Topic: And another video: Changed my mind on Ethereum, Monero and Dash (Read 1503 times)
You need Litecoin on your list.
December 27, 2016, 09:36:18 AM
Hi Marc,
We pay for the security no matter how we organize who gets paid. In PoW, much of the payment goes to the production of electricity. In PoS, the payment goes to the whales. In PoS, we must bribe the whales with enough income that they have less incentive to attack the coin. So for example with DPOS in Steem, we pay the whales witness fees and let them dominate the curation rewards. In return, they don't attack the coin. In Nxt, we paid that dictator who recently took over the coin (I don't know all the details, but you can see the value was extracted out of Nxt by the whales at the expense of the smaller holders).
There is a more analytical and economically complete way of explaining this, but I don't have time to do it now. Maybe later.
What I have tried to do in the design of my upcoming altcoin is reduce the level of harm that control over the resources in the system can do. In this way, I lower the cost of security because the smaller holders are NOT disadvantaged as they otherwise are in both PoW and PoS. In PoW, the smaller hashrate is always losing income relative to the ROI of larger hashrate due to for example propagation. This is complex to explain, but it is in my whitepaper. In PoS, the whales are always profiting at a higher rate than the smaller holder. Thus those systems are a winner-take-all power vacuum over the long-term.
I will publish a design that proposes to solve this problem.
We pay for the security no matter how we organize who gets paid. In PoW, much of the payment goes to the production of electricity. In PoS, the payment goes to the whales. In PoS, we must bribe the whales with enough income that they have less incentive to attack the coin. So for example with DPOS in Steem, we pay the whales witness fees and let them dominate the curation rewards. In return, they don't attack the coin. In Nxt, we paid that dictator who recently took over the coin (I don't know all the details, but you can see the value was extracted out of Nxt by the whales at the expense of the smaller holders).
There is a more analytical and economically complete way of explaining this, but I don't have time to do it now. Maybe later.
What I have tried to do in the design of my upcoming altcoin is reduce the level of harm that control over the resources in the system can do. In this way, I lower the cost of security because the smaller holders are NOT disadvantaged as they otherwise are in both PoW and PoS. In PoW, the smaller hashrate is always losing income relative to the ROI of larger hashrate due to for example propagation. This is complex to explain, but it is in my whitepaper. In PoS, the whales are always profiting at a higher rate than the smaller holder. Thus those systems are a winner-take-all power vacuum over the long-term.
I will publish a design that proposes to solve this problem.
It is complex for me. Over my head.
I can only say that I don't think that Nxt going down in value is related to it's POS system. I think it's just selling pressure from people leaving, higher than buying pressure from people entering.
The biggest underlying reason I think is a stagnation in real world adoption of it's decentralised asset exchange.
Also POS is either not secure or hasn't succeeded in convincing important bitcoiners and cryptographers it is secure, therefore not seeing enough investment inflow.
Let's hope the followup project Ardor succeeds better in convincing bitcoiners it has a solution to their scalability problem and succeeds in attracting new coins/exchanges/dapps that build on Ardor.
What do you think?
Curious, what coins are you invested in?
Or do you deem worthy of risking some money in? December 27, 2016, 09:13:05 AM
I have been considering getting into monero but I have seen a weakness that I still don't see how they are going to deal with. Since they use dynamic blocksize, they are prone to ending up with an huge ass blockchain which means nobody will run nodes, and no, prunning and stuff is not enough, we need as most people running the entire history of the blockchain as possible.
I discuss this here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-can-xmr-be-more-private-than-btc-if-xmr-will-have-an-huge-blockchain-1729338
I think Bitcoin is/will be more private/secure than monero because they are taking the conservative blocksize instead of ending up with datacenters running nodes.
I discuss this here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-can-xmr-be-more-private-than-btc-if-xmr-will-have-an-huge-blockchain-1729338
I think Bitcoin is/will be more private/secure than monero because they are taking the conservative blocksize instead of ending up with datacenters running nodes.
This is a very good argument.
It is true that Monero will have a huge blocksize very quickly if it would succeed in growing in transactions quickly.
Considering their slow development cycle, this may quickly prove to become a problem.
However, it's a great problem to have, no others alts suffer from too little capacity ....
Thanks so much for sharing pereira4.
December 27, 2016, 09:06:12 AM
Marc, your intuitions on Byteball being better than Iota are correct:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPicDP-ehfU
It isn't just the better ethics of Tony, but actually something about the technology. My whitepaper will explain this in detail.
However, I caution you that Byteball is flawed and I haven't revealed all my analysis of Byteball yet. However you will find some of my analysis in the Byteball thread.
Also I agree with your initial intuition about giving coins away for free is a bad idea. I explained to Tony that when speculators get something for free, they are much more likely to just dump it since their cost basis is 0, e.g. AuroraCoin.
However, that can be a good way to pick up coins very cheaply in addition to the ones obtained for free simply for registering your BTC. So perhaps after an initial selloff period, it will eventually stabilize.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPicDP-ehfU
It isn't just the better ethics of Tony, but actually something about the technology. My whitepaper will explain this in detail.
However, I caution you that Byteball is flawed and I haven't revealed all my analysis of Byteball yet. However you will find some of my analysis in the Byteball thread.
Also I agree with your initial intuition about giving coins away for free is a bad idea. I explained to Tony that when speculators get something for free, they are much more likely to just dump it since their cost basis is 0, e.g. AuroraCoin.
However, that can be a good way to pick up coins very cheaply in addition to the ones obtained for free simply for registering your BTC. So perhaps after an initial selloff period, it will eventually stabilize.
Very interesting man, thanks so much for your validation iamnotback!
December 27, 2016, 08:45:59 AM
Marc, your intuitions on Byteball being better than Iota are correct:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPicDP-ehfU
It isn't just the better ethics of Tony, but actually something about the technology. My whitepaper will explain this in detail.
However, I caution you that Byteball is flawed and I haven't revealed all my analysis of Byteball yet. However you will find some of my analysis in the Byteball thread.
Also I agree with your initial intuition about giving coins away for free is a bad idea. I explained to Tony that when speculators get something for free, they are much more likely to just dump it since their cost basis is 0, e.g. AuroraCoin.
However, that can be a good way to pick up coins very cheaply in addition to the ones obtained for free simply for registering your BTC. So perhaps after an initial selloff period, it will eventually stabilize.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPicDP-ehfU
It isn't just the better ethics of Tony, but actually something about the technology. My whitepaper will explain this in detail.
However, I caution you that Byteball is flawed and I haven't revealed all my analysis of Byteball yet. However you will find some of my analysis in the Byteball thread.
