Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1398. (Read 3314669 times)

The very best humans find a healthy balance between hedonism and meaningfulness. 
 
WWTSD?

I could own more XMR than I do.  But I think that if I own too much, then it is bad for the economy and the culture.  Most people don't want to get very wealthy.  Most who do want to get very wealthy probably shouldn't.  Personally, I am trying to maximize wealth because I have a purpose for it, which I consider very important, superceding my personal interests.  But even for that purpose, there is an optimal proportion of the XMR distribution which I seek to own.  If I own more, I prefer to sell.  I currently own too much of the current distribution, but not enough of the long-term distribution, so I feel free to accumulate, in a small way, until I own an optimal proportion of the 18mm XMR distributed before maintenance rewards kick in.  As the economy grows, that notional optimum will decrease over time: When there are goods and services being transacted in XMR routinely, the velocity of the float needs to be reasonable in order for the economy to grow.  If the velocity appears to be a limiting factor, I will definitely distribute, regardless of the price.

Focusing exclusively on maximizing personal wealth is not a good plan, in my opinion.  If you are just going to waste it on hedonic excess, I think you will soon find yourself on a meaningless hedonic treadmill.  The end thereof is death.  Personally, I seek to maximize meaningfulness.  That is a diverse, complex and moving target, but philanthropy certainly helps, as do healthy interpersonal relationships, and a project agenda.

I usually agree with you wholeheartedly but do not agree on that last part. 
 
Those who saved their money in Bitcoin from $1 to $8 and then stopped because they didn't want to be 'overweight in Bitcoin' surely regretted it.  The smart ones bought Bitcoin all the way up to $30 and then all the way down to $2, and then back up.

For most people, their income is in fiat.  The amount which they can afford to save in crypto is an amount in fiat.  At some point they will be overweight in XMR, if they save aggressively or if XMR rises 8x, like it did during the past 15 months.  Then they should save less in XMR, to maintain diversification.

If your income and expenses are primarily in crypto, then you should consider accounting in other units, certainly.  I personally tend to mentally convert everything to gold.

Dollar cost averaging can help a lot of people (if they have wealth in dollars). What about BTC cost averaging for those who measure wealth in crypto (like most BTC early adopters) and a much lesser position in fiat.

What are your reasons for talking about fiat cost averaging instead of BTC cost averaging?

All that matters is whether people on balance are buying or selling, and how aggressively.  That's the only "basic" fact that impacts price.  Stuff can stay overbought or oversold for a long time.  Look at November 2013 bitcoin, for example.  Look at SPX from April 2008 to March 2009.  If the buyers/sellers are not technical traders, they don't care what technical indicators are saying.  (And for every bullish technical indicator you produce, I can respond with a bearish one, anyhow.)

The major news in XMR is the hard fork.  It demonstrates that the core team's plan for managing the technical evolution of XMR is viable.  That means XMR can adapt to changing realities.  Unlike some other coins.  I am quite sure that others can enumerate a large number of other new developments in XMR, but this is the one that has me psyched.

I always recommend buying XMR.  I recommend buying it in constant dollar amounts, on a regular schedule, regardless of the price.  It's the only advice I've ever found which works for everyone, no matter how inept they are at timing.  I recommend saving regularly in XMR to several persons each week.  Sometimes I address large groups.  Sometimes I address wealthy people, and sometimes I address poor people.  Buying XMR is good for everyone.  Selling XMR is bad for everyone.  It really is that simple.

Have you ever met anyone who sold XMR and didn't regret the decision later?  If so, were they trustworthy, or a known liar?  I generally find that people who try to convince you to sell XMR are known liars, who like to buy XMR cheaply, at your expense.  Someone just bought several hundred BTC worth of XMR.  I am guessing that they know something that you and I do not know. I am definitely not going to sell any XMR right now (except for a small sum used for market-making, which I buy and sell several times every day).

