[XMR] Monero Speculation

[smooth]

Had more money than the entire market cap of Monero.   

And kept it poorly encrypted on a cloud service /facepalm

[Hueristic]

They look like a couple of EthTards.

I'm certain they were cutout/fallguys.

[johnfoss]

THE MONERO MOON (ISSUE 30) IS OUT NOW! Grab a coffee or a beer and kick back for a read. Like, share, and spread the word of Monero as it continues to grow and offer unmatched financial privacy.

https://medium.com/themoneromoon/the-monero-moon-issue-30-65b44cbe718e

[bct_ail]

And kept it poorly encrypted on a cloud service /facepalm

I actually think it is quite good. It shows (hopefully) more readers of such news that they should refrain (even if they don't have thousands of Bitcoins) from uploading important data to cloud servers other people's computers. Maybe it will make them understand that using a cloud server is highly critical. Even if they encrypted their data.

[cAPSLOCK]

Had more money than the entire market cap of Monero.   

And kept it poorly encrypted on a cloud service /facepalm

I like the nuance here, though it is not orthodoxy.


As a defender of Bitcoin Maxis to some extent this guy goes too hard most of the time, though he is also usually right.  But in THIS case?  I would be willing to bet he is not looking deeply enough.

It will be shown, most likely, that they went in and out of Monero at some point, but any details as to those things will only come from outside leaks.  In other words they may have gone into Monero via some dark market, or exchange... but how many DETAILS will we see.

Using Monero cannot fix dumb.  But I bet if you look deeply there will bhe some pretty big holes in the data round those orange places on the flow chart!




Well... as we do... we have reached the top of the current channel.  But one of these is either going to break UP or DOWN.

So at the moment we are on the UP location.  So chances are we bounce up from here a bit and roll down back to .0040ish.  But then, like I said one of these times we will break up.  Could this be the one? 

You tell me.



***EDIT NEXT DAY***

Well that was a quick one... and that's a nasty gap under the line...  Russia tension, I'd figure?



Not really a lot between here an 0.0037

***EDIT 2/12*** (I am doing this to save the mod the trouble of annoyingly combining posts.. I suppose the database is getting unweildy on this 12 year old forum.)

I guess on thinly traded assets the validity of these things is questionable, but it looks like the bottom trend line has flipped to resistance...  But at least we are seeing some volume.



[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[johnfoss]

THE MONERO MOON (ISSUE 31) IS OUT NOW! Grab a coffee or a beer and kick back for a read. Like, share, and spread the word of Monero as it continues to grow and offer unmatched financial privacy.

https://medium.com/themoneromoon/the-monero-moon-issue-31-39f3fbe6db5a

[tokeweed]

As a defender of Bitcoin Maxis to some extent this guy goes too hard most of the time, though he is also usually right.  But in THIS case?  I would be willing to bet he is not looking deeply enough.

It will be shown, most likely, that they went in and out of Monero at some point, but any details as to those things will only come from outside leaks.  In other words they may have gone into Monero via some dark market, or exchange... but how many DETAILS will we see.

Using Monero cannot fix dumb.  But I bet if you look deeply there will bhe some pretty big holes in the data round those orange places on the flow chart!

Meh, grubles is just one of those guys who think BTC should be the end all and be all in crypto.  I mean I get it, BTC is good at what it does.  But saying that everything else is a scam?  Kek.  That’s dumb.  I used to think like him but there’s just so much more in the space than BTC.  And they better be careful, some other coin could flip it at CMC.

So...  Looking at different charts, do you think this is it for now?  

[cAPSLOCK]

So the whole world is now undergoing it's SECOND lesson on why Bitcoin matters.

Remember when the lightbulb went on for you for Monero?  Most of us, we were Bitcoinners first.  Obviously if we go back it was the only choice.  Then things like tennebrix and solidcoin appeared.  (LOL)  Most of us were lucky enough to be able to avoid these scams...  But then around 2014 I started hearing about Monero.

The lightbulb for me was this:

Monero did something that Bitcoin did not.  Something fundamental and astoundingly useful. But it was a different set of tradeoffs.  And I came to the conclusion that this was a use-case that had an excuse to be.  AND did something that took away some of Bitcoin's properties.  I never saw it as Bitcoin=Bad Monero=Good.  I saw them as complimentary.

Anyway, I am surprised to this day so few of us take that position, but that is neither here nor there.

My thougt is this:  A certain percentage those awakening to Bitcoin and why it is important are going to stumble across Monero and why it is different just like we did.  I mean they already know about NFTs, and many are seeing why that is just the wrong thing to be focusing on right now.  But a certain number of these hundreds of millions who are now seeing Bitcoin for what it is are going to realize why Monero matters.

And then they will buy some.

The questions for speculation:

How many?
When?

