Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 17. (Read 3313786 times)

Is that the 4hour chart?

Seems to me Monero's price action is often erratic and irrational.  I think there are two reasons for this:

1.  It is still a thinly traded market.  Even as one of the more used crypto projects it still is not traded like bitcoin, quite yet.  So whales and manipulators can yank it around more.

2.  "Paper Monero" is a thing.  Because of Monero's inscrutability it is easier for exchanges to play games.  We can see what Bitfinex holds in their Bitcoin wallets.  So we can see if they are allowing naked shorting.  This is NOT TRUE with monero where naked shorting may  be a nasty side effect of its killer feature.

That said...  Monero is clearly painting an intweresting chart, with an ascending broadening triangle.  This is usually a bearish pattern which will often break down.  But I have a feeling Monero is trying pretty hard right here to brek up again like it did a week or so ago...  Another "advantage" of the thinly traded market is the reliability of chart patterns it not really that good.  So we could see this predicted outcome be invalidated by an aggressive move up.  Sure seems like it wants to.

I heard about BTC around 2012 but I didn't think much of it then.  All I knew was that it was this 'anonymous currency' that was used at DNM's and I thought 'cool'.  I got in the next year when I bought my first coins around May 2013 only to find out that BTC was either private or anonymous.  Rofl.  I'm like wtf everything is traceable.  But I really didn't care then since I was here more for the trading aspect.  Cared about it more when I saw Fluffy's presentation around mid 2016 and started buying some then more the year after that.

No maxi will admit it but XMR is surely the most important progression in crypto after BTC.

THE MONERO MOON (ISSUE 33) IS OUT NOW!  Grab a coffee or a beer and kick back for a read. Like, share, and spread the word of Monero as it continues to grow and offer unmatched financial privacy. 

https://www.themoneromoon.com/p/the-monero-moon-issue-33-718ac0e08435?r=1cozaq&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

I am not sure why you are mentioning Pietilä. He died few years ago.

As I would see it, monero has during all its trade history been a rangebound coin. Almost certain Rpitila has every one of the numbers to do this in the event that he hasn't done as such as of now. The assets of the previous gathering are monitored, while the assets of the last option bunch are scattered because of misfortunes by blackmail, burglary, and misrepresentation.

Monero is on recovering mode in current market. According To coinmatketcap if we saw the chart of 7 days we will clearly see that XMR is trying to Make bullish line.
Market is hardly volatile and all coins down very much. I think when bitcoin stable it can easily rock ti 2x .

Well, all the economic sanctions related to the Ukrainien war are massively bullish for Monero.

People start to realize that BTC and all the other cryptos are shit to store wealth.

During this 7 last years, the most important thing I have realized is that people are massively dumb.

You cannot explain to them why Monero is better with logical arguments. You have to have WWIII coming to clear some of the bullshit in their head.

So anyone know what the massive spike from today was from?

Well damn.  I've been meaning to (re)post this for a long time.

Seems like as good a time as any...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=78SDjG6V8FQ

That's not my recollection but I can't say I'm 100% sure. It's been quite a while.

The most efficient way is to consolidate 100-150 inputs at a time, the fee will be ~0.8% even if all inputs are minimal 0.0003 XMR. If some of your inputs are more than 0.0003, fee % will be smaller. I think you can get up to ~190 inputs before the wallet splits it into two transactions.

Well.  I do spend a few piconeros to consolidate outputs from time to time.

I suppose one downside to the project is you are virtually paid out of the coinbase.  There is as limited a middleman as possible and the coinbase it divided up into tiny chunks and sent out frequently.  As you can see I am getting payments about every 3-4 hours.  And they tend to be betyween .0003 and  .0012.  So once I get a few dozen of them I sweep them into a single output...  I *think* in monero you can sometimes run into transactions with too many inputs.  But I do not know for sure.  I am paying for space on the blockchain just to not have a bunch of mo-nickels.

