[XMR] Monero Speculation

[dnaleor]

I'm still not sold that disinflation is better than regular ol' inflation (ala 1% / 2% in perpetuity) but it serves as a useful tool to replace lost coins and keep the total float in the tens of millions.

the problem with an exponential growing monetary supply is that the coin isn't good for a store of value function.
inflation of 1% annually means that the number coins is doubled every 70 years.
If inflation % slowly goes down, you know that the next year the coin value will be diluted less than the previous year.
If  coin has an exponential monetary base,  every year the same value needs to be absorbed by the market. It never goes down.
Think about gold... Is it is a store of value because the amount is limited? not really imho, it is because each year less and less gold can be digged up. We know that some asteroids contain gold. If we manage to get that gold, the price will drop. but the total number of gold in the universe is still finite...

Imho the best distribution is a coin with a fixed block reward:

edit: the "1COIN" is a hypothetical coin that has 1 coin as block reward every minute.

There is something peculiar about these charts because the literal number of coins is fairly arbitrary. In the long term XMR and 1COIN are exactly the same right? But that is not apparent from the charts at all.

true
In the long run, it is about the same. the only difference is the big inflation at the start.

If we want to compare the 18.4 million moneroj at the start with 1COIN, we need to devide that number by the permanent block reward (0.3 XMR)
So 18400000/0.3 = 61333333 is the equivalent number of 1COINs
This number is an equivalent of 61333333/(60*24*365.25) =~  117 years of 1COIN-emission. Monero does this in 8 years.

So after about 109 years in 1COIN, the situation is the same: same inflation % as XMR and going down every year with the same rate.
Whether we can sell this "initial fast mining" to the public or not is yet to be seen. I hope we can.  

In any case it is clear that XMR distribution is one of the most fair out there. it's not an instamine, not a premine, not a PoS scam, not an ICO
The "fast" mined coins are all bought at the market, and most of the time for pretty high prices, especially at the start

[GingerAle]

I'm still not sold that disinflation is better than regular ol' inflation (ala 1% / 2% in perpetuity) but it serves as a useful tool to replace lost coins and keep the total float in the tens of millions.

the problem with an exponential growing monetary supply is that the coin isn't good for a store of value function.
inflation of 1% annually means that the number coins is doubled every 70 years.
If inflation % slowly goes down, you know that the next year the coin value will be diluted less than the previous year.
If  coin has an exponential monetary base,  every year the same value needs to be absorbed by the market. It never goes down.
Think about gold... Is it is a store of value because the amount is limited? not really imho, it is because each year less and less gold can be digged up. We know that some asteroids contain gold. If we manage to get that gold, the price will drop. but the total number of gold in the universe is still finite...

Imho the best distribution is a coin with a fixed block reward:
img snip
edit: the "1COIN" is a hypothetical coin that has 1 coin as block reward every minute.

There is something peculiar about these charts because the literal number of coins is fairly arbitrary. In the long term XMR and 1COIN are exactly the same right? But that is not apparent from the charts at all.

true
In the long run, it is about the same. the only difference is the big inflation at the start.

If we want to compare the 18.4 million moneroj at the start with 1COIN, we need to devide that number by the permanent block reward (0.3 XMR)
So 18400000/0.3 = 61333333 is the equivalent number of 1COINs
This number is an equivalent of 61333333/(60*24*365.25) =~  117 years of 1COIN-emission. Monero does this in 8 years.

So after about 109 years in 1COIN, the situation is the same: same inflation % as XMR and going down every year with the same rate.
Whether we can sell this "initial fast mining" to the public or not is yet to be seen. I hope we can.  

In any case it is clear that XMR distribution is one of the most fair out there. it's not an instamine, not a premine, not a PoS scam, not an ICO
The "fast" mined coins are all bought at the market, and most of the time for pretty high prices, especially at the start

The public bought into the same type of distribution with bitcoin, so I don't think its a concern.

Careful with the second bold though- this is the same rationale often used by the dashers.

