[XMR] Monero Speculation

[aminorex]

Any news when Monero mobile wallet will be released, currently it is very difficult to send XMR payment on the go.

Finally! I've been waiting for this for long time. We really need this. And we need monero on more hardware wallets really.

Monerujo meets my needs (except for multisig).

[Anon136]

Announcement - Proof-of-Work tweak and a note on key reuse

https://getmonero.org/2018/02/11/PoW-change-and-key-reuse.html

I'm curious.  It was mentioned that there will come a time that Monero won't be doing the bi annual hard forks in the future as the coin becomes big enough that any hard fork could get risky.  Does that mean ASIC's could come anyway?

If bi-annual hard forks are a known part of the social contract I don't see them ever becoming risky. Unless there is a fracture in the values, direction and vision of the core dev team, in which case it could make hard forks difficult even when Monero was still relatively small.

I think your second scenario is inevitable.  Eventually a faction will form for one reason or another.  In fact I think we can already see the seeds of it some reddit posts, or considering MoneroV.

But just like bitcoin Monero has to survive this sort of turbulence.  Whether scheduled hard forks survive or not is another question.

I guess what I mean to say is, what it really truly comes down to, is whether or not real talent is leaving to go with another fork. If its just outsider idiot opportunists who aren't even part of the existing dev team at all, like in the case of MoneroV, that fork is as much of a threat to us as Verge or DeepOnion. Really you can lump it into that category and just think of it as another one of those and the fact that it happens to be a fork of monero isn't really relevant. Then there is the kind of fork where moneromoo and fluffypony find themselves at an impasse, start butting heads and one of them forks the repository and they both proclaim that their fork is the real monero.

You cant homogenize forks. The first kind is no threat to us at all and as a matter of policy should be totally ignored, the second is a huge threat and everything in our power should be done to avoid it (short of one thing that I will argue against in the next paragraph). So if the first kind of fork, the MoneroV style fork, is resulting over and over again from bi-annual scheduled forks than I don't think that is much of a reason at all to cancel that policy. Should we try to stop competitors from developing crapcoins like DeepOnion while we are at it?

As far as the second kind of fork is concerned, all scheduled forks could really do, at worst, is expose an existing rift inside of our community and bring it to a head. They aren't going to create a rift. But honestly is willfully stagnating because there is a fracture in the values inside of our community the ideal response? It kind of just damns both sides of the argument instead of hopefully only the "wrong" side. Isn't is more healthy to just let that second kind of fork happen if it's going to happen but continue to push development forward on both forks rather than everyone just sitting around with their thumbs up their butts not improving the network because trying to do so "might cause a fork"?

[aminorex]

Surely not going bearish on XMR?

No, I am just holding and waiting while busy elsewhere.  Just bearish on my ability to analyze the current crypto environment without committing to more work that I can spare.

It's a weak intuition, but I am expecting a new ATH before autumn, and passing 1k usd for good in 2019. I think we are trading near the fundamentals on DNM use right now.  I suspect that difficulty will continue to increase, which constrains the lowest marginal clearing price of new supply.  I think XMR will intermittently, with gradually increasing frequency, start to trade more like a monetary commodity and less like a technology speculation.  

Sure we can take a spike down on dishoarding by a large speculator, but given the rising demand for transactions and the ever tightening supply, it seems foolish not to participate until at least one of those trends has reversed. Supply growth is not going to diminish any time soon, and DNMs seem to be growing roughly according to Moore's Law, so it is quite hard to find an asset with a comparable risk/reward value.

Isn't is more healthy to just let that second kind of fork happen if it's going to happen but continue to push development forward on both forks rather than everyone just sitting around with their thumbs up their butts not improving the network because trying to do so "would cause a fork"?

I think so.  I also think that forks in Bitcoin have made ownership of Bitcoin more appealing:  It works out much like a stock split or a special dividend.  So, while I would prefer that it should not happen because I don't really want the volatility it implies, or the loss of valued community members - especially that! - still I expect to trend chuffed, in the breach.