Thanks to smooth for the history tweak.  I had sort of forgotten that some of the early folks DID intend to install the tail emission.  But there were some of us who did not as well... and some of those fought up until the time it was decided.  Wasn't Ricardo among those who were against it?  I came in to monero AFTER the few who forked it... but RIGHT after.

That was bitmonero, a different project. When we forked bitmonero to create monero, it was clearly stated from the start that a tail reward was likely to be included. People had every opportunity to stick with bitmonero (or alternately do some other fork), for that or any other reason. The community that exists today coalesced around that fork, including the tail reward. ("Fork" in this context means code fork and project fork, not hard fork, though hard forks followed later and for all I know the bitmonero chain might still exist somewhere, though probably unlikely since it had critical fatal bugs. The tail reward itself is not a chain fork at all until such time as it is reached.)

I do agree it could have gone another way and not every single person agreed it was the best approach.

What's the dust limit if it isn't $0.01? 

I consider it one of the lowest points in the history of the project.  But I am in the minority on that score, I think.  And I think the loss of credibility that move installed in the record will come back to bite us on the ass again and again.

But I also think the project is important enough to survive it.

Then again, maybe I am wrong.  Hopefully about the former bit...

On ANOTHER topic... I have been really enjoying SOLO MINING via p2pool.  If I am not mistaken this utilizes a side chain to basically enable a solo mining pool.  Here are my recent payouts!  (Aside from the 2 consolodation fees, as well as that opne large transfer.)

Perhaps I should be careful showing the whole world how much Monero I hold???

You realize how bad that sounds, right? Humans changing the economics of an asset, just by their own will. This isn't a matter of consensus.

He's the richest scammer. I can't unsee the fact that he has some strong economic ties with it while he makes statements such as "Dogecoin works better as a medium of exchange while Bitcoin is better as a store of value", or "Bitcoin has greater fees opposed to Dogecoin, therefore Dogecoin is better money", or even worse "Tesla will stop accepting Bitcoin, because it's environmentally damaging".

I know he knows. He's smart. But, he's also an asshole.

Inflation doesn't necessarily support spending, it just supports it more than with the hard cap case. It depends on what you're pricing it with. If you price it in Bitcoin, it indeed discourages you to hold it as it'll, theoretically, cost less BTC in the long term (ceteris paribus). If you price it in USD, it's in favor of you to keep it.

Generally, if there's no production, the currency shouldn't be inflating. What concerns me is that the inflation rate was arbitrarily chosen. It was 1,000,000 DOGE, then it became 500,000, 250,000, 125,000, 62,500, 31,250, 15,625 and it's now generating 10,000 DOGE 'til eternity.

Also, why is that a valid argument? Say, I, create another fork of Bitcoin that I call it Dogecoin 2.0, and which inflates more than Dogecoin does, in the corresponding percentages. Did I just make a better "transactional" currency? (Note that transactional currency is redundancy; a currency is by definition used for making transactions)

Your history is off.  The "founder" built XMR with a hard cap.  In fact we are ALMOST to the end of that original emission schedule.

The "community" decided to add the tail emission after Monero had been launched. It was, in fact, an argument amongst the community.  I was on the side of NOT adding it.  Not only do I not think it is neccesary to sustain the coin's security, but changing the economics in mid stream was a HUGE BLOW to the decentralization argument for the project.  But here we are in spite of that.  I also see the reasoning why those on the other side supported the emission.  In a way it is a tacit admission that Monero may never "flip" Bitcoin, as I do not think it would be possible for very many cryptocurrencies to be able to survive a zero emission state.  Some argue even Bitcoin will not.  I disagree.  The fees on the Bitcoin blockchain will support it's mining, in my opinion, as it will continue to be fairly expensive to transact on BTC.  But other SHA2 blockchains will either fade to nearly nothing or be attacked out of existence.

You description of Bitcoin is a value store made out of 100% monetary premium is accurate.  One cannot really OWN a 256bit number either.  We simply rely on the fact that there are so many of them that a randomly chosen one is practically un-findable.

