Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1600. (Read 3313576 times)

I am almost certain satoshi will not come back to comment. However I think the chances that satoshi is following Monero development are much higher.

Agreed. My (tangential) point was that there is no useful store of value in a defunct property. If the coin survives 200 years but only scales to 58 million units, dilution is the least of everyone's concern.


Mass adoption is the end goal. The "average crypto user" won't ever know about the currency until it survives the scrutiny of the interested community.

Regarding bolded, this may sound controversial, but we could always fork it to a higher amount if there is consensus on that it is too low.

Indeed, to Gavin credit he doesn't say this quote does not make sense, but that this is the 101 of crypto. My understanding is that Gavin refers to the vague "informal" formulation in the quote, not to the meaning of it. The conclusion of Gavin just based on this poor formulation is really stretched though. The quote was actually a forum post so of course it's not formulated as a science paper.
Worth mentioning that the post of Satoshi with that quote also mentions stealth addresses. In a way, all Monero is in there

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9074

Maybe, I dont know. Buts its interesting that Satoshi said something, then Gavin says it really does not make sense, and then Monero says it makes perfect sense. Maybe Gavin or Monero interpret this quote from Satoshi differently, leading to difference in opinions?

Gavin is wrong. The quote makes perfect sense and Monero proves it by having implemented it (Cryptonote actually implemented it of course).

Maybe what this shows is that Gavin is not a cryptographer (something I think he would agree with).

Regarding the quote. I'm not cryptographer, but Andersen said that this quote does not really make sense from the cryptographic point of view, and rather proves that Satoshi was not a cryptographer and had only high level knowledge of cryptography.  Real cryptographers would never say something like this

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3e1Pzu7iI&feature=youtu.be&t=748

So not sure if this is really a quote that Monero want to use this quote from Satoshi, as apparently it has no sense.

I guess it depends what you mean by dilution. When one's share of a business is diluted by new investment, it means the percentage of ownership decreases, but it doesn't necessarily mean the value of your investment is smaller. The value may increase, decrease, or remain the same.

It is pretty useful to be very precise about whether one is talking about money supply in nominal units or value of individual units (or something else). The confusion also comes up when people discuss "inflationary" or "deflationary" currencies and end up talking past each other because they are using different meanings. My comment about long-term dilution was referring to money supply units.


This seems like a questionable premise. Almost everyone agrees that for crypto to become more successful, the user base needs to grow dramatically, which probably means the average crypto user will have significantly less interest in monetary policy and such.

There will also be no long term dilution because of the extremely slow and tapering supply expansion. If this network somehow did survive 200 more years, how many people do you think would be using it? Do you think 58 million XMR would be nearly enough to support an economy of such scale?

This is why I believe a fixed block reward was a poor decision vs exponential growth of the money supply. Our money supply isn't fixed like Bitcoin's, but we're still dying a slow death. The good news is it probably won't matter anyway, because better tech will most likely replace Monero long before then.

However, if the average cryptouser starts caring about this minutia, we may see Monero fall out of favor to it's little brother, where last I heard, the plan was to incorporate an exponential rate of inflation.

Monero is not an investment, do not buy unless you have done the research and believe in it. With that initial disclaimer, I highly recommend watching the "Monero Talk" video that rangedriver linked above, it's a great introduction on the key important features.

There is also this quote from Satoshi, which touches on the importance of ring signatures that are used in Monero (and other CryptoNote currencies). Monero is the next generation of evolution in digital currency: private decentralized electronic cash.

Just start reading from here.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13416405

Have a watch of this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEVm1dMn5Ks

Why Monero matters - https://moneroeconomy.com/faq-page#t13n61

Edit: Some broken links there, but you could find them in google or getmonero.org

Hi Monero thead.

Can someone give me a few reasons why to invest in Monero.

The coins available and current price are attractive but that doesn't mean moon.

Without reading all 600 odd pages here can someone point me in the right direction with regards to finding out more.




Thanks in advance.

There will be no long term dilution because of lost coins. Eventually some equilibrium will be reached, probably around 35 million coins.

