Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 36. (Read 387526 times)

Good point. I am about to continue explaining that tenet next, or perhaps you can since you started already.

My great idea is to define the market cap of a liquid monetary commodity, to be the sum total of the trust towards it.

And then tell why the attacks towards Monero might have unintended consequences because not only they affect the trust people feel towards Monero, but also how they feel about other coins, whose "fanboiz" may be behind the attacks. In the hypothetical case that Bitcoin Foundation and BCT devteam were behind the attack, this would cause significant damage to Bitcoin. Why? The 10-15k holders of XMR collectively trust it only $6 million. But the same guys trust Bitcoin up to $100s of millions. If they decide to sell this stash out of fear or retaliation, the price would be destroyed.

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.

Is the market cap a variable worth considering?

Person Z,  creator of the X coin, mined 1 trillion coins in the first hour after creating the currency.  After giving out those 10 coins to A, B, C, and D for free, he sold one coin to himself for 1$.  Presto, the market cap is 1 trillion $, and his friends's hoards are worth 10$...

Market cap is a meaningful concept for items whose market liquidity is close to the total issuance.  If all owners of Apple stock (or even gold) were somehow forced to sell all their holdings on market within one year, their total revenue would be fairly close to the market cap.   That is not true for cryptocurrencies, not even for bitcoin.

Perhaps you meant to say that A, B, C, and D bought their coins at 1$?  In that case one should exclude from the "market cap" any large hoards acquired well below market price? Or replace market cap by total invested capital (sum of the dollar amounts that current owners paid for their coins, plus interest perhaps)?

EDIT: I take back the "even gold".  I have no idea of what woudl happen to gold price in that scenario.

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...

And they're right.

LOL

Every community thinks it has the answers.

Monero appeals to early/larger bitcoin holders far more than other alts (for reasons I've outlined several times (possibly in this thread; I honestly don't recall)). But I'd say quite a few from that demographic consider the alt-subforum to mostly be a cesspool of charlatans and shallow thinkers which is best avoided, so I wouldn't expect much posting here from that set.

Looks like you forgot a few points in your post there so I went and fixed it up for you.

MEW?

Monero is differentiated from other fantasmic Alt coins by the following:

None that I know of. But I'm sure there's a few.  I guess the only way to confirm this would be a signed message followed by a specific XMR transaction. Otherwise we will just have to take the mans word.

OP has predicted a 1000x fiat-denominated gain in Monero (equates to a ~35 billion dollar market cap after all supply is minted) here, so it wouldn't surprise me that quite a few people are attracted and have thrown a few btc down, especially after the recent price-movements with BTC.

I'm curious as to which large BTC holders are invested in to XMR other than the ones we know of from this thread?

Don't flatter yourself.  You don't have as much influence as you think.

Does anyone really believe that there are "leading threat" alt coins??? and that XMR is a contender? I must have missed something the last few months because alt coins seem to have evolved from a speculative dream land to viable overthrow-bitcoin strategy. For me, it all smells of outsized egos to me, similar to the smell of rotten eggs.

I would say that if alt coins have a prayer, someone should shoot all of them but one.

Well I definitely hold this sentiment lately, however, I am not so certain anything can dig into Bitcoin's mainstream momentum.

There are simply too many crypto choices and too many zealot communities to filter.

Every crypto has their magic tech, their super dev, their clever marketing, their awesome community, their fair launch, blah blah blah blah blah. It is a fun time to live in this wild west of digital money, but in the end picking a winner feels like heading to the track for the weekend. I doubt the actuall winner will have all of the attributes we may think you need to succeed.

Prisoners dilemma

It's a not so thinly veiled threat. In short;  What is being alluded to is since XMR camp is composed of large BTC holders, if certain competing CN groups attempt to attack XMR, the XMR camp will strike back by driving the value of BTC down (which generally crashes the value of all alts) , not to mention your 'unrealised' gains in fiat from whatever BTC you might happen to own.

Satoshi needs to come out of the damn shadows and contribute to his baby. Hiding and lurking is really unacceptable behavior. If he does not want to be a part of the process going forward then I will become Satoshi and he can give me his coins. See under my name for the btc address Satoshi. I'm calling you out!

Yes, the Satoshi coins are a big problem for Bitcoin's future. Having question marks surrounding such a large amount of the money supply effectively limits the growth potential with regard to serious investors like banks and governments. People like to ignore that for now, but eventually questions will be asked.

Bitcoin doesn't view itself in any sort of competition. The organizations and people that currently run Bitcoin collectively do not see Bitcoin as a business obviously, nor should they really. What effect that will have on Bitcoin in the long run remains to be seen. The market will decide all of that. But don't expect much innovation from Bitcoin. Bitcoin will probably just end up laying the groundwork for whatever currencies succeed in the long run. It will probably always hold some value unless there is some major technical issue or attacks.

The point is not that a few people can impact the price. The point is that old-holders are arrogant enough to use that impact as a threat on the community in general, and worse that anyone actually listens to them. Yes, the price would tank if big holders dumped. But it is those very holders that have created a cloud over Bitcoin. Old holders need to dump so we can get rid of their egos and their BS and their manipulation. Bitcoin will be just fine and would almost certainly explode shortly thereafter.

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.

Should the Bitcoin org be doing everything it can right now to stifle the competition???, absoFinglutely. But it should be doing so by doing its own innovation.

Better to be honest and upfront about it imo.

I think it's commendable that someone like rpietila is willing to be quoted in places like the Washington Post saying such things. It's like the opposite of what the Dogecoin people did. They sold a false fantasy world to people who had no understanding of economics or the crypto world in general. And that's why so many people resent a lot of those who pushed people in to Dogecoin so hard.

I don't know any exact numbers, but the amount of coins that groups like the Bitinstant four, |)ruid and associates, and other orginial stake holders have is a seven figure number almost certainly. I remember rpietila used to do research relating to this in an attempt to rank people based on their BTC holdings. I'm not sure if he's still interested in that now though.