[XMR] Monero Speculation

[rangedriver]

...
The sway that Bitcoin holds in cryptosphere is so great that it is very difficult for an altcoin to gain traction. But if any of them does to a sufficient degree, I take it as a strong indication that the market is making a shift.

If any one of the altcoins gains a 20% share of the total cryptocoin marketcap, the value in Bitcoin will likely move to that coin.

...

The problem with the above is that if Bitcoin gets dethroned, all of crypto will experience a massive depression that could last quite a long time (10yrs or more). The reason is simple: we have not yet convinced the world that a crypto-currency can be a long-term value-store. We're still fighting that battle every day, and one of the main objections to the idea is that bitcoin is actually not scarce due to the existence of alts. I assert that if an alt, even some theoretical magic-alt with greatly superior tech, eclipses Bitcoin's market-cap, it'll be synonymous with the market-cap of all of crypto dropping by 50-90%, and staying there for a long time.

Naturally, you're all forgetting that scientists are 25 years away from creating the first molecular assemblers, and 100 years away from creating the first atomic assemblers.

In the first instance, molecular assembly, it is indeed possible to 'photocopy' and 'assemble' any material object providing you have the necessary starting elements. In any capacity (including weaponised and/or generated from the funds of national governments) this would inevitably lead to economic catastophe by way of the ease in being able to 'print' unlimited amounts of paper money, along with other intricate valuables, while leaving only the elements themselves (most notably gold and silver).

This is 25 years away.

In the second instance, atomic assembly, there is no need even for a portfolio of base elements as each atom would be generated from a standard abundant element as required (e.g oxygen etc). In this scenario, neither gold or silver is spared from replication, thus leading to total material-as-storage-of-wealth destruction, and while this would theoretically lead to a 'post-scarity economy' of infinite material abundance, it would still leave a gaping hole for economies that cover the service sectors and any other human faculty of labour not represented by physical things (e.g governence).. hence, the global monopolisation of crypto-currencies, as theoretical stores of wealth that are immune from replication.

So yea... Bitcoin... Monero... Good time to buy.

Happy Saturday everyone!

[smooth]

...
The sway that Bitcoin holds in cryptosphere is so great that it is very difficult for an altcoin to gain traction. But if any of them does to a sufficient degree, I take it as a strong indication that the market is making a shift.

If any one of the altcoins gains a 20% share of the total cryptocoin marketcap, the value in Bitcoin will likely move to that coin.

...

The problem with the above is that if Bitcoin gets dethroned, all of crypto will experience a massive depression that could last quite a long time (10yrs or more). The reason is simple: we have not yet convinced the world that a crypto-currency can be a long-term value-store. We're still fighting that battle every day, and one of the main objections to the idea is that bitcoin is actually not scarce due to the existence of alts. I assert that if an alt, even some theoretical magic-alt with greatly superior tech, eclipses Bitcoin's market-cap, it'll be synonymous with the market-cap of all of crypto dropping by 50-90%, and staying there for a long time.

That's a theory, and I largely disagree with it. Well maybe I agree with 50%, but not 90%.

Bitcoin as a long term store of value is huge unproven and uncertain even now, and that is reflected in its value. Or a better way to say that is the premise of Bitcoin being a long term store of value will accrue to the value over Bitcoin over a long period of time starting when it starts to be a stable store of value (which haven't even started). That premium isn't there, yet.

Also, there is another reason the theory doesn't work.

About the worst case you could think of here would be Bitcoin losing to another crypto without distinct technological advantage (say Litecoin or the like). And then moving to another undifferentiated coin, say DOGE.

But that is easy for investors, or even everyday users to deal with. They need only store their value and trade in a basket of cryptos at which point they don't even care which has value. For example, an investor could completely shield himself from the value of BTC moving to XMR by allocating around 0.3% of his crypto assets to XMR. The value is secure regardless of whether or where it moves. Since movement of value between coins is diversifiable risk, it can't carry a risk premium (equivalent to a negative price risk if the premium goes away). At worst this adds a bit of complexity to wallets, etc.

[Lloydimiller4]

That's wasn't americanpegasus.

In any case, americanpegasus has an investment of less than 10,000 XMR, so trying to pump trollbox chat accordingly probably wouldn't go very far.

You're probably right.

Although it should be noted that misdirection and careful identity construction online can build any number of personalities to achieve the desired facade.

If I was trying to be accepted into a poker game to take chips from rookies, feigning naiveté would be step one.

