[XMR] Monero Speculation

[600watt]

what is going on @poloniex/xmr ?

[1714866582]

1714866582

[1714866582]

1714866582

[1714866582]

1714866582

[1714866582]

1714866582

[oda.krell]

what is going on @poloniex/xmr ?

Probably suspended trading because of the attack. See:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg8664453#msg8664453

[nakaone]

I was in the exclusive position to hold my speculative part of my investment in xmr on mintpal during the fork - which was liquid all the time.

I thought about dumping this position - it would have moved the price from 42 to 34 or something with the intention to buy back at cheaper prices. I decided against it, partly due to moral reasons. Partly due to the retardedness of the argument to sell with the intention to buy back later.

the fork will be a performance benchmark for the nature of investment in xmr by population. My assumption is that it will go down, but much lesser than anticipated due to a huge (in altcoin terms) amount of the coins being an investment, not a pure speculation. that said this low prices will only last for a short period of time.

Maybe I am delusional and brainwashed, but from what I have seen over the last ten month in the altcoin scene, monero seems to be the first coin which has a realistic possibility to gain network effects.

[oda.krell]

I was in the exclusive position to hold my speculative part of my investment in xmr on mintpal during the fork - which was liquid all the time.

I thought about dumping this position - it would have moved the price from 42 to 34 or something with the intention to buy back at cheaper prices. I decided against it, partly due to moral reasons. Partly due to the retardedness of the argument to sell with the intention to buy back later.

the fork will be a performance benchmark for the nature of investment in xmr by population. My assumption is that it will go down, but much lesser than anticipated due to a huge (in altcoin terms) amount of the coins being an investment, not a pure speculation. that said this low prices will only last for a short period of time.

Maybe I am delusional and brainwashed, but from what I have seen over the last ten month in the altcoin scene, monero seems to be the first coin which has a realistic possibility to gain network effects.

There's nothing "retarded" about selling to rebuy later (if you know what you're doing), but agreed on the rest of your post: chances are, this will be nothing but a minor inconvenience, and, in the long run, a good test case actually for how responsive the XMR dev team is. I am of course assuming the exploit will be sorted out fast and without having caused lasting damage that is just undiscovered so far.

[nakaone]

well retarded was the wrong word, you are right.

the point is to make this move rational, you need assumptions that this works out as intended. if I had put the orderbook down to 34, I think it would not have worked.

[iourzzz]

Monero is 5th on Coingecko now. Fixing this little bug will make it even stronger in long run.

[oda.krell]

well retarded was the wrong word, you are right.

the point is to make this move rational, you need assumptions that this works out as intended. if I had put the orderbook down to 34, I think it would not have worked.

Completely agreement. You would have most likely created your own bottom to sell at. (Again, unless a fix takes longer than we expect, and price reflect that uncertainty and forms new lows when trading resumes. Not that I expect it, but it's a possibility.)

[Tisko]

Having seen similar and greater forking problems hit other cryptos (and even BTC) in the past, I agree that there's no reason to panic and in fact the effect might be even opposite (IF it's fixed fast enough) and the coin comes out being perceived even stronger.

So, couple of hours into this situation I was actually looking to BUY a bit more around 3.6 mbtc. Bad idea?

[Wexlike]

That was one of the best handled defenses i have ever seen against an attack !

Thank you very much monero devs. I will buy even more now.

[600watt]

monero`s not dead ?

[smooth]

Two coin wars posts deleted. Please don't keep bumping that subthread unless you are going to directly tie it to speculation.

aminorex...you know better.

[aminorex]

Two coin wars posts deleted. Please don't keep bumping that subthread unless you are going to directly tie it to speculation.

I mildly object.  It's not coin wars to raise factual, unbiased issues about the fundamental investability of the principal most parallel coin.

Moreover, you're creating the impression that my posts had trollish content.  Being controversial doesn't make them less factual or non-confrontational.

[smooth]

Two coin wars posts deleted. Please don't keep bumping that subthread unless you are going to directly tie it to speculation.

I mildly object.  It's not coin wars to raise factual, unbiased issues about the fundamental investability of the principal most parallel coin.

Tie it in then. Directly. Alternately discuss the investment angle but reference the scam allegations, etc. that are well covered elsewhere.

There was no intent to suggest trolling, just off-topic. Again tie it in.

[georgehosterguy]

Two coin wars posts deleted. Please don't keep bumping that subthread unless you are going to directly tie it to speculation.