Anyway, store of value doesn't mean a perfect store of value with no fluctuations or erosions in value whatsoever, and for Monero to function as any sort of store of value at all in a significant sense, or even to function transactionally, the value will need to increase a lot. 5 million USD market cap (or even 15 million if you project out to my estimate of long term supply) isn't going to cut it. The incentives for investing are there, as well as the risk that it doesn't function, interest is lost, and goes to zero.

Actually once Doge had its bubble it got a lot of infrastructure built and media attention as well.
Doge is still 2 years after the bubble trading higher than prior to the bubble.

These ideas that stability is good, and steady value in USD is good for transactions, and that steady growth is preferable to bubbles and busts are misguided.

1. Stability and steady growth are not possible. That is fantasy.

Look at the price history of any asset. There is no asset, except dead ones, that don't experience huge bubbles and busts, even when measured against a basket of physical goods (so you can't blame the currency). Silver, gold, housing.. they've all bubbled for thousands of years.  XMR will be the same. The pool of liquidity is too small for stability. Any stability is a temporary illusion. It's simply not realistic to think that XMR will steadily grow in adoption starting from a tiny group of users to millions of users in a nice, steady line upwards. This point is fairly obvious, IMO. The next point is more controversial.

2. Steady growth is not ideal.

The booms are necessary for attracting new waves of users and new money for capital intensive projects. The busts are necessary for clearing out bad actors and forcing good businesses to become more streamlined and resilient.

Imagine if bitcoin had continued growing at its 2012 pace until now:



In April 2014, bitcoin would be at $50.

Would there even be enough interest in cryptocurrencies to justify the forking of Bytecoin to form Monero? Would there be large bitcoin companies like Coinbase offering bitcoin via credit card in dozens of countries? Would there be bitcoin funds trading on stock exchanges around the world if bitcoin were making a new all-time high of $100 in 2015? Would Mtgox have been forced into bankruptcy? Would every major bank in the world be researching cryptocurrencies in 2014 with bitcoin at $50?

Without the booms and busts of 2011 and 2013, the bitcoin ecosystem would look far, far less developed today. We would be in much worse shape. Thus, stability or steadiness are not only unrealistic, but also undesirable.

As selfish as it sounds, what we should actually hope for is a huge XMR bubble that results in 100 new XMR companies and many millions of dollars of investment in XMR services. Hundreds of thousands more users. It doesn't matter if there's a bust afterwards and people get hurt and lose money. This is how things develop in the real world. Look at the 1990s tech bubble. Bitcoin's 2011 bubble was the same. People lost money. But 2011's bubble resulted in Coinbase and Bitpay and blockchain.info and Kraken which was the first generation of non-amateur projects. Many of them received investments from people like Roger Ver who were enriched by the 2011 bubble. Those companies would not have started with bitcoin trading at $2 at the end of 2011 with no bubble.

Bubbles and busts will improve XMR more than they will hurt it. Don't be afraid.

While it is acceptable to believe living by a code of honor that continually costs you and you receive no benefit other than knowing that your principles are unwavering can be considered selfish, I would not agree with that. It is a opinion based assertion.

Yes it is true. The game aims to replicate history to a certain extent, so also Baronet titles can be bought. This is now possible the first time in the game's 221-year (about 14 months this world time) history. It is even possible that the titles increase in value, since it is allowed to re-sell them and they are numbered. A previous similar example where transferable tokens were for sale happened in 1600 (April-2015) as 10 Round Table Gold Bars were auctioned at prices between 380-700 XMR. At least the Baronetcies are only 100 XMR and backed by the King (the RT Bars were and are backed by fluffypony)!

TC says that people cannot be unselfish. You say they can. It's a tough question.

If someone does something with the intention of doing good for all of mankind, not directly benefiting themselves - can it be selfish? Maybe there is no way to separate it.

Example: You give food to a hungry person, or donate to a charity.

The person benefits, as they can eat and live. You do not tangibly benefit, but inside you feel good about your deed and know that you helped someone, or a group of people.

In that way, I do agree it is impossible to be unselfish.