Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 69. (Read 387552 times)

Makes sense.

Though, if I think COIN1 and COIN2 have both 50% chances of becoming #2, it makes sense to invest half in one and half in another (while keeping most funds in #1 anyway).

No, that's a clear disadvantage. But the target is to be seamless, like you download the client, it does all the denominations automatically and then you are ready to go. It'll take much less than downloading / syncing the XMR blockchain, I assure you. So time is not an issue.

Perhaps it is good to interpret my own post because it wasn't obvious:

As with metals, the #1 is really valuable, but the #2 is only about 1/50 as valuable. Others are not even counted.

So will it be with coins, therefore do not buy coins that aim to be #3.

I doubt you're going to find rpietila is some kind of anti-silver proponent:

Unlikeley that companies will run an consensus based 100% true crypto currency, where they cant manipulate.

There's a tiny chance that other crypto replaces the BTC as No #1, but it almost certainly will not be any of todays favorites for that place, no need to panic buy altcoins right now. If some PoS coin gains backup (simultaneously) from several big social networks and large digital players, like Facebook + Twitter + Netflix + Amazon + eBay + [you-name-it], and becomes their "official" payment option it may easily gain more volume than BTC. Chances that those big players align their interests are very slim, so the eventual future No #1 has to do it from the ground up. Mission (almost) impossible.

same here. trend goes precious metals onwards to crypto

similar here, alternatives to fiat such as precious metals is what led me to crypto and I still keep a percentage of my investment capital in (real) silver.

The precious metals market is rife with government and bankster fraud. Eventually their derivatives/paper metal holdings and fiat will burn in a rehypothecated shit storm driving precious metals through the roof. And always remember that you do not own it unless you have it in hand.

I keep a stash of PMs for wealth storage. Truthfully it is what lead me to the world of crytocurrency.

Couldn't disagree more ie first statement, yet silver is for many and varied reasons better for use as money then gold (eg less likely for gov confiscation, industrial usage more important then gold so always will have a stable floor value).

your only reasoning for the other way round is the price vs USD ie silver is atm "cheap as shit"....thats almost non argument when it comes to use as a currency   

Monero offers some critical advantages over Bitcoin that have nothing to do with privacy / fungibility.
1) Adaptive limits. This means no fixed 1 MB blocksize limit. There a significant greater than zero chance that Bitcoin will choke on this, since there is a very significant degree of dissent in the Bitcoin community.
2)1 min confirmation times. Some may say this is too short because of the risk of orphan blocks, but my belief is that orphan blocks is a small price to pay for the much superior user experience.

I doubt that regulators will treat Monero any differently from Bitcoin since they will focus on on and off ramps. As for the NSA attempting to unravel ring signatures, or I2P it is possible, but unlikely. They have way easier ways to obtain the needed information in over 98% of cases by just obtaining it from Apple, Microsoft or Google using the PRISM program.

No, but the BTC compatible thing is a pretty big advantage. That's a lot of compatible infrastructure.

Not defending DRK though. That's obviously going no where. But I did like their idea about creating a new high speed tor. But that's not really going to make it a long term currency.

I think your imagination is lacking.

Bitcoin is still tiny compared to fiat as was discussed quite a few pages ago on this thread. If one believes the "network effect trumps all" argument then Bitcoin's network effect is so much vastly smaller than fiat (many, many orders of magnitude), then Bitcoin could not possibly ever succeed at all.

Many Bitcoin supporters hedge this by saying that Bitcoin can succeed despite being so far behind fiat in network effect because it can be transmitted electronically, because it is decentralized or some such argument. These are all arguments of the form "system A with smaller network effect can defeat system B with larger network effect if A is sufficiently better than B."

A system that is sufficiently better than Bitcoin could defeat Bitcoin in my opinion. What is meant by "better" according to the market, is very difficult if not impossible to determine in advance. To be able to do so would be a form of central planning.

It is plausible that better fungibility and privacy (Monero solves this), with better end-state economics (Monero possibly solves this), or perhaps more robust decentralization (Monero doesn't solve this, though the end state economics could help), could be sufficiently better. It is not plausible that, for example, encrypted chat is sufficiently better.

Currently the scenario would be that Bitcoin becomes the government crypto, and the free world would adopt Monero. If the free world is larger than government, then it is possible that both of them flourish, even if Monero actually becomes larger.

I can't imagine a scenario were Bitcoin gets surpassed unless it is destroyed for some reason.

So my question is: your "10% Monero #1" scenario implies "Bitcoin dead", or something else?

Looks like some money is moving to bitcoin dark from drk imho, just my gut feeling. Prolly just shortterm.


Do you really think that having to premix coins is an advantage to a passive technology where u can just send them without ever caring about how it works?

A few big dumps with thin book. Probably the pumping whale exiting which still has quite a few DRK.

Remember DRK was at 0.001x from Feb to mid-April. So a range of 0.0045-0.006 is still 4-5x which massively outperforms most major altcoins in the last 4 months, despite being down from its ATH.

As I see it, the problem with the DRK pumping is that it came in a period where DRK wasn't ready for prime time. It was back in RC1/RC2 and with the various hiccups in masternode payments it was treated like a final product. Too much pressure on development etc.

Development has actually gone far better now that the price is lower and the spotlight / huge pressure is off.


If you can't trace who sends to who, except if you are the NSA who can crack IP obfuscation technologies, then I'd say for all practical intents and purposes DRK and Cryptonote coins are the same in terms of practical anonymity. Nobody can (practically) crack them in high mixing settings. DarkSend+ (as of RC4) is not DarkSend (RC3 and prior) anymore.

If you have an NSA-proof coin you are in a different game altogether. Otherwise, if nobody except the NSA can crack it, then in terms of commercial applications DRK has the edge due to being BTC-compatible + scalable / prunable.

Heck, if the IP obfuscation protocol of DRK succeeds where TOR or I2P fails, it might even become the first coin that offers some meaningful NSA-resistance.

I think it has 10% chance to be #1 and 50% to be #2 in a few years.

Do you think monero has the potential to be at least #2?

As regards what is money, only the gold medal is worthwhile. Silver is already cheap as shit. Bronze is not even counted since 2000 years.

=> Invest only in coins that have potential to be #1, or at least, #2. Others will just die.