Topic: Could Monero replace Bitcoin soon? - page 15. (Read 33721 times)

Even price is at top currently i thought to bag hold few XMR. Price may rise few more to previous ETH 0.03BTC and may stabalize after thant. Darknet + monero seem really big news.

i doubt that this can ever happen with monero replacing anything, it is like any other altcoin with too much hot air.

but these days the pump of XMR is awesome and it is an excellent opportunity to take advantage of when the price is rising to make a good amount of profit.

Infinite divisibility voids this assertion.

Well, I consider that the "bad" aspects of banking are state-induced.  Of course, banks are on one hand private entities that want to make money, and as such, they want to get your money.   But in as much as they would be private entities in fair competition, a market would emerge for every service provided and the greedy ones would be out of competition wrt.  less greedy ones, as is the case in every free market.

However, banks have become, despite themselves, parts of the financial control of states.  Some regulation in the banking sector can be seen as customer protection, but most of it, especially KYC / AML is nothing else but forcing banks to be part of law enforcement.  That banks take fees and that this is some friction is one thing (but crypto also has this kind of friction).  The REAL problem is that banks have to comply to a regulation that is for 90% state interest, and only for 10% consumer protection (the funny games that led to the crisis of 2008 were not against regulation but against consumer interest - the Swiss bank privacy has always been a consumer interest, but has been broken because every bank in the world is now turned into some fiscal law enforcement agency of the USA.  The fact that you cannot freely deal with people through bank accounts is not because banks are playing it rough on their customers, but rather because they have to comply to state regulation, not in the interest of their customers, but in the interest of states.

This is why, even though bankers are a greedy lot, I consider that the main problem with banking comes from their compulsory compliance with states.  Banks are in a certain way enslaved by states to do their dirty oppressive stealing jobs.


I agree with you that the current price of an asset is the market's best guess of the future price, taking into account that it might make a mistake.  That is, if the market gives it a 5% chance that bitcoin will be $ 10 000 in "the future", the market price now will be $ 500.

However, and that is where our opinions differ, the market may very well estimate that *speculators* will have driven the price to $ 10 000 with a probability of 5% in the future.  In other words, the use of bitcoin as a currency may very well be estimated at essentially zero, as long as speculators now speculate that there will be speculators buying it for $10 000, they will pay $ 500 for it now.  Compare it to a random work of art.  If you think that with 5% probability, some people will estimate it at $ 10 000 in the future, you may very well be willing to pay $ 500 for it now.  Even though that work of art will never be a currency and is right now, nothing else but some coloured lines on a piece of canvas.

The current price is the expectation value of what one thinks future people will pay for it, but these too, may have their reasons which is not "currency".


This is a very valid remark.  But this finiteness of transaction volume might actually suit bitcoin in becoming a "store of value".  It is not suited to become a currency, that is true.  The finite transaction volume on the chain implies that one can only afford doing BIG transactions, with BIG fees.  This fits with the "speculative asset" aspect that bitcoin is having, over the "currency" aspect.

But as such, to me, bitcoin has lost its roots.  Very big amounts of value will be transacted on its chain.  Now, very big amount of value will of course always be scrutinized much more closely by states.  An open block chain, strict regulation, and an institutionalized aspect is, I think, the fate of bitcoin.  Not a thing with which you will be able to pay someone freely and escape state interference.

Bitcoin will be too expensive to be used as a currency.

That said, in the long run, block chain technology has a fundamental problem with large transaction rates per second in any case.  Monero too.  Even though the system allows it in principle, it is not practical to have a block chain with terabytes of data to be added every month.

I think the Lightning network is on something, but it is, like bitcoin, not mature enough to solve all issues.  Once you have a block chain, you can use it to guarantee off-chain payments, because you have some value at stake on the chain.  The way the Lightning network is set up is IMO not right, but there are good ideas in it.  I think we should look at how it evolves on bitcoin, to learn from it, and build something better afterwards.

I fully agree that the finite amount of money (a "sound money" purity) is more problematic than anything else, and that tail emission is a very good idea.

