[XMR] Monero Speculation

[Melbustus]

Halftime is kind of a milestone.
Soon we will see if Monero will get any meaningful valuation or not.
Soon there is no excuses such as "the emission is too high for any higher price". Emission is not going to be high anymore and if the market cap will not start rising during the coming 1 year, it probably will not rise ever. There will be no momentum and then the scenario which is going to happen most likely will happen and the coin start to decline little by little as the "long time holders" start to empty their plastic bags from coins.
There is not much time for excuses anymore. Until these days we have been able to argue that the emission is high - in my opinion it is not that high anymore and especially as there will be only 100 % more coins to be mined (again, excluded the tail emission),

TrueCryptonaire, one of the worst pumpers and FUDers on this thread, is making some sense here.

I think the demand side is order(s) of magnitude more important. Bitcoin has had one halving, and yet it's gone up orders of magnitude over the years, not just 2x from when it initially got some market liquidity.

If privacy does not become a big concern in crypto over the next year, Monero will languish. Whenever privacy becomes a focus (even if well over a year from now), Monero could 10x or more pretty quickly.

[jehst]

Halftime is kind of a milestone.
Soon we will see if Monero will get any meaningful valuation or not.
Soon there is no excuses such as "the emission is too high for any higher price". Emission is not going to be high anymore and if the market cap will not start rising during the coming 1 year, it probably will not rise ever. There will be no momentum and then the scenario which is going to happen most likely will happen and the coin start to decline little by little as the "long time holders" start to empty their plastic bags from coins.
There is not much time for excuses anymore. Until these days we have been able to argue that the emission is high - in my opinion it is not that high anymore and especially as there will be only 100 % more coins to be mined (again, excluded the tail emission),

TrueCryptonaire, one of the worst pumpers and FUDers on this thread, is making some sense here.

I don't know. Where's that spreadsheet with XMR's emission compared to bitcoin's? IIRC, it's not until ~2018-2019 that XMR's yearly inflation approaches "low." But "low" is subjective.  I guess "soon" is also subjective. But I think we have years to go.

The spreadsheet comparison with BTC is pretty easy for the block immediately after the halving. Both have emitted half their supply (base supply in the case of XMR) and both have per-block rewards that are half the original rate. It is almost identical, except that in the case of XMR the nominal emissions will continue to decline every block but in the case of BTC you have to wait another 4 years for another drop (though the rate of available supply inflation does decrease in both).

I think its hard to argue once (increasingly) more than half the coins are mined that there are too many coins being mined. Whatever coins you already own will never be diluted by more than 50% for example (in BTC; in XMR they will but only over decades), and that number is declining. You can't really be an early adopter with respect to supply if you are getting in well after that halfway point. This is somewhat psychological and largely subjective, but that's how I see people reacting to it.

Psychologically that probably played a role in Bitcoin's value appreciation around the halving, and also the increasing perception that it is too late to be a Bitcoin early adopter. I've heard this from many people; of course many try to argue the opposite and talk about how there is so much more to do, but the feeling is widely held. You don't see people buying up big stashes of BTC and then going out to actively evangelize the way you did <2013. You see investment and building and speculation, but not the early adopter stuff. That ship has sailed, and you only get one real shot at it.

The stages of adoption are defined by what percentage of people have adopted the technology compared to the total at maturation. So the stage that we're in now really depends on how many people eventually end up using crypto rather than how many coins are emitted. Let's say bitcoin has 200,000 "real" users right now and that it has no real killer app right now BUT in the future, crypto will have 100 million users and it will be the way to send remittances, and the users don't care how many coins have been emitted. In that case we're innovators (in the first 2.5% of users) and there's still a chance for 100x or 200x gains. If no killer app emerges and the number of users dwindles down to 5000 cryptoanarchist nerds and internet drug dealers, then people adopting bitcoin today are in the late majority. We'll only know in retrospect.

