[XMR] Monero Speculation

[owlcatz]

I think when word of this gets out its going to be a game changer! Bullish.....!

http://www.latlmes.com/business/coinbase-to-support-monero-exclusive-interview-with-insider-confirms-rumours-1

So it's been confirmed then (not on a connection able to stream a YouTube video)?

The url is wrong "latlmes", it's like rick roll or something, don't bother.

[1714156979]

1714156979

[1714156979]

1714156979

[1714156979]

1714156979

[smooth]

The authors are doing an AMA right now: https://amp.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/8c05vr/hi_rbitcoin_im_emiliano_pagnotta_assistant/

Useful link to a non-technical summary of the paper: https://imperialcollegelondon.app.box.com/s/u1qark0r6cvdvzj4vp5s3xyfo9tkpjt8

Interesting comment relevant to ASICs in Monero:

[Emiliano Pagnotta] To add to AB’s comment, let me elaborate on your conjecture. If a particular entrepreneur created a superior ASIC machine, the effect on the bitcoin valuation could be ambiguous.

... (read more at link above)

[Hueristic]

The authors are doing an AMA right now: https://amp.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/8c05vr/hi_rbitcoin_im_emiliano_pagnotta_assistant/

Useful link to a non-technical summary of the paper: https://imperialcollegelondon.app.box.com/s/u1qark0r6cvdvzj4vp5s3xyfo9tkpjt8

Interesting comment relevant to ASICs in Monero:

[Emiliano Pagnotta] To add to AB’s comment, let me elaborate on your conjecture. If a particular entrepreneur created a superior ASIC machine, the effect on the bitcoin valuation could be ambiguous.

... (read more at link above)

Thanks smooth, I like the fact they put out a layman's copy.

That paper got way out my league to comprehend pretty fast and what I did digest didn't seem to come to any conclusion that is not already obvious.
So what point is it trying to make that we don't already know?


I think something is wrong with Polo I just checked my buy trade analysis and got an exact even number! Whats the chance of that?!?!

Code:

 Average Buy Price: 0.00416829 BTC             Break Even Price: 0.00416829 BTC

[smooth]

The authors are doing an AMA right now: https://amp.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/8c05vr/hi_rbitcoin_im_emiliano_pagnotta_assistant/

Useful link to a non-technical summary of the paper: https://imperialcollegelondon.app.box.com/s/u1qark0r6cvdvzj4vp5s3xyfo9tkpjt8

Interesting comment relevant to ASICs in Monero:

[Emiliano Pagnotta] To add to AB’s comment, let me elaborate on your conjecture. If a particular entrepreneur created a superior ASIC machine, the effect on the bitcoin valuation could be ambiguous.

... (read more at link above)

Thanks smooth, I like the fact they put out a layman's copy.

That paper got way out my league to comprehend pretty fast and what I did digest didn't seem to come to any conclusion that is not already obvious.
So what point is it trying to make that we don't already know?

There are some interesting perhaps non-intuitive conclusions. They mention some of them in the non-technical summary or AMA:

1. An increase in the cost of mining implies a reduction in the coin value. Some have claimed that mining cost or energy cost backs the value of a coin given its cost of creation (or similarly, the claim that botnets reduce the coin value since their cost of mining is lower), but this appears not only wrong, but backwards.

2. ASICs increase hash rate security (and therefore coin value) but may reduce it due to reduced miner decentralization, so the effect is ambiguous (and depends on the relevant, and generally unknown, constant factors). Of course, the Monero community is aware of the second consideration, given the recent decision to fork out ASICs, but the ambiguity may be under appreciated. Personally I find it quite troubling and would prefer a way to win on both sides rather than grapple with a potentially intractable tradeoff.

3. There are multiple equilibria in any coin, one being the coin price at zero (so no mining rewards, no security, no value., etc.) This may be obvious but we don't see it much. However, it appears to reinforce the notion that a coin can completely fail.

4. Non-linearity can produce price and hash rate spirals. If someone spikes the price (say Roger Ver buying into Monero in 2016) and the hash rate follows, this can improve perceived security and perceived value to the point where the new value is self-sustaining. Perhaps this can occur by hash rate increases as well (even potentially due to ASICs or botnets joining the network). I guess this can happen in the other direction too (possibly leading to complete failure, i.e. #3?)

5. There is an optimal inflation rate that is not zero. Some amount of inflation subsidizes mining which increases the hash rate and then coin value so it is therefore self-supporting. This has been alternately stated many times in the past as avoiding the free rider problem where holders who do not transaction still benefit from mining security. It is actually quite obvious to most people who understand economics but remains highly controversial among Bitcoiners.

