[XMR] Monero Speculation

[bitebits]

That is some hell of a speculation cAPSLOCK

Monero will be there for the ones needing it. And that is a truly magnificent thing to be able to say.

[Hueristic]

^^^--- Thats it I'm convinced!


I trust BTC, XMR and maybe Grin soon and thats about it.

[kurious]

Well it's just gone over 0.008....

Not too shabby, eh?  Looking forward to getting back to proper Monero prices again, it's about time.

That's about, ooh 70 bucks in 'old money'.

[Hueristic]

Well it's just gone over 0.008....

Not too shabby, eh?  Looking forward to getting back to proper Monero prices again, it's about time.

That's about, ooh 70 bucks in 'old money'.

Well If you all remeber i've been buying back since Alphabay so i'm a little under water on my DCA.

It will be nice to get back to fucking .03 again!

But then I'm still not selling.

I learned my lesson the hard way.

[kurious]

Well it's just gone over 0.008....

Not too shabby, eh?  Looking forward to getting back to proper Monero prices again, it's about time.

That's about, ooh 70 bucks in 'old money'.

Well If you all remeber i've been buying back since Alphabay so i'm a little under water on my DCA.

It will be nice to get back to fucking .03 again!

But then I'm still not selling.

I learned my lesson the hard way.

So did I, way back - but I just traded and traded to get the average down.  And bought more, which helps if you're under water.  When it did rocket up in 2016, I was sitting pretty.

I hope it works out for you, and I am sure Monero will help, it does look like sooner or later it will break out properly again, it wasn't so long back it was under $40.

Crypto teaches us all the discipline of patience.

[infofront]

Hopium:

BTC crashed from ~$19,500 in Dec. 2017 to ~$14,500 on Jan. 9, 2018. That's the day Monero reached its ATH of $542, or 0.0347 BTC.

It's likely we'll see an altcoin bubble following the next bitcoin bubble again. If Bitcoin were to reach $100K at the top of the next bubble, then crash 25% when altcoin season hits it's pinnacle, one XMR at 0.035 would carry a value of $2,625.

[kurious]

Hopium:

BTC crashed from ~$19,500 in Dec. 2017 to ~$14,500 on Jan. 9, 2018. That's the day Monero reached its ATH of $542, or 0.0347 BTC.

It's likely we'll see an altcoin bubble following the next bitcoin bubble again. If Bitcoin were to reach $100K at the top of the next bubble, then crash 25% when altcoin season hits it's pinnacle, one XMR at 0.035 would carry a value of $2,625.

That is a rather sweet thought - especially as when it's only hopium for a repeat of what we have already seen before.  

The beauty of last time was being able to cash in something once the bubble was obviously over for BTC.  I did actually sell some XMR at that point last time. I wanted to hold my stash of BTC, but I did sell a few XMR for extra BTC and then cash those in.

Fortunately it was before the boating accident, too.

[bitebits]

Hopium:

BTC crashed from ~$19,500 in Dec. 2017 to ~$14,500 on Jan. 9, 2018. That's the day Monero reached its ATH of $542, or 0.0347 BTC.

It's likely we'll see an altcoin bubble following the next bitcoin bubble again. If Bitcoin were to reach $100K at the top of the next bubble, then crash 25% when altcoin season hits it's pinnacle, one XMR at 0.035 would carry a value of $2,625.

That is a rather sweet thought - especially as when it's only hopium for a repeat of what we have already seen before.  

The beauty of last time was being able to cash in something once the bubble was obviously over for BTC.  I did actually sell some XMR at that point last time. I wanted to hold my stash of BTC, but I did sell a few XMR for extra BTC and then cash those in.

Fortunately it was before the boating accident, too.

Thanks for your hopium infofront, even when I personally don’t really need it anymore. Monero nowadays just conveniently works as fungible money and is still actively being improved each day. Therefore, perhaps to a naive extend, I am not really bothered with its volatility.

We are all on the same boat kurious, Monero potentially being a lifeboat for Bitcoin. Perhaps less as a SoV, but definitely as digital cash. I would still use it for payments even when it ‘crashes to zero’, as long as the network is up and running. Sorry to hear about your boating accident though. My lifeboat is making water but still afloat, you are welcome to join catching the next wave.

[elrippos friend]

Well it's just gone over 0.008....

Not too shabby, eh?  Looking forward to getting back to proper Monero prices again, it's about time.

That's about, ooh 70 bucks in 'old money'.

Well If you all remeber i've been buying back since Alphabay so i'm a little under water on my DCA.

It will be nice to get back to fucking .03 again!

But then I'm still not selling.

I learned my lesson the hard way.

So did I, way back - but I just traded and traded to get the average down.  And bought more, which helps if you're under water.  When it did rocket up in 2016, I was sitting pretty.

I hope it works out for you, and I am sure Monero will help, it does look like sooner or later it will break out properly again, it wasn't so long back it was under $40.

