Topic: Beware of so-called "anonymous" coins (XMR, SDC, AEON and DASH) - page 4. (Read 8629 times)

You just need to look at Monero block decline, see that GPU vs CPU is tied battle, first they promoted scam dash as anon coin now Monero, as it being primary CPU mined, like 90% is in hold of botnet mafia which rule the dark market, its not strange that thay gona pump something they hold
They invested zero $$ in mining it, so you can say its coin used for illegal stuff and the way its produces is also for main parties by using bot net viruses and stolen resources

I would never buy and hold this kind if CRAP, dev should fork it make it GPU or invent CPU con which could not be mined by assholes owning botnets

Say no to thieves say no to Monero!

There is currently just to much hype around these coins for me to feel comfortable investing much money in them.  These other "anonymous coins" like shadow has a broken coding system that doesn't even work.  The price of Monero as of right now is all just speculation.  Something frightening about Moreno is about how this coin does not scale.

The problem is exactly the "we have no idea".


Not really.  I agree that it is better than a limited oligarchy reaping in all the seigniorage, but in fact, the "sound money" part of bitcoin is exactly also the problem of another type of seigniorage: the increase in value which makes early adopters extremely rich in return for no production.  It is another form of seigniorage: the value upramping of a monetary asset.

Usually seigniorage has a more limited meaning, namely the gain you have when you create monetary tokens.  Ideally, a monetary system is nothing else but tokens that STORE value ; that is, they are a tool to translate value in time.  They should ideally allow you to obtain them against production/delivery of goods and services, and you can trade them against price-equivalent goods and services in the future.  The sound money doctrine comes from the idea that if someone can CREATE new tokens, he obtains "value for nothing" and that value is obtained by an inflationary tax on all previous token holders.  This is why the sound money doctrine says that the "amount of monetary tokens should be a constant".

Great.  But this makes the implicit assumption that the tokens came from "minus infinity": that we are already in "steady state", that the tokens already HAVE their monetary value, and that this has been going on since so long that we don't have to worry about how this value came into existence.  In fact, the sound money theory applies perfectly to GOLD, which has been valuable historically.  Of course, the sound money doctrine accepts that the price of a money token changes: it changes for two reasons:
1) the economy changes (expands: a token can buy more ; decreases: a token can buy less)
2) the market of offer and demand for "store of value".  At certain periods, people want to store more value (and tokens can buy more), at other periods, people want to use stored value (and tokens can buy less).

But on average, in the long run, the idea is that tokens can buy a given portion of the whole economic production.

This is in a nutshell, the "sound money doctrine".  It tells you that one shouldn't allow for "token creation seigniorage", because that is fundamentally unfair.

However, when creating a new monetary system, you face 2 problems:
1) you have to create the tokens in any case
2) these tokens have to "ramp up" in value.

BOTH of these aspects are a form of seigniorage (although usually one only uses this term for the first).  BOTH are seen as problematic, because you "get value for nothing".  You will be able to obtain goods and services, without having produced goods and services. 

Now, bitcoin has achieved the feat of having solved the seigniorage unfairness of coin creation by PoW: the miner essentially has to BURN the value of his coin creation providing "useless" PoW, which serves to secure the chain (a "public service").  So in fact, COIN CREATION in bitcoin is inflationary, but FAIR.

But what remains is value appreciation, which is fundamentally UNFAIR.  There is no reason why simply holding a token for which you didn't have to deliver much or any value in the form of goods and services, would allow you to buy HUGE amounts of goods and services afterwards.  The "risk taking" is not to be compared to genuine investment.  With a genuine investment, you invest in the *production* of new goods and services.  That production can work out or can fail.  If it works out, you've CONTRIBUTED to economic growth, and your risk taking and the fact that it worked out is the reward for having contributed to *economic growth*.  But "holding initially worthless tokens" doesn't contribute in any way to "economic growth".  There is no risk taking in the sense of trying to improve economic growth (spending on capital, and losing it if no growth, and winning if growth).

So "having your initial bitcoin stash appreciate value" is another form of unfair seigniorage, which is in fact exacerbated by the "sound money doctrine".   Ideally, given that the unfairness of coin creation seigniorage is solved with PoW, there should be MUCH MORE inflationary depreciation in order to avoid the coin price to rise much.  It should of course rise somewhat, but ideally, the coin emission should compensate essentially for the market cap increase, so that the individual coin value remains more or less constant.  THAT would result in *ideal distribution*.  Nobody would get rich because of early adopter.  Nobody would "keep coins" and hodl, because a stash of coins wouldn't appreciate much.
So ideally, the emission curve should follow the market cap.  I know that technically that's impossible, but the way many coins are programmed, is THE OPPOSITE, which is exactly what makes all this speculation happen.
Coins should emit FEW coins in the beginning, and more and more when they 'catch on' and get used in the market (as CURRENCY), in such a way that the individual coin price should remain constant and relatively low.


