[XMR] Monero Speculation

[vuduchyld]

Low volume, low thread activity.  Yawn.

[Capitascism]

I holding small number. This is best anoncoin till now. And it's amazing how popular it is, and after all the years
 community is still very strong, and keeping it together.

[TrueCryptonaire]

Low volume means that random guys owning lots of coins that they are willing to sell in this price domain (anything less than a few thousand$ per BTC) is drying up. We've been here for so long, if anyone wished to sell, he had plenty of time to do so.

And for sure, the random guys are not a renewable. We had a lot of them, but tell me how many exist any more! Not so many.

I meant the price will rise from supply being dried up until some guy sitting on a bunch of coins thinks the market is overextended.  He will then sell in hopes of buying back cheaper, then the volume and volatility starts.  I didn't mean the guy wanted to dump for no reason.  Only a fool would want to sell and walk away right now.

We have had plenty of fools in the last years but the function of market is towards weeding them out. (A rare natural example of decreasing entropy in a system).

My overall philosophy on the signs of the rises:
(has to be taken in the context of investments with the parameters similar to cryptocoins)

Quick rise on high volume - GOOD - Brisk new demand and coins change hands

Quick rise on low volume - BAD - Most of the issue in few hands = overhang risk, liquidity risk, possible scam

Slow rise on high volume - BAD - If a high volume causes only slow rise, it is a toppish sign (unless just emerging from a bottom; then good)

Slow rise on low volume - GOOD - Supply drying up, possibility that the trading range will soon be contested leading to a massive revaluation

What already happened with BTC, volume collapsed and price is inching upwards in the weekly, is going to happen to XMR soon.

The only thing that can prevent it is new demand, which means that we will go up quickly on high volume, instead of slowly on low volume.

Both of the scenarios are healthy.

It is crucial for growth and adaption to have a bullish trendline. There are very few who are interested in holding an asset that loses the value because loss of value destroys the wealth of the owners and creates bitterness and pain which is manifested here on the forum.

[TPTB_need_war]

Some humor to lighten the mood for more happy trades:

Ah the ole' magic trick, "lookie over here at my pinky finger waging the dog, come out of your seats for closer view", while his accomplice is rummaging through all the purses left behind on the chairs which is legally and jurisdictionally justified because there is a sign on the wall, "We are not liable for belongings left unattended".

Sorry, I know this doesn't fit into your racist ideology...

I think TPTB_need_war meant to use the idiom "wagging the dog" but I immediately thought of this:

That's myself on the far left, rpietila is to my immediate left, smooth is smoking the pipe with ArticMine to his left. The little chap sneaking the card under the table is David, and CfB is trying to maintain his non-culpability by not actually reaching out for it.

[dEBRUYNE]

Fifth dev meeting in approximately 2 hours (16:00 UTC). Dev meeting will be held at #monero-dev on freenode.

https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20160424T16&p1=0&p2=16&p3=166&p4=37&p5=136&p6=240&p7=179&p8=137&p9=102&p10=111&p11=250&p12=195

If you have an IRC client, just make sure you are on the freenode server and you can subsequently join #monero-dev

If you don't have an IRC client, you can follow the dev meeting using:

http://webchat.freenode.net/

Set the channel to -> #monero-dev

And pick a nickname you like. Everyone is welcome to follow the dev meeting!

[rdnkjdi]

when does monero come back to shapeshift???

[bitebits]

when does monero come back to shapeshift???

https://www.reddit.com/r/shapeshiftio/comments/4foncm/not_what_i_was_hoping_for/d2civoi

[ibuyltc]

when does monero come back to shapeshift???

https://www.reddit.com/r/shapeshiftio/comments/4foncm/not_what_i_was_hoping_for/d2civoi

Thanks, I was really stoked it was back... then noticed it was only Dash, Bitcrystals and GEMZ.  No Monero yet.

[dEBRUYNE]

MAAM #13 Monero Ask Anything Monday

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/4gakjp/maam_13_monero_ask_anything_monday/

[iCEBREAKER]

Segregated Witness is just another way to centralize mining. I will explain that in the future when I am ready.

... but that is a small price to pay in order to increase the blocksize from 1 MB to an effective 1.6 MB accomplish

• Malleability Fixes
• Linear scaling of sighash operations
• Signing of input values
• Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH)
• Script versioning
• Reducing UTXO growth
• Compact fraud proofs

Fixed it for you.

Gotta love the anti-segwit All Star team of Crazy Uncle Shelby, Frap.doc, and Jorge Stolfi.

It's like you guys come up with this FUD after enjoying too many Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters at Mos Eisley.   

[ArticMine]

...

That's half true.  1MB also serves as a sanity check to prevent blocks with sigops construed so as to require outrageous processing times.

That's why BIP109 includes sigop and sighash limits, which are an unwelcome source of additional technical debt and magic-number-based cruft.

sigop and sighash limits can be based on the blocksize.

Bitcoin has a fixed emission with no tail-end after the main body of subsidies end, so it cannot use dynamic market-based Monero-style block sizing heuristics (unless we raise the 21e6 coin limit, which is simply out of the question).

