[XMR] Monero Speculation

[rpietila]

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.

My last visit as the prisoner of the system predates Monero by 1 year and your account by 1/2 a year so consider shutting the fuck up  

[rpietila]

The number of people holding the coin is largely irrelevant, as long as the coin is not manipulatable by preminers, and its market cap therefore reflects the current market perception of its value by at least some degree.

Why?

If the marketcap of the coin is constant, then more people holding just means that the average holding is smaller. What matter to the coin's future the most, are the people who have their skin in the game, ie. the larger holders. Nothing is easier than distribute a coin evenly to all people in Iceland, and claim huge number of holders, but this approach does not lead to many enough people appreciating the coin, or a high marketcap, or any success.

XMR mcap is about $4 million. If we accept the higher end of the distribution, it means that $2.7 million in value of this is held by 1,000 people, leaving $1.3 million for the rest.

If we had 50,000 holders which was suggested, the average holding in this smallholder group would be $27, hardly an amount that indicates much trust or skin-in-the-game.

It is therefore probably more likely that the # of people at any one time holding a balance of XMR is 7k, which also was suggested. This would mean that their average is $217, a more likely figure. Or somewhere in between, as per my suggestion.

No matter what the truth is - for it's not knowable - I believe it indicates more strength for the coin to have a healthy number of reasonably large holders than a large number of small ones.

[rangedriver]

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.

My last visit as the prisoner of the system predates Monero by 1 year and your account by 1/2 a year so consider shutting the fuck up  

+10000

[dEBRUYNE]

Current channel:



Let's try to stay in it.

[Melbustus]

...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 never said anything about a "moral responsibility" to uphold bitcoin, nor what you put inside quotation marks. Please do not misrepresent what I actually said.

My point is that I think the state of the ecosystem, and the crypto-value-store proposition itself, is so new/unstable/untested, that bitcoin being unseated in the near/medium term stands a good chance of causing a crypto depression. A possibility that you seem to ignore. I respect Smooth's response to ack the theory but disagree on the probabilities. I think you too should consider the probabilities, or at least articulate your analysis of them better if you are indeed taking that line of thought.

This is coming from several years worth of discussions with various people, many of whom are sophisticated investors, execs at successful companies, etc, etc. Many have been tip-toeing in to Bitcoin one way or another, and I think a flip right now in where the value store is in the ecosystem would cause many of them to basically say: "eh, too chaotic right now. I'll wait a while until taking another look." That's problematic for me, in that I think the ecosystem as a whole needs to contain far more value in terms of fiat-market-cap in order to even begin to scratch the surface of the real benefits of the technology for the world. Thus, I consider Bitcoin remaining #1 for the foreseeable future, in order to thus yield the highest chance of more cryptocapitalization in general, as optimal right now.

That said, I concur with others that there will be an ecosystem of coins, with maybe 3-5 being fairly strong. Most likely outcome in terms of relative market-cap seems like a power-law distribution to me, though, since it's a free market in a domain that exhibits strong network effects.

[smooth]

...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 never said anything about a "moral responsibility" to uphold bitcoin, nor what you put inside quotation marks. Please do not misrepresent what I actually said.

My point is that I think the state of the ecosystem, and the crypto-value-store proposition itself, is so new/unstable/untested, that bitcoin being unseated in the near/medium term stands a good chance of causing a crypto depression. A possibility that you seem to ignore. I respect Smooth's response to ack the theory but disagree on the probabilities. I think you too should consider the probabilities, or at least articulate your analysis of them better if you are indeed taking that line of thought.

This is coming from several years worth of discussions with various people, many of whom are sophisticated investors, execs at successful companies, etc, etc. Many have been tip-toeing in to Bitcoin one way or another, and I think a flip right now in where the value store is in the ecosystem would cause many of them to basically say: "eh, too chaotic right now. I'll wait a while until taking another look." That's problematic for me, in that I think the ecosystem as a whole needs to contain far more value in terms of fiat-market-cap in order to even begin to scratch the surface of the real benefits of the technology for the world. Thus, I consider Bitcoin remaining #1 for the foreseeable future, in order to thus yield the highest chance of more cryptocapitalization in general, as optimal right now.