[Billy Bunter]

Announcement - Proof-of-Work tweak and a note on key reuse

https://getmonero.org/2018/02/11/PoW-change-and-key-reuse.html

I'm curious.  It was mentioned that there will come a time that Monero won't be doing the bi annual hard forks in the future as the coin becomes big enough that any hard fork could get risky.  Does that mean ASIC's could come anyway?

If bi-annual hard forks are a known part of the social contract I don't see them ever becoming risky. Unless there is a fracture in the values, direction and vision of the core dev team, in which case it could make hard forks difficult even when Monero was still relatively small.

I think your second scenario is inevitable.  Eventually a faction will form for one reason or another.  In fact I think we can already see the seeds of it some reddit posts, or considering MoneroV.

But just like bitcoin Monero has to survive this sort of turbulence.  Whether scheduled hard forks survive or not is another question.

I guess what I mean to say is, what it really truly comes down to, is whether or not real talent is leaving to go with another fork. If its just outsider idiot opportunists who aren't even part of the existing dev team at all, like in the case of MoneroV, that fork is as much of a threat to us as Verge or DeepOnion. Really you can lump it into that category and just think of it as another one of those and the fact that it happens to be a fork of monero isn't really relevant. Then there is the kind of fork where moneromoo and fluffypony find themselves at an impasse, start butting heads and one of them forks the repository and they both proclaim that their fork is the real monero.

You cant homogenize forks. The first kind is no threat to us at all and as a matter of policy should be totally ignored, the second is a huge threat and everything in our power should be done to avoid it (short of one thing that I will argue against in the next paragraph). So if the first kind of fork, the MoneroV style fork, is resulting over and over again from bi-annual scheduled forks than I don't think that is much of a reason at all to cancel that policy. Should we try to stop competitors from developing crapcoins like DeepOnion while we are at it?

As far as the second kind of fork is concerned, all scheduled forks could really do, at worst, is expose an existing rift inside of our community and bring it to a head. They aren't going to create a rift. But honestly is willfully stagnating because there is a fracture in the values inside of our community the ideal response? It kind of just damns both sides of the argument instead of hopefully only the "wrong" side. Isn't is more healthy to just let that second kind of fork happen if it's going to happen but continue to push development forward on both forks rather than everyone just sitting around with their thumbs up their butts not improving the network because trying to do so "might cause a fork"?

I hate to come across as a worrywart but from what I've read about the MoneroV fork we should, at the very least, give consideration to this being a threat to us.

If MoneroV is not a scam, if, in fact, they are forking for whatever legitimate issues they might have with Monero, then they should be at least as concerned with the Ring Signature issue as we are since it will affect them equally. So far, they don't appear to be. Which only leaves the alternative assumption: that this is a deliberate attack on Monero. I hope I'm wrong.

[Anon136]

then they should be at least as concerned with the Ring Signature issue as we are since it will affect them equally. So far, they don't appear to be. Which only leaves the alternative assumption: that this is a deliberate attack on Monero. I hope I'm wrong.

Oh yea I completely agree with being concerned about this. I was talking about a different kind of concern. A different concern vector if you will.

[Millionero]

Any news when Monero mobile wallet will be released, currently it is very difficult to send XMR payment on the go.

https://monerujo.io/ - is great for android. Especially with its xmr.to btc payments ability

I believe there's one for ios called Cake? I have no experience with it though

Does xmr.to aggregate transactions?

[infofront]

Dark Web Goliaths Are Turning Litecoin into the Next Bitcoin

Litecoin, really?

[cAPSLOCK]

Dark Web Goliaths Are Turning Litecoin into the Next Bitcoin

Litecoin, really?

This is an interesting narrative.  And one I have not proven myself.  I have heard it is more true on asian dark net servers.  But I would think the latest addition of Monero at Dream (I think?) would fly in the face of this a little.  Dark net vendors are getting more savvy little by little.

[kurious]

'Bitcoin is dead/dying' FUD being spread by Aminorex.

...they own up to their most massive counterfactual mistakes and perhaps explain to their flocks how/why they managed to get it so wrong.

Yeah, the fee crisis is over, for now at least, and whether it will repeat I am not now competent to speculate.  I should learn to keep my mouth shut when I am not following current events.  I was quite wrong about s2x, because core was able to act while I was expecting even more stagnation. That error, again, is attributable to neglecting the current available information about the internal dynamics of core. I was also quite wrong about Bitcoin Cash, which has far exceeded my expectations.  I don't even know enough to say why.