Also I agree with your initial intuition about giving coins away for free is a bad idea. I explained to Tony that when speculators get something for free, they are much more likely to just dump it since their cost basis is 0, e.g. AuroraCoin.
However, that can be a good way to pick up coins very cheaply in addition to the ones obtained for free simply for registering your BTC. So perhaps after an initial selloff period, it will eventually stabilize.
December 26, 2016, 02:58:47 PM
It is quite clear to me what that is.
I thought that too: free money (free as in freedom, of course not as in beer).
That is not it.
Actually you may need to say a combination of network latency and bandwidth. Afair, latency scales exponentially slower than bandwidth and space (slower than Moore's law), as it has an fundamental limit given distance and speed-of-light. Moore's law may also have a fundamental limit given by Planck's constant or the uncertainty principle.
The physical limits on communication are so many orders of magnitude away from our current technological limits, that they don't matter in this discussion.
Learn to use a calculator please. You continue to waste my time with not well thought out posts.
Speed-of-light requires 1/7.5 of a second to travel around the earth. So that is 100+ms not counting the fact that signals don't travel in a straight line and pass through many routers and other delays. Now propagate that 150+ms across many nodes if you really want decentralization with 1000s of nodes in a P2P (not hub-and-spoke) network.
Without the P2P network structure, then greater hashrate can attain an asymmetrical advantage due to influencing propagation delays.
There are many details you are not factoring because you don't read the research. So I am not going to waste my time continuing to respond when you write more incorrect posts.
With 12 second block periods, 50% of the blocks end up orphaned because of this:
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/11/toward-a-12-second-block-time/
Really you need to stop until you do some math and read the research on these topics.
http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~yoni_sompo/pubs/15/btc_scalability_full.pdf#page=6
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/11/toward-a-12-second-block-time/
Really you need to stop until you do some math and read the research on these topics.
http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~yoni_sompo/pubs/15/btc_scalability_full.pdf#page=6
You're talking about today's technology. I'm talking about when networks will be able to blitter 1 GB in 1 second on average around the world. 20 years from now or so. When that technology arrives, and it will, then block chains are not going to be a hassle for scaling. And honestly, the technology will be here before the economics is here. 20 years from now, still 99.9% of economy will still be done in fiat (I don't know the number of 9 I have to put after the comma).
And then we will have a billion microtransactions per second, so the problem will have scaled up and still the issue remains.
And the latency isn't going to get much better because of the fundamental speed-of-light limiting factor. And even the bandwidth is not scaling as fast as Moore's Law:
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/
December 26, 2016, 11:06:03 AM
I have been considering getting into monero but I have seen a weakness that I still don't see how they are going to deal with. Since they use dynamic blocksize, they are prone to ending up with an huge ass blockchain which means nobody will run nodes, and no, prunning and stuff is not enough, we need as most people running the entire history of the blockchain as possible.
I discuss this here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-can-xmr-be-more-private-than-btc-if-xmr-will-have-an-huge-blockchain-1729338
I think Bitcoin is/will be more private/secure than monero because they are taking the conservative blocksize instead of ending up with datacenters running nodes.
I discuss this here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-can-xmr-be-more-private-than-btc-if-xmr-will-have-an-huge-blockchain-1729338
I think Bitcoin is/will be more private/secure than monero because they are taking the conservative blocksize instead of ending up with datacenters running nodes.
December 26, 2016, 01:37:57 AM
It is quite clear to me what that is.
I thought that too: free money (free as in freedom, of course not as in beer). However, the very big hurdle is the following one: fiat money is not free because the powers that be want it that way. Free money only seems to catch on in as much as it "complies". But then free money loses its edge over fiat. Complying with the powers that be is much, much easier with fiat than with free money.
I only saw one real use case: being able to gain economic freedom. But that is not compatible with compliance. And visibly, most people want compliance, and don't care about their economic freedom. The hassle and risk related to offending the powers that be by taking up one's own economic freedom aren't worth it, when one can join them, comply and play according to their rules, exploiting others. So the use case isn't that obviously scaling.
In fact, the amount by which you chop up the chain in blocks doesn't matter. Whether you process 100 blocks of 10 MB in 10 minutes, or you process 1 block of 1 GB in 10 minutes, has about the same network load, the same ratio of network time over PoW time. The only difference is that with 100 blocks in 10 minutes, you get much faster a confirmation of your transaction.
You really need to just stop lashing out at someone who is more expert than you, pretending you are an expert. You are obviously not doing the math. That creates acrimony.
For example, some delays remain nearly constant no matter how small the block gets. So the smaller the block time, the more disadvantaged the lower hashrate miners, because they will lose more of their time to mining on blocks when a new block as already been found and is propagating.
The hypothesis is of course that all these small offsets are to be neglected as compared to the bulk of course. You should have looked at my orders of magnitude. I'm in high speed data acquisition as a professional, so I do know a lot about these issues. If you want to send blocks of a few hundreds of bytes, you run into these problems. If you send blocks of 1 GB or you send them in chunks of 10 MB (which you do IN ANY CASE, no nutcase sends a single 1 GB block with the risk of loosing it all if one bit is flipped over) the network protocol overload is nothing as compared to the bulk load. The chunking up in smaller packets because of lower-level network protocols is done in any case. When the smallest blocks we're talking about are still a few orders of magnitude larger than the chunks used by networks, by storage units, and by cashing devices, then there's no overhead.
Quote
With 12 second block periods, 50% of the blocks end up orphaned because of this:
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/11/toward-a-12-second-block-time/
Really you need to stop until you do some math and read the research on these topics.
http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~yoni_sompo/pubs/15/btc_scalability_full.pdf#page=6
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/11/toward-a-12-second-block-time/
Really you need to stop until you do some math and read the research on these topics.
http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~yoni_sompo/pubs/15/btc_scalability_full.pdf#page=6
You're talking about today's technology. I'm talking about when networks will be able to blitter 1 GB in 1 second on average around the world. 20 years from now or so. When that technology arrives, and it will, then block chains are not going to be a hassle for scaling. And honestly, the technology will be here before the economics is here. 20 years from now, still 99.9% of economy will still be done in fiat (I don't know the number of 9 I have to put after the comma).
December 25, 2016, 10:34:02 PM
Hi Marc,
I have limited time to post because family obligations during these holidays, so I may not be able to reply to all of your post until next days, but here is a quick reply to a portion:
I am not going to try to explain the nothing-at-stake issue in this response. Maybe later. It is also covered in detail in the whitepaper for the altcoin project I am working on.
I will respond quickly to the point about PoS not being cheaper than PoW.