If you knew the future, you would already have discounted it.  The question is not what is the known news, but what is the unknown news.  I see many events upcoming which will cause XMR to spike.  I know of no events upcoming which are not bullish for XMR.  For example:  The first major DNM to support XMR.  The first Chinese businessman to get a bullet in the head for violating capital controls with BTC.  The first exchange to offer an XMR/fiat pair.  Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.  If you are not holding XMR when these things happen, it will already be too late.

EDIT: Anyhow, the chart looks pretty bullish to me, in the near term:



EDIT: Also, from klee's PnF thread:

Right, coin voting indicates something, specifically the preference of the self-selecting group that can be bothered to sign a ballot with their coins.  That socioeconomic indicator plays more of a role in determining what software runs (and doesn't run) the network than node counts (and Consider.it granfalloonery).

Why?  Because node counts include non-economic (ie fake) nodes, so at most they indicate an ongoing Sybil attack.  Coin voting by cryptographic definition cannot indicate non-economic (ie fake) users' preferences, even if it is merely a self-selected sample and not the exhaustively thorough poll we might have in An Ideal World.

Now, what happens when we apply to Bitcoinocracy's coin voting the extrapolation logic used by Classic supporters when they asked demanded slush split his entire pool's block voting according to the expressed preferences of the can-bother-to-vote subset?   

What happens is we get to hear from the losing side deflection about how the venue is flawed, so any results produced therein must biased/invalid/meaningless.   

Are you seriously considering that we might getting to the top? Actually at this point or will go up or we crash. But i don't see any big news except the fact of the new GUI which is promissed only months later. This is my analysis based on MACD only.

I know you are trying to be positive, most people here have XMR invested, including me. But shouldn't we look at basics?

Easily replaced?  No way.  No one will think that, because that is not what will have happened.

What will have happened if bitcoin falls and an alt takes the top position, is that ONE other crypto managed to replace it, after 7+ years, with (probably) significantly superior technology, out of the hundreds or thouands of coins that were made in the hopes of becoming #1 and replacing bitcoin.


No one is going to believe that what occurred was accomplished easily.  Will they think its *possible* yes.  But only if a new, much superior technology to the new top coin came around, and only with a lot of effort, and a rise spanning a significant period of time.


This is a good thing, because it will mean that the market starts to ACTUALLY CARE about the fundamentals of the cryptocurrencies, and people will be looking for the coins with technical superiority which can rise to the top, and getting out of stale coins with no development and outdated models.


I am tired of the crypto environment where almost nobody understands or cares about fundamentals, and hype and marketing rules the day.  The most fundamentally secure cryptos like Monero should be at the top, and maybe if bitcoin falls people will actually wake the hell up and start looking for the technically best crypto.

It's more than that. If you are about to acquire coins (and therefore economically significant) then you must have some access to the network. If not, then it isn't possible for you acquire coins!


Yes, but the amount of ownership may be small, or even in some cases nonexistant. An example of the latter would be joinmarket, an important and valued service that never takes ownership of coins.


These are all indicators of something sure, but they don't determine what software runs the network, any more than node count does. Even the latter indicates something, if something of vastly overstated importance by some in this debate.

"Are" != "can be" (OK, notwithstanding the tiny transient edge case of new user bootstrapping)

"A large flow-through" would seem to imply coin ownership or at least possession/custody (however temporary).

Coin voting means something, as does block voting via version bits and whatnot.  Blowing off the resoundingly pro-Core/anti-Classic results on Bitcoinacracy is yet another way to spin politics.

Even if the results are more descriptive than causative, nobody is going to start a contentious fork war with so many BTC pledged to defend Core (and attack GavinCoin with well-funded doublespend-short-doublespend loops).

Sure they are, or at least can be. Immediately prior to acquiring their first coins they have launched and wallet and synced it, possibly synced up their own economically-independent full node if they want to have maximum confidence the coins they are about to acquire are actually real.