[smooth]

The stages of adoption are defined by what percentage of people have adopted the technology compared to the total at maturation. So the stage that we're in now really depends on how many people eventually end up using crypto rather than how many coins are emitted. Let's say bitcoin has 200,000 "real" users right now and that it has no real killer app right now BUT in the future, crypto will have 100 million users and it will be the place for offshore private wealth storage. In that case we're innovators (in the first 2.5% of users) and there's still a chance for 100x or 200x gains. If no killer app emerges and the number of users dwindles down to 5000 cryptoanarchist nerds and internet drug dealers, then people adopting bitcoin today are in the late majority. We'll only know in retrospect.

The problem is that other than speculation there is almost zero adoption, and it isn't coming any time soon.

And it terms of speculation people have a belief (whether correct or not, but largely correct) that "getting in early" is relative to other speculators. And of course you can't be ahead of other speculators if most of the coins are already owned by other speculators.

Also the timeframe of interest for most speculators is not 10-20 years, which is looking like something more realistic for end-user adoption. The only real attempt at crypto adoption we've seen so far was the retail acceptance that started last year (Overstock.com, etc.) and that has almost entirely flamed out (most of these retailers report usage down 80% or more, not growing).

I also have the perception that darknet use is way down from what it was. I base this not on anything from the crypto space at all, but from how many people from outside the traditional cryptospace I encounter who are buying drugs online. Many fewer are doing it now.

[owm123]

I think the demand side is order(s) of magnitude more important. Bitcoin has had one halving, and yet it's gone up orders of magnitude over the years, not just 2x from when it initially got some market liquidity.

If privacy does not become a big concern in crypto over the next year, Monero will languish. Whenever privacy becomes a focus (even if well over a year from now), Monero could 10x or more pretty quickly.

Interest in privacy wont increase magically in one year or any time soon. And I'm not talking about privacy in crypto, but in general.  People love their spying windows 10, smartphones,  smart tvs, gmails, facebooks, twitters, paypals, and reward points on their credit cards. News agencies are spreading propaganda how /2015/08/01/opinions/rogers-encryption-security-risk/index.html] encryption is bad for government and police in general, and if you use encryption, it means you are probably hiding something bad, because everyone should be "an open book". Add to this "hiding" your financial transactions, and you are basically considered a criminal in the government's view.

So regular people will not start using monero for privacy reasons, they dont care. And people who are at least half-inteligent and want to save up some money outside spying eye of a governments or banks, will go to bitcoin or something with much larger market cap than 4mil. Its easy if you do one big transaction from time to time.  The only chance for monero, is to attract ppl that often use bitcoin for transaction and they would like to make transactions private. Making a lot of transactions, generating new address for each one or using some mixing services is troublesome, time-consuming and prone to mistakes. But this still seems as a lost cause.  Even in dnms they still use bitcoins. And no one cares that bitcoin's public blockchain had key role in taking down silk road. People just dont care that much about privacy, and even if some do, for most of them using bitcoins or litecoins is just 'good enough'.

For this too change, something major need to happen. Maybe some guy ala Snowden coming out from tax office or nsa and showing everyone how government is able to spy and track bitcoins now with their new fancy tracking algorithms and computers. Or maybe some comapny finally developing quantum computers and stilling all bitcions, as finding privet keys for each public key with quantum computers would be easy.

[jehst]

The stages of adoption are defined by what percentage of people have adopted the technology compared to the total at maturation. So the stage that we're in now really depends on how many people eventually end up using crypto rather than how many coins are emitted. Let's say bitcoin has 200,000 "real" users right now and that it has no real killer app right now BUT in the future, crypto will have 100 million users and it will be the place for offshore private wealth storage. In that case we're innovators (in the first 2.5% of users) and there's still a chance for 100x or 200x gains. If no killer app emerges and the number of users dwindles down to 5000 cryptoanarchist nerds and internet drug dealers, then people adopting bitcoin today are in the late majority. We'll only know in retrospect.

The problem is that other than speculation there is almost zero adoption, and it isn't coming any time soon.

And it terms of speculation people have a belief (whether correct or not, but largely correct) that "getting in early" is relative to other speculators. And of course you can't be ahead of other speculators if most of the coins are already owned by other speculators.

Also the timeframe of interest for most speculators is not 10-20 years, which is looking like something more realistic for end-user adoption. The only real attempt at crypto adoption we've seen so far was the retail acceptance that started last year (Overstock.com, etc.) and that has almost entirely flamed out (most of these retailers report usage down 80% or more, not growing).