Just saying.  

 
  
That actually is me.  For some reason (likely a dead account of mine), plain old 'americanpegasus' isn't available.  
  
I realized that with 18k Monero I could join the 1/1000 club, and since I feel like a double bottom at 200ish has been reached, it seemed like a good time to acquire my stake.  
  
As far as me being a rookie at a poker table, I would say that I know just enough to hurt myself.  I understand the bid/ask stack game, but am not great at it, and have never been able to consistently profit at it.  Probably for the same reason that I inevitably lose at poker:  
  
I play an amazing game at first, and then get impatient and start fucking with the bets for my own amusement, because watching other players' frustrations is worth more to me than winning.  Seriously, nothing better than carefully establishing that you are a tight-aggressive player (not to be fucked with) over the course of a couple of hours, and carving out respect, then switching to absurd river rat bluffing and watching the wheels and steam spin.  
  
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I don't intend to dance with you silver spooned bitcoin ballers.  You got algos and deeper pockets than me.  I'm just gonna acquire and hold, and slowly take Monero out of circulation.  I'm not interested in taking other early speculators money; I believe XMR will organically rise in value by such magnitudes that won't be necessary.  
  
So a lot of the recent volume has been me acquiring my 0.1% of all Monero.  Does that mean that the bearish trend line is broken, just because one famous autistic mystical beast just sat down at the table?  
  
I don't know.  
  
You're the pros.  
  
You tell me.  
  
I know this though, I'm pot committed now.  A dip back into the 100's will hurt, but they won't free up any of my chips.  
  
I'M HODLING

I am excited to have you on board with us. I think your entrance price to XMR is a good one and matches my own average price, and probably matches most of our averages.

Someone who is opinionated and willing to speak their mind is important in this type of technology where adoption needs to come quickly for it to be a success.

-EDIT-

We have had such a long period of moderate prices and accumulation opportunities that I find it possible that one entity has up to 1 million XMR. After all it has been possible to buy it for about $1 million, which is peanuts.

However, acquiring such a stake from the market does not serve any logical purpose. Manipulating the price for trading gains can be done with 100k. Becoming filthy rich is Monero succeeds also happens at 100k (or much less). Supporting the coin by buying at dips and thus amassing a fortune that does not make any difference in the positive case, and can never be sold in the negative case, is not rational. Aiming to be the biggest holder for the sake of it, nah. Buying a shitload for the future nefarious purposes is implausible, as the very act of buying a million coins would have been the thing that kept Monero alive (imagine the price without the million coins buying pressure over the months!)

My belief is that the holdings distribution table quoted above is rather well indicative concerning the largest holdings. The bottom tranches depend heavily on the number of XMR holders, which was assumed to be 25,000, but can as well be 10,000 or only 5,000.

I agree with your beliefs here and I seriously doubt anyone is holding 1million XMR.

Code:

			25130	7314743
b_min	b_max	b_avg	#owners	XMRtot
367002	734003	519019	1	519019
183501	367002	259509	2	519019
91750	183501	129755	4	519019
45875	91750	64877	8	519019
22938	45875	32439	16	519019
11469	22938	16219	32	519019
5734	11469	8110	64	519019
2867	5734	4055	128	519019
1434	2867	2027	256	519019
717	1434	1014	512	519019
358	717	507	1126	570921
179	358	253	2253	570921
90	179	127	3604	456736
45	90	63	4686	296879
22	45	32	4686	148439
11	22	16	3604	57092
6	11	8	2253	17841
3	6	4	1126	4460
1	3	2	512	1014
0	1	1	256	253

As you quoted, this is based on a completely desktop-statistical methodology relying on the assumptions that XMR distribution is a market phenomenon. For pre/insta/nonmineable coins this is not at all true. I believe it is true for XMR since I know its history.

Here I don't quite agree that we have the assumed 25k persons holding XMR. I would estimate it to be at the most half, most likely around 7-8k holders, but I'm really just ball-parking as we don't have any good way to determine how many are out there.

It won't take many more new comers who are serious about their investment in XMR to take us to new heights.
As always, I'm very bullish.

[smooth]

Here I don't quite agree that we have the assumed 25k persons holding XMR. I would estimate it to be at the most half, most likely around 7-8k holders, but I'm really just ball-parking as we don't have any good way to determine how many are out there.

Obviously we are totally guessing, but Poloniex has 71k accounts registered (from the bottom of their home page). Given the prominence of XMR on that exchange over the past year I would guess a pretty significant portion (obviously the preceeding three words describe a very wide range) of that number either has XMR or has traded it (but may not happen to own any right now).

