rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 24.

nakaone

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on September 30, 2014, 10:01:57 AM

Cryptocurrencies were meant to be means of payment; their repurposing as long-term investment has always been criticized by economists.

cryptocurrencies superiority comes from its neutrality a) as a store of value and b) as a medium of exchange of value. neutrality is meant in a way that they are free from an appraisal of a single authority. these authorities can be banks, governments or service providers.

it is yours as long as you have the keys.

nakaone

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: rpietila on September 30, 2014, 09:54:28 AM

Quote from: nakaone on September 30, 2014, 09:33:09 AM

Quote from: devphp on September 30, 2014, 09:31:20 AM

Quote from: rpietila on September 30, 2014, 09:25:01 AM

The supermajority (perhaps not of the people, but of the supporters of various altcoins) believe that the initial emission period should be rather short, to "get rid" of the pesky "inflation", so that the coin can "start rising in value".

I believe they are hoping in vain, because the "new money" not yet invested, does not see such a coin as a very interesting investment and do not buy it. So instead of a rise, a fall in value is the result.

The only way around this is to grow the real economy of the coin big enough, before the declining emission really hits. This can hardly be achieved in 1 year, so a considerable longer time before half is emitted should be the case.

How does "new money"'s perception of the coin change if the inflation period is long? I mean, what benefits are there in the long inflation period for investors? How is growing economy of the coin dependent on the length of the inflation period?

to put it simple you need enough inflation to network and as little as to keep it as a store of value in a foreseeable future.

What you said - the latter part - is exactly the fallacy.

explain to me how this shall work if a cryptocurrency which is issued by nothing but its scarcity and its function will be adopted without having a store of value.

I am not talking about a 7 days fast-mine pump and dump, but a design with a slightly decreasing block reward seems somewhat convincing to me

rdnkjdi

legendary

Activity: 1256

Merit: 1009

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on September 30, 2014, 10:01:57 AM

Quote from: devphp on September 30, 2014, 09:31:20 AM

How does "new money"'s perception of the coin change if the inflation period is long? I mean, what benefits are there in the long inflation period for investors? How is growing economy of the coin dependent on the length of the inflation period?

Nobody loves inflation, but few people regard it as a horrendous evil to be avoided at any cost. Normal people do not expect that a hoard of cash will keep its value, much less grow more valuable, by itself, over time. And, for the good of the economy, they shouldn't "invest" in cash or other "dead" assets: they should use their intelligence to choose productive enterprises, and invest in them.

Cryptocurrencies were meant to be means of payment; their repurposing as long-term investment has always been criticized by economists.

I think anonymint hit this nail on the head. The issue is not inflation it's how the inflation is distributed. Which is generally NOT to the people responsible for creating production (knowledge, workers, investors)

JorgeStolfi

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1003

Quote from: devphp on September 30, 2014, 09:31:20 AM

How does "new money"'s perception of the coin change if the inflation period is long? I mean, what benefits are there in the long inflation period for investors? How is growing economy of the coin dependent on the length of the inflation period?

Nobody loves inflation, but few people regard it as a horrendous evil to be avoided at any cost. Normal people do not expect that a hoard of cash will keep its value, much less grow more valuable, by itself, over time. And, for the good of the economy, they shouldn't "invest" in cash or other "dead" assets: they should use their intelligence to choose productive enterprises, and invest in them.

Cryptocurrencies were meant to be means of payment; their repurposing as long-term investment has always been criticized by economists.

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036

Quote from: nakaone on September 30, 2014, 09:33:09 AM

Quote from: devphp on September 30, 2014, 09:31:20 AM

Quote from: rpietila on September 30, 2014, 09:25:01 AM

The supermajority (perhaps not of the people, but of the supporters of various altcoins) believe that the initial emission period should be rather short, to "get rid" of the pesky "inflation", so that the coin can "start rising in value".

I believe they are hoping in vain, because the "new money" not yet invested, does not see such a coin as a very interesting investment and do not buy it. So instead of a rise, a fall in value is the result.

The only way around this is to grow the real economy of the coin big enough, before the declining emission really hits. This can hardly be achieved in 1 year, so a considerable longer time before half is emitted should be the case.

How does "new money"'s perception of the coin change if the inflation period is long? I mean, what benefits are there in the long inflation period for investors? How is growing economy of the coin dependent on the length of the inflation period?

to put it simple you need enough inflation to network and as little as to keep it as a store of value in a foreseeable future.

What you said - the latter part - is exactly the fallacy.

nakaone

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: devphp on September 30, 2014, 09:31:20 AM

Quote from: rpietila on September 30, 2014, 09:25:01 AM

The supermajority (perhaps not of the people, but of the supporters of various altcoins) believe that the initial emission period should be rather short, to "get rid" of the pesky "inflation", so that the coin can "start rising in value".