Ultimately, there's no telling what will really work out the best. The theoretical 1coin has serious inflationary problems for early adopters, thus there is no incentive to be part of the initial effort of crafting the technology and infrastructure. In a world where cryptocurrencies are commonplace, and everyone's mining on their phones and TVs, then perhaps a 1coin distribution would be possible. But would the worlds most powerful supercomputer (the bitcoin network) had been built in a matter of 2 years by the conglomerate effort of random actors with the knowledge that bitcoins would be emitted forever? I don't know.

[smooth]

I'm still not sold that disinflation is better than regular ol' inflation (ala 1% / 2% in perpetuity) but it serves as a useful tool to replace lost coins and keep the total float in the tens of millions.

the problem with an exponential growing monetary supply is that the coin isn't good for a store of value function.
inflation of 1% annually means that the number coins is doubled every 70 years.
If inflation % slowly goes down, you know that the next year the coin value will be diluted less than the previous year.
If  coin has an exponential monetary base,  every year the same value needs to be absorbed by the market. It never goes down.
Think about gold... Is it is a store of value because the amount is limited? not really imho, it is because each year less and less gold can be digged up. We know that some asteroids contain gold. If we manage to get that gold, the price will drop. but the total number of gold in the universe is still finite...

Imho the best distribution is a coin with a fixed block reward:

edit: the "1COIN" is a hypothetical coin that has 1 coin as block reward every minute.

There is something peculiar about these charts because the literal number of coins is fairly arbitrary. In the long term XMR and 1COIN are exactly the same right? But that is not apparent from the charts at all.

true
In the long run, it is about the same. the only difference is the big inflation at the start.

If we want to compare the 18.4 million moneroj at the start with 1COIN, we need to devide that number by the permanent block reward (0.3 XMR)
So 18400000/0.3 = 61333333 is the equivalent number of 1COINs
This number is an equivalent of 61333333/(60*24*365.25) =~  117 years of 1COIN-emission. Monero does this in 8 years.

So after about 109 years in 1COIN, the situation is the same: same inflation % as XMR and going down every year with the same rate.
Whether we can sell this "initial fast mining" to the public or not is yet to be seen. I hope we can. 

In any case it is clear that XMR distribution is one of the most fair out there. it's not an instamine, not a premine, not a PoS scam, not an ICO
The "fast" mined coins are all bought at the market, and most of the time for pretty high prices, especially at the start

I was just commenting that your charts don't (at least the top one doesn't) show this kind of convergence, even out near the right edge which is close to 100 years. I have no reason to doubt that the charts are correct, but in terms of presentation on the long term behavior I think they are a bit misleading (or perhaps unclear is a more neutral term).

[smooth]

I'm still not sold that disinflation is better than regular ol' inflation (ala 1% / 2% in perpetuity) but it serves as a useful tool to replace lost coins and keep the total float in the tens of millions.

the problem with an exponential growing monetary supply is that the coin isn't good for a store of value function.
inflation of 1% annually means that the number coins is doubled every 70 years.
If inflation % slowly goes down, you know that the next year the coin value will be diluted less than the previous year.
If  coin has an exponential monetary base,  every year the same value needs to be absorbed by the market. It never goes down.
Think about gold... Is it is a store of value because the amount is limited? not really imho, it is because each year less and less gold can be digged up. We know that some asteroids contain gold. If we manage to get that gold, the price will drop. but the total number of gold in the universe is still finite...

Imho the best distribution is a coin with a fixed block reward:
img snip
edit: the "1COIN" is a hypothetical coin that has 1 coin as block reward every minute.

There is something peculiar about these charts because the literal number of coins is fairly arbitrary. In the long term XMR and 1COIN are exactly the same right? But that is not apparent from the charts at all.

true
In the long run, it is about the same. the only difference is the big inflation at the start.

If we want to compare the 18.4 million moneroj at the start with 1COIN, we need to devide that number by the permanent block reward (0.3 XMR)
So 18400000/0.3 = 61333333 is the equivalent number of 1COINs
This number is an equivalent of 61333333/(60*24*365.25) =~  117 years of 1COIN-emission. Monero does this in 8 years.

