Anybody want to speculate what the price will be when ShapeShift is once again available?
Higher than it is now if I am able to buy more before you do.
Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1342. (Read 3313670 times)
Anybody want to speculate what the price will be when ShapeShift is once again available?
Higher than it is now if I am able to buy more before you do.
The thing is, all the coins are speculative bets on future adoption (or just speculative assets to trade for fun and profit). The metrics I listed are better measures of trajectory toward future adoption than the ones you listed, which are more about current implementation.
Well my comment was actually just in jest, poking fun at your seemingly biased list. I'm sure we could go around and around about what investors see as important and what could lead to long-term mainstream adoption, in an experiment that has never been done before. DASH and XMR (and pretty much all crypto) are travelling in uncharted waters.
As this is the Monero speculation thread, I speculate that unless some new form of super privacy coin throws its hat into the ring, XMR has the future strong privacy market locked up. DASH on the other hand, I think will have its future position as a protocol level payment platform, based on current development roadmaps.
Either way, there is going to be so many users (and money) flowing into crypto in the coming years that any coin that can hang on in the top 20 is going to see unprecedented gains. We just need to be prepared for when the floodgates open, and have our niche markets well defined and polished.
I'll leave how I derived these numbers as an exercise to the reader for now with the hint that it is almost entirely objective.
smoothie replied before you wrote your post:
So then basically everything you've said is just words.
No facts/proof to back up your bold claims.
No worries. On to the next thread...
No facts/proof to back up your bold claims.
No worries. On to the next thread...
Hypocrisy is not meritocracy. It is even worse in that it is self-defeating.
You may not like how I presented it as a bit of a puzzle, but it isn't an extraordinary claim. What does Dash have that would support a higher price/cap:
1. Does it have more development as evidenced by github metrics (commits, etc.)?
2. Does it have more more discussion on neutral forums such as reddit/twitter/etc.
3. Does it have evidence of more transaction usage outside of investors?
4. Does it have more trading volume?
5. Does it have more available liquidity on order books?
6. Is it primarily traded on a different/better exchange making it accessible to more/different investors?
7. Does it have better search rankings (have to be a bit careful here to not find detergent ads, etc.)
8. Does it have more coverage by journalists, including bloggers, podcasts, etc.? (Especially unpaid coverage.)
9. Does have more/better recognition for soundness by influential technical experts?
10. Is there evidence of new users joining the community at a higher rate?
The answer to all of these is no. The two are either comparable or Monero is stronger.
Now if you ask why the price/cap is what it is, the obvious answer has to do with supply dynamics.
Let's not forget that until recently Bytecoin was also ranked higher than Monero for a year or more, at times quite a bit higher, while at the same time failing on most or all of the above metrics along with others. Those of us looking at the fundamentals said the very same thing -- that it was where it was because of supply dynamics, not fundamentals. Sure enough Bytecoin is now at about 1/2 of Monero's market cap, and was recently much lower than that.
Obsession with market cap (and cap ranking, price) as a particularly meaningful indicator of anything is a blind spot of many crypto investors. Don't be blind.
Oh that looks fun. Let me give it a go. Do I have to limit mine to 10 as well?
11. Does it have more features?
12. Does it have a GUI wallet?
13. Does it have working mobile wallets? (ios and android)
14. Does it have more full nodes?
15. Does it have a built in funding/budgeting system?
16. Does it have (near) instant transactions?
17. Does it have a governance model?
18. Is it accepted by more vendors?
19. Does it have ATM integration?
20. Is its codebase compatible with existing bitcoin based systems?
I'll respond for now, but I genuinely don't want to make this another DASH vs XMR thread.
#11 - Depends on what you consider "features". One could argue that making the system more complex by adding (perhaps unnecessary) features doesn't really make it any more valuable. In fact, it could result in a new set of attack vectors which could possibly be detrimental to its value.
#12 - soon™ I guess. I agree with you though that having a GUI is important for at least "adoption" within the cryptocurrency atmosphere.
#13 - Someone is working on that (ios) and yes (android).
#14 - Depends how you look at it. I bet most XMR full nodes are running at home, whereas the nodes of DASH are for the greatest part (probably >90%) hosted on cloud hosting services. The masternode design actually gives an incentive to host your masternode on a cloud hosting service, which in my opinion leads to centralization.