This is a consequence of a bad application of the sound money doctrine which cannot apply to a "new" monetary asset, and whose theory didn't take into account that one could destroy creation seigniorage.  It exacerbates "value appreciation seigniorage" which turns the coin into a speculator's item, and not into a currency.

Sound money doctrine is good for a historical thing like gold.  It is not applicable to new monetary systems.  This is a fundamental error in bitcoin, and in most cryptocurrencies. 
Tail emission softens but doesn't solve the problem.  The main problem is that the largest emission happens BEFORE value appreciation, implying a huge potential for "value appreciation seigniorage", which is what drives most coin speculators, and makes that the coin will have difficulties becoming a currency.  It implies for instance the huge (speculative) volatility which is a problem for currency adoption.

Of course it can be stopped. If the market becomes bigger, then the true whales may show up. And by saying whales, I mean people like Warren Buffett. They can easily corner the market to consolidate their positions and allow steady growth.

EDIT: Or turn Bitcoin into something like USDT is at the moment.

At this moment basically every open cryptocurrency can be manipulated, pumped & dumped, nothing is immune to speculation anymore.
When money is at stake it is nothing strange.

Satoshi's stash is a side effect. We have no idea if it will ever be a problem.

As for "initial distribution" I am talking about fact that bitcoin initially was worthless. And you basically could earn thousands of BTC in the early years.
But people noticed its value and potential and it become valuable - that is ideal initial distribution, when dirt become gold on its own.

Unfortunately now BTC is being used as money making tool for whales and speculators. And it is not something that can be stopped.

This is exactly what I too wanted to point out.
On 31st August, I noticed a pattern in XMR pump and dump but no one seems to have noticed my post. Here it is:
It didn't drop that night because it was already September 1st although price dropped to 0.0148.
This pattern is a proof of pump and dump in itself.

Anyway, here's what I meant:



This is what happens when you are following the hype. It is a screenshot from a FB "virtual friend" who is "crying" on his timeline now. LBC is not mentioned in the thread, but can be included in the current hyped projects as well. What happened with others since I started the thread? Monero is down by ~20%, SDC passed $2.01, but it is now $1.27 and AEON lost 30% of its value.

Organic growth my ass.

P.S. Don't tell me it is a "price correction", please...  

I do not think the growth will be purely from speculation in the long term but you have to admit the price rise is indeed too fast. That movement is mostly from the traders and speculators buying and selling. If there is actual vendors accepting XMR now, will the volume be in the millions right away? Maybe it will but I would like to see that if it was possible to see it in a block explorer.

For me the merchants in the darknet have not reached transactions in the millions yet per day because XMR is fairly new. In a year I will not be surprised if it is.

You call 10% of the final stash in the hands of the inventor, "nearly ideal initial distribution" ?

Bitcoin is just as much pumped as all the rest, people are mainly trading it as betting token (sorry, "investing" in it), not to use it to buy a pair of shoes with.  

Bitcoin still does not have the "organic growth" we speak of. That is why it is currently impossible to do TA on BTC.

It's just that other currencies could be manipulated more easily. 

If you believe that growth of any coin beside bitcoin can be called organic then you are a dreamer. Every Coin beside BTC was created with one in mind - to be pumped.
Only bitcoin had nearly ideal initial distribution. Now people actually - expect that every new coin will be valuable while backed by empty promises and hopes...

Fiat money is not "flawed".  Fiat money is an IOU-based payment system.  IOU can be created at will.   What you mean is that fiat money is not a sound money system.  But bitcoin is not either.  Bitcoin is being printed (mined).  Yes, I know, one day it will stop.  But for the moment, bitcoin is inflationary, just as fiat is.

I think that what you mean, is that the problem with fiat is that there is seigniorage, while in bitcoin, seigniorage is burned in PoW.   I agree with that.  Bitcoin is a fairer system than fiat, where there is seigniorage when loans are made.

Creating loans in the fiat system is the equivalent of mining bitcoin, in as far as this is comparable.

However, the fiat "theft" by seigniorage is ridiculously small as compared to state theft through taxes.  Hell, people are worried about 'deflation'.   We're talking about percent-per-year level theft, while taxes are about HALF of production.

So what good is worrying about percent-level theft when, by abiding to law, you have to hand over half of your production any ways ?

It is not because of "inflation" that average Joe is going to use bitcoin (and for the moment, bitcoin still is inflationary, probably still more so than fiat).


It is in fact much more funny than that.   Cash is FED money.  Bank accounts are bank money.  These are DIFFERENT TOKENS.  Banks can make you think that their tokens are "FED money" only because they promise you to exchange them willingly on a 1-1 ratio, but they only have very limited reserves to do so.

Within their reserves, they CREATE as many bank tokens (IOU) as they want - and there's nothing wrong with that, because that is what fiat money IS: an IOU system.  Everyone could in principle make promises, and give them out as money, except that most people are willing to use those of banks, and not those of Jack, exactly because in the end, banks promise to exchange them for "real" FED cash in a 1-1 ratio, and *most people believe those banks*.


