Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1224. (Read 3314316 times)

Wow, sure glad I moved 90% of my then BTC balance off of Bitfinex last Friday.  Another Mt.Gox situation would have made me a sad camper indeed.  Friends don't let friends use exchanges as wallets.

Atleast Spoetnik can live in peace now 

I noticed. What's the point, considering the vast majority of threads in the alt section are related to speculation?

Smells like censorship.

It seems we have all of the early bitcoin shenanigans with not nearly as much of the upside. Beginning to feel very pessimistic.

Whoa.  In case you didn't notice, there is a new Speculation - Altcoin board and we just got moved to it.

Well, who cares 

In case you didn't notice: bitfinex hacked.

To be clear, I did not infer that fractional reserve was a cause of oppression.  Certainly it plays a role in inequality, as it permits a privileged few to lever rents, but inequality and oppression are distinct.  I consider the adoption of currency backed by sovereign debt as the principal form of economic oppression globally, as it enables the use of the sword of the state to force usury on an entire population, regardless of their choices - and those two points are crucial differences as regards the issue of fractional reserve.  Inequality can become a pragmatic economic problem when it becomes extreme.  It is also a pragmatic economic problem when wealth is too evenly distributed.  Oppression is a moral issue, an identity issue, and an issue of blood.  One reason why the distinction is important: Wise people of good will seek to address pragmatic issues, but extremism is not a responsible option in cases of pragmatic utility.  But in cases of entrenched systematic injustice, extremism may be the only visible option.'

I agree that frictions are imposed on the dis-privileged, and opine that this is an injustice, a moral issue albeit a lesser one, as well as a pragmatic one.  In general economies of scale have created opportunities for those who ameliorate these issues, and that has pragmatic value, increasing productivity, decreasing inefficiency.  Market solutions appear suited to squeeze that injustice to the tiniest of margins over time.  Crypto is part of that solution.  Crypto could potentially be a solution to the much more damaging practical and moral issue of currency backed by sovereign debt, and if it were to be effective, could save much bloodshed.  It is much more difficult to make it so, however.  It remains to be seen that market mechanisms will suffice to achieve or even approximate that end.  One can hope, but one cannot base rational decisions on hope.
  

@aminorex is correct in identifying the oppression of those who are financially vulnerable by the fiat financial system over the last 50 years. The real source of this oppression; however is not fractional reserve banking which has been around for centuries, but rather the replacement of cash with proprietary digital payment systems (Payment Cards, Credit cards, Debit cards, Paypal, bank transfers, etc). They key difference here is that cash can be used to pay anyone regardless of the net worth of the recipient.  Proprietary digital payments systems are most cost effective only when payments are made to the 0.0001% of the most wealthy. They are either impossible to use or very expensive to use when payments are made to the poor.

It is hardly surprising that when making payments to the very wealthy is made convenient and cost effective while at the same time making payments to the poor is made next to impossible and very expensive that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. This I am afraid is what has happened over the last 50 years.

The Following is a true story:

A baby boomer and a millennial are walking down the street, when they are approached by a beggar.  
The baby boomer avoids eye contact and says: No.
The millennial maintains eye contact and says: I only have debit.  

Edit: The beggar was generation X.

@aminorex, your post put me in mind of Debt: The First 5000 Years, by David Graeber.
"Debt-based oppression" goes waay back.

The expected slight inverse correlation we usually see (BTC drop and XMR rise) not happening is worrying.

Given shenanigans with ETH, I expected us to benefit as people took their easy profits from ETC and placed some of them XMR's way.

I think it would be implausible and unwise to hinge expectations for crypto broadly or for Monero in particular, or for that matter for Bitcoin or any other specific cryptocurrency, on any singular event which is, if foreseeable, yet entirely unprecedented, and quite plausibly entirely unnecessary to the roaring success of those cryptocurrencies which offer significant value otherwise lacking in the market.

Some of the scenarios for the high valuation of Bitcoin have not proven feasible, at least yet. Specifically I am thinking of the Western Union replacement scenario which always did depend on the spontaneous viral formation of local currency exchanges throughout third world countries. However by far the largest channel for the influx of fiat value into Bitcpin, and broadly the cryptocurrency ecosystem, are yet future events: the listings of crypto ETFs.