Reminder: As with most if not all of economics, this is only an idealized model, and doesn't necessarily accurately represent reality. Lessons may be learned from it, and they may be valuable, but they risk being wrong if the model is wrong.

[Hueristic]

There are some interesting perhaps non-intuitive conclusions. They mention some of them in the non-technical summary or AMA:

1. An increase in the cost of mining implies a reduction in the coin value. Some have claimed that mining cost or energy cost backs the value of a coin given its cost of creation (or similarly, the claim that botnets reduce the coin value since their cost of mining is lower), but this appears not only wrong, but backwards.

I never understood why people would not understand this intuitively, like anything else it's scarcity and desirability that creates the balance of a market all the cost can do is provide a baseline.

2. ASICs increase hash rate security (and therefore coin value) but may reduce it due to reduced miner decentralization, so the effect is ambiguous (and depends on the relevant, and generally unknown, constant factors). Of course, the Monero community is aware of the second consideration, given the recent decision to fork out ASICs, but the ambiguity may be under appreciated. Personally I find it quite troubling and would prefer a way to win on both sides rather than grapple with a potentially intractable tradeoff.

I don't think the bolded can ever be possible. And I venomously disagree with ASICs increasing a coins value I would say quite the opposite. Bitcoin is a one off aberration that it's descendants can never me modeled upon as it's creation, adoption and community are and were all unique. Trying to use it as a model is a fools errand and is oblique to anything that follows.

3. There are multiple equilibria in any coin, one being the coin price at zero (so no mining rewards, no security, no value., etc.) This may be obvious but we don't see it much. However, it appears to reinforce the notion that a coin can completely fail.

I think I would have to read what the hell they were referring to with this one, it looks like there is no context unless they mean "yeah they all start at zero as an idea". Yet even then Some Idea's are far more valuable than others, all whitepapers =/=.

4. Non-linearity can produce price and hash rate spirals. If someone spikes the price (say Roger Ver buying into Monero in 2016) and the hash rate follows, this can improve perceived security and perceived value to the point where the new value is self-sustaining. Perhaps this can occur by hash rate increases as well (even potentially due to ASICs or botnets joining the network). I guess this can happen in the other direction too (possibly leading to complete failure, i.e. #3?)

Sure, ETH is a fine example. This is a premise that certainly should not have to be supported by anything other than common sense.

5. There is an optimal inflation rate that is not zero. Some amount of inflation subsidizes mining which increases the hash rate and then coin value so it is therefore self-supporting. This has been alternately stated many times in the past as avoiding the free rider problem where holders who do not transaction still benefit from mining security. It is actually quite obvious to most people who understand economics but remains highly controversial among Bitcoiners.

True and is continuously debated not for it's merits but for personal gain. Change the distribution rate/ tail emission I'm not cashing in quick enough. Lol

Reminder: As with most if not all of economics, this is only an idealized model, and doesn't necessarily accurately represent reality. Lessons may be learned from it, and they may be valuable, but they risk being wrong if the model is wrong.

Standard disclaimer in gobbleeze.

[smooth]

2. ASICs increase hash rate security (and therefore coin value) but may reduce it due to reduced miner decentralization, so the effect is ambiguous (and depends on the relevant, and generally unknown, constant factors). Of course, the Monero community is aware of the second consideration, given the recent decision to fork out ASICs, but the ambiguity may be under appreciated. Personally I find it quite troubling and would prefer a way to win on both sides rather than grapple with a potentially intractable tradeoff.

I don't think the bolded can ever be possible. And I venomously disagree with ASICs increasing a coins value I would say quite the opposite. Bitcoin is a one off aberration that it's descendants can never me modeled upon as it's creation, adoption and community are and were all unique. Trying to use it as a model is a fools errand and is oblique to anything that follows.

You may be right. What I would prefer and what may be possible aren't necessarily the same thing.

BTW, my views on this have nothing to do with Bitcoin and I don't even think Bitcoin is a very positive example when it coms to ASICs. For all we know Bitcoin's price could very well be much higher if the mining ecosystem were healthier.

[explorer]

The authors are doing an AMA right now: https://amp.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/8c05vr/hi_rbitcoin_im_emiliano_pagnotta_assistant/

Useful link to a non-technical summary of the paper: https://imperialcollegelondon.app.box.com/s/u1qark0r6cvdvzj4vp5s3xyfo9tkpjt8

Interesting comment relevant to ASICs in Monero:

[Emiliano Pagnotta] To add to AB’s comment, let me elaborate on your conjecture. If a particular entrepreneur created a superior ASIC machine, the effect on the bitcoin valuation could be ambiguous.

... (read more at link above)

Thanks smooth, I like the fact they put out a layman's copy.