[Lloydimiller4]

Here I don't quite agree that we have the assumed 25k persons holding XMR. I would estimate it to be at the most half, most likely around 7-8k holders, but I'm really just ball-parking as we don't have any good way to determine how many are out there.

Obviously we are totally guessing, but Poloniex has 71k accounts registered (from the bottom of their home page). Given the prominence of XMR on that exchange over the past year I would guess a pretty significant portion (obviously the preceeding three words describe a very wide range) of that number either has XMR or has traded it (but may not happen to own any right now).

You make a good point, I haven't considered that perspective. Hard to determine what accounts are real/which have interest in monero. I guess only Busoni and some Polo admins have this info.

[mrkavasaki]

this is a very good price to exit

[binaryFate]

this is a very good price to exit

Just buy back and shut up.

Smooth feel free to delete my useless post, but please delete his crap too, enough of "it's crap, but it's meaningful in a (convoluted) way". It's not, it's just annoying. Maybe consider the history of the poster in the thread when judging a single post.

[cAPSLOCK]

The problem with the above is that if Bitcoin gets dethroned, all of crypto will experience a massive depression that could last quite a long time (10yrs or more). The reason is simple: we have not yet convinced the world that a crypto-currency can be a long-term value-store. We're still fighting that battle every day, and one of the main objections to the idea is that bitcoin is actually not scarce due to the existence of alts. I assert that if an alt, even some theoretical magic-alt with greatly superior tech, eclipses Bitcoin's market-cap, it'll be synonymous with the market-cap of all of crypto dropping by 50-90%, and staying there for a long time.

Ah. what wonderful discussion... thanks.

The flaw in this is that crypto is so much bigger and more compelling than any one brand.  Nothing can stop it really...  What it becomes is going to be hashed out and at the moment Bitcoin leads the pack, and I agree if it is somehow displaced that will have chaotic effects.

I agree with your conclusion though.  There is room for Monero to gain #2 status in time, and it's unique features allow it to have a symbiotc relationship with Bitcoin.

[camu6]

this is a very good price to exit

Would love to short it then buy more xmr...however due to the unpredictable nature of speculation, I never able to sell then buy in cheaper. Shame really.

Imho giving up a reasonable position at this price has more potential to bite you in the ass than potential to decrease your avg. buy in. Especially with the last spike to ~ 0.0043 in mind, it feels like this could be just the beginning of things.

By now a bigger buy can take us into the 0.003s and the bidside down to 0.002 keeps stacking up.

[americanpegasus]

this is a very good price to exit

Would love to short it then buy more xmr...however due to the unpredictable nature of speculation, I never able to sell then buy in cheaper. Shame really.

Imho giving up a reasonable position at this price has more potential to bite you in the ass than potential to decrease your avg. buy in. Especially with the last spike to ~ 0.0043 in mind, it feels like this could be just the beginning of things.

By now a bigger buy can take us into the 0.003s and the bidside down to 0.002 keeps stacking up.

 
  
I agree.  People keep looking at that little peak to 240 and imagining three successively larger peaks based off of that before another period of consolidation.  
  
It would seem though that my entry into the Monero market has sparked off a new wave of public interest, and personally I'm looking at that big ass peak to the 4000 and imagining three successively larger peaks based off that before the next major consolidation period.  
  
This isn't a BBQcoin short game gentlemen.  Don't let your expert trading experience blind you to the size of the forest you are wandering in.

[smooth]

The problem with the above is that if Bitcoin gets dethroned, all of crypto will experience a massive depression that could last quite a long time (10yrs or more). The reason is simple: we have not yet convinced the world that a crypto-currency can be a long-term value-store. We're still fighting that battle every day, and one of the main objections to the idea is that bitcoin is actually not scarce due to the existence of alts. I assert that if an alt, even some theoretical magic-alt with greatly superior tech, eclipses Bitcoin's market-cap, it'll be synonymous with the market-cap of all of crypto dropping by 50-90%, and staying there for a long time.

Ah. what wonderful discussion... thanks.

The flaw in this is that crypto is so much bigger and more compelling than any one brand.  Nothing can stop it really...  What it becomes is going to be hashed out and at the moment Bitcoin leads the pack, and I agree if it is somehow displaced that will have chaotic effects.