In the future, the bitcoin can be the reserve currency of the digital world while the Monero can be the darknet currency.

XMR cannot replace bitcoin but it is possible that it will gain a popularity as big as bitcoin. The darknet will be a catalyst of this. I speculate that XMR will later be considered the unofficial "official" currency of the darknet. That is a big market that will later amount to the billions of $. We will see drug cartels, terrorists, money launderers and other people who want complete privacy of their transactions to use XMR.

The problem is to get to fiat. That is where XMR and BTC will get their synergy. To use one, you have to use the other. I believe BTC will still be relevant because it will be the gateway and store of value coin for a long time together with XMR as the daily transaction coin that keeps everything you do with it private and secure.

Aha, it means monero is potential to be next bitcoin, it may. And I think its anon feature makes it special to privacy, dark net.

Exactly. Can't make ideas or knowledge illegal.  Therefore if you know how to encrypt and code cryptocurrencies... well you get the idea.

I don't want to be on the loose side of anything. Well, maybe Jenna Jameson (such digression)...

Hacking is illegal almost everywhere, but it happens almost everywhere -- as long as other cryptocurrencies are legal, it will be pretty damn easy to exchange it for value without the help of government sponsored exchanges. They'll have to ban them all to have any great effect, and even then, it's doubtful they'll get the controls you are hoping/not-hoping(?) for.

When it comes to the US Government I learned at a very young age that the best source of information with respect to their laws and regulations is the US Government itself, which is why I quote their guidance on the subject of crypto currencies. The same can also be said for many governments around the world.

But XMR is now 50M while BTC 900m.
So when you will get like 500m and volume over 10m $ it will bring attention,
when terrorist/drug dealers will start using it for real that will be end of XMR.
Today just one transport of cocaine is worth probably 50m ...

PS: Bitcoin is traceable is not such dangerous it's less dangerous than real cash ^^

Do you think that world powers will allow to use XMR on their territory ?
They will alow if they control it. When switzland doesn want to release info about some money transfers then some sad men
comes to Switzland and they have convinced them to make changes i guess they had "good" arguments.
Today because of money loudering you have more restricted laws when it will be needed all XMR exchanges will go down
they will impose good law and they will shut it down. XMR would exist p2p but you wont get any fiat window for it that will couse hard drop in volume.
If you want challenge a biggest superpowers and help terrorists with XMR you are on loose side.
And big Russia and China they don't want to much freedom for their people and XMR is problem for them too.
If XMR will be popular in terrorists group it will be shut down.

Interestingly one can legitimately argue that because of its lack of a premine and that there is no diversion of the emission to pay developers, promoters etc., Monero is one of very few crypto currencies that is in compliance with existing laws in the United States. To understand why I suggest reading the guidance from FinCEN https://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html. Then ask the question: How many other crypto currencies meet the definition of "de-centralized convertible virtual currency" under the guidance?

unbelievable... all the exact same arguments that were used in 2012 and 2013 against bitcoin are now used against monero...

very very very bullish!

best regards

The problem with that scenario: if you ban Monero by name, and do not ban its attributes, you'll end up with dozens of forked coins to take Monero's place--Monero doesn't break any laws, so laws would have to be made (and then designed around) to make Monero illegal, and the more specific the law, the more likely you'll just get a whack-a-mole scenario similar to designer drugs. Plus, you seem to miss that US law isn't world law just yet(China and Russia might embrace Monero or vice versa if countries want to go that route) and it's still impossible to keep people from downloading wallets or creating games that don't use Monero as game currency, but certainly give you the option to deposit XMR, move to a country where it's legal and then spend as you see fit (CK plug).