I mildly object.  It's not coin wars to raise factual, unbiased issues about the fundamental investability of the principal most parallel coin.

Tie it in then. Directly.

My post was more concerned with the original source of CN and how it doesn't add up that CN Devs are Altruists as they wouldn't have had the close alliance with BCN.  And also that generally ground breaking tech doesn't come from scammy coders.

(Dropped reference to BBR)

[aminorex]

The bigger money is more risk-averse.

The development team structure is an area of risk.

Less confidence can be placed in an anonymous party than in identified parties.  Open-source code-review, if thorough, can dispell some but not all of this uncertainty.

The relative market caps of XMR and BBR are pretty well explained by the difference in team structure.

To make this point speculative, consider that CZ could identify himself at any time, or even just disavow the Sabelnikov identity, or more broadly, participating in bytecoin.

If he did, money flow to BBR might reduce moneyflow to XMR.

The market priced this so that the XMR-invest, BBR-hedge was nicely asymmetric, but now SuperNET has pumped BBR.  I consider that the hedge has paid off.  Thus I tend to short the hedge when it is overbought.  But when it all blows over, I expect the cheap hedge to come back, and I plan to make more use of it in my portfolio.

It was in this context that I provided these points:

What I don't get is the evidence / proof that he is / was the ringleader in the original scam.  Which I don't think there is any proof - only speculation from Monero supporters?  

I am definitely a monero supporter.  I don't tolerate misinformation, and when I am wrong I try to make sure no one was deceived by my errors.  I've never met anyone who didn't suffer from some degree of confirmation bias, however.

There is some reason to believe he is Andrey Sabelnikov.  The code style is arguably similar.  That may seem weak, but I know from my professional work that these things can be quite accurate.  I haven't done sufficient work to measure the accuracy of this one with error bars.

In general, he demonstrated a much higher level of mastery of the codebase much faster than anyone else.  There's no evidence that this results from the sort of 30-point IQ differential that would be required if he had no prior exposure.  In fact, there are both population statistics and anecdotal evidences to refute that hypothesis.  The obvious remaining adequate explanation is extensive prior exposure.

Few are really conclusively convinced by these arguments.

Do we know the code actually makes transactions anonymous?  Has there been enough review to determine that?

Yes.  The probabilities are well-defined, and computable in closed form.

EDIT:  This applies to the math, not to the implementation.  Substantial review has been conducted, but much more is required.

[drawingthemoon]

Disguised FUD from habitually incorrigible slanderer.

Objection. Reaching.

smooth, please don't allow it and feel free to delete my post too.

[iCEBREAKER]

The bigger money is more risk-averse.

The development team structure is an area of risk.

The market priced this so that the BTC-invest, XMR-hedge was nicely asymmetric, but now rpietila has pumped XMR.

What I did there, do you see it?

[smooth]

Disguised FUD from habitually incorrigible slanderer.

Objection. Reaching.

smooth, please don't allow it and feel free to delete my post too.

I found the revised post acceptable. Big money being averse to reputational risks and possible negative associations is a legitimate investment consideration as long as it doesn't consume the thread. Responses will be held to the same standard of relevance.

aminorex, please fix the formatting on your post

[aminorex]

rpietila has pumped XMR.

No doubt risto's buying has increased the clearing price.  So has mine, Goat's, and yours.  No matter who is buying, it's going to increase the clearing price.  If Risto weren't a net buyer, there probably would be another of similar size.  I actively recruit them, after all.
I only do it to the degree that I think they are healthy to have involved at the current liquidity level, however.

Using the word "pumped" is misleading.  It implies a dumping intention.  Risto has expressed an intention not to be a net seller.  I share this intention.  So do the investors I recruit.

[iCEBREAKER]

rpietila has pumped XMR.

No doubt risto's buying has increased the clearing price.  So has mine, Goat's, and yours.  No matter who is buying, it's going to increase the clearing price.  If Risto weren't a net buyer, there probably would be another of similar size.  I actively recruit them, after all.
I only do it to the degree that I think they are healthy to have involved at the current liquidity level, however.

Using the word "pumped" is misleading.  It implies a dumping intention.  Risto has expressed an intention not to be a net seller.  I share this intention.  So do the investors I recruit.

We may speculate on the motives of others, but actions are more important than intentions.

I too trust Risto, but my point was to illustrate how strongly your objections to BBR ascendancy resemble those raised against XMR.

Anything positive said about purely speculative investments like XMR/BBR will inevitably be perceived as pumping, so lets be consistent in our criticisms and praises.