I also have the perception that darknet use is way down from what it was. I base this not on anything from the crypto space at all, but from how many people from outside the traditional cryptospace I encounter who are buying drugs online. Many fewer are doing it now.

If no killer app and actual use emerges, then I agree that the speculative manias are finished.

But all the use-cases (remittances, black market trade, micropayments, etc.) at least one should become an easy-to-use, viral thing at some point. If it's like e-mail and takes 20-30 years from invention to viral spread among the general population then we (speculators) have all shown up to the party way too early.

But e-mail required cheap computers, cheap modems, cheap internet access, etc. before it could really start spreading virally. There were a bunch of blockages. So IMO, bitcoin will not need 20 years to get a viral use-case going (if it ever will). Something polished and nice should come out closer to 10 years after invention. Perhaps 2019.

[smooth]

But e-mail required cheap computers, cheap modems, cheap internet access, etc. before it could really start spreading virally. There were a bunch of blockages. So IMO, bitcoin will not need 20 years to get a viral use-case going (if it ever will). Something polished and nice should come out closer to 10 years after invention. Perhaps 2019.

The difference is that email actually served a obvious need. (Remember of course this was before texting.) It was an obvious incremental improvement over faxing, which at the time was literally the only way to communicate asynchronously or to send documents, tables, etc. other than through the mail (slow) or overnight (expensive, and still kind of slow). Interestingly in some markets faxing survived longer because handwriting was more common than typing. Almost every single person involved in business had some need for this, and many individuals did too.

Crypto in its present form doesn't serve such a need. So it will at a minimum be quite some time until it evolves to the point that it can serve such an obvious need, and then it can go on an adoption ramp. Not happening imminently.

[jehst]

But e-mail required cheap computers, cheap modems, cheap internet access, etc. before it could really start spreading virally. There were a bunch of blockages. So IMO, bitcoin will not need 20 years to get a viral use-case going (if it ever will). Something polished and nice should come out closer to 10 years after invention. Perhaps 2019.

The difference is that email actually served a obvious need. (Remember of course this was before texting.) It was an obvious incremental improvement over faxing, which at the time was literally the only way to communicate asynchronously or to send documents, tables, etc. other than through the mail (slow) or overnight (expensive, and still kind of slow). Interestingly in some markets faxing survived longer because handwriting was more common than typing. Almost every single person involved in business had some need for this, and many individuals did too.

Crypto in its present form doesn't serve such a need. So it will at a minimum be quite some time until it evolves to the point that it can serve such an obvious need, and then it can go on an adoption ramp. Not happening imminently.

Bitcoin serves an obvious need: the need for gray market operators to accept online payments. Escort agencies. Medical marijuana firms. Online gambling firms. Huge industries that have extreme difficulty in accepting payments or even maintaining banking relationships despite their services being technically legal. Countries where merchants have difficulty accepting Paypal payments would also benefit.

Over the next few years, people will come up with one-click Walmart solutions to replace the current Coinbase ACH/localbitcoins.com labyrinthine hellscape that's preventing widescale adoption in industries where apolitical payment processing is sorely need.

[smooth]

But e-mail required cheap computers, cheap modems, cheap internet access, etc. before it could really start spreading virally. There were a bunch of blockages. So IMO, bitcoin will not need 20 years to get a viral use-case going (if it ever will). Something polished and nice should come out closer to 10 years after invention. Perhaps 2019.

The difference is that email actually served a obvious need. (Remember of course this was before texting.) It was an obvious incremental improvement over faxing, which at the time was literally the only way to communicate asynchronously or to send documents, tables, etc. other than through the mail (slow) or overnight (expensive, and still kind of slow). Interestingly in some markets faxing survived longer because handwriting was more common than typing. Almost every single person involved in business had some need for this, and many individuals did too.

Crypto in its present form doesn't serve such a need. So it will at a minimum be quite some time until it evolves to the point that it can serve such an obvious need, and then it can go on an adoption ramp. Not happening imminently.