Once you know something well, you can make more reasonable projections than before, but if you don't stay up-to-date on the most important factors, in a dynamic environment, that potential degrades rapidly.  My takeaway is to remember to check whether my info is still pertinent rather than repeating old conclusions without updating.  I have done it before, so shame on me for not learning from it then.  It is easy to get cocky and sloppy after a few wins, and a hard reality check is good for the soul, focusses the mind.  So thanks for pointing it out.

Frankly I am not paying enough attention to classic crypto lately for anyone to hang on my words about it.  I try to get the big picture, but my detail attention is currently consumed by lawyers and web plumbing for a CEF.  C'est la guerre.

You have more enough credit here to be fallible once in a while, your unstinting support for Monero is admirable, as is your noble mea culpa.

FFS keep your insghts coming? Ok, yes - some I disagreed with, but some of them brought me here in the first place and then later kept me holding through tough times.  All were - and always will be - welcome.

[faaty]

now we see a exciting and huge increase in ethereum classic because of the upcoming fork in the beginning of May. We will see a similar increase in Monero because Monero will have a fork named MoneroV in the middle of March. All should accummulate some Monero before getting late for price soaring soon

[rdp]

Announcement - Proof-of-Work tweak and a note on key reuse

https://getmonero.org/2018/02/11/PoW-change-and-key-reuse.html

Will this protocol change affects botnets mining? And if it affects that, does it means hashing power will dive at least for some time around fork period?

Will there be a chance of a chain split because these "70% unknown" hash power comes from botnets and that they might not just switch the software version promptly, leaving and old "ghost" chain burning power and taking some unaware souls?

It is meant to prevent ASIC miners. There was speculations that someoen build ASIC miner so if that is the case then mining hash power should reduce. I think there is little chances for that. Also if that is the case, those that have ASIC miners will now start an offensive against this change. Since with this change will lose their advantage.

No one can tell how many hash power comes from bootnets. Can be 99%. Botnets operators can easily join any pool. So as any miner can mine solo or on private pool. On that pie 70% was marked as unknown only because maker of that pie know names of pools that do only 30% of hashpower . If he would do homework a bit better could easily add few % more.  Saying "because these "70% unknown" hash power comes from botnets" is simply wrong.

Ok, but you answered none of my points... I actually want to know if it will impact on botnet mining (not if it was target for that). And also, I agree that it is not right to say that 70% are indeed botnet, which I didn't. I may have expressed myself bad, but what I meant was: "IF a great part of that 70% unknown hash rate DO comes from botnets and that botnets are mining using old code, will we have any hash power break down upon update?"

[Billy Bunter]

now we see a exciting and huge increase in ethereum classic because of the upcoming fork in the beginning of May. We will see a similar increase in Monero because Monero will have a fork named MoneroV in the middle of March. All should accummulate some Monero before getting late for price soaring soon

If ETC is pumping because of a May fork wouldn't Monero have seen one by now given that its fork is in March?

Also, why is ETC forking? Didn't hear anything about that.

[explorer]

Any news when Monero mobile wallet will be released, currently it is very difficult to send XMR payment on the go.

Finally! I've been waiting for this for long time. We really need this. And we need monero on more hardware wallets really.

One would be a fine start...

[explorer]

Just to be clear, with this hard fork and all, there is no problem with the Monero anonymity ? Because this is what makes Monero so special, anonymity... is this a reason to sell, this coming hard fork? I guess not, I don’t want to sell! But I am Having trouble understanding the whole coming situation

No it is just a regular, scheduled upgrade of protocol.

[explorer]

Announcement - Proof-of-Work tweak and a note on key reuse

https://getmonero.org/2018/02/11/PoW-change-and-key-reuse.html

Will this protocol change affects botnets mining? And if it affects that, does it means hashing power will dive at least for some time around fork period?

Will there be a chance of a chain split because these "70% unknown" hash power comes from botnets and that they might not just switch the software version promptly, leaving and old "ghost" chain burning power and taking some unaware souls?

