Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 136. (Read 387493 times)

Surprising how the Monero price is stagnating, even after last week's pump by the bagholders.

Always bet (small) on the underdogs 

To be honest, the fact that XMR can just pretty much insta-implement any improvements BBR develops is a major downer for my BBR support. It's not like Bitcoin where the chance of any modern innovation being implemented is close to zero.

What can you do though? In an open economy such as this when two or more currencies are on the same base technology the leader is always going to have the advantage up until the point where they become too big to risk any major changes(ie Bitcoin). And XMR is in such an early stage that they'll have no problems implementing any sort of improvements made by anyone to CryptoNote.

It sucks for any CN project other than XMR, but what can they do?

For the record I like BBR and think crypto_zoidberg is doing a great job, I just think they're in a bad position that will be hard to get out of.

Lets say Bitcoin jumps 100% tomorrow, will most cryptos jump with it?  Litecoin was the first coin that rode the bitcoin coattail offering not much added benefit.

Will the likes of XMR & NXT ride the next wave?

I say yes.  We are partaking in a market that Wall Street hasn't grasped yet and when it does our small speculative plays today could pay enormous dividends in years to come.   

I wear my  at night

https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/graphs/contributors
According to the number of commits, he is basically a one man team.

Suspected? LOL
Not that anyone would doubt his abilities - I got the feeling he is rather overrated than underrated because everybody says he is good from what I have read so far.

So it was on the right track but pumpers and the exchange somehow turned it bad?
I don't know what to say about bitcoin then, the amount of pumpers and exchanges shoving bitcoin down our throats is beyond compare!

What drawbacks?
You are now seriously implying that BBR will be a leading cryptonote coin?
You know that it is a highly unlikely outcome, right?
Please, have some common sense. I have nothing against BBR but let's be reasonable with our argumentation.

So is the future of Bitcoin either stagnation or civil war? There seem to be quite a few issues that appear to completely divide people. I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here, but I can't imagine anything but a 'war' resulting from any major change to Bitcoin that would require a hard fork. Minor issues get blown out of proportion already.

So... not having a feature that can't be ripped off by XMR is a problem?

BBR doesn't have a "sugar daddy" effect not network effect. It will get it's backing in soonish time.

Zoidberg is not a one man team. He is also widely suspected to have written major portions of the original CN coin. I also suspect he is thankful_for_today (could be wrong on this one), so he is never going to focus his energy on XMR. Instead he and his small team are working on just improving BBR all around. His work in not closed source, contributors are going to come to BBR just like they came to XMR.

Cheap current valuation is nothing to worry about. Accumulate and speculate.

XMR was on a terrific track until it started getting hastily shoved down everyone's throats by pumpers and a certain exchange. In due time BBR will rightly surface over the XMR drawbacks.

I give up trying to talk to you - you simply don't appear to actually read what other people write, and respond to some strawman argument of your own creation.

My post was very clear:  *A hard-fork is effective if enough of the exchanges, merchants, and actual users play along with it.*

And you came back and said "NO!  The users would have to buy in."

In the time-honored tradition of the Internet:  Plonk.

drawingthesun, do you still feel that way after reading Fluffypony's responce?

He's not saying that they'll never change technology of course, but I gather that the focus at this point is working toward stability with the current CryptoNote technology. Not staying on the bleeding edge of anonymity technology.

I agree with both of you. If you could really get "enough" of the users on board, miners would not want to mine a coin that has greatly reduced value for long, so the same incentives that cause altcoin miners (say scrypt miners) to jump around to the most profitable coin would cause more and more bitcoin miners to jump to the more valuable chain as well. Its difficulty might be lower for a while, but that would rapidly attract miners to the superior profitability.

However, in practice this "enough" probably needs to be a huge, largely unrealistic, percentage, probably 90% or more (possibly even something like 99%). I doubt you could even get 90% of bitcoin users to upgrade their software quickly even if it weren't controversial or risky. As I understand it, there are still people using quite old versions. It just doesn't happen.

Anything less than near unanimity from the users and you get complete chaos, with both miners and users unsure of what was happening, what was going to happen, or what they should do about it. The loss of value/stability/confidence in the entire thing would not be restored for a long time, if ever.

I see, thank you. Sounds like a lot of money is needed to keep current price

I wish Bitcoin devs believed you, so I could watch it crash and burn.

For example, if Bitcoin tried to change the mining algorithm to defeat ASICs.

You think users are going to risk sending their transactions to a chain with radically reduced hashrate? Do you think investors are going to support the chaos of splitting the coin and the collapse in confidence and value?