I believe they are hoping in vain, because the "new money" not yet invested, does not see such a coin as a very interesting investment and do not buy it. So instead of a rise, a fall in value is the result.

The only way around this is to grow the real economy of the coin big enough, before the declining emission really hits. This can hardly be achieved in 1 year, so a considerable longer time before half is emitted should be the case.

How does "new money"'s perception of the coin change if the inflation period is long? I mean, what benefits are there in the long inflation period for investors? How is growing economy of the coin dependent on the length of the inflation period?

to put it simple you need enough inflation to network and as little as to keep it as a store of value in a foreseeable future.

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 260

Quote from: rpietila on September 30, 2014, 09:25:01 AM

The supermajority (perhaps not of the people, but of the supporters of various altcoins) believe that the initial emission period should be rather short, to "get rid" of the pesky "inflation", so that the coin can "start rising in value".

I believe they are hoping in vain, because the "new money" not yet invested, does not see such a coin as a very interesting investment and do not buy it. So instead of a rise, a fall in value is the result.

The only way around this is to grow the real economy of the coin big enough, before the declining emission really hits. This can hardly be achieved in 1 year, so a considerable longer time before half is emitted should be the case.

How does "new money"'s perception of the coin change if the inflation period is long? I mean, what benefits are there in the long inflation period for investors? How is growing economy of the coin dependent on the length of the inflation period?

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036

The supermajority (perhaps not of the people, but of the supporters of various altcoins) believe that the initial emission period should be rather short, to "get rid" of the pesky "inflation", so that the coin can "start rising in value".

I believe they are hoping in vain, because the "new money" not yet invested, does not see such a coin as a very interesting investment and do not buy it. So instead of a rise, a fall in value is the result.

The only way around this is to grow the real economy of the coin big enough, before the declining emission really hits. This can hardly be achieved in 1 year, so a considerable longer time before half is emitted should be the case.

Este Nuno

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1002

amarha

Quote from: rpietila on September 30, 2014, 07:32:07 AM

My short take on this, is that the following must be considered:

- Perpetual network security (inflation must always be high enough to secure the network - typically only a problem in the late stage that most coins have not addressed)

- Perception of premine (BCN was rejected outright because the coin was 82% mined when it hit the public; IMO the same will happen with whatever coin and fully regardless if it has been "fair" all the time, the mere fact that it is used by a smallish number of people when it hits the latter part of its issuance is enough to convey this perception, even BTC is problematic in this sense already)

=> Therefore the optimal coin issuance should be either connected to the growth of its economy (which is problematic to do trustlessly, and has not been tried in any coin except perhaps emunie that I don't know about) or tailored to hit its mature phase only when the userbase of the coin is established.

I urge you to read it again because most of the pundits believe that exactly the opposite is good for the coin.

Sounds like the 'S' curve we were discussing earlier in the thread.

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036

My short take on this, is that the following must be considered:

- Perpetual network security (inflation must always be high enough to secure the network - typically only a problem in the late stage that most coins have not addressed)

- Perception of premine (BCN was rejected outright because the coin was 82% mined when it hit the public; IMO the same will happen with whatever coin and fully regardless if it has been "fair" all the time, the mere fact that it is used by a smallish number of people when it hits the latter part of its issuance is enough to convey this perception, even BTC is problematic in this sense already)

=> Therefore the optimal coin issuance should be either connected to the growth of its economy (which is problematic to do trustlessly, and has not been tried in any coin except perhaps emunie that I don't know about) or tailored to hit its mature phase only when the userbase of the coin is established.

I urge you to read it again because most of the pundits believe that exactly the opposite is good for the coin.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: Quanttek on September 20, 2014, 11:27:49 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: smooth on September 19, 2014, 11:49:52 AM

Quote from: cAPSLOCK on September 19, 2014, 11:47:32 AM

Quote from: binaryFate on September 19, 2014, 11:33:39 AM

Sorry, but this makes no sense. 5% of today's hashrate could 51% attack the coin.

Seriously, all these discussions lately about changing fundamental stuff just because people are not happy with the price are tiring.
Changing the fundamentals of a coin because you want an immediate increase in price is wrong. Given the stability of XMR despite the fact that it is everything but user friendly for the average Joe, and all the attacks, I'd say the fundamentals in terms of emissions are about perfect.

AMEN

You know what would be an interesting experiment. Actually trying it. Because my theory is that a change like this would make the price go down, exactly the opposite of what people usually proposing such changes intend.

No, I'm not seriously suggesting this for XMR, but I would love to see the experiment happen.