I agree with your conclusion though.  There is room for Monero to gain #2 status in time, and it's unique features allow it to have a symbiotc relationship with Bitcoin.

Brands are actually a good model for this. Cryptocurrency is indeed not scarce because of alts. (You can't "blame" alts for this though, it is just the nature of the technology.) But coin brands (and therefore meaningful alts) in general are scarce for the same reason that other brands are: limits of cognitive load. Most if not all markets have a handful of significant brands, the rest are largely irrelevant. So if the Bitcoin brand is shown to be not scarce because of Litecoin, Monero and a few others, then so be it. Instead of 22 million coins, there might be the equivalent of 100 million. That's still scarce. It does not mean there will be arbitrarily large number of coins.

[americanpegasus]

I agree with your conclusion though.  There is room for Monero to gain #2 status in time, and it's unique features allow it to have a symbiotc relationship with Bitcoin.

Brands are actually a good model for this. Cryptocurrency is indeed not scarce because of alts. (You can't "blame" alts for this though, it is just the nature of the technology.) But coin brands (and therefore meaningful alts) in general are scarce for the same reason that other brands are: limits of cognitive load. Most if not all markets have a handful of significant brands, the rest are largely irrelevant. So if the Bitcoin brand is shown to be not scarce because of Litecoin, Monero and a few others, then so be it. Instead of 22 million coins, there might be the equivalent of 100 million. That's still scarce. It does not mean there will be arbitrarily large number of coins.

The more I think about this, the more it seems that new altcoins should base their total numbers to "play nice" with the original vision of 21 million bitcoins.  As you said, due to cognitive load, we are already asking a lot of the common man.  
  
It willl make it much more difficult if the commoner has to keep track of different magnitudes of relevance (i.e. Dogecoin's 100 billion+ cap).  Because Monero is poised to "play nice" and scale similarly to bitcoin, there is a much greater chance for mass familiarization and adoption.  It will just feel more comfortable to deal with after making the leap to understanding the 21 million coin universe of bitcoin.  
  
In fact, it may be the case that neither coin has to 'win' over the other.  I can even imagine a future where the market caps of bitcoin and Monero are nearly equal, and they joust like the dollar and euro do.  People will just inherently understand there are about 40 million-ish cryptocoins out there, about half of them private and the other half public.  
  
It makes a lot of sense.  
  
I would even venture that there is still room for 1 to 3 more major contenders.  I think people are willing to bear the cognitive load of 3 to 5 major 'brands', but only if they offer compellingly different experiences than each other.  
  
Imagine a line of 'for Dummies' books:  *Which Cryptocurrency is right for me and my business?*  
  
I think that successive alts that wish to have a real shot at making it should keep to the formula of approximately 20 million coins (so that even with 5 major names we will only have 100 million total 'coins' in the world).  
  
In fact, the more I think about it, the more this future makes sense to me.

[79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX]

except a large gulf exists between something making sense to someone, and that thing being true, or even likely to be true.  

[TaunSew]

Here I don't quite agree that we have the assumed 25k persons holding XMR. I would estimate it to be at the most half, most likely around 7-8k holders, but I'm really just ball-parking as we don't have any good way to determine how many are out there.

Obviously we are totally guessing, but Poloniex has 71k accounts registered (from the bottom of their home page). Given the prominence of XMR on that exchange over the past year I would guess a pretty significant portion (obviously the preceeding three words describe a very wide range) of that number either has XMR or has traded it (but may not happen to own any right now).

You make a good point, I haven't considered that perspective. Hard to determine what accounts are real/which have interest in monero. I guess only Busoni and some Polo admins have this info.

because of how Monero blockchain works we'll never know how many single addresses are being used... I think smooth is right and thanks to polo the number of xmr users could as well be near 50k or more making risto's estimations very conservative.

Addresses =/=users.   95% of those addresses are probably Risto's, when he snuck into the aslyum's computer system,and created scripts to spam address creation.

[smooth]

Here I don't quite agree that we have the assumed 25k persons holding XMR. I would estimate it to be at the most half, most likely around 7-8k holders, but I'm really just ball-parking as we don't have any good way to determine how many are out there.

Obviously we are totally guessing, but Poloniex has 71k accounts registered (from the bottom of their home page). Given the prominence of XMR on that exchange over the past year I would guess a pretty significant portion (obviously the preceeding three words describe a very wide range) of that number either has XMR or has traded it (but may not happen to own any right now).