We pay for the security no matter how we organize who gets paid. In PoW, much of the payment goes to the production of electricity. In PoS, the payment goes to the whales. In PoS, we must bribe the whales with enough income that they have less incentive to attack the coin. So for example with DPOS in Steem, we pay the whales witness fees and let them dominate the curation rewards. In return, they don't attack the coin. In Nxt, we paid that dictator who recently took over the coin (I don't know all the details, but you can see the value was extracted out of Nxt by the whales at the expense of the smaller holders).
There is a more analytical and economically complete way of explaining this, but I don't have time to do it now. Maybe later.
What I have tried to do in the design of my upcoming altcoin is reduce the level of harm that control over the resources in the system can do. In this way, I lower the cost of security because the smaller holders are NOT disadvantaged as they otherwise are in both PoW and PoS. In PoW, the smaller hashrate is always losing income relative to the ROI of larger hashrate due to for example propagation. This is complex to explain, but it is in my whitepaper. In PoS, the whales are always profiting at a higher rate than the smaller holder. Thus those systems are a winner-take-all power vacuum over the long-term.
I will publish a design that proposes to solve this problem.
I have limited time to post because family obligations during these holidays, so I may not be able to reply to all of your post until next days, but here is a quick reply to a portion:
Hey iamnotback, honor having u here
Truthfully, much of what you say is above my level of understanding.
I appreciate very much you validate certain points, and debunk others.
I really want to understand why POS is not good, but it's hard. The article you linked is way too complex for me. If you are able to explain it in simpler terms I would value that highly. How can POS be more expensive than POW? Nxt has zero inflation, only pays validators with the low transaction fees and network is securely running for 3 years now. Are they using tricks or cheats that fool only non technical people but not cryptographic experts?
Truthfully, much of what you say is above my level of understanding.
I appreciate very much you validate certain points, and debunk others.
I really want to understand why POS is not good, but it's hard. The article you linked is way too complex for me. If you are able to explain it in simpler terms I would value that highly. How can POS be more expensive than POW? Nxt has zero inflation, only pays validators with the low transaction fees and network is securely running for 3 years now. Are they using tricks or cheats that fool only non technical people but not cryptographic experts?
I am not going to try to explain the nothing-at-stake issue in this response. Maybe later. It is also covered in detail in the whitepaper for the altcoin project I am working on.
I will respond quickly to the point about PoS not being cheaper than PoW.
We pay for the security no matter how we organize who gets paid. In PoW, much of the payment goes to the production of electricity. In PoS, the payment goes to the whales. In PoS, we must bribe the whales with enough income that they have less incentive to attack the coin. So for example with DPOS in Steem, we pay the whales witness fees and let them dominate the curation rewards. In return, they don't attack the coin. In Nxt, we paid that dictator who recently took over the coin (I don't know all the details, but you can see the value was extracted out of Nxt by the whales at the expense of the smaller holders).
There is a more analytical and economically complete way of explaining this, but I don't have time to do it now. Maybe later.
What I have tried to do in the design of my upcoming altcoin is reduce the level of harm that control over the resources in the system can do. In this way, I lower the cost of security because the smaller holders are NOT disadvantaged as they otherwise are in both PoW and PoS. In PoW, the smaller hashrate is always losing income relative to the ROI of larger hashrate due to for example propagation. This is complex to explain, but it is in my whitepaper. In PoS, the whales are always profiting at a higher rate than the smaller holder. Thus those systems are a winner-take-all power vacuum over the long-term.
I will publish a design that proposes to solve this problem.
December 25, 2016, 01:43:34 PM
You're kinda trying to rewrite history here. You went through a i hate everyone in Monero and hope you die stage and then claim you told people to buy it, so it's more like you posted completely contradictory information on Monero.
It is a fact that I said to buy Monero before the blast off. My other criticisms of Monero were orthogonal to any analysis of the chart pattern. Please don't blame your conflation on me. That is your lack of mental acuity.
Btw, I also advised buying Monero earlier this year, before it had its massive rise.
I suppose someone probably already posted this chart. I had never looked at the long-term Monero chart before:
https://www.tradingview.com/chart/XMRBTC/3QZ1D3nD-The-Monero-Bear-Market-Is-Over/
That is impressive. Monero has broken out of the down wedge, which is very technically bullish. But that doesn't mean it can't fall back first to the historic support at 0.0017 BTC. And if BTC falls to < $150 as I expect, then that could mean Monero declining significantly and still be in the bullish formation as Bitcoin makes its final bottom and we start a new bull market in crypto (I subscribe to the theory that BTC is still declining from 2013).
https://www.tradingview.com/chart/XMRBTC/3QZ1D3nD-The-Monero-Bear-Market-Is-Over/
That is impressive. Monero has broken out of the down wedge, which is very technically bullish. But that doesn't mean it can't fall back first to the historic support at 0.0017 BTC. And if BTC falls to < $150 as I expect, then that could mean Monero declining significantly and still be in the bullish formation as Bitcoin makes its final bottom and we start a new bull market in crypto (I subscribe to the theory that BTC is still declining from 2013).
There were numerous other posts of mine where I made the same recommendation about Monero at around that time.
December 25, 2016, 09:52:25 AM
Copied this reply from the following linked thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17295418
Monero is apparently a solid alternative code base to Bitcoin clients. The people who have worked on it are talented and I presume the codebase reflects this.
Anonymity/privacy is reasonably important to some (probably quite small) segment of the population and if you think about it, even the marketcap of Bitcoin is tiny, so more likely than not the marketcaps of solid anonymity coins such as Zcash and Monero will continue to go up. And investors need diversification.
However, neither Monero nor Zcash have solved the hard scaling issues and the mass adoption markets. So in that sense, when people complain about the official GUI taking 32 months to arrive, they are pointing out the culture of these ecosystems and their inability to focus on being a Facebook killer or something of that sort.
Monero's ecosystem has been I think working on anonymous marketplaces, but that doesn't seem to be a Facebook killer or something that will impact the masses. But again, that doesn't mean the marketcaps of these solid codebases won't go up.
My point is crypto-currency is still a small world. Within that small world, Monero and Zcash are reasonably important. But neither scale out or impact the large world out there. When we have a mass adopted crypto-currency that also has privacy, then we will all be multi-millionaires for having invested $1000s in that development.
So buy some Zcash and Monero for diversification, but hang on to most of your BTC because it is going much higher. And make sure you take a $1000+ bet into that project that can scale out to the masses and has a valid mass adoption use case.
Obviously savvy speculators will do other trades such as buying LTC in October as I advised to do. Btw, I also advised buying Monero earlier this year, before it had its massive rise.
