It's not about the learning curve, it's about the fact that I can't do anything on my laptop when running Monero. Because of this I can only run it when I actually want to use it, but then I have to wait for ages for syncing, or have to re-download the blockchain.
Very interesting, I'd forgotten how much ram this takes up (my comps run 16/32Gb ram w/ i7's so I forgot about the validation time and that the blockchain is in ram). A few situations I can consider:
1) a gov't GUI and the core protocol had a DB implementation that didn't bring the entire chain into ram and that does use your entire bandwidth
2) no gov't GUI, but the core protocol had a DB implementation that didn't bring the entire chain into ram and has some kind of bandwidth management
3) The situation now where there are GUI's, but they're clunky because of the rough underlying protocol and the network bandwidth isn't managed (i think this is still happening?)
4) Match the existing GUI's to an updated core protocol with a good DB implementation that didn't bring the entire chain into ram and had network management
Assuming you're someone who, in my point of view, is on the verge of adoption, but haven't totally adopted it yet (where you may own the currency on plx, but do not have the wallet on your computer), and momentarily excluding people who we want to adopt the software (everyone of course
), do you personally see any real difference between the above scenarios in regards to the likelihood that you'd personally put the software into use on your computer?
So which of the four likely situations above do you see having the greatest effects on both adoption and price, comparing yourself as a likely future adopter, and someone who may have not even heard of this yet?
1. The promise of a truly anonymous cryptocurrency with a fair launch.
Could I ask what date you had acquired some of this currency?
2. A strong development team & active community that can fulfill the promise.
Currently I evaluate #2 less highly than when I bought.
Interesting again, because after the core team had picked this project up, I had initially operated under the assumption (from what data on this forum I could skim through within a couple of hours) that one of them was a full-time cryptocurrency developer and the rest were unknowns to me, this was april at the time. Since then, I've discovered that at least two others seem to have solid development experience (with limited cryptocurrency development experience), at least one had management/IT experience, and at least one more also seems to have emerged as a software developer with a likely strong understanding of cryptography. That's only the core team, and since then they've gotten in touch with mathematicians/cryptographers and hired general developers. If anything, I've come evaluate this metric on an increasingly higher value than when I first took note of this. What makes you value it less highly than when you bought?
Monero is purely a speculative vehicle, and it will take very long time before real adoption is driving the price.
It seems my questions have brought about a contradiction, as your answer to what you think you bought and your answer to what this is are different. What you think you bought, and what you say this is are two different things because what you think you bought is "The promise of a truly anonymous cryptocurrency with a fair launch, a strong development team & active community that can fulfill the promise(s)", while what you say this is "is purely a speculative vehicle".
My personal answer to what I think I bought was "The promise of a truly anonymous cryptocurrency with a fair launch, a strong development team & active community that can fulfill the promise(s)", but where I think we differ is that I see that Monero currently is "A truly anonymous cryptocurrency with a fair launch, a strong development team & active community that can fulfill the promise(s)." But what I can't seem to understand is why we both agree with what we think we bought, be fail to agree on what we both say this is. Do you have any ideas on this? Could it be, simply, because I've got 16Gb of ram and an i7, and therefore the technical capabilities of the software still match my capability to use them? We say speculation drives the price, but I don't have anything against the claim that "The price is always at the right level to allow the highest level of adoption achieveable currently".
With that statement, do you think that it would be the speculation that drives the adoption, or the adoption that drives the speculation?
Why would I tell my friends about my investment if I'm down 40%?
I would suggest starting from the beginning, even getting people to understand that obtaining a single bitcoin block 4 years ago would have let them live comfortably for an entire year today (or, at least earlier this year, before the return to sane prices
). So, for as little as a $20.00 investment in Monero today, one could have the proven possibility of not working for an entire year in 4-5 years, if you were in agreement that decentralized blockchain technology is what drives bitcoin. That's only the economical aspect. Additionally, you can have a legitimate dialogue where you explain what blockchain technology is and what it can do for people. Maybe you can convince them to purchase a graphics card instead, and invest $20.00 in power bills instead of buying it on the market. It's surprising to me that creativity is lacking in this likely unlimited implementation of a sound technology.
Why would I contribute to the dev team?
Because you're an early adopter. I'm not saying hand them your money (unless you really think that's all they want), but if you can't even exchange simple dialogue with them about your hopes, dreams and future prospects for the technology, then what does that say about everyone walking in the door after you? Share ideas with them, and letting them do the developing seems to have gotten me the best turnaround with something so new. Personally, I've shared two ideas with them. Both ideas I've seen manifest (one just very recently, and only one of the two I know came specifically from me). If I must live vicariously through these people, then the least I can do is spare an idea or two
.
why would I spend my free time on developing services? Rationally, I should because that is what might actually prop my investment, but psychologically it's not that easy to do.
I'd make the point here that this is likely why we have <10 core team members, because any more than that would see the same barriers here you do. Even then, someone will eventually see the barrier as small enough to spend some time on. It's not a fault of your own or anything, more that events haven't lined up for either of the parties involved to make it happen, yet. I think it will. Might be a few years, might be never, but when it does I'll be very interested in what someone came up with.
..drive up the price, which will put current holders in a position to help increase adoption.
Generally this will put current holders in a position to take profit, and actually halt the increase to adoption until the price is driven low enough and enough development occurrs that adoption may continue (because people are terrified of being screwed over by all the other people that overbought). Are you saying that as the current holders take their profit, they will be putting their money into services? Or, are you saying that if the price goes up faster, then this cycle can move faster and we can be at the end of the adoption cycle faster? While that may seem logical, I believe that pushing the adoption cycle too fast will likely inhibit the penetration into society. Additionally, I believe that any dropoff in adoption by investors taking profit will inhibit the penetration into society (until such a time where they cannot reasonably take their profit eg: a low).
It's with these ideas in mind, that I'd like this to take as long as possible, and for development to occur in as much free time as possible, because for the market to pull back like it's been doing is showing to be catastrophic to the cycle overall. Look at bitcoin. $275 a few days ago. Eventually the price always returns to the point where healthy adoption levels can be achieved. I bet for every ten people buying it at $1000, there was double that wanting to buy it at $275. Who knows though?
Add: Thank you very much for helping me identify something that I think is pretty unique in this cryptocurrency landscape. I believe we'd identified a unique hinderance to CryptoNote adoption that nobody really foresaw and many still aren't sure what to do about for the time being. With Bitcoin, there never really was the ability to have coins on the exchange but in no way actually own them, because the core protocol was to a decent enough level where people could take their coins and move them in and out of exchanges freely and never really have a technical reason not to take them out of the exhcange.
The technical pitfall that Cryptonote, and in this case Monero, is going through is that people really want to adopt the coin, and have taken the steps toward doing so, but have placed themselves in a situation where they have to settle for the 'fiat' version of Monero. I think it's obscuring many viewpoints, and believe this is a legitimate and dominating source of the general hostile feedback loop that's taken root in the atmosphere of CryptoNote. People wanted a cryptocurrency, but have to live with a fiat version of it. In turn, this seems to have confused people. They've been dealing with it so long that adoption is literally 'backing up' (cautiously avoiding the term 'stunting'). Perhaps, in hindsight, it would have been best to go with the simple ramswap that the other coins were doing temporarily rather than let it get so backed up? Time will only tell though.
If these technical limitations hadn't been in place, perhaps the adoption cycle would have been less hindered (because, by my definition, people could acutally adopt the coin)? Oh well, hindsight here will never be a foresight for me so what's the point of asking that one.