Bitcoin serves an obvious need: the need for gray markets to accept online payments. Escort agencies. Medical marijuana firms. Online gambling firms. Huge industries that have extreme difficulty in accepting payments or even maintaining banking relationships despite their services being technically legal. Countries where merchants have difficulty accepting Paypal payments.

They can't really do any of that without fiat on-and-off ramps which are not only inconvenient but increasingly subject to being blocked by people using them for this.

It alternately requires a massive build out to get to the point of sufficient network effect (i.e. of money) where crypto is recognized as something you can just trade universally without needing to use on-and-off ramps constantly.

Note this is entirely different than email. With email only two people need to onboard in order to get the full value of the system. Remember when people used to ask "Do you have email?" instead of "What's your email?" If the answer was yes, you were good to go in communicating with that person. You didn't need the rest of the world to switch over or use an email-fax gateway that was going to block your messages if you used it for exactly the things that people wanted to use it for.

Over the next few years, people will come up with one-click Walmart solutions to replace the current Coinbase ACH/localbitcoins.com labyrinthine hellscape that's preventing widescale adoption in those industries where apolitical payment processing is sorely need.

Okay so at a minimum we are looking at a few years of further development to build this and get it widely available and known before this wave of adoption can really even potentially occur. We agree on this then.

[jehst]

But e-mail required cheap computers, cheap modems, cheap internet access, etc. before it could really start spreading virally. There were a bunch of blockages. So IMO, bitcoin will not need 20 years to get a viral use-case going (if it ever will). Something polished and nice should come out closer to 10 years after invention. Perhaps 2019.

The difference is that email actually served a obvious need. (Remember of course this was before texting.) It was an obvious incremental improvement over faxing, which at the time was literally the only way to communicate asynchronously or to send documents, tables, etc. other than through the mail (slow) or overnight (expensive, and still kind of slow). Interestingly in some markets faxing survived longer because handwriting was more common than typing. Almost every single person involved in business had some need for this, and many individuals did too.

Crypto in its present form doesn't serve such a need. So it will at a minimum be quite some time until it evolves to the point that it can serve such an obvious need, and then it can go on an adoption ramp. Not happening imminently.

Bitcoin serves an obvious need: the need for gray markets to accept online payments. Escort agencies. Medical marijuana firms. Online gambling firms. Huge industries that have extreme difficulty in accepting payments or even maintaining banking relationships despite their services being technically legal. Countries where merchants have difficulty accepting Paypal payments.

They can't really do any of that without fiat on-and-off ramps which are not only inconvenient but increasingly subject to being blocked by people using them for this.

It also requires a massive build out to get to the point of massive network effect (i.e. of money) where crypto is recognized as something you can just trade universally without needing to use on-and-off ramps constantly.

Note this is entirely different than email. With email only two people need to onboard in order to get the full value of the system. Remember when people used to ask "Do you have email" instead of "What's your email?" If the answer was yes, you were good to go in communicating with that person. You didn't need the rest of the world to switch over.

Over the next few years, people will come up with one-click Walmart solutions to replace the current Coinbase ACH/localbitcoins.com labyrinthine hellscape that's preventing widescale adoption in those industries where apolitical payment processing is sorely need.

Okay so at a minimum we are looking at a few years of further development to build this and get it widely available and known before this wave of adoption can really occur. We agree on this then.

Yeah, that's why I say 2019 seems like a reasonable time for a breakthrough. The most convenient ramps are bitcoin ATMs. The market has driven the cost of these way down. It probably won't be more than a few years before every US city with more than 50,000 people has a bitcoin ATM. Before long, every gambling website will have a link that says "If you're an American, your bank will block you from sending money to us, but you can fund your account by going to the nearest bitcoin ATM and putting some cash in it and entering the following (human readable) code. Click here to find the nearest bitcoin ATM." And the gambling website will generate unique human readable deposit addresses for each user and each transaction so that "code" will never be blocked.

I see political risk as the main problem, not the lack of an obvious need. If the Chinese and American governments fight hard against bitcoin, then bitcoin ATMs could be outlawed and users will be forced by exchanges to submit tons of verification and describe exactly where all their money is going. The latter is already happening. I got several e-mails from Coinbase asking me to detail everything about where my bitcoin was going. If this trend continues, it's unlikely that a killer app could ever arise. Every use-case will just be choked out politically. The only way to get hassle-free bitcoin will be to meet up with some sketchy "criminal" bitcoin dealer.