Those who want more profits try to trade between BTC and altcoins on a see-saw. After BTC peaks, then the altcoins go on a run up, as BTC runs out to altcoins. Then back to BTC or hold in dollars again. Repeat.
Also taking speculations on ICO and mined launches of best-of-breed altcoins has been a way to accumulate more BTC.
Smart money wants to build their stack of BTC any way they can and doesn't waste time with hands-tied-behind-back perma-bull, uni-asset ideology.
Crypto-curreny is an ecosystem. Not a monotheism. Leave the religion to the losers. Smart money is objective.
LTC (Litecoin) has the similar chart pattern as BTC. It has in the past followed BTC moves on a delay, with much greater percentage gains.
I would guess after BTC hits the peak of this move (probably at the handle of the C&H at ~$800ish), then LTC will blast off, if not before.
The following was written Oct. 27 when BTC was in the low $600s and basically on the day before BTC started its rise after bottoming from the Bitfinex hack:
https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/speculation-rule-buy-when-others-are-irrationally-pessimistic-cautious
Here is my one mistake recently, which I also had cautioned everyone that it was only a theory and could end up being wrong. And those who sold gold at mid-$1300s and bought Bitcoin in the mid-$600s as I advised in November, are smiling now:
I was wrong and here is my record:
Don't forget my published prediction of the silver move from $22 to $48, then back down to $25 many months before it happened in 2011 (and did you know that I got fucked over in the Philippines not enabling me to profit on my prediction! If I had my investment in an ETF, my sell order at the peak and short would have been honored! Not to mention that most of my metal was stolen by the only vault provider in Manila you jack ass, and there is no way to sue because they refuse to give accurate accounting!):
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23786.html
Btw, I correctly predicted the low of Bitcoin at $150 first time, and way before it happened. I predicted the fall from the $600s to $300s, and the $150 low. I thought it would deadcat bounce and then go to lower lows, because...
In fact, I mentioned it day before yesterday:
The gold to $850 is still on the table. Nothing with that has changed. As predicted, the dollar and USA stocks went up and the pound crashed towards parity as predicted. This is why gold is back down in the $1200s, on its way probably to $1050 again and lower (we might get a few more deadcat bounces along the way).
Sorry dollar up, gold down. That has not changed.
My mistake was assuming BTC was correlated to gold as a tinfoil hat asset. Because Satoshi even pitched BTC as gold in his whitepaper. And I know many of early adopters in BTC came from being tinfoil hats (including myself and Bitcoin millionaire rpietila). Btw, I had more silver than rpietila and had it not been for my problem in 2012 with my health and family breakup then I would have been poised to invest $100,000 in BTC at $10 in January 2013. I told rpietila to go ahead, but I told him I had been destroyed by events in 2012 and couldn't follow him. That is fate. But my destiny is not yet complete.
Any way, back to the issue at hand, you should remember that in this thread, I told everyone numerous times that it was my theory that BTC might be correlated to gold, but that I wasn't sure and that I could be wrong. And so I was wrong, but I also admitted at the time that I wasn't sure.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17295418
Monero is apparently a solid alternative code base to Bitcoin clients. The people who have worked on it are talented and I presume the codebase reflects this.
Anonymity/privacy is reasonably important to some (probably quite small) segment of the population and if you think about it, even the marketcap of Bitcoin is tiny, so more likely than not the marketcaps of solid anonymity coins such as Zcash and Monero will continue to go up. And investors need diversification.
However, neither Monero nor Zcash have solved the hard scaling issues and the mass adoption markets. So in that sense, when people complain about the official GUI taking 32 months to arrive, they are pointing out the culture of these ecosystems and their inability to focus on being a Facebook killer or something of that sort.
Monero's ecosystem has been I think working on anonymous marketplaces, but that doesn't seem to be a Facebook killer or something that will impact the masses. But again, that doesn't mean the marketcaps of these solid codebases won't go up.
My point is crypto-currency is still a small world. Within that small world, Monero and Zcash are reasonably important. But neither scale out or impact the large world out there. When we have a mass adopted crypto-currency that also has privacy, then we will all be multi-millionaires for having invested $1000s in that development.
So buy some Zcash and Monero for diversification, but hang on to most of your BTC because it is going much higher. And make sure you take a $1000+ bet into that project that can scale out to the masses and has a valid mass adoption use case.
Obviously savvy speculators will do other trades such as buying LTC in October as I advised to do. Btw, I also advised buying Monero earlier this year, before it had its massive rise.
I suppose someone probably already posted this chart. I had never looked at the long-term Monero chart before:
https://www.tradingview.com/chart/XMRBTC/3QZ1D3nD-The-Monero-Bear-Market-Is-Over/
That is impressive. Monero has broken out of the down wedge, which is very technically bullish. But that doesn't mean it can't fall back first to the historic support at 0.0017 BTC. And if BTC falls to < $150 as I expect, then that could mean Monero declining significantly and still be in the bullish formation as Bitcoin makes its final bottom and we start a new bull market in crypto (I subscribe to the theory that BTC is still declining from 2013).
https://www.tradingview.com/chart/XMRBTC/3QZ1D3nD-The-Monero-Bear-Market-Is-Over/
That is impressive. Monero has broken out of the down wedge, which is very technically bullish. But that doesn't mean it can't fall back first to the historic support at 0.0017 BTC. And if BTC falls to < $150 as I expect, then that could mean Monero declining significantly and still be in the bullish formation as Bitcoin makes its final bottom and we start a new bull market in crypto (I subscribe to the theory that BTC is still declining from 2013).
I actually find it funny how all the altcoin lovers that preach against Bitcoin being slow and not profitable enough, are now selling their so loved altcoins for BTC in order to benefit from the increase lately. 
Those who want more profits try to trade between BTC and altcoins on a see-saw. After BTC peaks, then the altcoins go on a run up, as BTC runs out to altcoins. Then back to BTC or hold in dollars again. Repeat.
Also taking speculations on ICO and mined launches of best-of-breed altcoins has been a way to accumulate more BTC.
Smart money wants to build their stack of BTC any way they can and doesn't waste time with hands-tied-behind-back perma-bull, uni-asset ideology.
Crypto-curreny is an ecosystem. Not a monotheism. Leave the religion to the losers. Smart money is objective.
LTC (Litecoin) has the similar chart pattern as BTC. It has in the past followed BTC moves on a delay, with much greater percentage gains.
I would guess after BTC hits the peak of this move (probably at the handle of the C&H at ~$800ish), then LTC will blast off, if not before.