#15 - Well, DASH uses blockchain funds to fund projects, whereas Monero relies on fundraisers / projects that are funded by the community. In my opinion, the latter will result in more valuable, wisely chosen and well thought out projects to fund, whereas the former will result in literally throwing money at everything that kind of looks good and perhaps will benefit DASH.
#16 - Some kind of sidechains could be useful for that. For now I agree with you, but I think TPTB_need_war has also pointed out that the design is kind of flawed. So I'd like to see it a bit more thorougly vetted before making claims that it's really instant and safe.
#17 - Governance model is described in the year in review -> https://getmonero.org/2016/02/10/monero-missive-2015-year-in-review.html
#18 - You can pay any Bitcoin address with Monero using XMR.to. Not sure if DASH has such a feature. I kind of agree with smooth as well on this point. In addition, merchants are only useful if people really use them. Most Bitcoin merchants barely see any traffic. Besides, nearly all of them cash out immediately to fiat.
#19 - I agree with smooth here too. The fees are usually high (i.e. >5%) and most ATMs require verification. Also, most ATMs hardly see any traffic because most people will choose a more cheaper option. Even localbitcoins got way better rates than most ATMs.
#20 - A Bitcoin compatible RPC API, with in addition walletnotify / blocknotify, is on the roadmap -> https://getmonero.org/design-goals/. Having the same codebase has both its advantages and disadvantages.
I'll leave how I derived these numbers as an exercise to the reader for now with the hint that it is almost entirely objective.
smoothie replied before you wrote your post:
So then basically everything you've said is just words.
No facts/proof to back up your bold claims.
No worries. On to the next thread...
No facts/proof to back up your bold claims.
No worries. On to the next thread...
Hypocrisy is not meritocracy. It is even worse in that it is self-defeating.
You may not like how I presented it as a bit of a puzzle, but it isn't an extraordinary claim. What does Dash have that would support a higher price/cap:
1. Does it have more development as evidenced by github metrics (commits, etc.)?
2. Does it have more more discussion on neutral forums such as reddit/twitter/etc.
3. Does it have evidence of more transaction usage outside of investors?
4. Does it have more trading volume?
5. Does it have more available liquidity on order books?
6. Is it primarily traded on a different/better exchange making it accessible to more/different investors?
7. Does it have better search rankings (have to be a bit careful here to not find detergent ads, etc.)
8. Does it have more coverage by journalists, including bloggers, podcasts, etc.? (Especially unpaid coverage.)
9. Does have more/better recognition for soundness by influential technical experts?
10. Is there evidence of new users joining the community at a higher rate?
The answer to all of these is no. The two are either comparable or Monero is stronger.
Now if you ask why the price/cap is what it is, the obvious answer has to do with supply dynamics.
Let's not forget that until recently Bytecoin was also ranked higher than Monero for a year or more, at times quite a bit higher, while at the same time failing on most or all of the above metrics along with others. Those of us looking at the fundamentals said the very same thing -- that it was where it was because of supply dynamics, not fundamentals. Sure enough Bytecoin is now at about 1/2 of Monero's market cap, and was recently much lower than that.
Obsession with market cap (and cap ranking, price) as a particularly meaningful indicator of anything is a blind spot of many crypto investors. Don't be blind.
Oh that looks fun. Let me give it a go. Do I have to limit mine to 10 as well?
11. Does it have more features?
12. Does it have a GUI wallet?
13. Does it have working mobile wallets? (ios and android)
14. Does it have more full nodes?
15. Does it have a built in funding/budgeting system?
16. Does it have (near) instant transactions?
17. Does it have a governance model?
18. Is it accepted by more vendors?
19. Does it have ATM integration?
20. Is its codebase compatible with existing bitcoin based systems?
With respect, I don't consider most of those relevant factors to market value. I'm pretty sure you can find smaller to much smaller market value Bitcoin forks with most or all of those too. As far as #12 and #13 we do have at least one working GUI (lightwallet) and one working Android wallet. Along those lines does Dash have a blockchain.info-style web wallet like MyMonero? I'm not sure.