I'm not making any publicity for the fiat system.  I'm fully aware of how it functions.  But my point is rather the following: the differential advantage for average Joe to use bitcoin over fiat, *while remaining a law-abiding citizen* are essentially zilch apart from speculation.

Because "being a law abiding citizen with bitcoin" is exposing you to about the same troubles that you would undergo with simple fiat, without the ease of use.   The taxes on "law abiding citizen's bitcoins" are going to eat more of your value than the difference in inflation between fiat and bitcoin for the moment.  The volatility of bitcoin is way, way, way more dangerous than the inflation of fiat.

Also, don't believe that, if the state/bank system is in trouble, like in Cyprus, they will ALLOW law-abiding bitcoin holders to escape any haircut.  It would be too easy.  If there's a haircut on bank accounts (like in Cyprus), and bitcoin is "mainstream", believe me that they will consider bitcoin as "bank accounts" and REQUIRE their law abiding bitcoin holder citizens to hand over the same haircut in bitcoin to the state.

Again: if you want to be law-abiding Joe Average, you have no use for crypto.  And if you don't want to remain law-abiding, you need anonymity to a certain degree in crypto.

Bitcoin (as it is now) is superior to fiat money, because it cannot be "printed" as they are. No need to make deep analyses, because there are lots of materials, which explains why fiat money are flawed. I guess you know what the banks are doing with your money while they are on "deposit"? They are "using it" (on paper) to fund loans and such. Your $1 becomes $10 to them and they are happy with that. It is one of the reasons to look at you as "a freak" if you decide to pay in cash.

Use simplicity, it is the main "weapon" to make people like the average Joe understand what is Bitcoin. And you are using the Greater fool theory in number of your comments. Do you know that it applies to banks as well? The housing bubble is just one of the examples.

As anonymous as cash, because of course the aim for money is to be able to hide it from the state thieves syndicate, for two reasons: 1) not to have them steal it and 2) to be able to finance things they don't like ("illegal").

If you *don't* need/want to hide from state thieves, and if you *don't* want to do things that are against the wishes of the criminal syndicate that is the state and which is called "the law", then I don't see ANY utility of crypto.  Normal state-controlled banks and things like VISA are perfect for that.  Why would you go through the hassle of using crypto if you can do it with state-fiat and state-controlled banks ?

So adoption means when average Joe is fed up with his criminal syndicate and wants to gain his freedom again, and therefore you need anonymity.  Not much more than with cash.   Cash is good enough, but it is being outlawed.  You cannot buy a car or a house with cash any more.  You are even looked up weirdly if you try to buy an i-phone with cash.

Good old cash was anonymous enough, but it being outlawed, one needs something that can replace it for all those usages of cash where you don't want to do it with credit cards and bank accounts: THAT's the (only) user space of crypto.  THAT's where you can have adoption.  And that's about it.

To buy a perfectly legal and super-taxed coffee at Star Bucks, with your legally earned and super-taxed salary, and paying super-taxed VAT on it, there's no point in using crypto.  Use your VISA or your electronic cash wallet from your bank.  It is more private than using bitcoin.  It is safer.  It is less hassle.  And it will turn out to be just as cheap.

The only use of crypto is when the state syndicate and you are in disagreement over what you are allowed to do.  But then you better have some anonymity.


That is because banks do provide privacy (as long as that privacy is allowed for by the state).  If you use bitcoin, if ever you pay some coins to one of your friends, if they want to, they do a chain analysis and will find out for themselves how much you own.  And if they cannot do that now, there will be tools on the market to do so 10 years from now.  They can't do that with your bank accounts (unless they have state power).


In order for people to use bitcoin as money, it has to bring them something that they can't have with the financial system they have now.   I don't see what bitcoin is bringing to the average Joe, if it weren't some form of "protection from the state".  If you are all in with the state, and are a "law abiding citizen" (you know, the kind of people that watch the neighbours and call the police if they suspect their neighbours might do something, oh god, against the law), then what use do you have with bitcoin, that you can't have with VISA and your bank ?

Why have all the hassle with bitcoin ?  The only thing one can think of, is speculation (my kids will have coins worth $10 000 when I die - I hope they will declare them and pay their due taxes to our beloved state).  I have never seen anything where you can use bitcoin, and where you can't use VISA, if it is perfectly "legal".

So the only real usage apart from speculation and greater fool theory, is when there is some friction with legality.  And then, bitcoin is outright dangerous, and you need anonymity.

Because 99.7% of the current (shown) volume (~$65Mn)of XMR is on Poloniex and Bittrex. Se we have few scenarios:

1. People are buying Monero, because they have seen its usage on the DN markets (i.e. they actually saw it was heavily used).
2. People are "buying the news" of DN acceptance.
3. Number 2 + speculation.

Which one is it?