[smooth]

But e-mail required cheap computers, cheap modems, cheap internet access, etc. before it could really start spreading virally. There were a bunch of blockages. So IMO, bitcoin will not need 20 years to get a viral use-case going (if it ever will). Something polished and nice should come out closer to 10 years after invention. Perhaps 2019.

The difference is that email actually served a obvious need. (Remember of course this was before texting.) It was an obvious incremental improvement over faxing, which at the time was literally the only way to communicate asynchronously or to send documents, tables, etc. other than through the mail (slow) or overnight (expensive, and still kind of slow). Interestingly in some markets faxing survived longer because handwriting was more common than typing. Almost every single person involved in business had some need for this, and many individuals did too.

Crypto in its present form doesn't serve such a need. So it will at a minimum be quite some time until it evolves to the point that it can serve such an obvious need, and then it can go on an adoption ramp. Not happening imminently.

Bitcoin serves an obvious need: the need for gray markets to accept online payments. Escort agencies. Medical marijuana firms. Online gambling firms. Huge industries that have extreme difficulty in accepting payments or even maintaining banking relationships despite their services being technically legal. Countries where merchants have difficulty accepting Paypal payments.

They can't really do any of that without fiat on-and-off ramps which are not only inconvenient but increasingly subject to being blocked by people using them for this.

It also requires a massive build out to get to the point of massive network effect (i.e. of money) where crypto is recognized as something you can just trade universally without needing to use on-and-off ramps constantly.

Note this is entirely different than email. With email only two people need to onboard in order to get the full value of the system. Remember when people used to ask "Do you have email" instead of "What's your email?" If the answer was yes, you were good to go in communicating with that person. You didn't need the rest of the world to switch over.

Over the next few years, people will come up with one-click Walmart solutions to replace the current Coinbase ACH/localbitcoins.com labyrinthine hellscape that's preventing widescale adoption in those industries where apolitical payment processing is sorely need.

Okay so at a minimum we are looking at a few years of further development to build this and get it widely available and known before this wave of adoption can really occur. We agree on this then.

Yeah, that's why I say 2019 seems like a reasonable time for a breakthrough. The most convenient ramps are bitcoin ATMs. The market has driven the cost of these way down. It probably won't be more than a few years before every US city with more than 50,000 people has a bitcoin ATM. Before long, every gambling website will have a link that says "If you're an American, your bank will block you from sending money to us, but you can fund your account by going to the nearest bitcoin ATM and putting some cash in it and entering the following (human readable) code. Click here to find the nearest bitcoin ATM." And the gambling website will generate unique human readable deposit addresses for each user and each transaction so that "code" will never be blocked.

I see political risk as the main problem, not the lack of an obvious need. If the Chinese and American governments fight hard against bitcoin, then bitcoin ATMs could be outlawed and users will be forced by exchanges to submit tons of verification and describe exactly where all their money is going. The latter is already happening. I got several e-mails from Coinbase asking me to detail everything about where my bitcoin was going. If this trend continues, it's unlikely that a killer app could ever arise. Every use-case will just be choked out politically.

Well yes that is exactly what I said about on-and-off ramps. ATMs will be no different. They are already choked by regulation to a large degree, and that will likely get worse very soon with BitLicense, CaLicense, etc.

[jehst]

[edited out massive quote]

The regulation is, unfortunately, likely to get much worse. Governments have declared a war on cash in general. Carry cash on you and police will seize it. The totalitarian endgame is for all money to exist on government computers under their control. Citizens will be able to request to send money to another account to pay someone. There will be no "withdrawals" at all. There will be crypto, precious metal coins, and barter available for outlaws, but get caught holding or transacting in non-government money and your assets will be seized and you'll be jailed. If we keep moving in this direction, it's doubtful that any viral use-case for crypto will arise.

But if people lose faith in government and governments lose control of money, then independent currencies may have their day in the sun.

[megadeth]

Monero provides plausible deniability for mixing Bitcoins. That could serve as one of the primary use cases to take it to #2.