That said, I concur with others that there will be an ecosystem of coins, with maybe 3-5 being fairly strong. Most likely outcome in terms of relative market-cap seems like a power-law distribution to me, though, since it's a free market in a domain that exhibits strong network effects.

My biggest quibble with the posited result of Bitcoin being overtaken is exactly your last paragraph. 3-5 fairly strong coins doesn't upend the entire premise of scarcity at all. It simply gives us a scarce ecosystem of 3-5 fairly strong coins. Of course, if that turned into 100 equally strong coins or something like that, with more fairly strong coins arriving every day (both highly improbable), then scarcity would indeed be completely destroyed.

But in practice most of the concern over destroying scarcity is based on a false premise. People indeed observed 100s of alts and more being created every day but, importantly and incorrectly, ignored the question of whether they are actually fairly strong or fairly worthless.

The most important conclusion, though, is that even if the theory and conclusion (that Bitcoin being overturned would be catastrophic) is correct, that alone won't prevent it from happening. It simply means that cryptocurrency either doesn't work at all, or will, as you suggested, take 10+ more years to really work. There is no alternative short of a central authority imposing an outcome by its will, which makes the whole experiment an abject failure anyway.

[smooth]

If we had 50,000 holders which was suggested, the average holding in this smallholder group would be $27, hardly an amount that indicates much trust or skin-in-the-game.

I have to disagree with you here, somewhat. What matters in this respect more than size of the holding and skin-in-the-game is awareness and acceptance as something worth holding at all. Even if there are 50K XMR holders, there are still 7 billion people in the world who are not, and the 50K are extreme early adopters who are spreading that awareness to the others.

Either way, the size of the holder group doesn't affect the holdings of the largest much, especially as you said if the distribution is organic. There are still a number of people with large holdings who can develop and promote in ways that those having less skin-in-the-game can't or won't.

[Melbustus]

...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 never said anything about a "moral responsibility" to uphold bitcoin, nor what you put inside quotation marks. Please do not misrepresent what I actually said.

My point is that I think the state of the ecosystem, and the crypto-value-store proposition itself, is so new/unstable/untested, that bitcoin being unseated in the near/medium term stands a good chance of causing a crypto depression. A possibility that you seem to ignore. I respect Smooth's response to ack the theory but disagree on the probabilities. I think you too should consider the probabilities, or at least articulate your analysis of them better if you are indeed taking that line of thought.

This is coming from several years worth of discussions with various people, many of whom are sophisticated investors, execs at successful companies, etc, etc. Many have been tip-toeing in to Bitcoin one way or another, and I think a flip right now in where the value store is in the ecosystem would cause many of them to basically say: "eh, too chaotic right now. I'll wait a while until taking another look." That's problematic for me, in that I think the ecosystem as a whole needs to contain far more value in terms of fiat-market-cap in order to even begin to scratch the surface of the real benefits of the technology for the world. Thus, I consider Bitcoin remaining #1 for the foreseeable future, in order to thus yield the highest chance of more cryptocapitalization in general, as optimal right now.

That said, I concur with others that there will be an ecosystem of coins, with maybe 3-5 being fairly strong. Most likely outcome in terms of relative market-cap seems like a power-law distribution to me, though, since it's a free market in a domain that exhibits strong network effects.

My biggest quibble with the posited result of Bitcoin being overtaken is exactly your last paragraph. 3-5 fairly strong coins doesn't upend the entire premise of scarcity at all. It simply gives us a scarce ecosystem of 3-5 fairly strong coins. Of course, if that turned into 100 equally strong coins or something like that, with more fairly strong coins arriving every day (both highly improbable), then scarcity would indeed be completely destroyed.

But in practice most of the concern over destroying scarcity is based on a false premise. People indeed observed 100s of alts and more being created every day but, importantly and incorrectly, ignored the question of whether they are actually fairly strong or fairly worthless.