Maybe #16 yes. Things like #19 are theoretically interesting, but how many ATMs are there and how much are they used? If there is a trajectory to high market penetration, then I would agree, but I haven't see evidence of it. Same with #18. The number might be a bit higher, but it is still extremely small and there is little evidence of people using the coin for shopping on any significant scale.
The thing is, all the coins are speculative bets on future adoption (or just speculative assets to trade for fun and profit). The metrics I listed are better measures of trajectory toward future adoption than the ones you listed, which are more about current implementation. Exception #18 noted.
I'll leave how I derived these numbers as an exercise to the reader for now with the hint that it is almost entirely objective.
smoothie replied before you wrote your post:
So then basically everything you've said is just words.
No facts/proof to back up your bold claims.
No worries. On to the next thread...
No facts/proof to back up your bold claims.
No worries. On to the next thread...
Hypocrisy is not meritocracy. It is even worse in that it is self-defeating.
You may not like how I presented it as a bit of a puzzle, but it isn't an extraordinary claim. What does Dash have that would support a higher price/cap:
1. Does it have more development as evidenced by github metrics (commits, etc.)?
2. Does it have more more discussion on neutral forums such as reddit/twitter/etc.
3. Does it have evidence of more transaction usage outside of investors?
4. Does it have more trading volume?
5. Does it have more available liquidity on order books?
6. Is it primarily traded on a different/better exchange making it accessible to more/different investors?
7. Does it have better search rankings (have to be a bit careful here to not find detergent ads, etc.)
8. Does it have more coverage by journalists, including bloggers, podcasts, etc.? (Especially unpaid coverage.)
9. Does have more/better recognition for soundness by influential technical experts?
10. Is there evidence of new users joining the community at a higher rate?
The answer to all of these is no. The two are either comparable or Monero is stronger.
Now if you ask why the price/cap is what it is, the obvious answer has to do with supply dynamics.
Let's not forget that until recently Bytecoin was also ranked higher than Monero for a year or more, at times quite a bit higher, while at the same time failing on most or all of the above metrics along with others. Those of us looking at the fundamentals said the very same thing -- that it was where it was because of supply dynamics, not fundamentals. Sure enough Bytecoin is now at about 1/2 of Monero's market cap, and was recently much lower than that.
Obsession with market cap (and cap ranking, price) as a particularly meaningful indicator of anything is a blind spot of many crypto investors. Don't be blind.
Oh that looks fun. Let me give it a go. Do I have to limit mine to 10 as well?
11. Does it have more features?
12. Does it have a GUI wallet?
13. Does it have working mobile wallets? (ios and android)
14. Does it have more full nodes?
15. Does it have a built in funding/budgeting system?
16. Does it have (near) instant transactions?
17. Does it have a governance model?
18. Is it accepted by more vendors?
19. Does it have ATM integration?
20. Is its codebase compatible with existing bitcoin based systems?
Well I finally received my btc which I had earmarked for Monero 
I check the charts and figure maybe I can get it a bit lower but am undecided. I check to see what the price on ShapeShift is and see that they are still down 
"Soon" I will get me a wee bit more Moneroj
Anybody want to speculate what the price will be when ShapeShift is once again available?
I check the charts and figure maybe I can get it a bit lower but am undecided. I check to see what the price on ShapeShift is and see that they are still down "Soon" I will get me a wee bit more Moneroj
Anybody want to speculate what the price will be when ShapeShift is once again available?
Quote
Also, none of this would really matter to botnets would it?
Well I mean I would assume that it would only from an economic perspective. The more efficient GPU miners are the fewer CPU botnets you'll see (take away incentive and they go away ... probably not many botnets mining bitcoin anymore). If GPU's were 100X more efficient than CPU's then hashrate would meet price like it always does and you'd be losing computers on your botnet from people detecting them so economically it just wouldn't make sense.
Okay but they're not 100x more efficient. I can mine on my CPU profitably right now while paying for electricity. That wouldn't be the case with a GPU-only coin as you described.
I'll leave how I derived these numbers as an exercise to the reader for now with the hint that it is almost entirely objective.
smoothie replied before you wrote your post:
So then basically everything you've said is just words.
No facts/proof to back up your bold claims.