The following was written Oct. 27 when BTC was in the low $600s and basically on the day before BTC started its rise after bottoming from the Bitfinex hack:
https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/speculation-rule-buy-when-others-are-irrationally-pessimistic-cautious
Speculation Rule: buy when others are irrationally pessimistic or too cautious
At the low of an investment, everyone is pessimistic and vowing to never "buy that shit". They panic or attrition capitulate to go massively short and sell irrationally.
This also seems to be the case on the way back up, especially a frustrating, meandering slow rise (after that $10 to $1000 moonshot in 2013 which is what everyone is lusting for), as pessimism causes people to find any excuse to give as to why "that shit still isn't ready for prime time":
...
Several crypto investors have complained to me about the (miners) wrangling over Blockstream's changes to Bitcoin, and even the potential technical clusterfuck of Lightning Networks.
This to me is indicative of the time to buy with both fists...
At the low of an investment, everyone is pessimistic and vowing to never "buy that shit". They panic or attrition capitulate to go massively short and sell irrationally.
This also seems to be the case on the way back up, especially a frustrating, meandering slow rise (after that $10 to $1000 moonshot in 2013 which is what everyone is lusting for), as pessimism causes people to find any excuse to give as to why "that shit still isn't ready for prime time":
...
Several crypto investors have complained to me about the (miners) wrangling over Blockstream's changes to Bitcoin, and even the potential technical clusterfuck of Lightning Networks.
This to me is indicative of the time to buy with both fists...
Here is my one mistake recently, which I also had cautioned everyone that it was only a theory and could end up being wrong. And those who sold gold at mid-$1300s and bought Bitcoin in the mid-$600s as I advised in November, are smiling now:
Those who have followed me over the years know that I have made some prescient predictions such as the Bitcoin crash from $1000, even the collapse to $150, and even the precise timing and $320 top of the bounce before the current one. In addition the following silver prediction I made:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23786.html
I have also stated that I thought that when gold crashes below $1000 (and likely below $850) this year, then Bitcoin would also likely get caught up in the contagion and sell off to below $150 perhaps back to double-digits. I had explained my reasoning in the past and the current indicators are:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23786.html
I have also stated that I thought that when gold crashes below $1000 (and likely below $850) this year, then Bitcoin would also likely get caught up in the contagion and sell off to below $150 perhaps back to double-digits. I had explained my reasoning in the past and the current indicators are:
I was wrong and here is my record:
Please remind how your prediction from last year of BTC@150 and gold@800 has turned out?
Don't forget my published prediction of the silver move from $22 to $48, then back down to $25 many months before it happened in 2011 (and did you know that I got fucked over in the Philippines not enabling me to profit on my prediction! If I had my investment in an ETF, my sell order at the peak and short would have been honored! Not to mention that most of my metal was stolen by the only vault provider in Manila you jack ass, and there is no way to sue because they refuse to give accurate accounting!):
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23786.html
Btw, I correctly predicted the low of Bitcoin at $150 first time, and way before it happened. I predicted the fall from the $600s to $300s, and the $150 low. I thought it would deadcat bounce and then go to lower lows, because...
In fact, I mentioned it day before yesterday:
My mistake was assuming BTC was correlated to gold, even though Armstrong never wrote that. That was my mistake, not Armstrong's. I realize now that BTC is correlated to safe haven liquidity same as the dollar and USA stocks.
The gold to $850 is still on the table. Nothing with that has changed. As predicted, the dollar and USA stocks went up and the pound crashed towards parity as predicted. This is why gold is back down in the $1200s, on its way probably to $1050 again and lower (we might get a few more deadcat bounces along the way).
Sorry dollar up, gold down. That has not changed.
My mistake was assuming BTC was correlated to gold as a tinfoil hat asset. Because Satoshi even pitched BTC as gold in his whitepaper. And I know many of early adopters in BTC came from being tinfoil hats (including myself and Bitcoin millionaire rpietila). Btw, I had more silver than rpietila and had it not been for my problem in 2012 with my health and family breakup then I would have been poised to invest $100,000 in BTC at $10 in January 2013. I told rpietila to go ahead, but I told him I had been destroyed by events in 2012 and couldn't follow him. That is fate. But my destiny is not yet complete.
Any way, back to the issue at hand, you should remember that in this thread, I told everyone numerous times that it was my theory that BTC might be correlated to gold, but that I wasn't sure and that I could be wrong. And so I was wrong, but I also admitted at the time that I wasn't sure.
December 25, 2016, 07:03:00 AM
Marc, I think you are correct. Anonymity is not a big market (and I am formerly @AnonyMint). But do realize all our crypto markets are tiny right now, so Monero could still have upside.
The big market is scalability and some use case that would propel crypto-currency into the mainstream.
I agree with you to be bottom fishing for altcoins (regardless if they are all imperfect) given BTC approaching a breather when it nears the ATH. I might prefer altcoins that are way down in price but have big potential with ongoing big ecosystem development ongoing. Steem may qualify for some of your requirements since it claims to scale more than Bitcoin and is targeting a mass adoption use case (although there are issues, liquidity is very low, and many who might want to cash out). Diversification of bets may be a way to play it. And don't speculate with all your BTC.
Note as transaction fees approach the minted rewards, PoW loses incentives compatibility and consensus diverges. As block sizes increase security decreases because propagation becomes a larger percentage of the block period. The math for this is in recent research paper. I cover all these details in my project's unreleased whitepaper. The block size debate is a bit more complex than your summary. Monero has not solved this problem, contrary to their claims.
Something that is a sort of a variant of PoS is coming back and will overtake PoW, but it is not released yet. (D)PoS as currently released is flawed.
I agree with your general conceptualization about the incentives of the core devs (and Chinese mining cartel which you didn't mention).
Marc aren't you the guy who had a Lamborgini or Ferrari you had purchased with your gains from Bitcoin? But you said you would be giving it up because of the cost to maintain and the BTC price had declined.
Disclosure: I own 5400 STEEM and I am developing an altcoin that posits to be the (near) "perfect" one you are looking for.
The big market is scalability and some use case that would propel crypto-currency into the mainstream.
I agree with you to be bottom fishing for altcoins (regardless if they are all imperfect) given BTC approaching a breather when it nears the ATH. I might prefer altcoins that are way down in price but have big potential with ongoing big ecosystem development ongoing. Steem may qualify for some of your requirements since it claims to scale more than Bitcoin and is targeting a mass adoption use case (although there are issues, liquidity is very low, and many who might want to cash out). Diversification of bets may be a way to play it. And don't speculate with all your BTC.
Note as transaction fees approach the minted rewards, PoW loses incentives compatibility and consensus diverges. As block sizes increase security decreases because propagation becomes a larger percentage of the block period. The math for this is in recent research paper. I cover all these details in my project's unreleased whitepaper. The block size debate is a bit more complex than your summary. Monero has not solved this problem, contrary to their claims.