So after about 109 years in 1COIN, the situation is the same: same inflation % as XMR and going down every year with the same rate.
Whether we can sell this "initial fast mining" to the public or not is yet to be seen. I hope we can. 

In any case it is clear that XMR distribution is one of the most fair out there. it's not an instamine, not a premine, not a PoS scam, not an ICO
The "fast" mined coins are all bought at the market, and most of the time for pretty high prices, especially at the start

The public bought into the same type of distribution with bitcoin, so I don't think its a concern.

Some of the public has. Most hasn't.

Ultimately, there's no telling what will really work out the best. The theoretical 1coin has serious inflationary problems for early adopters, thus there is no incentive to be part of the initial effort of crafting the technology and infrastructure. In a world where cryptocurrencies are commonplace, and everyone's mining on their phones and TVs, then perhaps a 1coin distribution would be possible. But would the worlds most powerful supercomputer (the bitcoin network) had been built in a matter of 2 years by the conglomerate effort of random actors with the knowledge that bitcoins would be emitted forever? I don't know.

I agree with most of this. Not just the mining network either. A lot of work on all aspects of the ecosystem and promotion were done by countless people with all sorts of different backgrounds, social networks, and personal assets, all motivated by the urgency of being an early adopter. If inflation continues (in a sense) unabated for decades then there no such urgency.

[dnaleor]

I was just commenting that your charts don't (at least the top one doesn't) show this kind of convergence, even out near the right edge which is close to 100 years. I have no reason to doubt that the charts are correct, but in terms of presentation on the long term behavior I think they are a bit misleading (or perhaps unclear is a more neutral term).

I wasn't trying to be intentionally misleading, if that's your concern

Ultimately, there's no telling what will really work out the best. The theoretical 1coin has serious inflationary problems for early adopters, thus there is no incentive to be part of the initial effort of crafting the technology and infrastructure. In a world where cryptocurrencies are commonplace, and everyone's mining on their phones and TVs, then perhaps a 1coin distribution would be possible. But would the worlds most powerful supercomputer (the bitcoin network) had been built in a matter of 2 years by the conglomerate effort of random actors with the knowledge that bitcoins would be emitted forever? I don't know.

I agree that inflation is an issue with 1COIN for a longer period than with XMR. Maybe XMR has the perfect balance for bootstrapping the currency with the initial "fast" emission and the fixed block reward like 1COIN has...

Let's call the 18.4 million the "bootstrap emission" then

[smooth]

I was just commenting that your charts don't (at least the top one doesn't) show this kind of convergence, even out near the right edge which is close to 100 years. I have no reason to doubt that the charts are correct, but in terms of presentation on the long term behavior I think they are a bit misleading (or perhaps unclear is a more neutral term).

I wasn't trying to be intentionally misleading, if that's your concern

I didn't think you were, I was just suggesting to perhaps find a more effective presentation. Again I suggest that at some point (by your calculation, which i have not checked fairly, close to the right edge of the chart), the future supply dynamics of 1COIN and XMR are forever exactly equivalent (though 1COIN will have ~3x as many nominal "units"). Yet a glance at your chart suggests they diverge forever.

[dnaleor]

I was just commenting that your charts don't (at least the top one doesn't) show this kind of convergence, even out near the right edge which is close to 100 years. I have no reason to doubt that the charts are correct, but in terms of presentation on the long term behavior I think they are a bit misleading (or perhaps unclear is a more neutral term).

I wasn't trying to be intentionally misleading, if that's your concern

I didn't think you were, I was just suggesting to perhaps find a more effective presentation. Again I suggest that at some point (by your calculation, which i have not checked fairly, close to the right edge of the chart), the future supply dynamics of 1COIN and XMR are forever exactly equivalent (though 1COIN will have ~3x as many nominal "units"). Yet a glance at your chart suggests they diverge forever.