No worries. On to the next thread...
No facts/proof to back up your bold claims.
No worries. On to the next thread...
Hypocrisy is not meritocracy. It is even worse in that it is self-defeating.
You may not like how I presented it as a bit of a puzzle, but it isn't an extraordinary claim. What does Dash have that would support a higher price/cap:
1. Does it have more development as evidenced by github metrics (commits, etc.)?
2. Does it have more more discussion on neutral forums such as reddit/twitter/etc.
3. Does it have evidence of more transaction usage outside of investors?
4. Does it have more trading volume?
5. Does it have more available liquidity on order books?
6. Is it primarily traded on a different/better exchange making it accessible to more/different investors?
7. Does it have better search rankings (have to be a bit careful here to not find detergent ads, etc.)
8. Does it have more coverage by journalists, including bloggers, podcasts, etc.? (Especially unpaid coverage.)
9. Does have more/better recognition for soundness by influential technical experts?
10. Is there evidence of new users joining the community at a higher rate?
The answer to all of these is no. The two are either comparable or Monero is stronger.
Now if you ask why the price/cap is what it is, the obvious answer has to do with supply dynamics.
Let's not forget that until recently Bytecoin was also ranked higher than Monero for a year or more, at times quite a bit higher, while at the same time failing on most or all of the above metrics along with others. Those of us looking at the fundamentals said the very same thing -- that it was where it was because of supply dynamics, not fundamentals. Sure enough Bytecoin is now at about 1/2 of Monero's market cap, and was recently much lower than that.
Obsession with market cap (and cap ranking, price) as a particularly meaningful indicator of anything is a blind spot of many crypto investors. Don't be blind.
Quote
Too bad someone didn't notice that an AMD 5350 has an exceptionally fast carryless multiply instruction for such a dirt cheap CPU and extremely low power consumption.
Hmmmm interesting. Trying to find hashrate.
I don't recall accusing you of being useless
@TPTB_need_war The AMD cpus are generally much more cost efficient than Intel across the board for XMR mining (and some people have noticed this). The APU models can mine on both the CPU and GPU.
Yes but that isn't my point. Try again.
Hint: what ratio of carryless multiply instructions to other instructions does Cryptonite use and what is the optimum possible in a memory hard hash.
(note this is my old hash design and I am willing to give it away so no harm to do this now)
Cryptonight does not use carryless multiplication. Another hash algorithm could use it but that is not relevant to XMR at this time (maybe propose on the technical improvements thead?). Some ARM chips support it too at very low cost.
...angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin topics such as the definition of the term 'free market'...but that stuff is just clutter here.
On the topic of botnets, this philosophical exchange ignores...
On the topic of botnets, this philosophical exchange ignores...
I'm very surprised (should I be?) that you downplay the critical importance and apparently lack the understanding of what makes a free market and how central that is to our entire reason to be here.
Free market = decentralized market.
Duh.
You won't answer your question until you understand that. And then you will understand I had it all figured out from my first post.
Sigh.
(answer to your question is opportunity cost)
@TPTB_need_war The AMD cpus are generally much more cost efficient than Intel across the board for XMR mining (and some people have noticed this). The APU models can mine on both the CPU and GPU.
Yes but that isn't my point. Try again.
Hint: what ratio of carryless multiply instructions to other instructions does Cryptonite use and what is the optimum possible in a memory hard hash.
(note this is my old hash design and I am willing to give it away so no harm to do this now)
As if the discussion of botnets and CPU mining is irrelevant to speculating on Monero's future, given Monero is the only real CPU mined coin of significance.
I definitely think that is relevant. The problem is that the exchange seems to have veered off into personalities and angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin topics such as the definition of the term 'free market'. People can discuss what they want (some people love to argue over the definitions of words), but that stuff is just clutter here.
On the topic of botnets, this philosophical exchange ignores that fact that no one has contested my claim that the 1+ million or so bot nodes that would needed to soak up the Monero hash rate don't exist, nor are botnets driving the difficulty to a level where non-botnets can't mine profitably. Therefore something is discouraging botnets from mining Monero. The relevance to speculation might be asking what that is causing that and whether it will change in the future.