Yea if it will be so popular in terrorist world then all exchanges based in civilized countries will be force to stop trading it.
All people who will have open xmr wallet will be juge as terrorist and you will see that masses 10 person per day able to use XMR.
Do you think that any government will allow such tool to exist,they will put in prison for having XMR client in computer.
You will see liquid of XMR hmm bugattis which are sold once per year at dealer if goverment will ban such coin.
Terrorism is good ecscuse for them for more control in USA currently you can go to jail without court for forever because they suspect that you are terrorist.
If they target XMR as terrorist money GL to that coin. Dev will land in prison as well as it was with guys who was developing disk encryption.
They claim that disk encryption is weapon and he went to jail .
You won't hide with your xmr in hole dark net is nice marketing stuff but it can be really death blow at end for coin.

PS: A day when XMR would be popular in terrorist community its best day to sell IMO.

This makes some very valid points, nevertheless there are some areas where I have to disagree.

1) The state is by far not the biggest source of friction in the current fiat money system. Most of the friction comes from the actions of entrenched players such as banks, credit card issuers and other entrenched providers such as Western Union. These entrenched private sector payment providers are for the most part responsible for most of the fees and restrictions with electronic fiat payments today. I actually doubt that crypto will have that much impact on the state. We must keep in mind that in the 1950's and 1960's top marginal income tax rates were close and in some cases over 100% of income, yet for the most part transactions were in the form of cash and bearer instruments (bonds, stocks etc). The role of the banks and other payment intermediaries was greatly diminished when compared to today. Crypto in this respect is in fact turning back the clock by 50 - 60 years.

2) The role of speculators and investors in crypto currency is to anticipate the future value of a crypto currency due to market use under Fisher's formula. One would expect during the initial growth phase of a crypto currency that a very significant part if not most of the market capitalization is due to investment and speculation. This is both normal and actually necessary for the crypto currecny to function as money in commerce; however one must always keep in mind that the ultimate justification is the future value of the crypto currency for use in commerce. The market is simply attempting to predict this future value. In this respect Monero is no different from Bitcoin.

3) Bitcoin has a very significant problem that is completely orthogonal to privacy, anonymity and fungibility. This is of course the protocol limitation of the 1 MB fixed blocksize limit. Furthermore there no clear solution to this problem in Bitcoin that does not lead over time to a situation where the Bitcoin miners do not have an incentive to secure the network. Monero has addressed this issue with a tail emission. I must emphasize this. A Monero style adaptive blocksize without a tail emission such as is the case in Bytecoin, is a prescription for disaster.. This is why the blocksize limit in Bitcoin is so intractable, and why those in the small block Bitcoin camp also have very valid arguments. Bitcoin like coins such as Litecoin and Dash also have the same fundamental problem as Bitcoin here since they both have a fixed maximum number of coins. Dogecoin could safely use a Monero style adaptive blocksize limit since it also a tail emission.

Monero could over time overtake Bitcoin in market cap simply by taking over the growth in the demand for crypto that Bitcion cannot accommodate. This is because accommodating such growth while maintaining the security of the Bitcoin network, may well require breaking a fundamental social covenant of Bitcoin; namely the 21 million XBT limit. The privacy, anonymity and fungibility aspect of Monero would simply add fuel to the fire.

To me, a crypto currency is a means of doing something, of empowering your freedom of action, in this case, as a free means of exchange with no meddling in.  The freedom to produce value for others, and obtain value produced by others, without getting ripped off, hindered, or obliged to ask for permission to a set of thugs that call themselves the state or any other maffia.  The freedom to give that power to whoever you like, for the reasons that are yours, and yours only.

The need for a means of exchange is so essential in all economic relationships, that you can compare it to the bloodstream in a living being.  If you have control over the blood stream, you control the essence of the living being.  The state understood this.  So it takes full control of all economic exchange, by controlling, verifying, tapping 50% or so from, each and every little blood stream in the living body which is our society, and goes after everyone trying to have a drop of blood exchanged without its prying eyes and sticky fingers on it ; then the state goes on and labels these victims "fraudsters", "tax evaders", "illegal traders", etc... and turns them into criminals.

There have existed physical goods that were good means of "blood" that helped people exchange value: gold and cash.  But them being physical goods, they carry with them all the limitations and risks of physical goods.