Something that is a sort of a variant of PoS is coming back and will overtake PoW, but it is not released yet. (D)PoS as currently released is flawed.
I agree with your general conceptualization about the incentives of the core devs (and Chinese mining cartel which you didn't mention).
Marc aren't you the guy who had a Lamborgini or Ferrari you had purchased with your gains from Bitcoin? But you said you would be giving it up because of the cost to maintain and the BTC price had declined.
Disclosure: I own 5400 STEEM and I am developing an altcoin that posits to be the (near) "perfect" one you are looking for.
Hey iamnotback, honor having u here
Truthfully, much of what you say is above my level of understanding.
I appreciate very much you validate certain points, and debunk others.
I really want to understand why POS is not good, but it's hard. The article you linked is way too complex for me. If you are able to explain it in simpler terms I would value that highly. How can POS be more expensive than POW? Nxt has zero inflation, only pays validators with the low transaction fees and network is securely running for 3 years now. Are they using tricks or cheats that fool only non technical people but not cryptographic experts?
There was discussion over on Perry Metzgers cryptography email list on NXT:
Excerpt:
NXT and some others are written from scratch rather than copy-pasting. NXT is using proof-of-stake, which has several problems (such as resusage of stake in a reversal of the chain (history attack), selling and buying coins and then selectively reversing transactions to amplify stake, the fact that there's no incentive to only use it stake to vouch for a single chain (no guarantee of concensus), etc). Most proof-of-stake coins that aren't dead already have checkpoints in the blockchain managed by the developer (making it centralized).
I don't understand any of these criticism. I do understand better this video made debunking the nothing at stake critique:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzIl3vmEytY
Merry Christmas
Oh, and yes I am that lambo guy as you can see on my channel
I did almost sell the bull beginning 2016 after having lost a lot in the markets in 2014 and 2015 and seeing how much it costed in maintenance. I decided to keep it but stop driving. Then bitcoin continued it's rally and nxt/ardor also finally went up. So I said, let's roll! And then this happened: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2EaoMwPpqE&t=5s
December 24, 2016, 09:51:24 PM
Btw, if you are wondering how my design solves the Scalepolcapyspe winner-take-all power vacuum problem of crypto-currency:
Homeostasis
Homeostasis
December 24, 2016, 03:36:54 AM
Marc, I think you are correct. Anonymity is not a big market (and I am formerly @AnonyMint). But do realize all our crypto markets are tiny right now, so Monero could still have upside.
I think you all got that idea about "anonymity" backwards. "anonymous" crypto is not about secret agents, terrorists and shady markets (although they do appreciate it of course). People don't seem to realise how much LOSS of privacy open block chains imply, as compared to more traditional ways of doing things.
I hope you realized I was writing this same point many times before.
But IMO Monero's anonymity is overkill/heavyweight for the level of privacy most people need. And Monero doesn't have the other attributes that could scale to some mass use currency, such as instant transactions and scaling. Zcash is a much smaller market cap and has perhaps a better technology (or at least one worthy of competing with Monero).
And don't get me started on InstantX and Dash (did you all forget I found a high school level math error in their InstantX security analysis). Read my whitepaper when it is published. I make the necessary points therein about Dash.
The big market is scalability and some use case that would propel crypto-currency into the mainstream.
I think that the big market is finding a use case.
It is quite clear to me what that is.
Note as transaction fees approach the minted rewards, PoW loses incentives compatibility and consensus diverges. As block sizes increase security decreases because propagation becomes a larger percentage of the block period.
This is only correct if the increase in block size goes faster than the increase in network bandwidth. If block size doesn't increase faster than Moore's law, there's no problem
Your statement only correctly applies to the last sentence I wrote, not to the first two sentences I wrote. If you don't understand why, start reading here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16861492
Actually you may need to say a combination of network latency and bandwidth. Afair, latency scales exponentially slower than bandwidth and space (slower than Moore's law), as it has an fundamental limit given distance and speed-of-light. Moore's law may also have a fundamental limit given by Planck's constant or the uncertainty principle.
Also, if blocks get larger, the corresponding transaction fees get larger too. So minting a large block with a longer time can be just as lucrative as minting a small block.
Again you don't seem to understand txn fees are incentives incompatible. Study the game theory I have linked for you.
In fact, the amount by which you chop up the chain in blocks doesn't matter. Whether you process 100 blocks of 10 MB in 10 minutes, or you process 1 block of 1 GB in 10 minutes, has about the same network load, the same ratio of network time over PoW time. The only difference is that with 100 blocks in 10 minutes, you get much faster a confirmation of your transaction.
You really need to just stop lashing out at someone who is more expert than you, pretending you are an expert. You are obviously not doing the math. That creates acrimony.
For example, some delays remain nearly constant no matter how small the block gets. So the smaller the block time, the more disadvantaged the lower hashrate miners, because they will lose more of their time to mining on blocks when a new block as already been found and is propagating.
With 12 second block periods, 50% of the blocks end up orphaned because of this:
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/11/toward-a-12-second-block-time/
Really you need to stop until you do some math and read the research on these topics.
http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~yoni_sompo/pubs/15/btc_scalability_full.pdf#page=6
You think?
(that is my way of saying you have apparently not researched enough to know what you are talking about. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has them. What we need here are expert explanations with logical proofs and well researched rationale)
December 24, 2016, 01:09:35 AM
Marc, I think you are correct. Anonymity is not a big market (and I am formerly @AnonyMint). But do realize all our crypto markets are tiny right now, so Monero could still have upside.
I think you all got that idea about "anonymity" backwards. "anonymous" crypto is not about secret agents, terrorists and shady markets (although they do appreciate it of course). People don't seem to realise how much LOSS of privacy open block chains imply, as compared to more traditional ways of doing things. I illustrated this in several posts elsewhere, but bitcoin-like block chains *propagate* too much partial information. I gave the example of me, the plumber, repairing the toilets at Joe's bar, getting paid in bitcoin, and then offering those coins to Mary, my friend, who then gets a coffee with it at Joe's bar. Joe (and several of his customers) can now easily find out that Mary is my friend and that she got the coins from me. In NO OTHER PAYMENT SYSTEM such a lack of privacy is present. If you had paid me with fiat (whether cash or a wire transfer), he wouldn't be able to find out that I gave exactly his money to Mary.