[smoothie]

I think the demand side is order(s) of magnitude more important. Bitcoin has had one halving, and yet it's gone up orders of magnitude over the years, not just 2x from when it initially got some market liquidity.

If privacy does not become a big concern in crypto over the next year, Monero will languish. Whenever privacy becomes a focus (even if well over a year from now), Monero could 10x or more pretty quickly.

Interest in privacy wont increase magically in one year or any time soon. And I'm not talking about privacy in crypto, but in general.  People love their spying windows 10, smartphones,  smart tvs, gmails, facebooks, twitters, paypals, and reward points on their credit cards. News agencies are spreading propaganda how /2015/08/01/opinions/rogers-encryption-security-risk/index.html] encryption is bad for government and police in general, and if you use encryption, it means you are probably hiding something bad, because everyone should be "an open book". Add to this "hiding" your financial transactions, and you are basically considered a criminal in the government's view.

So regular people will not start using monero for privacy reasons, they dont care. And people who are at least half-inteligent and want to save up some money outside spying eye of a governments or banks, will go to bitcoin or something with much larger market cap than 4mil. Its easy if you do one big transaction from time to time.  The only chance for monero, is to attract ppl that often use bitcoin for transaction and they would like to make transactions private. Making a lot of transactions, generating new address for each one or using some mixing services is troublesome, time-consuming and prone to mistakes. But this still seems as a lost cause.  Even in dnms they still use bitcoins. And no one cares that bitcoin's public blockchain had key role in taking down silk road. People just dont care that much about privacy, and even if some do, for most of them using bitcoins or litecoins is just 'good enough'.

For this too change, something major need to happen. Maybe some guy ala Snowden coming out from tax office or nsa and showing everyone how government is able to spy and track bitcoins now with their new fancy tracking algorithms and computers. Or maybe some comapny finally developing quantum computers and stilling all bitcions, as finding privet keys for each public key with quantum computers would be easy.

In theory quantum computers would be able to crack Bitcoin private keys. But so far quantum computers don't exist making your last few sentences moot.

[owm123]

[edited out massive quote]

The regulation is, unfortunately, likely to get much worse. Governments have declared a war on cash in general. Carry cash on you and police will seize it. The totalitarian endgame is for all money to exist on government computers under their control. Citizens will be able to request to send money to another account to pay someone. There will be no "withdrawals" at all. There will be crypto, precious metal coins, and barter available for outlaws, but get caught holding or transacting in non-government money and your assets will be seized and you'll be jailed. If we keep moving in this direction, it's doubtful that any viral use-case for crypto will arise.

But if people lose faith in government and governments lose control of money, then independent currencies may have their day in the sun.

And Denmark seems to be the first one to ban cash. Governments and/or intelligence agencies want full control into what you are doing and centenary how you spend money. If bitcoin or monero or whatever will become too popular, to the degree that nsa or tax office can see what you are doing with money, nothing stops them to ban bitcion or monero as well.

[smooth]

And Denmark seems to be the first one to ban cash.

Wow, I had no idea we were at the point of actual legislation being introduced.

The proposal to ban all cash transactions is being introduced ahead of the Danish election in September, in the hope that cash will be phased out as early as 2016.

Digital transactions are very popular in Denmark with a third of all Danish citizens  using the Danske Bank app, MobilePay, to pay for services and transactions. It’s unlikely that the new proposals to ban all cash transactions will be met with any opposition.

The Danish Chamber of Commerce (Dansk Erhverv) also supported the move, saying it was time shops were given the option of going cash-free.

[fluffypony]

We've seen recently how discord between developers and also between factions in the larger community has slowed Bitcoin's development (and perhaps depressed its price), affecting the entire cryptocurrency sector. Monero's politics is more opaque. Here are some questions:

1. Do the XMR devs get along?
2. Do they share a vision for Monero's future?
3. Are there significant points of technical disagreement?
4. Does everyone agree on the development path (for example, that code review and optimization should precede "official" GUI development).
5. Does everyone agree on Monero's "governance model"?

The answers will influence Monero's probability of success and its price.