One thing I do not question in the least is that it is going to happen...  if you are reading this, I'd say you are in a good spot!

[Hueristic]

Monero did something that Bitcoin did not.  Something fundamental and astoundingly useful. But it was a different set of tradeoffs.  And I came to the conclusion that this was a use-case that had an excuse to be.  AND did something that took away some of Bitcoin's properties.  I never saw it as Bitcoin=Bad Monero=Good.  I saw them as complimentary.

Anyway, I am surprised to this day so few of us take that position, but that is neither here nor there.

I thought eventually bitcoin would adopt base layer features and that would regulate Monero to the shadows but the more time goes on I realize that this has become impossible.

So I see bitcoin as a perfectly viable store of value with the built in NGU tech and Monero as the transactional coin of choice that hopefully sidechains will develop on for all the silly eth type shit.

[johnfoss]

THE MONERO MOON (ISSUE 32) IS OUT NOW! Grab a coffee or a beer and kick back for a read. Like, share, and spread the word of Monero as it continues to grow and offer unmatched financial privacy.

https://medium.com/themoneromoon/the-monero-moon-issue-32-6f07536e8496

[BlackHatCoiner]

But a certain number of these hundreds of millions who are now seeing Bitcoin for what it is are going to realize why Monero matters.

And yet, too few use Bitcoin to gain privacy. The main utility comes from the fact that it's hard cash. I'm using Bitcoin to avoid having a third party telling me what to do; 'cause it's borderless; 'cause it's transparent; I don't have to trust a financial institution, which is provably faulty; human behavior is faulty when they gain too much power. We, don't like that. We've re-invented money, decentralized.

There's another thing that should bother you: Scarcity. I'm not talking about the bullshit they say about the infinite XMR. I'm referring to digital scarcity. Look around you, people like things that are scarce. The paradox of crypto is that the coins are scarce, but the currencies are abundant. There's no second best in terms of scarcity.

I comprehend that Monero, as a whole, offers better privacy than Bitcoin. But, there are other factors to count as well for your assertion/prediction to turn out true.

[cAPSLOCK]

But a certain number of these hundreds of millions who are now seeing Bitcoin for what it is are going to realize why Monero matters.

And yet, too few use Bitcoin to gain privacy. The main utility comes from the fact that it's hard cash. I'm using Bitcoin to avoid having a third party telling me what to do; 'cause it's borderless; 'cause it's transparent; I don't have to trust a financial institution, which is provably faulty; human behavior is faulty when they gain too much power. We, don't like that. We've re-invented money, decentralized.

There's another thing that should bother you: Scarcity. I'm not talking about the bullshit they say about the infinite XMR. I'm referring to digital scarcity. Look around you, people like things that are scarce. The paradox of crypto is that the coins are scarce, but the currencies are abundant. There's no second best in terms of scarcity.

I comprehend that Monero, as a whole, offers better privacy than Bitcoin. But, there are other factors to count as well for your assertion/prediction to turn out true.

This is true.  And Monero is post prime mover for scarcity, AND it is not insignificant that it does have perpetual inflation.

Our camp (Monero folks) has recently turned up the volume on the (BCASH LIKE) "Number Go Up" = BAD narrative.  Yet that is Bitcoin's raison d'etre.  The magic sauce.  And the chain HAS to be completely visible to get the maximum benefit.

Monero really offers Bitcoin a way to  firewall the privacy problem into a separate camp.

You know... I always sort of thought the whole Litecoin is silver to Bitcoin's gold marketing slogan to be such polished bullshit.  But to tell the truth Monero actually fits that bill.  Bitcoin is where you store wealth, and Monero can be where transactions on the street take place...

Unless something like CT on Liquid ends up stealing XMRs mojo.  Because there is an advantage to a pegged asset.  But I think having it completely fire walled into XMR is something.  The only weak spot I see is when you do an Atomic swap with bitcoin, how do you deal with the taint?

So I see bitcoin as a perfectly viable store of value with the built in NGU tech and Monero as the transactional coin of choice that hopefully sidechains will develop on for all the silly eth type shit.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Bitcoin is where you store wealth, and Monero can be where transactions on the street take place...

You see, there's a lack of confidence of what's what. You say Bitcoin is where people will store wealth, but Monero is where the daily transactions will take place. I find this oxymoron.

Bitcoin isn't an object. You don't store value by the assumption that one will use it in the future for anything different than transacting with it. It's not gold that can be used in technology, jewelry etc.; the only purpose of Bitcoin is to use it as a medium of exchange and people HODL it so that they can either use it in the future to buy things or trade it with another person who wants it to buy things.

The value of Bitcoin comes solely from this phenomenon. Now if everyone preferred Monero over Bitcoin, it wouldn't make sense to use it as a store of value.

AND it is not insignificant that it does have perpetual inflation.