What "anonymous" crypto does, is putting back some privacy into the block chain. People have been attacking coins like monero because of their inability to be totally untraceable when the NSA is after you. But that's not the point. The point is that the so-called pseudonymity of bitcoin fails when one can link all transactions, combinations of change addresses and new payments in one big, cluttered network that propagates all partial knowledge about individual transactions. Anonymous coins are not about being able to pay evil deeds without being annoyed. They are just about not being a tool that leaks partial transaction information all over the place.
Quote
The big market is scalability and some use case that would propel crypto-currency into the mainstream.
I think that the big market is finding a use case. Clearly, apart from betting and speculating, crypto doesn't go anywhere. The hypothetical case of me, the plumber, being paid in bitcoin for repairing toilets in a bar is, at this moment, still a fairy tale. That's also why it SEEMS that anonymity is not a market. Nobody cares, because bitcoin is, at this point, like most crypto, just a kind of backing of exchange IOU.
Quote
Note as transaction fees approach the minted rewards, PoW loses incentives compatibility and consensus diverges. As block sizes increase security decreases because propagation becomes a larger percentage of the block period.
This is only correct if the increase in block size goes faster than the increase in network bandwidth. If block size doesn't increase faster than Moore's law, there's no problem, and if the protocol is scalable (doesn't contain hard constants), then the time taken to transfer them remains constant and small compared to the time spend on PoW. Also, if blocks get larger, the corresponding transaction fees get larger too. So minting a large block with a longer time can be just as lucrative as minting a small block.
In fact, the amount by which you chop up the chain in blocks doesn't matter. Whether you process 100 blocks of 10 MB in 10 minutes, or you process 1 block of 1 GB in 10 minutes, has about the same network load, the same ratio of network time over PoW time. The only difference is that with 100 blocks in 10 minutes, you get much faster a confirmation of your transaction. Note that the PoW that "safeguards" your transaction is also independent on the block size/time ; only the total amount of PoW spent after your transaction secures your transaction, whether that's chopped up in 100 small efforts, or one big one, is indifferent. Of course, 1 GB of transactions in 10 minutes is only, as you rightly point out, reasonable if we can blitter 1 GB to China, to Brazil, and back in, say, less than a minute. Which will happen, according to Moore's law, at a certain point in the near future.
In fact, I think that continuous forking of important coins into several competitive ones can also solve the scaling issue. Look at ETH. Not that they have a scaling issue at the moment, but the ETH network just doubled when it split into ETH and ETC. If such kind of forking would happen continuously (say, on average once a year), we would get many competitive coins with similar user basis, and be able to distribute the load over several independent networks. Exchange points (preferentially decentralized but even if they are centralized that's not a problem) would get us from one chain to another ; like we now have different fiat currencies. Market forces would put prices on the different networks. Note that for "hodlers" that would be a night mare, but for use as a currency, that's no problem. It would also create enough inflationary pressure to keep the price of coins down, and stop the silly speculation.
December 23, 2016, 11:11:11 PM
Marc you misunderstand economics. PoS is not cheaper than PoW:
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
This will be explained in much more detail in my whitepaper.
I think what you mean to say is the costs for security in PoS are not expended as waste heat (instead for example we pay for security in terms of needing to be debased by the whales otherwise they can wreck the coin and short it, because they have nothing-at-stake).
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
This will be explained in much more detail in my whitepaper.
I think what you mean to say is the costs for security in PoS are not expended as waste heat (instead for example we pay for security in terms of needing to be debased by the whales otherwise they can wreck the coin and short it, because they have nothing-at-stake).
December 23, 2016, 10:18:30 PM
Marc, I think you are correct. Anonymity is not a big market (and I am formerly @AnonyMint). But do realize all our crypto markets are tiny right now, so Monero could still have upside.
The big market is scalability and some use case that would propel crypto-currency into the mainstream.
I agree with you to be bottom fishing for altcoins (regardless if they are all imperfect) given BTC approaching a breather when it nears the ATH. I might prefer altcoins that are way down in price but have big potential with ongoing big ecosystem development ongoing. Steem may qualify for some of your requirements since it claims to scale more than Bitcoin and is targeting a mass adoption use case (although there are issues, liquidity is very low, and many who might want to cash out). Diversification of bets may be a way to play it. And don't speculate with all your BTC.
Note as transaction fees approach the minted rewards, PoW loses incentives compatibility and consensus diverges. As block sizes increase security decreases because propagation becomes a larger percentage of the block period. The math for this is in recent research paper. I cover all these details in my project's unreleased whitepaper. The block size debate is a bit more complex than your summary. Monero has not solved this problem, contrary to their claims.
Something that is a sort of a variant of PoS is coming back and will overtake PoW, but it is not released yet. (D)PoS as currently released is flawed.
I agree with your general conceptualization about the incentives of the core devs (and Chinese mining cartel which you didn't mention).
Marc aren't you the guy who had a Lamborgini or Ferrari you had purchased with your gains from Bitcoin? But you said you would be giving it up because of the cost to maintain and the BTC price had declined.
Disclosure: I own 5400 STEEM and I am developing an altcoin that posits to be the (near) "perfect" one you are looking for.
The big market is scalability and some use case that would propel crypto-currency into the mainstream.
I agree with you to be bottom fishing for altcoins (regardless if they are all imperfect) given BTC approaching a breather when it nears the ATH. I might prefer altcoins that are way down in price but have big potential with ongoing big ecosystem development ongoing. Steem may qualify for some of your requirements since it claims to scale more than Bitcoin and is targeting a mass adoption use case (although there are issues, liquidity is very low, and many who might want to cash out). Diversification of bets may be a way to play it. And don't speculate with all your BTC.
Note as transaction fees approach the minted rewards, PoW loses incentives compatibility and consensus diverges. As block sizes increase security decreases because propagation becomes a larger percentage of the block period. The math for this is in recent research paper. I cover all these details in my project's unreleased whitepaper. The block size debate is a bit more complex than your summary. Monero has not solved this problem, contrary to their claims.
Something that is a sort of a variant of PoS is coming back and will overtake PoW, but it is not released yet. (D)PoS as currently released is flawed.
I agree with your general conceptualization about the incentives of the core devs (and Chinese mining cartel which you didn't mention).
Marc aren't you the guy who had a Lamborgini or Ferrari you had purchased with your gains from Bitcoin? But you said you would be giving it up because of the cost to maintain and the BTC price had declined.
Disclosure: I own 5400 STEEM and I am developing an altcoin that posits to be the (near) "perfect" one you are looking for.