It is meant to prevent ASIC miners. There was speculations that someoen build ASIC miner so if that is the case then mining hash power should reduce. I think there is little chances for that. Also if that is the case, those that have ASIC miners will now start an offensive against this change. Since with this change will lose their advantage.

No one can tell how many hash power comes from bootnets. Can be 99%. Botnets operators can easily join any pool. So as any miner can mine solo or on private pool. On that pie 70% was marked as unknown only because maker of that pie know names of pools that do only 30% of hashpower . If he would do homework a bit better could easily add few % more.  Saying "because these "70% unknown" hash power comes from botnets" is simply wrong.

Ok, but you answered none of my points... I actually want to know if it will impact on botnet mining (not if it was target for that). And also, I agree that it is not right to say that 70% are indeed botnet, which I didn't. I may have expressed myself bad, but what I meant was: "IF a great part of that 70% unknown hash rate DO comes from botnets and that botnets are mining using old code, will we have any hash power break down upon update?"

I would expect some drop in the hash rate, at least briefly, because there are always pools that don't get their shit together on schedule.  Whether they are named pools, or 'unknown' pools makes no difference.  It's just a matter of who is paying the power bill.

[georgemamat]

There will be nice days for Monero. There are really good projects. But sometimes good patience is needed for good projects. People are rushing. In this case, it can be harmed.

[iCEBREAKER]

Dark Web Goliaths Are Turning Litecoin into the Next Bitcoin

Litecoin, really?

This is an interesting narrative.  And one I have not proven myself.  I have heard it is more true on asian dark net servers.  But I would think the latest addition of Monero at Dream (I think?) would fly in the face of this a little.  Dark net vendors are getting more savvy little by little.

Litecoin has historically been best positioned to absorb spillover from obsolete use cases excluded by Bitcoin's rise to power.  When Bitcoin was too slow for Bitpay to work (Xmas shopping season) I used Litecoin instead because it was the only option I wouldn't feel dirty touching (ETH? Nope.  Bcash? LOL git rekt.  Dash? Oh Hell naw!). 

Despite my disdain for Vitalik's Bailout Fork, ETH has inserted/cemented itself into the primary spillover capture role ahead of Litecoin, but I expect LTC to make a comeback due to Lightning, cross-chain atomic swaps, and greater reliability/fungibility/decentralization proving its superior long-term fundamentals.

It's good for Monero that Litecoin is helping us break up the Bitcoin/Ethereum duopoly.  Once a market relents from its Bitcoin maximalist supremacist monopolist (or 'Muh Flippening') paradigm there is no more protectionism and every coin must compete for users based on its own merits.  That means cheap tx fees, quick confirms, low withdrawals fees, and extra features such as privacy.

[johnalan]

Dark Web Goliaths Are Turning Litecoin into the Next Bitcoin

Litecoin, really?

This is an interesting narrative.  And one I have not proven myself.  I have heard it is more true on asian dark net servers.  But I would think the latest addition of Monero at Dream (I think?) would fly in the face of this a little.  Dark net vendors are getting more savvy little by little.

Don't know about you lot but I like to keep tabs on sentiment on DNM forums in relation to crypto of choice.

I can tell you Monero is lightyears ahead in terms of mindshare on each forum I peruse.

[mambamanagement]

Is there a list of exchanges that will be accepting moneroV? Not that I agree with the project, but I would love to sell them and buy more monero 

[johnalan]

Is there a list of exchanges that will be accepting moneroV? Not that I agree with the project, but I would love to sell them and buy more monero  

MoneroV is a premined scam. Their claim that it has a finite supply (and all their supporters get excited about) is so fucking stupid.

In the year 2100 there will still be 8x more MoneroV than XMR.

IN 3500 (1482 years from now) there will STILL be more MoneroV. 🤦‍♂️

I despise money grabs like this.

Anyone who claims MoneroV should be fucking ashamed of themselves. End of fucking story.

Additionally, if you reuse your private keys in their shitware you are compromising your (and others) privacy by weakening ringsigs.

It's a disgusting "project", which I vehemently despise.


I'm interested to see the hash rate. Maybe it's gonna be weak enough to exploit, I sure hope so.

Anyone who claims MoneroV is essentially handing 6% of their money to their 'development' gang.