This summarizes very well the fundamental problem that Bitcoin has. Bitcoin needs the fixed blocksize to secure the coin using fees when the emission runs out, so ultimately Bitcoin cannot scale. Whether even with a fixed blocksize fees alone can secure Bitcoin remains however to be seen.

Segregated Witness is just another way to centralize mining. I will explain that in the future when I am ready.

... but that is a small price to pay in order to increase the blocksize from 1 MB to an effective 1.6 MB accomplish

• Malleability Fixes
• Linear scaling of sighash operations
• Signing of input values
• Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH)
• Script versioning
• Reducing UTXO growth
• Compact fraud proofs

Fixed it for you.

Gotta love the anti-segwit All Star team of Crazy Uncle Shelby, Frap.doc, and Jorge Stolfi.

It's like you guys come up with this FUD after enjoying too many Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters at Mos Eisley.  

Segwit as a means of increasing the blocksize remains a non starter to me. Whether segwit is the best way to address the issues above also remains to be seen, but the regardless blocksize issue should be taken out of the analysis.

[TPTB_need_war]

Segregated Witness is just another way to centralize mining. I will explain that in the future when I am ready.

... but that is a small price to pay in order to increase the blocksize from 1 MB to an effective 1.6 MB accomplish

• Malleability Fixes
• Linear scaling of sighash operations
• Signing of input values
• Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH)
• Script versioning
• Reducing UTXO growth
• Compact fraud proofs

ftfy

The technically-challenged will conflate features with don't require Segregated Witness with an argument for why we need Segregated Witness.

Give them respect at your own peril. I rather enjoy the humor of it though.

[iCEBREAKER]

Segregated Witness is just another way to centralize mining. I will explain that in the future when I am ready.

... but that is a small price to pay in order to increase the blocksize from 1 MB to an effective 1.6 MB accomplish

• Malleability Fixes
• Linear scaling of sighash operations
• Signing of input values
• Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH)
• Script versioning
• Reducing UTXO growth
• Compact fraud proofs

ftfy

The technically-challenged will conflate features with don't require Segregated Witness with an argument for why we need Segregated Witness.

Segwit is an elegant way for Bitcoin to gain those benefits.  I never said segwit was the only way, but it's good enough and it's happening.

Other coins (like Monero) enjoyed second/late mover advantages by being designed for those features from the beginning.

[sanadas]

Segregated Witness is just another way to centralize mining. I will explain that in the future when I am ready.

... but that is a small price to pay in order to increase the blocksize from 1 MB to an effective 1.6 MB accomplish

• Malleability Fixes
• Linear scaling of sighash operations
• Signing of input values
• Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH)
• Script versioning
• Reducing UTXO growth
• Compact fraud proofs

ftfy

The technically-challenged will conflate features with don't require Segregated Witness with an argument for why we need Segregated Witness.

Segwit is an elegant way for Bitcoin to gain those benefits.  I never said segwit was the only way, but it's good enough and it's happening.

Other coins (like Monero) enjoyed second/late mover advantages by being designed for those features from the beginning.

I heard that the SegWit will be implemented in a few weeks according to the bitcoin core road map. So the price could rise.

[dEBRUYNE]

Segregated Witness is just another way to centralize mining. I will explain that in the future when I am ready.

... but that is a small price to pay in order to increase the blocksize from 1 MB to an effective 1.6 MB accomplish

• Malleability Fixes
• Linear scaling of sighash operations
• Signing of input values
• Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH)
• Script versioning
• Reducing UTXO growth
• Compact fraud proofs

ftfy

The technically-challenged will conflate features with don't require Segregated Witness with an argument for why we need Segregated Witness.

Segwit is an elegant way for Bitcoin to gain those benefits.  I never said segwit was the only way, but it's good enough and it's happening.

Other coins (like Monero) enjoyed second/late mover advantages by being designed for those features from the beginning.

I heard that the SegWit will be implemented in a few weeks according to the bitcoin core road map. So the price could rise.

Make that a few months, the pull request just came in last week if I recall correctly. It needs to be reviewed thorougly first. Also, bear in mind that it only gets activated if it reaches a 95% treshold of miners running the code.

[TPTB_need_war]

Segregated Witness is just another way to centralize mining. I will explain that in the future when I am ready.

... but that is a small price to pay in order to increase the blocksize from 1 MB to an effective 1.6 MB accomplish

• Malleability Fixes
• Linear scaling of sighash operations
• Signing of input values
• Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH)
• Script versioning
• Reducing UTXO growth
• Compact fraud proofs

ftfy

The technically-challenged will conflate features with don't require Segregated Witness with an argument for why we need Segregated Witness.

Segwit is an elegant way for Bitcoin to gain those benefits.  I never said segwit was the only way, but it's good enough and it's happening.

Other coins (like Monero) enjoyed second/late mover advantages by being designed for those features from the beginning.

Frankly I haven't yet studied SegWit in great detail, because I will wait until they have finished it, so I am not losing time studying a moving target. I have no influence on the Bitcoin community's decisions, thus studying it now is of no significant advantage in the holistic priorities.