No you don't want to try it, I have seen this experiment happen before, it was after Dogecoin decided not to fix the emission limit, I remember some whales talked to the devs to reconsider at no avail, the result you see today, a dying coin with no hopes, with a community getting its fix of small good news and micro pumps once in a while. A coin need whale and investors.

I personally think inflation is an extremely important thing, that's not yet taken seriously. A defaltionary currency encourages holding (fixed supply, naturally increasing demand=rising price) and not spending, thus the holders hold on to it, until they spent it, which drives the cycle down and the currency will loose more and more rapidly value until it starts again to rise and the cycle of death continues, which no economy can sustain. Just look over at Japan and you can clearly see how much it has failed. While inflation may discourage holders and investors in the early days and drive down the price short teram, it is extremely important "to redistribute the wealth from the holders to the spenders" (Anonymint somewhere in this thread) to allow an exononmy to work properly. The only reason this is working out currently with Bitcoin is that it will take years until it is deflationary and so far it's inflation has worked out to great effect(?)

If bitcoin goes down in price more days than it goes up, but when it goes up it goes up more... then most days people ought to want to spend it, and only not spend it during those times the price is rapidly soaring?

infested999

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

Quote from: smooth on September 28, 2014, 04:59:03 PM

Quote from: paulsonnumismatics on September 28, 2014, 04:41:28 PM

Quote from: rpietila on September 20, 2014, 12:15:56 PM

If Bitcoin was fully mined, such as Quark, there would be nobody even remotely interested in buying it, and the price would be down even more, with no sign or prospect of recovery.

I must assume from that sentence that you plan to sell your Bitcoins in a near future, lets say when 18-19 millions are mined? And/or the plan is that by time BTC is 10-20 times worth more? what will prevent that price to plummet then? adoption? thanks.

The wide adoption should really be achieved by then, which would give a reason to hold it or buy it (for use). Otherwise it likely won't ever be.

When someone buys, someone else sells. Which translates what you just said to "give a reason to hold it or buy it or sell it".

puck2

full member

Activity: 234

Merit: 105

Quote from: Zer0Sum on September 20, 2014, 08:15:20 AM

Monero is a one trick anon pony... with... every botnet gunning for it.

You mean CPUs all over the world ensuring its security and strength?

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: paulsonnumismatics on September 28, 2014, 04:41:28 PM

Quote from: rpietila on September 20, 2014, 12:15:56 PM

If Bitcoin was fully mined, such as Quark, there would be nobody even remotely interested in buying it, and the price would be down even more, with no sign or prospect of recovery.

I must assume from that sentence that you plan to sell your Bitcoins in a near future, lets say when 18-19 millions are mined? And/or the plan is that by time BTC is 10-20 times worth more? what will prevent that price to plummet then? adoption? thanks.

The wide adoption should really be achieved by then, which would give a reason to hold it or buy it (for use). Otherwise it likely won't ever be.

paulsonnumismatics

sr. member

Activity: 265

Merit: 250

Honni Soit Qui Mal i Pense

Quote from: rpietila on September 20, 2014, 12:15:56 PM

If Bitcoin was fully mined, such as Quark, there would be nobody even remotely interested in buying it, and the price would be down even more, with no sign or prospect of recovery.

I must assume from that sentence that you plan to sell your Bitcoins in a near future, lets say when 18-19 millions are mined? And/or the plan is that by time BTC is 10-20 times worth more? what will prevent that price to plummet then? adoption? thanks.

umair9829

member

Activity: 72

Merit: 10

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 20, 2014, 02:06:02 PM

Quote from: Zer0Sum on September 20, 2014, 08:15:20 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 13, 2014, 10:22:23 PM

VIA tally = 17 Pietila Points

Monero tally = 18 Cool

VIA loses points for being small, but a tiny cap doubles more easily...

this poll is carefully crafted FALLACY designed to make Monero look good.

*** Posted by a hardcore Monero Stooge who is spamming the VIA thread ***.
Keep this toxic garbage AWAY FROM VIA...
All Monero references should be deleted from the VIA thread.

VIA is a great coin with a fabulous network and Gen 2.0 services rolling out...
Monero is a one trick anon pony... with no wallet, no security and every botnet gunning for it.

Peter Todd had tweeted that the base Monero code is "atrocious"...
Meaning it's a maintenance/security nightmare...
And would have been scrapped and .
re-written by professionals

You sound mad bro. Is it because VIA is crashing while XMR holds steady? Keep calm and nom cheap coins.

There are two wallets for Monero. You must be new here if you didn't know that already. Try reading the OP sometime.

The Monero pony's "one trick" of 100% real anon is a game-changer. That's why it's market cap is so many times higher than VIA.

The Monero devs agree with PT, and his statement was the result of being hired by them to evaluate the CN/XMR code.

The CN code is being gradually scrapped and re-written by professionals. Have patience grasshopper.

The Pietila Point Scale is objective, and I agree with all of its criteria for evaluation except for the ones which discriminate against small coins. But I'm not a whale of RP's stature and understand why he uses them.

VIA is just a clone of Counterparty, ported to a friendly blockchain instead of the hostile BTC one. Some say that approach is rife with conflicts of interest. And the fake burn for XCH was shady. Keep attacking Monero, and I'll write more about VIA's problems. Is that what you want? Wink

Thank you iCEBREAKER, I found lots of useful info in your post. I was wondering what the deal with VIA is.

I really like Counterparty but just like you said, the whole burn thing was shady. That and the fact that it is "hostile" to the blockchain keeps me out.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Zer0Sum on September 20, 2014, 08:15:20 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 13, 2014, 10:22:23 PM

VIA tally = 17 Pietila Points

Monero tally = 18 Cool

VIA loses points for being small, but a tiny cap doubles more easily...

this poll is carefully crafted FALLACY designed to make Monero look good.

*** Posted by a hardcore Monero Stooge who is spamming the VIA thread ***.
Keep this toxic garbage AWAY FROM VIA...
All Monero references should be deleted from the VIA thread.

VIA is a great coin with a fabulous network and Gen 2.0 services rolling out...
Monero is a one trick anon pony... with no wallet, no security and every botnet gunning for it.

Peter Todd had tweeted that the base Monero code is "atrocious"...
Meaning it's a maintenance/security nightmare...
And would have been scrapped and .
re-written by professionals

You sound mad bro. Is it because VIA is crashing while XMR holds steady? Keep calm and nom cheap coins.

There are two wallets for Monero. You must be new here if you didn't know that already. Try reading the OP sometime.

The Monero pony's "one trick" of 100% real anon is a game-changer. That's why it's market cap is so many times higher than VIA.

The Monero devs agree with PT, and his statement was the result of being hired by them to evaluate the CN/XMR code.

The CN code is being gradually scrapped and re-written by professionals. Have patience grasshopper.

The Pietila Point Scale is objective, and I agree with all of its criteria for evaluation except for the ones which discriminate against small coins. But I'm not a whale of RP's stature and understand why he uses them.

VIA is just a clone of Counterparty, ported to a friendly blockchain instead of the hostile BTC one. Some say that approach is rife with conflicts of interest. And the fake burn for XCH was shady. Keep attacking Monero, and I'll write more about VIA's problems. Is that what you want? Wink

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: TheFascistMind on September 20, 2014, 12:59:53 PM

Quote from: Quanttek on September 20, 2014, 11:30:04 AM

Quote from: TheFascistMind on September 20, 2014, 11:08:17 AM

I no longer want to short Monero. You can rest easier. What I found can be fixed (if it isn't already). I believe I found BCX's exploit, although it is possible I found one that is different than his. And I believe he is incorrect about it not being fixable. At first thought, I too also thought it was a "coin killer".

Note I haven't worked through one part of the math so it is still possible that I am incorrect about this being an exploit, but I think I got the key epiphany of the exploit which makes it is possible.

It is also possible that this was already thought of and mitigated. I haven't checked the source code to verify. This is all conceptual at this point.

Already messaged smooth, tacotime or fluffypony about this? I think it would be easier to work the exploit with the help of them or their mathematicians out

I prefer a quick payout and they can handle it from there.

I have other things to do and would like this done in the next hour or so.

Or I can signout and check back next chance I come up for air from my other more important work.

You will hear imminently

TheFascistMind

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: Quanttek on September 20, 2014, 11:30:04 AM

Quote from: TheFascistMind on September 20, 2014, 11:08:17 AM

I no longer want to short Monero. You can rest easier. What I found can be fixed (if it isn't already). I believe I found BCX's exploit, although it is possible I found one that is different than his. And I believe he is incorrect about it not being fixable. At first thought, I too also thought it was a "coin killer".

Note I haven't worked through one part of the math so it is still possible that I am incorrect about this being an exploit, but I think I got the key epiphany of the exploit which makes it is possible.

It is also possible that this was already thought of and mitigated. I haven't checked the source code to verify. This is all conceptual at this point.

Already messaged smooth, tacotime or fluffypony about this? I think it would be easier to work the exploit with the help of them or their mathematicians out

I prefer a quick payout and they can handle it from there.

I have other things to do and would like this done in the next hour or so.

Or I can signout and check back next chance I come up for air from my other more important work.

uufgh

newbie

Activity: 10

Merit: 0

Some people are just looking for excuses to start a fight. Either they are naturally childish and belligerent or they deliberately try to divide and spread FUD.

Now wonder who have interest to weaken both XMR and BBR communities by playing them off against each other...

Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 24. (Read 387542 times)