You make a good point, I haven't considered that perspective. Hard to determine what accounts are real/which have interest in monero. I guess only Busoni and some Polo admins have this info.

because of how Monero blockchain works we'll never know how many single addresses are being used... I think smooth is right and thanks to polo the number of xmr users could as well be near 50k or more making risto's estimations very conservative.

Addresses =/=users.   95% of those addresses are probably Risto's, when he snuck into the aslyum's computer system,and created scripts to spam address creation.

The 70K number is not addresses either, it is registered polo accounts.

Risto is a lot of things but hacker is not one of them, or if he is he sure does a great job of hiding it.

I personally doubt the number is as high as 50K though. Probably a lot of the Polo accounts are fake/throwaways, and some are from people only ever interested in some other coin. But there are probably a few Monero users who never had polo accounts too.

[MalMen]

In fact, it may be the case that neither coin has to 'win' over the other.  I can even imagine a future where the market caps of bitcoin and Monero are nearly equal, and they joust like the dollar and euro do.  People will just inherently understand there are about 40 million-ish cryptocoins out there, about half of them private and the other half public.

Actualy, I agree and disagree with that, dollar vs euro have +/- the same price because the central banks manipulate the markets to this happens that way, in case of cryptocurrency there are no central autority to manipulate that, and for example, even now i am more confortable to have moneros than bitcoins and keep my wealth private, I dont think bitcoin will decrease the value, right now alot of services are start to looking on bitcoin and acept it, in the short time i dont see big bumps but the price will rise steady..
In case of monero we have alot work to do, but i think in long time we have potencial to overpass the bitcoin price.... but alot of work to do before that of course

[smooth]

TaunSew, just no to posts like that. Nothing more to say

[GTO911]

TaunSew, just no to posts like that. Nothing more to say

You should just delete this trolls posts

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1062989.msg11398985#msg11398985

[smooth]

TaunSew, just no to posts like that. Nothing more to say

You should just delete this trolls posts

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1062989.msg11398985#msg11398985

I have no control over what he posts in other threads and I'm not going to delete posts purely on the basis of reputation (unless there are repeat offenses here and I ban someone, which I don't think I have ever done). If his posts here have on-topic content, which they occasionally do, they are welcome. If not then not.

[rpietila]

...
The sway that Bitcoin holds in cryptosphere is so great that it is very difficult for an altcoin to gain traction. But if any of them does to a sufficient degree, I take it as a strong indication that the market is making a shift.

If any one of the altcoins gains a 20% share of the total cryptocoin marketcap, the value in Bitcoin will likely move to that coin.

...

The problem with the above is that if Bitcoin gets dethroned, all of crypto will experience a massive depression that could last quite a long time (10yrs or more). The reason is simple: we have not yet convinced the world that a crypto-currency can be a long-term value-store. We're still fighting that battle every day, and one of the main objections to the idea is that bitcoin is actually not scarce due to the existence of alts. I assert that if an alt, even some theoretical magic-alt with greatly superior tech, eclipses Bitcoin's market-cap, it'll be synonymous with the market-cap of all of crypto dropping by 50-90%, and staying there for a long time.

1) Crypto is still in the stealth phase, or in the quantum-foam phase, where you cannot really say if it is black or white until you look, and I can change the marketcap of Bitcoin by 10% without sweating my brow, creating or destroying $500 million if I so wish.

2) As long as this persists, short term events do have their effects, but you cannot evaluate the effect just by looking at the current numbers.

3) Every change is perceived progress. So if some Bitcoin holders decide to move their value to an alt, and consequently the value of Bitcoin crashes, the culprit is Bitcoin, which was perceived inferior to the alt. If the alt was never invented, of course there would not have been the change, but it is incredulous to think that this outcome would be better for the society. Proof: Soviet Union also collapsed.

4) It is unlikely, or in every case not long-term credible, to say that a change to the better in crypto value storage alternatives would lead to a decrease of people's willingness to store value in crypto. Cryptos are competing with other asset classes, so an improvement in crypto leads to an increase in interest to store value there, and the increase in the total crypto marketcap.

5) In all due respect, sir, towards your long-term membership here in the forum, and many valuable contributions, but the idea that we should have a moral responsibility to upheld Bitcoin because "otherwise people would not know whom to trust and the whole industry would collapse" is equivalent to the cry from the ludicruously overbloated monopolized taxi racket against Uber and liberalization in general. I mean if you could secure your livelihood by pleading it from the government (as the taxi people could over 50+ years), go for it. But in a free market such fallacy is costly for your self.