I could create a chart with a "0.3COIN" which will give a better presentation of the facts I guess

[GingerAle]

I'm still not sold that disinflation is better than regular ol' inflation (ala 1% / 2% in perpetuity) but it serves as a useful tool to replace lost coins and keep the total float in the tens of millions.

the problem with an exponential growing monetary supply is that the coin isn't good for a store of value function.
inflation of 1% annually means that the number coins is doubled every 70 years.
If inflation % slowly goes down, you know that the next year the coin value will be diluted less than the previous year.
If  coin has an exponential monetary base,  every year the same value needs to be absorbed by the market. It never goes down.
Think about gold... Is it is a store of value because the amount is limited? not really imho, it is because each year less and less gold can be digged up. We know that some asteroids contain gold. If we manage to get that gold, the price will drop. but the total number of gold in the universe is still finite...

Imho the best distribution is a coin with a fixed block reward:
img snip
edit: the "1COIN" is a hypothetical coin that has 1 coin as block reward every minute.

There is something peculiar about these charts because the literal number of coins is fairly arbitrary. In the long term XMR and 1COIN are exactly the same right? But that is not apparent from the charts at all.

true
In the long run, it is about the same. the only difference is the big inflation at the start.

If we want to compare the 18.4 million moneroj at the start with 1COIN, we need to devide that number by the permanent block reward (0.3 XMR)
So 18400000/0.3 = 61333333 is the equivalent number of 1COINs
This number is an equivalent of 61333333/(60*24*365.25) =~  117 years of 1COIN-emission. Monero does this in 8 years.

So after about 109 years in 1COIN, the situation is the same: same inflation % as XMR and going down every year with the same rate.
Whether we can sell this "initial fast mining" to the public or not is yet to be seen. I hope we can. 

In any case it is clear that XMR distribution is one of the most fair out there. it's not an instamine, not a premine, not a PoS scam, not an ICO
The "fast" mined coins are all bought at the market, and most of the time for pretty high prices, especially at the start

The public bought into the same type of distribution with bitcoin, so I don't think its a concern.

Some of the public has. Most hasn't.

Ultimately, there's no telling what will really work out the best. The theoretical 1coin has serious inflationary problems for early adopters, thus there is no incentive to be part of the initial effort of crafting the technology and infrastructure. In a world where cryptocurrencies are commonplace, and everyone's mining on their phones and TVs, then perhaps a 1coin distribution would be possible. But would the worlds most powerful supercomputer (the bitcoin network) had been built in a matter of 2 years by the conglomerate effort of random actors with the knowledge that bitcoins would be emitted forever? I don't know.

I agree with most of this. Not just the mining network either. A lot of work on all aspects of the ecosystem and promotion were done by countless people with all sorts of different backgrounds, social networks, and personal assets, all motivated by the urgency of being an early adopter. If inflation continues (in a sense) unabated for decades then there no such urgency.

underlined:

http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=XBT

granted, its CNN money, but my point is that the some that has adopted it as real are significant. But I'm just piddling over semantics here.

re: second paragraph -

indeed, and I feel this is why Monero supports find themselves so vocal - blame the emission curve.

I wonder if the winklevoss twins would be receptive to Monero. if they understand the potential of bitcoin, surely they would understand the potential of Monero.

[Monopoly]

How much is the effect of bitcoin swings to Monero price ?

[Hueristic]

...
Some of the public has. Most hasn't.

Of those that haven't that I've met none have had issues with the distribution model. Not even one.

Looks like a red herring to me to say even a minority not adopting is because on initial distribution.

[Febo]

How much is the effect of bitcoin swings to Monero price ?

Monero dont exist long enough to really know. From last April when Monero was born, Bitcoin was mainly falling and is at less then half of that price. Last half year Monero was mainly at around $0.5.

Less and less Moneros are being mined daily. Ans that is what will be main factor at determining price in now we could say near future.

[rpietila]

It is actually rather simple to plot for instance daily moves of BTCUSD and XMRBTC, to find out the greek coefficients. Whether this is any usable information, perhaps. I'd be glad to hear

[LucyLovesCrypto]

How much is the effect of bitcoin swings to Monero price ?