I personally find it insignificant. In a way, it reveals you that the founder didn't believe it will reach a large transaction volume, so that miners could be content from the fees. It gives me the impression that the security needed to somehow be arranged, but it couldn't unless the miners enjoyed this perpetual inflation.

[cAPSLOCK]

Bitcoin is where you store wealth, and Monero can be where transactions on the street take place...

You see, there's a lack of confidence of what's what. You say Bitcoin is where people will store wealth, but Monero is where the daily transactions will take place. I find this oxymoron.

Bitcoin isn't an object. You don't store value by the assumption that one will use it in the future for anything different than transacting with it. It's not gold that can be used in technology, jewelry etc.; the only purpose of Bitcoin is to use it as a medium of exchange and people HODL it so that they can either use it in the future to buy things or trade it with another person who wants it to buy things.

The value of Bitcoin comes solely from this phenomenon. Now if everyone preferred Monero over Bitcoin, it wouldn't make sense to use it as a store of value.

AND it is not insignificant that it does have perpetual inflation.

I personally find it insignificant. In a way, it reveals you that the founder didn't believe it will reach a large transaction volume, so that miners could be content from the fees. It gives me the impression that the security needed to somehow be arranged, but it couldn't unless the miners enjoyed this perpetual inflation.

Your history is off.  The "founder" built XMR with a hard cap.  In fact we are ALMOST to the end of that original emission schedule.

The "community" decided to add the tail emission after Monero had been launched. It was, in fact, an argument amongst the community.  I was on the side of NOT adding it.  Not only do I not think it is neccesary to sustain the coin's security, but changing the economics in mid stream was a HUGE BLOW to the decentralization argument for the project.  But here we are in spite of that.  I also see the reasoning why those on the other side supported the emission.  In a way it is a tacit admission that Monero may never "flip" Bitcoin, as I do not think it would be possible for very many cryptocurrencies to be able to survive a zero emission state.  Some argue even Bitcoin will not.  I disagree.  The fees on the Bitcoin blockchain will support it's mining, in my opinion, as it will continue to be fairly expensive to transact on BTC.  But other SHA2 blockchains will either fade to nearly nothing or be attacked out of existence.

You description of Bitcoin is a value store made out of 100% monetary premium is accurate.  One cannot really OWN a 256bit number either.  We simply rely on the fact that there are so many of them that a randomly chosen one is practically un-findable.

So yes.  The only thing one would ever do with Bitcoin is to store and transmit value.

Satoshi's choice to hard cap the supply is a perfect decision for a value store.  Period.  Any other choice would diminish the efficacy of Bitcoin to store value.  Though there ARE arguments FOR inflation.

The argument for inflation is to support monetary velocity.  Elon Musk has irritated maxis by frequently by saying “Even though it was created as a silly joke, dogecoin is better suited for transactions.”. 

I can only see two reasons he would say this:

1.  He is a scammer or a fool.  He has realized he can make money moving the price of Doge around.  Or he just likes it because it is silly and "shouldn't" be successful.  I think the latter is more likely than the former.  Because as smart as he may be, he loves base and absurd humor.  He already has so much money what could he gain playing with DOGE?

2.  He believes Doge's inflation is better for a transactional currency.  If a currency is constantly inflating, then it is also constantly becoming worth less.  In the extreme, as we will be seeing with the US dollar soon, but has been proven out in the Bolivar, etc people will take wheelbarrows of currency to buy things they do not need on a TUES simply because on WED they will get less.  So inflation supports spending instead of holding.  Therefore "Doge is better than Bitcoin as a transactional currency".

I personally think #2 is the main reason Musk says this.

But the earth has never seen a mathematically perfect value store in it's whole history until Bitcoin.  So, if given the choice of holding value in BTC vs DOGE... well, the price tells that story already.  And this goes for Monero as well.  In fact the market sees the dog coin is more than FIVE times more valuable than Monero.

^^That, of course is foolishness, and one way or the other I should expect Monero will eventually flip Doge in market cap.

Monero is closer to Bitcoin in it's emission than Doge in SPITE of the fact it, like the dog coin, has an "infinite supply".  Because it will  have less than Bitcoin's 21mm coins for 15 years after the original subsidy is gone.  And it will take another 15 years to add 2.5 million coins to the total.  This is a VERY small inflation rate.  In fact when the community was arguing through this decision many felt 432 Monero each day forever would not be enough as it would not even cover lost coins.

Anyway...

There is a brief history and reasoning for the infamous Monero "tail emission".  Do with it as you will.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The "community" decided to add the tail emission after Monero had been launched. It was, in fact, an argument amongst the community.  I was on the side of NOT adding it.  Not only do I not think it is neccesary to sustain the coin's security, but changing the economics in mid stream was a HUGE BLOW to the decentralization argument for the project.