Unless we can answer that question the topic of botnets may not be all that relevant to Monero after all.
For example.
Hypothesis: Most or all of the botnets in the world are controlled by the same entity or group. They are indeed mining Monero but limiting their hash rate (not competing with each other) to maintain profitability even at the cost of lower coin output.
My guess is that many botnets might shy away from mining XMR as it would severely impact the victims computing experience. The more noticeable the malware, the higher the detection/removal rate. Perhaps limiting the processing power dedicated to mining to a fraction of full capacity might also explain the low total network hashrate.
The detection issue is my preferred theory, but based on no evidence. If a bot node has a value, the increased attrition rate is a clear cost to mining.
This is also somewhat factored into my estimate of 1+ million nodes. Using high performance desktops only about 60K would be needed, but I assume that all botnet nodes are degraded in efficiency from this near-ideal by some combination of:
1. Not being powered up all the time
2. Limiting mining rate to reduce detection
3. Being older/slower CPUs, running in 32 bit mode, etc.
4. Being laptops.
@TPTB_need_war The AMD cpus are generally much more cost efficient than Intel across the board for XMR mining (and some people have noticed this). The APU models can mine on both the CPU and GPU.
I leave and you'll start talking tech shop. Not fair!
Too bad someone didn't notice that an AMD 5350 has an exceptionally fast carryless multiply instruction for such a dirt cheap CPU and extremely low power consumption.
(oh and remember I am just a useless piece of shit
)
200h/s with a $300 CPU vs 800h/s with a $300 GPU.
Too bad someone didn't notice that an AMD 5350 has an exceptionally fast carryless multiply instruction for such a dirt cheap CPU and extremely low power consumption.
(oh and remember I am just a useless piece of shit
) Quote
Also, none of this would really matter to botnets would it?
Well I mean I would assume that it would only from an economic perspective. The more efficient GPU miners are the fewer CPU botnets you'll see (take away incentive and they go away ... probably not many botnets mining bitcoin anymore). If GPU's were 100X more efficient than CPU's then hashrate would meet price like it always does and you'd be losing computers on your botnet from people detecting them so economically it just wouldn't make sense.
As if the discussion of botnets and CPU mining is irrelevant to speculating on Monero's future, given Monero is the only real CPU mined coin of significance.
I definitely think that is relevant. The problem is that the exchange seems to have veered off into personalities and angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin topics such as the definition of the term 'free market'. People can discuss what they want (some people love to argue over the definitions of words), but that stuff is just clutter here.
On the topic of botnets, this philosophical exchange ignores that fact that no one has contested my claim that the 1+ million or so bot nodes that would needed to soak up the Monero hash rate don't exist, nor are botnets driving the difficulty to a level where non-botnets can't mine profitably. Therefore something is discouraging botnets from mining Monero. The relevance to speculation might be asking what that is causing that and whether it will change in the future.
Unless we can answer that question the topic of botnets may not be all that relevant to Monero after all.
For example.
Hypothesis: Most or all of the botnets in the world are controlled by the same entity or group. They are indeed mining Monero but limiting their hash rate (not competing with each other) to maintain profitability even at the cost of lower coin output.
My guess is that many botnets might shy away from mining XMR as it would severely impact the victims computing experience. The more noticeable the malware, the higher the detection/removal rate. Perhaps limiting the processing power dedicated to mining to a fraction of full capacity might also explain the low total network hashrate.
Hmmmmm .... was curious so did some digging.
http://monerotalk.org/t/wolfs-xmr-cpuminer-way-faster-than-lucasjones/33
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/claymores-cryptonote-amd-gpu-miner-v113-638915
200h/s with a $300 CPU vs 800h/s with a $300 GPU. That's more than 4X difference (one motherboard + ram can run 6 GPU's) if power consumption is similar. If it's not I'm comparing apples and oranges.
http://monerotalk.org/t/wolfs-xmr-cpuminer-way-faster-than-lucasjones/33
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/claymores-cryptonote-amd-gpu-miner-v113-638915
200h/s with a $300 CPU vs 800h/s with a $300 GPU. That's more than 4X difference (one motherboard + ram can run 6 GPU's) if power consumption is similar. If it's not I'm comparing apples and oranges.