Monero dont exist long enough to really know. From last April when Monero was born, Bitcoin was mainly falling and is at less then half of that price. Last half year Monero was mainly at around $0.5.

Less and less Moneros are being mined daily. Ans that is what will be main factor at determining price in now we could say near future.

decreasing emission will have some impact, how much is uncertain. I think LMDB, crypto kingdom and an eventual official GUI will mean more

[thefunkybits]

Orderbook looks like shit..no support!

maybe if we paint a double bottom though

[rpietila]

Orderbook looks like shit..no support!

maybe if we paint a double bottom though

The manipulative character of the ask side is visible all the way here.. 

I would not be too scared of the weak bid side, it's proven many times that you can sell XMR low, but buying it low is a more difficult thing to do 

[ArticMine]

Orderbook looks like shit..no support!

maybe if we paint a double bottom though

The manipulative character of the ask side is visible all the way here..  

I would not be too scared of the weak bid side, it's proven many times that you can sell XMR low, but buying it low is a more difficult thing to do  

I am far more interested in the what is going on with development; in particular the ever widening gap between the tagged 0.8.8.6 build and the current builds in master, https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero, than in the order book. These fundamentals do not look good for the Monero bears at all.

Edit: The current blocksize issue in Bitcoin, may provide some short term solace to the Monero bears, but this will likely be at the expense of some medium and even long term pain.

[thefunkybits]

Orderbook looks like shit..no support!

maybe if we paint a double bottom though

The manipulative character of the ask side is visible all the way here.. 

I would not be too scared of the weak bid side, it's proven many times that you can sell XMR low, but buying it low is a more difficult thing to do 

true...orderbook can sometimes be a contrary indicator

[dEBRUYNE]

Orderbook looks like shit..no support!

maybe if we paint a double bottom though

The manipulative character of the ask side is visible all the way here.. 

I would not be too scared of the weak bid side, it's proven many times that you can sell XMR low, but buying it low is a more difficult thing to do 

true...orderbook can sometimes be a contrary indicator

Orderbook is designed to fool/trick people. I had an interesting discussion with TrueCryptonaire about it earlier, see below:

I would not be worried even if we go lower than the lower bound of the trendline.
Especially if we stay above the previous lows, we still are able to maintain a bull market but then it is simply slower than our current channel suggests.
I do not mind these dumps, I hope there will be more like this.

ETH looks so strong that it is unlikely it will fail. There are simply too many btc in bids - however I doubt the buyers are the smartest people as they market buys 10-30 btc at one shoot driving the price up and making the lending market dry as Sahara and TrueCryptonaire is happy with almost 2 % daily interest payments.  

Bids can easily be removed and asks can easily be added. A rational trader shouldn't really look at the orderbook, because it's the #1 instrument to fool people.

While I agree the orderbook is the cheapest way to fool people with pulling off bids/asks, I disagree with the fact that a rational investor shouldn't look at them.
There are at least two reasons why a rational investor should look at the orderbooks.

1) Game theoretic approach. If there are at least some "fools" who are getting fooled by the orderbooks, their actions make it smart to observe the orderbook.

2) The bids and asks are real - you can anytime make a sharp move and buy/sell into the asks/bids and then even the most fake wall becomes a real wall. Therefore holding fake orders is risky business as they get sometimes filled.

I admit you brought up some solid arguments here and thus I revise my statement. In addition I would like to add that most of the fake bids/asks are often put up far away from the market, which makes them influenceable but quite difficult to buy/sell into.

[TrueCryptonaire]

With current emission the daily coins costs only a few thousands of dollars (around 7 000 usd - I know pathetic)).
It is funny the markets are not able to rise to higher level.
There need to be some incentive to actually hold and buy Moneros.

[dchou]

Poloniex margin loan rates for BTC have come down. This is likely related to the drop in ETH volume.

I currently am not carrying a single loan higher than .05%.

It appears the loan rates will continue to fall as long as the ETH volume subsides ... meaning it should be easier to margin XMR going forward.