Yeah, an ecosys with 3-5 strongish coins is fine. Buy them all, done. The problem, as you touch on, is if that 3-5 is under constant flux; eg, for a few years, it's coins A,B,C,D,E, and then a few years later, it's F,G,H,I,J, etc... Most investors with significant capital would probably just look at it all as a toy.

The most important conclusion, though, is that even if the theory and conclusion (that Bitcoin being overturned would be catastrophic) is correct, that alone won't prevent it from happening. It simply means that cryptocurrency either doesn't work at all, or will, as you suggested, take 10+ more years to really work. There is no alternative short of a central authority imposing an outcome by its will, which makes the whole experiment an abject failure anyway.

Yes, of course. My post yesterday was triggered by Risto's lack of accounting for the possibility that Monero could end up the dominant coin, but in an ecosystem with vastly reduced overall purchasing power. Was more of a "be careful what you wish for" point, I suppose.

[smooth]

Yeah, an ecosys with 3-5 strongish coins is fine. Buy them all, done. The problem, as you touch on, is if that 3-5 is under constant flux;

Fair point, and reality seems to be somewhat in between.

eg, for a few years, it's coins A,B,C,D,E, and then a few years later, it's F,G,H,I,J, etc...
Most investors with significant capital would probably just look at it all as a toy.

And correctly so, or at least something that is not ready for prime time.

[rpietila]

I never said anything about a "moral responsibility" to uphold bitcoin, nor what you put inside quotation marks. Please do not misrepresent what I actually said.

Sorry, I thought the "quote" feature (used above with author=XX) is to be used when indicating the source, the use of quotation marks may indicate quoting anyone or for making a point, as was the case here.

A possibility that you seem to ignore. I respect Smooth's response to ack the theory but disagree on the probabilities. I think you too should consider the probabilities, or at least articulate your analysis of them better if you are indeed taking that line of thought.

The thing never was a scenario analysis, and I needed to compose a reply in the original thread already for outlining this very point. I am one of the people here doing scenario analyses, and they are easily distinguishable. The crux of the "OP" was to bring into attention that in practice it is not needed to get the approval of all BTC holders to migrate to a new coin. If enough of them do it, they destroy the value of the ones left behind, and create an equivalent value to themselves as the wealth effect in the new blockchain.

Now you are bringing into attention that it is not necessarily equivalent. Of course it may not be exactly the same, but it is anyway higher than the value they left behind, meaning that they benefit of the migration regardless of how sad the others are or whether they quit entirely or not. The (bulk of the) value already migrated so it's no use to cry. (Cf. no matter what the LTC bagholders think now, they are not getting their value back, and it does not matter much in the grand scheme of things what they decide to do or not.)

This is coming from several years worth of discussions with various people, many of whom are sophisticated investors, execs at successful companies, etc, etc. Many have been tip-toeing in to Bitcoin one way or another, and I think a flip right now in where the value store is in the ecosystem would cause many of them to basically say: "eh, too chaotic right now. I'll wait a while until taking another look." That's problematic for me, in that I think the ecosystem as a whole needs to contain far more value in terms of fiat-market-cap in order to even begin to scratch the surface of the real benefits of the technology for the world. Thus, I consider Bitcoin remaining #1 for the foreseeable future, in order to thus yield the highest chance of more cryptocapitalization in general, as optimal right now.

Yeah, an ecosys with 3-5 strongish coins is fine. Buy them all, done. The problem, as you touch on, is if that 3-5 is under constant flux; eg, for a few years, it's coins A,B,C,D,E, and then a few years later, it's F,G,H,I,J, etc... Most investors with significant capital would probably just look at it all as a toy.

We might hope that BTC stays alive, because that would be good for us and good for everyone. Doing even a small investment decision based on hope is, however, foolish. If there is doubt if BTC can make it with regards to the impaired fungibility and regulation, the hopers will be left holding the bag, based on the mathematical fact that only 10-25% need to leave in order to complete the value transfer of 75-90% of the value.

Similarly, it would be nice if the coins stayed the same, but hoping as such does not affect reality. In this case I believe that other factors will take care of it though.