Although the causal connection is not entirely clear I do think there is some plausible link between the Cyprus bail-ins and the early 2013 ramp in Bitcoin. It was not an apocalyptic or cataclysmic events in the sense that it was not a global event. I do have sympathy for those whose lives were impacted in a substantial way but a personal tragedy does not an apocalypse make. Personal tragedy on a statistical scale however, or more to the point provision for the possibility thereof, can however have a substantial impact on a relatively low market cap currency such as Bitcoin was in 2012 or such as Monero is today.

I do think that the debt-based currency system has been a tool for oppression on a scale unimaginable prior to the 20th century. It has been a tumultuous and catastrophic experiment which kicked into full gear in 1971. Hopefully it will prove to be a short-lived experiment and will collapse without terrible collateral effects. It is my hope that cryptocurrency because of its technical appeals will prove a worthy successor for facilitating commerce. However it is likely that a gold standard, or an sdr system sad to say, will be the primary accounting and exchange system for international trade, and crypto will see, at best pervasive, individual use. I think that would be quite sufficient to allow Monero in particular to achieve a substantially higher valuation on the order of 1,000 times, under reasonable conditions far short of calamity.

Calamity by some generous definition will almost certainly occur in The fairly near future. And indeed I expect and hope that the debt-slavery system will collapse within a matter of a few short years at most. But that calamity will be a kind of creative destruction which is essential to a healthy free market. While it is preferable for everyone to be a winner, in a free market that is not always the case. That does not mean that any individual or even any large segment of the population must necessarily suffer greatly in order for that destruction to occur. Simple disruption and market-driven reallocation of resources will suffice in general.

The global economy imploded in 2008.  We're just enjoying the late innings of the Extend & Pretend game.

Since then, Bitcoin and Monero have risen exponentially.   

The recent focus on ETC makes me wonder if XMR's best attribute is ring signature-based resistance to mutability (rollbacks, bailouts) in the form of contentious hard forks, or something else we haven't appreciated or even noticed yet.

It kind of depends what you mean by make your money. You can certainly achieve good gains based on continued development and adoption a niche of privacy-focused individuals, private store of wealth, certain niche markets that require decentralized payments, etc. But the enormous gains that come with even realistic prospects for mainstream adoption of any crypto won't come as long as there is no perception of there being any need for it. Of course, if that perception does occur, it will probably be too late to get in cheap...

What if it's not? What I'm suggesting is that cryptocurrencies may be insect-eating tree rats scurrying in the dense brush. Not prospering. Not expanding. Just surviving. Surviving during the reign of the dinosaurs.  Surviving for many millions of years in the shadow of reptiles until an opportunity presents itself. If that opportunity presents itself, the tree rats and their descendants can take over the whole game. If not, then they occupy their little niche in the shadows forever. What you're suggesting seems to be that the tree rats can have a solid future in their niche. But I'm not seeing it. Not when the dinosaurs are occupying all the skies and land and seas.

You sound as if you are satisfied with the status quo. Modulation of the global economy to a decentralized system is surely the point?

Just as one might liberate those suffering under a political dictatorship, so too would we introduce liberty to those under the authority of an economic dictatorship.

That would inevitably involve the destruction of the current economic order. I don't really see that as something to be denigrated or trivialized as a TV show oddity (?)...

If you are investing based on the premise that the global economy will implode in order for you to make your money, you basically belong on the TV show doomsday preppers. This coin is a solid investment with out the doomsday scenario, its just supposed to be a niche thing that if that ever does happen XMR is prepared. Look at the bigger picture, is it a worthwhile coin for everyday life and will its anonymity specs and special features of this coin help it to grow? Chances are the global economy will be just fine a higher percentage of the time then it will spend collapsing and countries around the 7 billion person world work all together to keep it going. I understand the temptation to invest in something that only need happen one time to score big, (like a global economic crash) but look at every other day too is all I'm saying #JustMyAdvice

Fundamentals meaning likely realizable value based on public perception that the incumbent financial system is broken and either needs replacement or even that there is an opportunity for such a replacement to possibly occur. That perception died a slow death during the period since 2008 (crypto hard core excluded), but mostly since 2010-2011. Prior to that it was still widespread.

As long as they remain pertinent, I think the reminder is harmless, at worst, and perhaps useful to newcomers.

I am pretty sure that "fundamentals of perception" is not intended to allude to Huxley, but not sure what it does reference.  Gox & DAO, perhaps?