Crypto teaches us all the discipline of patience.

Amen, helllyyyyeeeeaaaaahhhhhhhh 

[BldSwtTrs]

I have some interesting/paranoid speculation...  It takes a moment to get to Monero... but hang with me.

I know my opinions on BTC forks might be different than some of my Monero brothers, and for full disclosure I believe BCH is misguided at best, and an all out scammy attack at worst, and BSV is an absolute abomination from any perspective.  I think the idea of the metanet, although fascinating, is something that will destroy the cypherpunk vision of Bitcoin. I think the correct way to achieve the metanet ideals is to run it as an opt in sidechain on Bitcoin.  The reason I think storing all kinds of data on the Bitcoin blockchain is a bad idea is it will necessarily centralize not only the miners, but also the fully validating nodes, which is a distinction with it's own essay, but not this one.

Storing virtually unlimited data on the blockchain will require both exponentially gigantic troves of data storage space, as well as the very fastest internet bandwidth, AND enormous CPU power for validation.  This will re-collapse the fully validating nodes with the miners and render those entities to be businesses on the size of FAANG, or nation states.

In the end a relatively small group of  node operators (For example USA, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, China, Russia, and maybe 5-6 more) would then control ALL the "distributed" (but no longer effectively decentralized) copies of the blockchain. They could then form a cabal that could then set the monetary policy of the new world digital currency.

I know...  Kinda paranoid.

But if that is not what happens with BSV then what is it?

I don't want to argue in vain and trigger feelings with this post, I just want to talk logically and rationnally about an interesting subject.

Regarding BSV, what you skectch as a scenario (Metanet ending in a centrally controled) is only an hypothesis, a speculation, a possibility. No one will know for sure until this has been tried.
Maybe this will end up centrally controled, maybe not. I suggest you framing that as an experiment. The same way Bitcoin was framed as an experiment until 2014. Let's look at what's going to happen, and I am personally grateful that some people carry out this project.

Regarding CSW, who cares? This a protocol, it's only the code that matter.
Do you remember the early days of Bitcoin when people said that knowing the personality of Satoshi was irrelevant to the Bitcoin project?  The same goes for BSV. This is a protocol, which such be judged as such. Rationally, gossips about personalities should be irrelevant.

[phishead]

I have some interesting/paranoid speculation...  It takes a moment to get to Monero... but hang with me.

...

It's cool to finally read some insightful speculation in here again.  And don't worry, we are all crazy and paranoid in here... you are preaching to the choir

Honestly I don't pay much attention to the BTC fork drama saga.  I understand the basics, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.  But from my perspective no one who I know from the forum, IRC, cryptotwitter, etc. takes anything Craig says seriously.  It seems he's basically a scammy dude who's been chalked up to be meme-worthy for his blatant bullshit and have seen countless arguments of him contradicting himself and essentially proves he's not Satoshi.

In order to dump on people, people would have to be buying in the first place... My question is who the fuck is buying, and isn't the market cap basically a group of whales slinging their dicks around to get the most profit from their BTC they accumulated in the past?  I have never seen anyone online who is not an obvious bot, or a scammy whale, promoting these fork coins.

But honestly as time goes on and the endless list of new coins/forks coming out; I still have never heard of another coin that is a better "plan" for a digital P2P cash system than Monero.  Grin, Z-cash, etc. might have some cool technology behind them, but there are more cons to them in comparison to Monero.  Sure, there are cons in Monero, but the difference is that the community recognizes the remaining flaws and are actively interested in correcting them and funding developers and mathematicians to work these issues out.

Remain calm, and amass Monero.

[Globb0]

in a nice place, green shoots.. (and that nice volume)



Sorry I cropped the time doh, it was fairly long back 12h per candle

[phishead]

I don't want to argue in vain and trigger feelings with this post, I just want to talk logically and rationnally about an interesting subject.

Regarding BSV, what you skectch as a scenario (Metanet ending in a centrally controled) is only an hypothesis, a speculation, a possibility. No one will know for sure until this has been tried.
Maybe this will end up centrally controled, maybe not. I suggest you framing that as an experiment. The same way Bitcoin was framed as an experiment until 2014. Let's look at what's going to happen, and I am personally grateful that some people carry out this project.

Regarding CSW, who cares? This a protocol, it's only the code that matter.
Do you remember the early days of Bitcoin when people said that knowing the personality of Satoshi was irrelevant to the Bitcoin project?  The same goes for BSV. This is a protocol, which such be judged as such. Rationally, gossips about personalities should be irrelevant.

The difference is trusting an egotistical narcissist, who will do anything in the world to prove he's Satoshi, to make rational decisions.  The real Satoshi was a pseudonym basically to protect himself and the BTC project.  The purpose of open sourced projects like these is to trust the code only, sure... but what happens when the dude who has been pushing for this all the sudden sees another problem after more people get interested in BSV and start wanting to take it in a different direction than what he has decided on?  BSVclassic is what happens.