Yes, of course. My post yesterday was triggered by Risto's lack of accounting for the possibility that Monero could end up the dominant coin, but in an ecosystem with vastly reduced overall purchasing power. Was more of a "be careful what you wish for" point, I suppose.

I did the math, and there is no scenario that would make Monero the dominant coin, yet cause an individual XMR-holder to suffer a loss. For this to happen, XMR purchasing power would need to decrease, which is not compatible with the premise. I left this without mention as I have the feeling that I am spoonfeeding enough already, anyway it's nice to hear that it's not the case here

[Anon136]

Yeah, an ecosys with 3-5 strongish coins is fine. Buy them all, done. The problem, as you touch on, is if that 3-5 is under constant flux; eg, for a few years, it's coins A,B,C,D,E, and then a few years later, it's F,G,H,I,J, etc... Most investors with significant capital would probably just look at it all as a toy.

They can look at it that way if they like, but that is how things are going to be. It is the nature of consensus algorithms that they are very slow to adapt. It is the big drawback that counterbalances all of the amazing properties that they allow, such as decentralization, fault tolerance, escape from counterparty risk, among many other things. The price, so to speak, of these amazing properties is an inability to adapt and change. While on the other hand technology is constantly advancing with no end in sight. New better ways of doing distributed consensus, opake blockchains, and distributed computation and 1000 things I cant think of will always be developed. The only way to incorporate these new advances without breaking the consensus is to regularly create brand new networks with new ideas about specifically what it is they are all consenting to.

Entrepreneurs will find ways of profiting from insulating consumers from this constantly churning and frothing market. On the other end of the financial contracts these entrepreneurs use to accomplish this will be a class of speculators and investors who specialize in understanding these markets. It will present tremendous opportunity to those capable of capitalizing on it, and tremendous risk and loss to those not.

Honestly they can think its a toy if they like, because what we are doing here is going to make them largely irrelevant. The sorts of people who think its a toy will simply not be investors with significant capital in the future. What they think wont even matter in the future we are building.

[GingerAle]

Yeah, an ecosys with 3-5 strongish coins is fine. Buy them all, done. The problem, as you touch on, is if that 3-5 is under constant flux; eg, for a few years, it's coins A,B,C,D,E, and then a few years later, it's F,G,H,I,J, etc... Most investors with significant capital would probably just look at it all as a toy.

They can look at it that way if they like, but that is how things are going to be. It is the nature of consensus algorithms that they are very slow to adapt. It is the big drawback that counterbalances all of the amazing properties that they allow, such as decentralization, fault tolerance, escape from counterparty risk, among many other things. The price, so to speak, of these amazing properties is an inability to adapt and change. While on the other hand technology is constantly advancing with no end in sight. New better ways of doing distributed consensus, opake blockchains, and distributed computation and 1000 things I cant think of will always be developed. The only way to incorporate these new advances without breaking the consensus is to regularly create brand new networks with new ideas about specifically what it is they are all consenting to.

Entrepreneurs will find ways of profiting from insulating consumers from this constantly churning and frothing market. On the other end of the financial contracts these entrepreneurs use to accomplish this will be a class of speculators and investors who specialize in understanding these markets. It will present tremendous opportunity to those capable of capitalizing on it, and tremendous risk and loss to those not.

Honestly they can think its a toy if they like, because what we are doing here is going to make them largely irrelevant. What they think wont even matter in the future we are building.

I don't think transitions will happen to that degree, and not that quickly. Networks will be born if they fill a need. If a rival network comes into existence without a novel POW, it will be attacked (litecoin - feathercoin). People will strive for a novel network with a novel POW if the network provides new function, hence Monero.

[Anon136]

Yeah, an ecosys with 3-5 strongish coins is fine. Buy them all, done. The problem, as you touch on, is if that 3-5 is under constant flux; eg, for a few years, it's coins A,B,C,D,E, and then a few years later, it's F,G,H,I,J, etc... Most investors with significant capital would probably just look at it all as a toy.