What holds consensus together is fear of loss from chaos. Otherwise everyone would go flying off in different directions already. Bitcoin is not a monolith of 80% agreement on all features. Rather it is "bite your tongue and adhere because you have more to lose from breakup". If you break that consensus in two parts, the incentive to adhere will be lost and people will go fighting over all their pet concerns.

Democracy is a lot like marriage in that facet.

I've never understood why people believe this.  It's simply not true.

A hard-fork is effective if enough of the exchanges, merchants, and actual users play along with it.

Miners are irrelevant.  The ones who continue mining on the wrong chain will simply be ignored by everyone else.

The "will be rejected by miners" applies to a soft fork.

No its biggest (first-class) problem is it doesn't have a single feature that can't be adopted quickly by Monero and which makes it extremely compelling "must have" coin. A team won't change that.

The second non-starter problem is the name isn't professional, i.e. it reflects on a lack of marketing.


From the little I've seen, the marketing guy needs to be fired unless I missed something major. I viewed thes short video explaining loss of unlinkability and that was well done. But there are so many total lapses in the marketing such as:

1. No compelling Buffet-esque moat, i.e. product management marketing interaction.

2. No significant effort applied to picking a name.

3. No target demographic identified and quantified.

4. No strategy.


With the qualifier "long-term", then I entirely agree. But you always need that Benevolent Dictator there to keep the consensus from falling into the pit of abject failure known as democracy, e.g. Bitcoin hasn't significantly innovated since Satoshi left.


Just keeping telling yourself that please.

If you are referring to not building a team at the opportune time after initial innovation, then I agree. But if you are asserting a small team can't compete towards break away innovation then I disagree.

When I was trying to use Adobe PageMill in Sept 1998, I got so frustrated that I decided to code CoolPage(.com) drag+drop WYSIWYG web page editor (from a Nipa Hut in the Philippines) and released it within 2 months. With a few months I had 1000s of downloads per week and had built one-click publishing to free hosts social networks such as Geocities and Fortune city. By 2000 or 2001, it had million+ downloads and 335,000 active websites (confirmed via an Altavista feature where I could list all sites by creation tool meta tag). I had blown away PageMill and their team. Note before that I had worked in a programming role with the Marketing and Product Manger Steve Guttman for what is now Corel Painter and he was the former Product Manager that brought Adobe Photoshop to fame.

Corel Painter was basically created by two guys Mark Zimmer and Tom Hedges. Mark coded 3D Painter by himself in a matter of weeks.

Back in 1986, I coded WordUp which was 5 x 720K diskettes of 90% 68000 assembly code mostly by myself and Mike Fulton.

Yes it is true that you need a team for very complex things. So if you can't simplify the creation of a coin, you will need a team. And surely you need to recruit a team (bounties) if you want to rise from release to a mature coin because there are so many issues to deal with on the development side.


But it may not be impossible to simplify the issues needed to release and innovate with one coding God.

Note I didn't say that is me. I just gave some examples of past success showing it isn't entirely impossible, although I agree with you it is unlikely.

The total coin supply for XMR is 18.4m (plus some likely small perpetual inflation to support mining) so the fully-mined market cap is 18.4m times the current coin price. That would be around $46 million. The current market cap is around $6 million so what needs to flow in is the difference: roughly $40 million.

My previous comments about speculative bets apply equally to XMR.

At his point I see all of these coins as purely speculative assets. Meaning people investing in them are doing so entirely as a bet on their future success, where such success likely needs to be fairly large (>>$18m).

So my questions would be:

1. Is there $18m of speculative money that could flow into such a coin that appears likely to become a success? I think the answer is yes.

2. Is the coin likely to appear likely to become a success? I have no idea.

It certainly does not seem impossible.

How much is monero's fully mined mkcap and how much money is needed to support price from miners selling pressure? Thank you

It's pretty obvious that Boolberrys biggest problem is, it has no team.
It's just one good coder and a marketing guy. I really give respect for there good work.
But its the truth, there is no long term success without forming a team.
"One-Man-Shows" in any business or (coding) project will always stay an amateurish level and have the great risk, of failing if this one man cant deliver anymore.

Its eg. just impossible even for an coding god (maybe e.g zoidberg of BoolBerry project) to outform an team of professional acting 7 or more good to very good coders (objective example Monero team).

Its fully mined market cap is $3.9 million, of which $3.6 million still needs to be mined, and thus, invested.

If you believe the price should be, let's say 5 times higher, you are counting on:

- other people will invest $18,000,000 to the newly mined coins
- this includes no current owners selling, and no additional value increase in the period of 5 years.

Really?