[BldSwtTrs]

I don't want to argue in vain and trigger feelings with this post, I just want to talk logically and rationnally about an interesting subject.

Regarding BSV, what you skectch as a scenario (Metanet ending in a centrally controled) is only an hypothesis, a speculation, a possibility. No one will know for sure until this has been tried.
Maybe this will end up centrally controled, maybe not. I suggest you framing that as an experiment. The same way Bitcoin was framed as an experiment until 2014. Let's look at what's going to happen, and I am personally grateful that some people carry out this project.

Regarding CSW, who cares? This a protocol, it's only the code that matter.
Do you remember the early days of Bitcoin when people said that knowing the personality of Satoshi was irrelevant to the Bitcoin project?  The same goes for BSV. This is a protocol, which such be judged as such. Rationally, gossips about personalities should be irrelevant.

The difference is trusting an egotistical narcissist, who will do anything in the world to prove he's Satoshi, to make rational decisions.  The real Satoshi was a pseudonym basically to protect himself and the BTC project.  The purpose of open sourced projects like these is to trust the code only, sure... but what happens when the dude who has been pushing for this all the sudden sees another problem after more people get interested in BSV and start wanting to take it in a different direction than what he has decided on?  BSVclassic is what happens.

Well if CSW pushes for changes that doesn't conform with his previously stated goals (ie. an ossified protocol around a version as close as possible than the v0.1 of the Bitcoin protocol) then yes you are correct, a fork will ensue. But why would this be bad?

Forks are mechanisms that allow to keep alive a valuable alternative path despite a social take over of a protocol network. Because of the possibility, if needed, to forking away from CSW, people don't have to trust him. CSW can do whatever he wants, enough people are sold on the idea of ossifying the protocol, to make it happens.

Alike for Monero. We can never be sure a protocol change that degrades the privacy won't be push by the devs inside the protocol. But we can be pretty sure if this happens there would be a fork.
We don't have to trust the developpers, we only need to know that the possibility to fork away from misguided developpers will exist in the future.

[phishead]

I don't want to argue in vain and trigger feelings with this post, I just want to talk logically and rationnally about an interesting subject.

Regarding BSV, what you skectch as a scenario (Metanet ending in a centrally controled) is only an hypothesis, a speculation, a possibility. No one will know for sure until this has been tried.
Maybe this will end up centrally controled, maybe not. I suggest you framing that as an experiment. The same way Bitcoin was framed as an experiment until 2014. Let's look at what's going to happen, and I am personally grateful that some people carry out this project.

Regarding CSW, who cares? This a protocol, it's only the code that matter.
Do you remember the early days of Bitcoin when people said that knowing the personality of Satoshi was irrelevant to the Bitcoin project?  The same goes for BSV. This is a protocol, which such be judged as such. Rationally, gossips about personalities should be irrelevant.

The difference is trusting an egotistical narcissist, who will do anything in the world to prove he's Satoshi, to make rational decisions.  The real Satoshi was a pseudonym basically to protect himself and the BTC project.  The purpose of open sourced projects like these is to trust the code only, sure... but what happens when the dude who has been pushing for this all the sudden sees another problem after more people get interested in BSV and start wanting to take it in a different direction than what he has decided on?  BSVclassic is what happens.

Well if CSW pushes for changes that doesn't conform with his previously stated goals (ie. an ossified protocol around a version as close as possible than the v0.1 of the Bitcoin protocol) then yes you are correct, a fork will ensue. But why would this be bad?

Forks are mechanisms that allow to keep alive a valuable alternative path despite a social take over of a protocol network. Because of the possibility, if needed, to forking away from CSW, people don't have to trust him. CSW can do whatever he wants, enough people are sold on the idea of ossifying the protocol, to make it happens.

Alike for Monero. We can never be sure a protocol change that degrades the privacy won't be push by the devs inside the protocol. But we can be pretty sure if this happens there would be a fork.
We don't have to trust the developpers, we only need to know that the possibility to fork away from misguided developpers will exist in the future.

Ok I get what you are saying.  I agree that forks are a good thing and that helps ensure decentralization... I'm just saying the likely hood that the people who are "BSV supporters" are not going to be your typical people like you see in the XMR community and genuinely care to develop what CSW is setting out to do.  To me, it looks like it's CSW wanting fame and fortune and then you got everyone else who have invested who is just probably hedging against BTC without any real knowledge of crypto currencies.

[Globb0]

[jwinterm]

Look at that. Flufferponer selling Moreno 24/7 in South Africa.

[kurious]

But isn't a 'fluffer' someone who...

Oh, never mind.

[Globb0]

Its ok this is Flufilly pony

[Febo]

Actually in some recent articles was named hmmm let me remeber. Flufflypony.


What about this chart?