They can look at it that way if they like, but that is how things are going to be. It is the nature of consensus algorithms that they are very slow to adapt. It is the big drawback that counterbalances all of the amazing properties that they allow, such as decentralization, fault tolerance, escape from counterparty risk, among many other things. The price, so to speak, of these amazing properties is an inability to adapt and change. While on the other hand technology is constantly advancing with no end in sight. New better ways of doing distributed consensus, opake blockchains, and distributed computation and 1000 things I cant think of will always be developed. The only way to incorporate these new advances without breaking the consensus is to regularly create brand new networks with new ideas about specifically what it is they are all consenting to.

Entrepreneurs will find ways of profiting from insulating consumers from this constantly churning and frothing market. On the other end of the financial contracts these entrepreneurs use to accomplish this will be a class of speculators and investors who specialize in understanding these markets. It will present tremendous opportunity to those capable of capitalizing on it, and tremendous risk and loss to those not.

Honestly they can think its a toy if they like, because what we are doing here is going to make them largely irrelevant. What they think wont even matter in the future we are building.

I don't think transitions will happen to that degree, and not that quickly. Networks will be born if they fill a need. If a rival network comes into existence without a novel POW, it will be attacked (litecoin - feathercoin). People will strive for a novel network with a novel POW if the network provides new function, hence Monero.

Basically people will constantly invent better and better things, and the value proposition of this better software will clash with the value proposition of the network effects of its predecessor. The value of networks shouldn't be understated, it is extremely desirable, and no small innovation will be sufficient to over take it. But eventually, the restless tide of new innovations will overtake the network effects of the previous generation of crypto, and the change will happen. This will be a story that repeats apparently endlessly.

As for how often and how its punctuated and how many realistic contenders will be operating in the space at any given time, i cant really speak to. Depends on the rate of innovation, the value that people place on that innovation, and the value that people place on the advantages of an established network.

[Anon136]

scary...

[aminorex]

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

You are assuming that loss of value in bitcoin relative to an alt  means that the amount of debt you can buy with a bitcoin decreases.  As long as bitcoin is the only way for debt ownership to flow into and out of the alt, that premise is counterfactual.

However, a liquid market in monetary metals (or other monetary assets) flexibly denominated in crypto could change that very rapidly.

[vokain]

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

You are assuming that loss of value in bitcoin relative to an alt  means that the amount of debt you can buy with a bitcoin decreases.  As long as bitcoin is the only way for debt ownership to flow into and out of the alt, that premise is counterfactual.

However, a liquid market in monetary metals (or other monetary assets) flexibly denominated in crypto could change that very rapidly.

Though the demand for Bitcoin may possibly tend towards 0 in the event of a dethrone, that does not necessitate that the demand for another cryptocurrency (for instance, the one ascending to the throne) shares the same fate.

[americanpegasus]

I believe this is likely the bottom of this mini-valley.  The price should move up from here, based on what I'm seeing from network hash rate.  
  
The network hash rate was at 13Mh/s when I first learned about Monero a week ago.  
  
It hit a high of 15Mh/s with the recent mini peak, and then dropped with the price, back down to the 13s.  
  
Today, it's back up to 16+.  In addition, we keep bouncing off of the 2300s for support.
  
I think we are at the bottom of this mini-correction.  Time to buy.
 

[Anon136]

I believe this is likely the bottom of this mini-valley.  The price should move up from here, based on what I'm seeing from network hash rate.  
  
The network hash rate was at 13Mh/s when I first learned about Monero a week ago.  
  
It hit a high of 15Mh/s with the recent mini peak, and then dropped with the price, back down to the 13s.  
  
Today, it's back up to 16+.  In addition, we keep bouncing off of the 2300s for support.
  
I think we are at the bottom of this mini-correction.  Time to buy.
 

wow look at that candle stick. was that you?

[binaryFate]

The word is spreading fast these days...

[rpietila]

The market cap of crypto is the measure of how much wealth people want to hodl in the form of crypto.

If cryptocoin A is dethroned for the reason that there is a better cryptocoin B, whose emergence causes the owners of A to stampede into B, it may of course cause that people will want to hold less wealth in cryptocoins.

But much more likely is that people will want to hold more when an upgraded version comes available. Compare history - seldom before have improvements in technology caused the sales of stuff to plummet!