Conceptually I understand that SegWit enables outsourcing validation and retains hashes of the validated data on the block chain. Afaics, this is centralizing for at least three reasons:

1. Those with preferential access/propagation to validators can earn more with the same hashrate by mining on the correct block slightly sooner. Over time this moves ROI and thus hashrate concentration to those who have these political connections. However, this is not much different than the same effect that can exist now where miners with significant hashrate (even a cooperating set of them) can validate their block announcements sooner than the rest of the network. Afaik, the salient worsening due to SegWit is that validation concentration can now be political, not only by hashrate concentration, so it amplifies the vectors towards centralization.

2. Afaik, SegWit relies on trust enforced by voluntary fraud proofs to insure that the validation is correct for each hash on the block chain. Afaics, the game theory around these voluntary fraud proofs drives more centralization. But this is not something I want to detail now. It is a complex discussion and I am busy on more urgent priorities.

3. Afaik the new versioning capability that will be introduced with SegWit, basically hands the power to Blockstream to drive forks any time they want to. Again this is another game theory discussion which I don't wish to elaborate on at this time. Note Monero's periodic forks as a protocol also seems to a form of centralized control. One can argue that miners can vote, but it is fairly impossible to stop the political clout of the lead developers especially when that control is hardwired into the protocol. Satoshi's design was that it should be nearly impossible to hard fork, because that is the only way you truly have decentralization.

[elrippo]

Monero seems to hold it's price quite steady at the moment compared to the BTC rise 
Well over a dollar on polo 

[dEBRUYNE]

Segregated Witness is just another way to centralize mining. I will explain that in the future when I am ready.

... but that is a small price to pay in order to increase the blocksize from 1 MB to an effective 1.6 MB accomplish

• Malleability Fixes
• Linear scaling of sighash operations
• Signing of input values
• Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH)
• Script versioning
• Reducing UTXO growth
• Compact fraud proofs

ftfy

The technically-challenged will conflate features with don't require Segregated Witness with an argument for why we need Segregated Witness.

Segwit is an elegant way for Bitcoin to gain those benefits.  I never said segwit was the only way, but it's good enough and it's happening.

Other coins (like Monero) enjoyed second/late mover advantages by being designed for those features from the beginning.

Frankly I haven't yet studied SegWit in great detail, because I will wait until they have finished it, so I am not losing time studying a moving target. I have no influence on the Bitcoin community's decisions, thus studying it now is of no significant advantage in the holistic priorities.

Conceptually I understand that SegWit enables outsourcing validation and retains hashes of the validated data on the block chain. Afaics, this is centralizing for at least three reasons:

1. Those with preferential access/propagation to validators can earn more with the same hashrate by mining on the correct block slightly sooner. Over time this moves ROI and thus hashrate concentration to those who have these political connections. However, this is not much different than the same effect that can exist now where miners with significant hashrate (even a cooperating set of them) can validate their block announcements sooner than the rest of the network. Afaik, the salient worsening due to SegWit is that validation concentration can now be political, not only by hashrate concentration, so it amplifies the vectors towards centralization.

2. Afaik, SegWit relies on trust enforced by voluntary fraud proofs to insure that the validation is correct for each hash on the block chain. Afaics, the game theory around these voluntary fraud proofs drives more centralization. But this is not something I want to detail now. It is a complex discussion and I am busy on more urgent priorities.

3. Afaik the new versioning capability that will be introduced with SegWit, basically hands the power to Blockstream to drive forks any time they want to. Again this is another game theory discussion which I don't wish to elaborate on at this time. Note Monero's periodic forks as a protocol also seems to a form of centralized control. One can argue that miners can vote, but it is fairly impossible to stop the political clout of the lead developers especially when that control is hardwired into the protocol. Satoshi's design was that it should be nearly impossible to hard fork, because that is the only way you truly have decentralization.

Regarding [3], if miners/exchanges/merchants don't agree with the lead developers they can just remain on an old(er) version.

[TPTB_need_war]

3. Afaik the new versioning capability that will be introduced with SegWit, basically hands the power to Blockstream to drive forks any time they want to. Again this is another game theory discussion which I don't wish to elaborate on at this time. Note Monero's periodic forks as a protocol also seems to a form of centralized control. One can argue that miners can vote, but it is fairly impossible to stop the political clout of the lead developers especially when that control is hardwired into the protocol. Satoshi's design was that it should be nearly impossible to hard fork, because that is the only way you truly have decentralization.

Regarding [3], if miners/exchanges/merchants don't agree with the lead developers they can just remain on an old(er) version.

I said it is a complex game theory discussion. Seems you want to force me to have that discussion when I said I am busy on other more urgent priorities. Because I can't just leave your afaics incorrect assumption there unrefuted.

You can't retain an older version, because soon the new features will become intertwined in everything and soon you won't be able to function in the network. The complexity of failure modes with an older version are beyond the scope of the discussion I want to have now. That will be a technical discussion. Just remember what happened the last time I got into a technical discussion with gmaxwell on Ogg streaming format indexing, a topic that he thought he was more expert on (and he should have been since he was the co-inventor of one of the Ogg codecs).

[TPTB_need_war]

Segwit is the only proper solution for malleability.

Technical reference please so I can verify?