That paper got way out my league to comprehend pretty fast and what I did digest didn't seem to come to any conclusion that is not already obvious.
So what point is it trying to make that we don't already know?


I think something is wrong with Polo I just checked my buy trade analysis and got an exact even number! Whats the chance of that?!?!

Code:

 Average Buy Price: 0.00416829 BTC             Break Even Price: 0.00416829 BTC

How many trades did it take to break even?

[Globb0]

In some ways why is a miner different to say a TV set top box or games console.

Its just a cut down set of technology that does one thing well.

Maybe its really the future of more things.

Evolution of the multifunctional PC to more focused PC types?

Who knows. I know we cant stand still.

[Hueristic]

2. ASICs increase hash rate security (and therefore coin value) but may reduce it due to reduced miner decentralization, so the effect is ambiguous (and depends on the relevant, and generally unknown, constant factors). Of course, the Monero community is aware of the second consideration, given the recent decision to fork out ASICs, but the ambiguity may be under appreciated. Personally I find it quite troubling and would prefer a way to win on both sides rather than grapple with a potentially intractable tradeoff.

I don't think the bolded can ever be possible. And I venomously disagree with ASICs increasing a coins value I would say quite the opposite. Bitcoin is a one off aberration that it's descendants can never me modeled upon as it's creation, adoption and community are and were all unique. Trying to use it as a model is a fools errand and is oblique to anything that follows.

You may be right. What I would prefer and what may be possible aren't necessarily the same thing.

BTW, my views on this have nothing to do with Bitcoin and I don't even think Bitcoin is a very positive example when it coms to ASICs. For all we know Bitcoin's price could very well be much higher if the mining ecosystem were healthier.

I would most certainly agree with this, but as a side effect It is my opinion that a large portion of that is now in alts and their development (as well as scammers hands). So it's a double edge sword but one that pretty much fuels innovation so in a roundabout way it is good for the scene as a whole that bitcoin eventually be surpassed as long as it is by a superior product and not one the oligarthy pushes down our throat (for control) or some scam like ETH that gets too big to fail. It sickens me to see so many resources go into ETH development and those cronies pocketing fortunes on a mutable chain as if it doesn't matter at all. Thats one thing those with a voice should be touting from up on high.

How many trades did it take to break even?

That is from my entire History! Remember I have bought what I could just to try to help during the BCX Fud and I guess I just got even from that? Actually that is what made me decide to make the plunge in the first place after watching the project for a year. Also I could tell there was something wrong with the miner just by how long it took me to mine and the amount that was being sold. It was my plan to wait for the price to get lower but I hated seeing what just a littel FUD did. Now I know better and don't think as the eco system as being that fragile.

AFA how many trades I have no clue but could count them I guess but thats alot as I've margined alot over the years, Ohh yeah I also got really screwed in an open margin during the BTC split so there was that.

Whats yours?

In some ways why is a miner different to say a TV set top box or games console.

Its just a cut down set of technology that does one thing well.

Maybe its really the future of more things.

Evolution of the multifunctional PC to more focused PC types?

Who knows. I know we cant stand still.

It's different as in availability, Mose homes have computers if mot multiple ones. compare that to how much of the worlds population has asics, and there will never be a large portion that does as they continually make the latest version obsolete. Of course so does a home system but at such a slower rate that those systems are EOL by then anyway,

[Shnikes101]

Briefly hit 0.025 today. Felt nice, real nice. 

[cAPSLOCK]

Well hello there Monero... Welcome back to speculative positivity!

[Hueristic]

All up from here?

[rinus]

Monero v pump ?

[generalizethis]

Is Pornhub dumping their verge for Monero? Wait, I can just go check the wallet....

[KiXiNiT]

Interesting to see if it plays out exactly the same way as the MoneroV pump before.

[ozkraut]

Here comes a speculation:

multisig complete= Monero on Coinbase?

[KiXiNiT]

Here comes a speculation:

multisig complete= Monero on Coinbase?

Is this the same fantasy land as Paypal adopting Verge ?

[ozkraut]

Here comes a speculation:

multisig complete= Monero on Coinbase?

Is this the same fantasy land as Paypal adopting Verge ?

One is on the verge of insanity the other is speculation

[Hanke.io]

Interesting to see if it plays out exactly the same way as the MoneroV pump before.

I wasn't here for a while... how did the previous pump played out?

[Febo]

Interesting to see if it plays out exactly the same way as the MoneroV pump before.

Here comes a speculation:

multisig complete= Monero on Coinbase?

Is this the same fantasy land as Paypal adopting Verge ?

You still only FUD Monero?   Even when there is +15% price increase?  Do you think Monero have any good attribute?  You spend hell of a lot of time in Monero Speculation thread to not like anything about it.