That assumes you are buying equipment specifically to mine. If you're not, then similar power consumption means overall efficiency is similar. Also I don't think th power consumption is similar, if looking at the most efficient CPUs (either server models or low power embedded models)
Also, none of this would really matter to botnets would it?
Hmmmmm .... was curious so did some digging.
http://monerotalk.org/t/wolfs-xmr-cpuminer-way-faster-than-lucasjones/33
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/claymores-cryptonote-amd-gpu-miner-v113-638915
200h/s with a $300 CPU vs 800h/s with a $300 GPU. That's more than 4X difference (one motherboard + ram can run 6 GPU's) if power consumption is similar. If it's not I'm comparing apples and oranges.
http://monerotalk.org/t/wolfs-xmr-cpuminer-way-faster-than-lucasjones/33
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/claymores-cryptonote-amd-gpu-miner-v113-638915
200h/s with a $300 CPU vs 800h/s with a $300 GPU. That's more than 4X difference (one motherboard + ram can run 6 GPU's) if power consumption is similar. If it's not I'm comparing apples and oranges.
As if the discussion of botnets and CPU mining is irrelevant to speculating on Monero's future, given Monero is the only real CPU mined coin of significance.
I definitely think that is relevant. The problem is that the exchange seems to have veered off into personalities and angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin topics such as the definition of the term 'free market'. People can discuss what they want (some people love to argue over the definitions of words), but that stuff is just clutter here.
On the topic of botnets, this philosophical exchange ignores that fact that no one has contested my claim that the 1+ million or so bot nodes that would needed to soak up the Monero hash rate don't exist, nor are botnets driving the difficulty to a level where non-botnets can't mine profitably. Therefore something is discouraging botnets from mining Monero. The relevance to speculation might be asking what that is causing that and whether it will change in the future.
Unless we can answer that question the topic of botnets may not be all that relevant to Monero after all.
For example.
Hypothesis: Most or all of the botnets in the world are controlled by the same entity or group. They are indeed mining Monero but limiting their hash rate (not competing with each other) to maintain profitability even at the cost of lower coin output.
Correct me if I'm wrong but ... the GPU miner rendered botnets much less profitable than they were in Monero no? And primecoin and pretty much anything else that used to be CPU only.
True in XPM (in my understanding which is limited). Not true in XMR, GPU and CPU are comparable efficiency.
As if the discussion of botnets and CPU mining is irrelevant to speculating on Monero's future, given Monero is the only real CPU mined coin of significance.
I definitely think that is relevant. The problem is that the exchange seems to have veered off into personalities and angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin topics such as the definition of the term 'free market'. People can discuss what they want (some people love to argue over the definitions of words), but that stuff is just clutter here.
On the topic of botnets, this philosophical exchange ignores that fact that no one has contested my claim that the 1+ million or so bot nodes that would needed to soak up the Monero hash rate don't exist, nor are botnets driving the difficulty to a level where non-botnets can't mine profitably. Therefore something is discouraging botnets from mining Monero. The relevance to speculation might be asking what that is causing that and whether it will change in the future.
Unless we can answer that question the topic of botnets may not be all that relevant to Monero after all.
For example.
Hypothesis: Most or all of the botnets in the world are controlled by the same entity or group. They are indeed mining Monero but limiting their hash rate (not competing with each other) to maintain profitability even at the cost of lower coin output.
Correct me if I'm wrong but ... the GPU miner rendered botnets much less profitable than they were in Monero no? And primecoin and pretty much anything else that used to be CPU only.
The sideshow on freemarket vs blackmarket was important (imo) because freemarket is the concept that everyone is on a level playing field. Blackmarket is essentially "those who don't get caught win" situation (which can include intelligence or location). In fact often the value of what they provide is artificially jacked up by being a black market (it's the risk you are paying for not the service). Auto weapons in Australia are 10X as as expensive as the US, Marijuana is cheaper in Colorado with a regulated market than a "black market" everywhere else.
So the idea that black market = free market = fair price just doesn't add up. The privileged (those in countries that don't prosecute botnets) or the smart (those who don't get caught) will monopolize the market prices (as opposed to turnip prices). Pretty much exactly like bitcoin.
Jump to: