Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 35. (Read 387526 times)

Programmatically? Source code available?

(Nice work, BTW).

Cheers

Graham

https://mega.co.nz/#!RgtBGYgL!Qg7n540VNadNhTa1eaIJj3xdDVCY79mqDROdfnjAI6c

I have parsed the ANN topics ...

I will continue soon, this is messy to explain...

I still don't believe these lists or calculations of concentration by address (as opposed to owner) mean anything at all.

One big factor is how much of  the coin is at exchanges (i.e. many owners, few addresses). Bitcoin has the best developed infrastructure for thin wallets, mobile wallets, hardware wallets, paper wallets, cold storage, etc. and is also somewhat less dominated by speculative activity (virtually 100% of activity for most alts) so it stands to reason that less of it would be held at exchanges.

That's a fair point, but it doesn't change the fact the over 70% of namecoins sit in 100 addresses, while that number is about 55% for vertcoin, 53% for litecoin, and about less than 20% for bitcoin (the most widely distributed coin according to these metrics).

I've never believed these "top N" addresses things to be worth anything especially for coins with known questionable mining that are going to face scrutiny for it.. The first thing a scammer would do in that situation to try to get away with the instamine (after claiming it to be an accident) is move the coins around to a bunch of addresses and claim they've been redistributed so the instamine doesn't matter any more. As long as addresses are free these lists mean nothing.

If you look at the top 10/100/1000 addresses

The author of that guide is vicious in his exposé, and only lists 14 altcoins as being "acceptably mined" (of which Monero is one). Nonetheless, most savvy investors agree wholeheartedly with him and can't fault the facts he demonstrates.

Using the same SHA-256 algorithm, their model gives only 10% of mined coins to miners and the other 90% to the Devcoin foundation to split amongst web developers, writers, and other creative content producers.

I currently hold BC and recently liquidated 33% of my holdings for XMR. I was curious as to why you hold these opinions regarding Blackcoin as I know none of these to be true. I realize this topic is trending towards Monero, but being that you're one of the reasons I have invested more in XMR, I thought I would ask. Thanks for your time.

So smart I couldn't understand what he says half the time, I'm not being sarcastic.

Smart guy, probably could benefit from getting laid a bit more. Hope he comes back!

BC
is designed a 100% premined pump&dump get-rich-quickly coin, which I did not touch when it was introduced to me in the early days of the first pump. Stay out (unless you like to be on the receiving end).

.. a gain of trust in Coin X would increase the ratio of Coin B/ Coin X,  even without a decrease in trust in coin B.)

except the increased trust in coin X would result in proportionally bigger gains for existing holders, considering the market caps, and decreased trust in B would result in proportionally bigger losses in Coin B?

Am i following or on another planet?

1. It's a definition. As long as you know the definition you can work with it. You might say that "Market Cap" is not very interesting in certain situations, and I would agree.

2. I could define Liquidity Adjusted Market Cap (a term I just made up) as the price times the amount held by any individual or coordinated group that can be sold for that price. Or perhaps the maximum of that quantity over all prices. So in your earlier example (not quoted above), the friends' holdings would contribute $10 each to LAMC and Z's coins would contribute $10, assuming there is liquidity to sell at most 10 coins for $1 (we don't really know this) and everyone is choosing to hold, for a total of $50. If there is liquidity to sell 200 coins at 0.50, the friends could sell 10 each (total 40) and Z could sell 200, making the LIMC at $0.50 therefore $120. Under the second version of my definition, given these facts the price-unconditional LAMC of the coin would then be $120 (but might be higher if the there is a higher maximum at another price).

Any similarity to Ripple, etc. is intended.

But for those scenarios the relevant quantity is market price,  not market cap.  Or, rather, (size of largest lot considered)*(mean price for sale or purchase of that lot).

The market cap is (market price)*(total issuance); why would total issuance matter, if only a small fraction of it can be traded at that price?

I have also said elsewhere that the Satoshi coins are completely ignored by everyone these days. They represent the single biggest problem for Bitcoin, if Satoshi is alive he is doing the worst he possibly can for Bitcoin by keeping those coins as they are. He should give away 95% of them to all active addresses and sell the rest right away.

Well, not quite what I was thinking. But the actual thought is difficult to express...

Let's say that the market cap of a coin is the measure of the trust that people collectively have towards the coin. If coin X costs $1, and people A, B, C, and D own it 4, 3, 2, and 1 units respectively, the market cap equals $10. This much money the people are willing to trust to be held in this coin.

If someone, let's say A, decided that his trust towards the coin has increased, and instead of $4, he wants to allocate $5 of his portfolio to the coin, he can go to market and buy more until his position is valued $5.

If the action happens without significant new emission (mining) happening meanwhile, A must buy from either B, C, or D. If one of them (eg. B) has listed a coin for sale at the previous price for whatever reason, A can express his increased trust with no change in market price (it was offset by the actualization of the latent decreased trust of B).

But if no one directly wants to sell their coins, A must bid higher to obtain them. If the others are strict with their decision to trust only $3, $2 and $1, respectively, worth of value to the coin, they sell when their coins exceed that value. In a case where they did just that, the following would happen as a result of one person deciding to trust the coin a little bit more:

- coin market value would increase by 10%
- A would hold 4.55 coins valued at $5
- B would hold 2.73 coins valued at $3
- C would hold 1.82 coins valued at $2
- D would hold 0.91 coins valued at $1
- a total of 0.55 coins have been sold to A for $0.60.

A paid only $0.6 to have his stack valued up $1, and others got free money + their stack is worth the same. Not bad!

In reality people often have more rigid price flexibility in this kind of situations, which means that they don't sell so eagerly. This means that price goes up even quicker, and the pursuit to trust $5 becomes easier.

OK - but the same works both ways. Let everything else be the same (ceteris paribus), but this time A has lost some, 25% to be exact, trust towards the coin, and wants to reflect his lessened trust so that his investment is no more worth $4 but $3. What happens?

Without a coincidence of someone wanting to simultaneously increase trust, A has to push the price down to meet the neutral reaction by the others ("X has come down, so it's good to buy low" - this reflects their willingness to trust the equal amount of $ in the coin regardless of fluctuations).

To reduce A's exposure in the coin to $3, the following happens:

- coin market value would decrease by 10%
- A would hold 3.33 coins valued at $3
- B would hold 3.33 coins valued at $3
- C would hold 2.22 coins valued at $2
- D would hold 1.11 coins valued at $1
- a total of 0.67 coins have been sold by A for $0.60.

I will continue soon, this is messy to explain...

I don't think that's right. Market liquidity doesn't need to be close to issuance, if people are choosing to hold for reasons other than lack of liquidity. Liquidity really only needs to be adequate for each holder or any group of holders operating as a group.