1. Yes, which is actually surprising considering we didn't know each other at all before we found Monero and each other (some of us knew of each other, othe and I spoke a bit because he'd bought GPU frames from me)
2. I think 1 is a testament to this: we share a vision, and because of that we get along
3. Well we're certainly not perfect, and we are going to sometimes say things out rightly incorrect or based on flawed assumptions. You'll notice that there are no qualms about disagreeing with each other or correcting each other, even publicly, because we're not "buddies". We sharpen each other and bring out technical excellence in each other.
4. Yes very much so. We were very keen on pushing a GUI out until the block 202612 attack, which was a huge wake-up for us. Realising the fragility of the Monero code and network helped us get on track and re-prioritise.
5. Yes

I think it's naïve to imagine we'll never have a serious disagreement, but I also think that individually we've got less of an "ivory tower" complex than expected. We're all generally accepting of each other's ideas, and we also don't hold on to our mistaken beliefs which such vigour that we can't accept correction. We seem to be comfortable with our lives and individual success, so ego and pride rarely play any role in discussion and decision-making.

[P-Funk]

Browsing around Poloniex I looked at XMR's most recent chart and it looks different to me. Using 5, 15, and 30 minute increment candlesticks looking at just a bit over a week of XMR trading, the majority of these candlesticks suddenly shifted red about 7:00 AM Poloniex time September 3rd to present. Before they were majority green or an even mix. I haven't seen this kind of thing on a chart before without major downswings in price, but price has remained relatively stable.








Is this a somewhat large seller playing it slow to keep his price on target?

[onemorexmr]

Is this a somewhat large seller playing it slow to keep his price on target?

volume is very low atm. so the answer is: no

EDIT:
atm we seem to have some kind of a deadlock, because of huge bitcoin price swings (and its price uncertainty). xmr uptrend is broken and everybody just sits on the sideline and wait to see what will happen.

IMHO: whoever makes a bigger move (be it up or down) decides the new trend. but i go with TC's statement: if there wont happen anything soon it will be a slow and painful decline.

what is a little frustrating (and what i dont really understand) is that i think the xmr market does not have many participants (this does not contradict rptilia's user-extrapolation, just does we dont have many active traders)

[rpietila]

Browsing around Poloniex I looked at XMR's most recent chart and it looks different to me. Using 5, 15, and 30 minute increment candlesticks looking at just a bit over a week of XMR trading, the majority of these candlesticks suddenly shifted red about 7:00 AM Poloniex time September 3rd to present. Before they were majority green or an even mix. I haven't seen this kind of thing on a chart before without major downswings in price, but price has remained relatively stable.

Is this a somewhat large seller playing it slow to keep his price on target?

It is a "paint-bot". A bot that buys a small amount (down to BTC0.00000000 worth of XMR) after every sale, to give the impression of buying pressure without necessarily having it.

Now the operator seemed to switch it on reverse, annulling every market buy on the charts with an infinitesimal market sell.

I can't tell for the others, but I would use the reverse bot when I was buying, and wanted to conceal my actions, so I am tempted to think of its appearance as a positive sign for the price.

[dnaleor]

I agree some adoption need to happen soon. If it doesn't happen in the next year, it will be harder for new people to enter because they feel they missed the boat.

Although... the fixed block reward could change things, in the long run even. We are the first coin that is experimenting with this.
It is possible new adoption comes even in 5 or 10 years time, because people think well, new coins are created until infinity, we aren't "buying us in to the coins of the early adopters". it's very difficult to guess how this is going.

If we are only talking about use case, I don't think emission even matters: EUR or USD is also premined
And... "stoners just want their weed, they don't care about emission curves"

A year ago I said that I preferred to have XMR at a solid place in top10 before 'halving day' and preferably in top 5 before the end of 2015.
We need to go "crypto mainstream" asap

DASH going down is a good sign, if they break 0.01 BTC support, it's over. We can and will fill that gap.

I feel that the XMR community isn't a community of "pumpers" and I'm proud of it, but I guess we are all a bit too shy... We need to get the word out between halving day and the end of 2015 if we want to see some well known bitcoiners adopt XMR.
The ideal situation would be that new people who enter bitcoin hear within a week or so: "oh yes, you should probably also look into monero, if you want to have the complementary coin that has a non-transparent ledger."