So yes.  The only thing one would ever do with Bitcoin is to store and transmit value.

Satoshi's choice to hard cap the supply is a perfect decision for a value store.  Period.  Any other choice would diminish the efficacy of Bitcoin to store value.  Though there ARE arguments FOR inflation.

The argument for inflation is to support monetary velocity.  Elon Musk has irritated maxis by frequently by saying “Even though it was created as a silly joke, dogecoin is better suited for transactions.”. 

I can only see two reasons he would say this:

1.  He is a scammer or a fool.  He has realized he can make money moving the price of Doge around.  Or he just likes it because it is silly and "shouldn't" be successful.  I think the latter is more likely than the former.  Because as smart as he may be, he loves base and absurd humor.  He already has so much money what could he gain playing with DOGE?

2.  He believes Doge's inflation is better for a transactional currency.  If a currency is constantly inflating, then it is also constantly becoming worth less.  In the extreme, as we will be seeing with the US dollar soon, but has been proven out in the Bolivar, etc people will take wheelbarrows of currency to buy things they do not need on a TUES simply because on WED they will get less.  So inflation supports spending instead of holding.  Therefore "Doge is better than Bitcoin as a transactional currency".

I personally think #2 is the main reason Musk says this.

But the earth has never seen a mathematically perfect value store in it's whole history until Bitcoin.  So, if given the choice of holding value in BTC vs DOGE... well, the price tells that story already.  And this goes for Monero as well.  In fact the market sees the dog coin is more than FIVE times more valuable than Monero.

^^That, of course is foolishness, and one way or the other I should expect Monero will eventually flip Doge in market cap.

Monero is closer to Bitcoin in it's emission than Doge in SPITE of the fact it, like the dog coin, has an "infinite supply".  Because it will  have less than Bitcoin's 21mm coins for 15 years after the original subsidy is gone.  And it will take another 15 years to add 2.5 million coins to the total.  This is a VERY small inflation rate.  In fact when the community was arguing through this decision many felt 432 Monero each day forever would not be enough as it would not even cover lost coins.

Anyway...

There is a brief history and reasoning for the infamous Monero "tail emission".  Do with it as you will.

You see, there's a lack of confidence of what's what. You say Bitcoin is where people will store wealth, but Monero is where the daily transactions will take place. I find this oxymoron.

Bitcoin isn't an object. You don't store value by the assumption that one will use it in the future for anything different than transacting with it. It's not gold that can be used in technology, jewelry etc.; the only purpose of Bitcoin is to use it as a medium of exchange and people HODL it so that they can either use it in the future to buy things or trade it with another person who wants it to buy things.

The value of Bitcoin comes solely from this phenomenon. Now if everyone preferred Monero over Bitcoin, it wouldn't make sense to use it as a store of value.

I personally find it insignificant. In a way, it reveals you that the founder didn't believe it will reach a large transaction volume, so that miners could be content from the fees. It gives me the impression that the security needed to somehow be arranged, but it couldn't unless the miners enjoyed this perpetual inflation.

This is true.  And Monero is post prime mover for scarcity, AND it is not insignificant that it does have perpetual inflation.

Our camp (Monero folks) has recently turned up the volume on the (BCASH LIKE) "Number Go Up" = BAD narrative.  Yet that is Bitcoin's raison d'etre.  The magic sauce.  And the chain HAS to be completely visible to get the maximum benefit.

Monero really offers Bitcoin a way to  firewall the privacy problem into a separate camp.

You know... I always sort of thought the whole Litecoin is silver to Bitcoin's gold marketing slogan to be such polished bullshit.  But to tell the truth Monero actually fits that bill.  Bitcoin is where you store wealth, and Monero can be where transactions on the street take place...

Unless something like CT on Liquid ends up stealing XMRs mojo.  Because there is an advantage to a pegged asset.  But I think having it completely fire walled into XMR is something.  The only weak spot I see is when you do an Atomic swap with bitcoin, how do you deal with the taint?