Crypto is the first time a means of exchange has been invented that is as handy as cash (or almost so), and has not these problems of physical goods.  Bitcoin was a brilliant invention.
But bitcoin is mainly NOT used to do that.  Bitcoin is mainly used by people speculating on it, thinking they can get value from its increase in price as an early adopter (hodlers), or by trading on its volatility.  Most of its market cap is made of this, and not by being used as the tool in economic exchange without state meddling or state theft.  Bitcoin is mainly NOT used as the blood in the veins of free exchange, but as a gamblers (sorry, "investors") token in the big financial casino.

And bitcoin has a serious flaw in it, its traceability, if you want to use it to enjoy your freedom of exchanging value with other people, or giving value to people you like for whatever reason.

The part of the value of bitcoin that comes from "being blood in the veins of free exchange" is pretty small as compared to its market cap.

If you use a means of exchange SIMPLY as a means of exchange, it acquires a price, by Fisher's formula: P x Q = M x V, because you keep the finite amount of tokens during a finite time between two exchanges.  If I work today, I earn X value, stored in that means of exchange, which I spend next week for about X value in consumed goods and services.  This "X value" and this "one week" is what gives the means of exchange a finite price.
I will for the moment assume that dollars are a good indicator of market value (it is, in the short term).  There are 15 million bitcoin.  Imagine that on average, every bitcoin is held one week between acquiring it for some goods or services, and spending it on other goods and services.  Say, people work to acquire bitcoin, and spend that amount of bitcoin on average 1 week later.  So every week, 15 million bitcoin are acquired by working, and 15 million bitcoin are spend in this example.  Suppose that in a whole year, people earn and spend for 15 billion dollar that way.  That's quite huge, isn't it.  Bitcoin is NOT used that way, is it.
Well, if that were the case, then the dollar price of a single bitcoin would be 1 000 / 52 = $19.
Of course, if people would on average wait one month between earning a bitcoin, and spending it, if 15 billion dollar a year is earned and spend with bitcoin, its price would be about $80.

I'm pretty sure that is NOT the case, and if it is, the only place where that can be the case is dark markets.

This is why I say that the actual "currency" part of the bitcoin market cap is way, way below the actual market cap and price, which is mainly speculation, and not "earning them and spending them", the blood in the veins of free exchange.

The problem is that the state doesn't like that free flowing blood, and that you put yourself at serious risk doing so, and bitcoin is simply cryptographically not protecting you ; on the contrary.   The traceability of its open ledger is a privacy nightmare.

This is why I say that for an actual usage, as "blood in the veins of free exchange" you do not need the market cap of bitcoin.  You need a certain market cap, but it doesn't need to be as high as the 10 billion of bitcoin.  And to "replace bitcoin" in the veins of free exchange is probably not such a huge task either, because my impression is that bitcoin is not used much for that.  It was probably more used for that in the old days (on dark markets) than now when people realized that they are graving their transactions in the open for eternity.

I don't understand exactly what you mean. However, according to my understanding that you say that bitcoin is not going to be something that is bad for all things, for all that is in the bitcoin also already exists in other digital currencies, Bitcoin also appeared to help things that cannot be done by other digital currencies. And I think that for now the bitcoin yet into something quite pleasant, because it does not yet have a clear legal

The market cap is not the essence of a crypto currency.  There needs to be a market cap, but the height is irrelevant from the moment it is high enough to be able to "carry" all transactions you would like to.  It looks like bitcoin is more of a speculative tool (the hope of moon one day and Hodling on one hand, and trader's volatility joy on the other) rather than a useful currency to buy stuff with.   The part of the market cap of bitcoin that is actually used to buy stuff with must be really small (i'm talking about what Fisher's formula would give you, if you know the total amount of goods and services bought with bitcoin - apart from other crypto or cash of course - and the velocity by which a coin earned that way is spend again on goods and services).  A wild guess is that a single bitcoin would probably only be of the order of $10 or less if that was the only driver of its market cap, although I don't know.