Other users who may not own coins or whose influence is not measured in coins owned include those with a large flow-through (services highly valued by their use, with such use not measured well by the coin ownership of their operator).


And yet, this general and complicated topic is what actually decides which software runs the network. Coin voting means nothing, other than yet another way to spin politics. Certainly I agree this has nothing to do with node count.

Potential Bitcoin owners are not "users of the network" (unless we broaden the definition to include everyone).  Economic influence is a much more general and complicated topic (everybody drink when the phrase "intrinsic value" is used  ).

People may disagree about anything, and often do.  The issue here is the reasonableness of those disagreements.

Many Classic supporters, especially the cranky I-hate-GMAX/PTODD/LUKEJR types, disagree with the idea that committing code demontrates merit, but they are not being reasonable (or even interacting in good faith, due to their greater goal of a governance coup).

Unless I start contributing useful code, my DO WANT list only influences Honey Badger to the extent I buy/sell/hold Bitcoins.  Non-economic users, just like non-economic nodes, are irrelevant.

Just an idea, minutes ago:

to be confirmed seconds later:

saw both/similar views switching back and forth wildly more times by now

You have an influence, yes. So what is on your DO WANT list, matters, but you are only one among many. And merit certainly has a role in influence, though people can disagree on what constitutes merit.


Not entirely. Economic influence is more complicated than that. For example, value depends entirely on willingness to accept (aka buy) coins, whether the person buying already happens to own coins or not.

It's not the number of commits that matters, it's the merit demonstrated by their utility that matters.

I'm not sure how I could have made that any more clear.  I guess "number of commits" is just a trigger for some people, no matter how many layers of disclaimers its embedded context.   

I don't care how many extra commits Hearn and Toomin added to XT and Classic, because they were all BS like checkpoints and blacklists.  OTOH, LN and SEGWIT are high on my DO WANT list.

The users of the network are those who own coins.  Like fake AWS Sybil nodes that don't actually store/send coins, non-economic users are irrelevant (no matter how much noise they can generate on Reddit).

As you note with great understatement, "Thus far there has been no real momentum by users toward changing vendors."

http://bitcoinocracy.com/ indicates the socioeconomic majority is firmly with the devs responsible for 90% of all commits to Bitcoin Core in 2015 (as it should be).   

The key question is what constitutes "a little" improvement.

Even something like LTC could be major improvement, in theory.

You can't measure qualitative improvements in terms of number of lines of code changes. If scrypt really were a much better and nearly optimal PoW algorithm and 2.5 minutes a much better and nearly optimal block time and coblee a much better and nearly optimal community founder/leader, and 2011 a much better and nearly optimal time to launch a cryptocurrency, then BTC could indeed have been replaced by LTC, yet BTC could not have been replaced by anything, becase at least on these metrics, it would be nearly optimal, rendering further major improvements impossible and the fallacy is no longer a fallacy.

That is true, but it is users of the network who decide which code to use. Thus far there has been no real momentum by users toward changing vendors, but if there were, number of commits by developers of a single vendor's implementation would not make any difference.

I measure presence or absence in the dev community via merit, demonstrated roughly by lines of code contributed and/or other analogous accomplishments.  This is exactly what I mean:

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases (90% of all commits to Bitcoin Core in 2015)
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-miners-agree-hard-fork-code-comes-july-2016-activation-in-2017/

The devs writing and voluntarily taking on responsibility for fixing the code when it breaks get to decide what goes into that code, and when.

FOSS isn't the Dilbert Corporation where the clueless Boss can order Wally to write unstable software to Catbert's Evil Marketecture specs.

Talking about crypto doesn't make you part of crypto.  Honey Badger really doesn't give a damn about a few pushy/noisy activist investor wannabees.

Without opening the bitcoin maximalist dam please, what makes you measure the community support for this or that, to the point of being affirmative and general as you do here?