December 23, 2016, 09:03:43 AM
Interesting, good points, I really appreciate you took the time to share that obit33
Glad to be of some service, if you'd like some more info about monero or have some extra in depth questions, feel free to ask them, monero has a very strong and helpful community:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/
http://monero.stackexchange.com/
https://monero.slack.com
for more info:
http://weuse.cash/
https://moneroeric.com/
and if you want to go really deep: https://lab.getmonero.org/ , very interesting though...
also the cryptonote-whitepaper from Nicolas von Saberhagen is very interesting: https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf
Btw: I totally understand you think xmr is expensive now... I bought btc @30$ in april 2013 and almost wet my pants thinking I was buying in waaaay too late... But I learned that if the fundamentals are there, and there's only a limited supply, crazy things can happen, so who knows?
best regards,
December 23, 2016, 08:42:41 AM
Hi Marc,
I'm not sure if you totally grasp what fungibility is all about. Monero doesn't offer 'an extra' as you say, it offers something totally different because of the opaque blockchain...
In cryptocurrency, fungibility is only possible with an opaque blockchain, I think this post might help you understand better: http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/1967/what-is-fungibility-and-why-does-it-matter
It's important, because now Coinbase accounts are getting closed because of coins that were used in 'shady' transactions 3 transactions ago... So bitcoin is not fungible today, transactions can be traced, 1 bitcoin != 1 bitcoin...
Scaleability: monero does have the dynamic blocksize so blocks don't become 'full', combined with the tail-emission. I'm not sure there will really be an issue with scaleability for the blockchain, since storage capacity is becoming very cheap: http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/1917/dynamic-block-size-drawbacks
I don't think developers and marketeers should be paid by the network. The bitcoin-developers weren't paid by the network either and look how much bitcoin is worth now. I do believe in bottom-up grassroots-development, which leads to much more responsibility... Monero uses a funding system, where people have to make proposals, and only the proposals the community deems fundworthy are funded... this leads to responsible development and a sort of voting by the community.
Automatic payments can make the devs lazy, and can lead them to do whatever they want, they get paid anyway...
I won't talk about the other 2 crypto's because my opinion about them is rather negative...
I do like this article though: http://wmstudios.com.au/index.php/news/blog/102-monero-is-the-currency-bitcoin-tried-to-be
anyway, I wish you better luck with your further investments, thorough research is key imho...
best regards
I'm not sure if you totally grasp what fungibility is all about. Monero doesn't offer 'an extra' as you say, it offers something totally different because of the opaque blockchain...
In cryptocurrency, fungibility is only possible with an opaque blockchain, I think this post might help you understand better: http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/1967/what-is-fungibility-and-why-does-it-matter
It's important, because now Coinbase accounts are getting closed because of coins that were used in 'shady' transactions 3 transactions ago... So bitcoin is not fungible today, transactions can be traced, 1 bitcoin != 1 bitcoin...
Scaleability: monero does have the dynamic blocksize so blocks don't become 'full', combined with the tail-emission. I'm not sure there will really be an issue with scaleability for the blockchain, since storage capacity is becoming very cheap: http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/1917/dynamic-block-size-drawbacks
I don't think developers and marketeers should be paid by the network. The bitcoin-developers weren't paid by the network either and look how much bitcoin is worth now. I do believe in bottom-up grassroots-development, which leads to much more responsibility... Monero uses a funding system, where people have to make proposals, and only the proposals the community deems fundworthy are funded... this leads to responsible development and a sort of voting by the community.
Automatic payments can make the devs lazy, and can lead them to do whatever they want, they get paid anyway...
I won't talk about the other 2 crypto's because my opinion about them is rather negative...
I do like this article though: http://wmstudios.com.au/index.php/news/blog/102-monero-is-the-currency-bitcoin-tried-to-be
anyway, I wish you better luck with your further investments, thorough research is key imho...
best regards
Interesting, good points, I really appreciate you took the time to share that obit33
December 23, 2016, 07:58:12 AM
Hi Marc,
I'm not sure if you totally grasp what fungibility is all about. Monero doesn't offer 'an extra' as you say, it offers something totally different because of the opaque blockchain...
In cryptocurrency, fungibility is only possible with an opaque blockchain, I think this post might help you understand better: http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/1967/what-is-fungibility-and-why-does-it-matter
It's important, because now Coinbase accounts are getting closed because of coins that were used in 'shady' transactions 3 transactions ago... So bitcoin is not fungible today, transactions can be traced, 1 bitcoin != 1 bitcoin...
Scaleability: monero does have the dynamic blocksize so blocks don't become 'full', combined with the tail-emission. I'm not sure there will really be an issue with scaleability for the blockchain, since storage capacity is becoming very cheap: http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/1917/dynamic-block-size-drawbacks
I don't think developers and marketeers should be paid by the network. The bitcoin-developers weren't paid by the network either and look how much bitcoin is worth now. I do believe in bottom-up grassroots-development, which leads to much more responsibility... Monero uses a funding system, where people have to make proposals, and only the proposals the community deems fundworthy are funded... this leads to responsible development and a sort of voting by the community.
Automatic payments can make the devs lazy, and can lead them to do whatever they want, they get paid anyway...
I won't talk about the other 2 crypto's because my opinion about them is rather negative...
I do like this article though: http://wmstudios.com.au/index.php/news/blog/102-monero-is-the-currency-bitcoin-tried-to-be
anyway, I wish you better luck with your further investments, thorough research is key imho...
best regards
I'm not sure if you totally grasp what fungibility is all about. Monero doesn't offer 'an extra' as you say, it offers something totally different because of the opaque blockchain...
In cryptocurrency, fungibility is only possible with an opaque blockchain, I think this post might help you understand better: http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/1967/what-is-fungibility-and-why-does-it-matter
It's important, because now Coinbase accounts are getting closed because of coins that were used in 'shady' transactions 3 transactions ago... So bitcoin is not fungible today, transactions can be traced, 1 bitcoin != 1 bitcoin...
Scaleability: monero does have the dynamic blocksize so blocks don't become 'full', combined with the tail-emission. I'm not sure there will really be an issue with scaleability for the blockchain, since storage capacity is becoming very cheap: http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/1917/dynamic-block-size-drawbacks
I don't think developers and marketeers should be paid by the network. The bitcoin-developers weren't paid by the network either and look how much bitcoin is worth now. I do believe in bottom-up grassroots-development, which leads to much more responsibility... Monero uses a funding system, where people have to make proposals, and only the proposals the community deems fundworthy are funded... this leads to responsible development and a sort of voting by the community.
Automatic payments can make the devs lazy, and can lead them to do whatever they want, they get paid anyway...
I won't talk about the other 2 crypto's because my opinion about them is rather negative...
I do like this article though: http://wmstudios.com.au/index.php/news/blog/102-monero-is-the-currency-bitcoin-tried-to-be
anyway, I wish you better luck with your further investments, thorough research is key imho...
best regards
Jump to: