013, because the fervor was picking up steam.

And the MSM did the 10,000 bitcoins for one pizza promotion that drove the first bubble.

The first bubble was in mid 2011. I was here for that too. There was NO mainstream coverage at all.

Incorrect:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110627061856/http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/06/14/wikileaks-asks-for-anonymous-bitcoin-donations/

Now I remember that story too. I was sort of aware of Wikileaks and when I heard that, it added fuel to my building awareness of Bitcoin as a phenomenon.

You see only what you want to see. That is a problem with objectivity.

[pa]

It's surprising, given the public's interest in privacy/surveillance issues post-Snowden, how little MSM coverage there is for the privacy-oriented cryptocurrencies.

[smooth]

Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.

No, because they really didn't.

They started covering it only after it starting making new highs in 2013. They covered a bit of the Silk Road and MtGox stuff, but never in a manner that promoted Bitcoin at all. The latter was often mis-reported as Bitcoin having failed or gone bankrupt or something.

Since the price sagged in 2014, they barely cover it at all. Occasionally there is something in business news (WSJ, Bloomberg, etc.) but that's about it. Hearn's piece in the NYT was unusual, and again negative.  A lot of the (business) coverage now avoids mentioning Bitcoin at all and talks about "the blockchain" (of course, that's where most of the VC money is going too).

I don't see the MSM promoting Bitcoin at all. If Bitcoin enjoys further success from here it will without (short term) help from MSM/elite.

You can still find non-tech people or even some tech people who have never heard of it, or think it failed in 2014. Some techie I know outside of crypto recently owed me $20. I asked if he wanted to send Bitcoin instead of Paypal, etc. and he had no clue whatsoever. Pretty common.

The MSM drove the bubble in 2013.

That's not my recollection at all, and I was here, actively mining and trading. They were late to it. Followers, not drivers.

Oh come on I joined the forum in March 2013, because the fervor was picking up steam.

And the MSM did the 10,000 bitcoins for one pizza promotion that drove the first bubble.

The first bubble was in mid 2011. I was here for that too. There was NO mainstream coverage at all.

Incorrect:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110627061856/http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/06/14/wikileaks-asks-for-anonymous-bitcoin-donations/

Now I remember that story too. I was sort of aware of Wikileaks and when I heard that, it added fuel to my building awareness of Bitcoin as a phenomenon.

You see only what you want to see. That is a problem with objectivity.

That story was already post-bubble! The bubble ran from mid May to June 15, 2011, when MtGox was hacked.

From then onward it was a long, long,  long, cold winter.

EDIT: Look like peak was actually a bit earlier, June 9, although I don't have high confidence in chart data from 2011 being accurate.

EDIT 2: If you click through to that blog post, the same author wrote another one in April, so there was SOME coverage, but realistically very little.

[TPTB_need_war]

I remember that Wired article too which I had read some of. But I heard about the 10,000 BTC for pizza when it occurred. If slashdot was the only source to publish that, it somehow was showing up in my Google searches and other MSM ways that I was connecting to news.

You can't say that just because the news source is slashdot, that the MSM weren't promoting it.

Slashdot didn't spread to me by word of mouth!! Rpietila didn't tell me. I wasn't talking to anyone else in the tech industry at that time.

Perhaps I read it on Alex Jones which is very MSM.

You seem to entirely discount the effect of Google and other portals to influence awareness.

Post-bubble by 2 weeks and sucking in a lot more fools to buy on the way down trying to catch a falling knife.

I need to sleep. See ya next day...

[smooth]

I remember that Wired article too which I had read some of. But I heard about the 10,000 BTC for pizza when it occurred. If slashdot was the only source to publish that, it somehow was showing up in my Google searches and other MSM ways that I was connecting to news.

The pizza was in 2010. If you heard about when it occurred, that was at a time when there was even less coverage.

You can't say that just because the news source is slashdot, that the MSM weren't promoting it.

Slashdot didn't spread to me by word of mouth!! Rpietila didn't tell me. I wasn't talking to anyone else in the tech industry at that time.

Perhaps I read it on Alex Jones which is very MSM.

Okay, so anything you read is mainstream media. I'll stick with the conventional definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_media

I don't know whether Alex Jones mentioned it in 2010 or who did (quite possibly some precious metals sites -- again I wouldn't call those mainstream media, but maybe you would). I can say that most of the people trading Bitcoin in 2011 were just actual regular old Bitcoiners. People who had been around for a while, downloaded the Satoshi client, did mining, etc. People who would have been hypothetically pumped in by mainstream media wouldn't have even had any idea how to buy it if they wanted to, unless highly motivated and at least somewhat techie. Did you ever try the MtGox UI? Enough said.

There was no Mainstream Media Pump in 2011 or early 2013 in my opnion as a participant. Late 2013 is debatable, but I still doubt it. If it happens that way it will be the next one. Now that's a different story entirely. There was no Coinbase (existed by barely usable in 2013), Gemini, etc. back then. Now there is. Look out above (XMR too).

[jehst]

I first read about bitcoin in Wired when bitcoin was about $5-$8 in 2011. The bubble was already underway I guess. I had just enough time to get my money to dwolla and then gox and then watch it crash and crash and crash...

[smooth]

I first read about bitcoin in Wired when bitcoin was about $6-8 in 2011

The story in Wired that got a lot of attention (and introduced many people to Bitcoin) was late 2011. It was a large review (maybe cover?) that included the history of Satoshi, etc., the pump, the MtGox hack, etc. The price had hit $30 earlier that year and was on its way down to $2 or whatever the low ended up being a year or so after the first pump. Still I guess $6-8 when the article came out.

[jehst]

I first read about bitcoin in Wired when bitcoin was about $6-8 in 2011

The story in Wired that got a lot of attention (and introduced many people to Bitcoin) was late 2011. It was a large review (maybe cover?) that included the history of Satoshi, etc., the pump, the MtGox hack, etc. The price had hit $30 earlier that year and was on its way down to $2 or whatever the low ended up being after another year or so. Still I guess $6-8 when the article came out.

The one I read was before the bubble. Let me just find it

EDIT: Here it is. The article came out just before the bubble:
http://www.wired.com/2011/06/silkroad-2/

Price was $8.67 according the article.