You realize how bad that sounds, right? Humans changing the economics of an asset, just by their own will. This isn't a matter of consensus.

1.  He is a scammer or a fool.

He's the richest scammer. I can't unsee the fact that he has some strong economic ties with it while he makes statements such as "Dogecoin works better as a medium of exchange while Bitcoin is better as a store of value", or "Bitcoin has greater fees opposed to Dogecoin, therefore Dogecoin is better money", or even worse "Tesla will stop accepting Bitcoin, because it's environmentally damaging".

I know he knows. He's smart. But, he's also an asshole.

So inflation supports spending instead of holding.

Inflation doesn't necessarily support spending, it just supports it more than with the hard cap case. It depends on what you're pricing it with. If you price it in Bitcoin, it indeed discourages you to hold it as it'll, theoretically, cost less BTC in the long term (ceteris paribus). If you price it in USD, it's in favor of you to keep it.

Generally, if there's no production, the currency shouldn't be inflating. What concerns me is that the inflation rate was arbitrarily chosen. It was 1,000,000 DOGE, then it became 500,000, 250,000, 125,000, 62,500, 31,250, 15,625 and it's now generating 10,000 DOGE 'til eternity.

Also, why is that a valid argument? Say, I, create another fork of Bitcoin that I call it Dogecoin 2.0, and which inflates more than Dogecoin does, in the corresponding percentages. Did I just make a better "transactional" currency? (Note that transactional currency is redundancy; a currency is by definition used for making transactions)

[cAPSLOCK]

The "community" decided to add the tail emission after Monero had been launched. It was, in fact, an argument amongst the community.  I was on the side of NOT adding it.  Not only do I not think it is neccesary to sustain the coin's security, but changing the economics in mid stream was a HUGE BLOW to the decentralization argument for the project.

You realize how bad that sounds, right? Humans changing the economics of an asset, just by their own will. This isn't a matter of consensus.

I consider it one of the lowest points in the history of the project.  But I am in the minority on that score, I think.  And I think the loss of credibility that move installed in the record will come back to bite us on the ass again and again.

But I also think the project is important enough to survive it.

Then again, maybe I am wrong.  Hopefully about the former bit...

On ANOTHER topic... I have been really enjoying SOLO MINING via p2pool.  If I am not mistaken this utilizes a side chain to basically enable a solo mining pool.  Here are my recent payouts!  (Aside from the 2 consolodation fees, as well as that opne large transfer.)

Perhaps I should be careful showing the whole world how much Monero I hold???

[BlackHatCoiner]

[...]

What's the dust limit if it isn't $0.01? 

[smooth]

Your history is off.  The "founder" built XMR with a hard cap.  In fact we are ALMOST to the end of that original emission schedule.

That was bitmonero, a different project. When we forked bitmonero to create monero, it was clearly stated from the start that a tail reward was likely to be included. People had every opportunity to stick with bitmonero (or alternately do some other fork), for that or any other reason. The community that exists today coalesced around that fork, including the tail reward. ("Fork" in this context means code fork and project fork, not hard fork, though hard forks followed later and for all I know the bitmonero chain might still exist somewhere, though probably unlikely since it had critical fatal bugs. The tail reward itself is not a chain fork at all until such time as it is reached.)

I do agree it could have gone another way and not every single person agreed it was the best approach.

[cAPSLOCK]

[...]

What's the dust limit if it isn't $0.01? 

Well.  I do spend a few piconeros to consolidate outputs from time to time.

I suppose one downside to the project is you are virtually paid out of the coinbase.  There is as limited a middleman as possible and the coinbase it divided up into tiny chunks and sent out frequently.  As you can see I am getting payments about every 3-4 hours.  And they tend to be betyween .0003 and  .0012.  So once I get a few dozen of them I sweep them into a single output...  I *think* in monero you can sometimes run into transactions with too many inputs.  But I do not know for sure.  I am paying for space on the blockchain just to not have a bunch of mo-nickels.

Thanks to smooth for the history tweak.  I had sort of forgotten that some of the early folks DID intend to install the tail emission.  But there were some of us who did not as well... and some of those fought up until the time it was decided.  Wasn't Ricardo among those who were against it?  I came in to monero AFTER the few who forked it... but RIGHT after.

[sech1]

As you can see I am getting payments about every 3-4 hours.  And they tend to be betyween .0003 and  .0012.  So once I get a few dozen of them I sweep them into a single output...  I *think* in monero you can sometimes run into transactions with too many inputs.  But I do not know for sure.  I am paying for space on the blockchain just to not have a bunch of mo-nickels.

The most efficient way is to consolidate 100-150 inputs at a time, the fee will be ~0.8% even if all inputs are minimal 0.0003 XMR. If some of your inputs are more than 0.0003, fee % will be smaller. I think you can get up to ~190 inputs before the wallet splits it into two transactions.