Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1750. (Read 3313576 times)

The hole idea of master nodes is flawed, simply because you cant do mixing on your side, i.e. client side. Its similar to a secure email. People use and thrust secure email providers (e.g. tutanota or protonmail to name a few) because they do client-side encryption.  In other words, an encryption is done on your computer, without anyone else involved. Can you imagine a private and anonymous email provider doing encryption on server side or using some "master email client" on a strangers computer? Who would use such an email service? The same goes for masternodes. If you cant do mixing on a client side, forget it.

Beyond a non-committal response like 'maybe' I can't give you a solid answer to an empirical question predicated on a stunningly normative loaded term like "good."   

We only observe velocity-outcome correlations in the rear-view mirror.  Planning on the basis of assuming causation is like trying to squeeze water (not that it's stopped Krugman and Bernanke from building careers on the practice).

In theory, yes.  In practice, no.

Pooled masternodes are now a thing, as are masternode hosting services.

Those TTPs stack additional risk on that already incurred by using indubitably compromised VPS providers like Amazon and DigitalOcean.

Of course those practices are fated to inevitably end in tears and learning of valuable (ie expensive) lessons about the dangers of greed and security in obscurity.   

Do you think it is good to have a high velocity for money or not?

We're comparing the number of non-circulating interest-accruing coins invested in sinks, whether that sink is a masternode or monerodice's bankroll.

The number of XMR in CK and Polo's lending market should be included as well.

Right on, Smooth,  is great for people to have options to invest, like monerodice and CK, I find CK  most interesting as I think is also a social experiment of sorts.  The one difference with masternodes though is with masternodes people keep their private keys in cold storage under their control, so is a form of trust-less investment, I don't think it would have scaled up so quickly otherwise.

I'll let others speak for their own comparisons, but in my view the particular mechanism doesn't matter much. What matters is having in-coin investment opportunities. Those opportunities include masternodes, gambling sites with investable bankrolls (and other investable games), exchange lending markets, p2p lending, venture investment and other securities, and cold storage (the latter having zero coin-relative return but also zero risks or operating costs). All of these opportunities have to compete with each other to attract investment, so market forces should equalize their risk-adjusted returns.

What is significant about monerodice (and Crypto Kingdom if it can ever really get off the ground) is that Monero hasn't up to this point had much in the way of in-coin investment opportunities. So this broadens the market significantly.

Masternodes may someday be more of a service business where fees for services provided make up a significant portion of the income, but at the moment they are really just an investment.

Sorry, I still dont understand. The comparison does not make any sense for me. Why compare monerodice with masternodes? You should be comparing monerodice, a gambling site, with corresponding gambling sites in dash.

... because the coins in both cases are for a period of time taken off the market. Dash masternodes account for 3.2 million DASH or about 53% of the Dash money supply. The Monerodice bankroll above is about 300,000 XMR or about 3.2% of the Monero money supply. This is a big difference.

I don't understand what coins locked in dash masternodes have to do with coins used in monero dice? Why would you like compare the two with each other?

Thank you!! 

It comes down to backing 100 USD worth of BitUSD with 200 USD worth of Bitshares. If the market price of Bitshares falls by more than 50% in terms of USD then the 100 BitUSD are no longer worth 100 USD and the peg breaks down. One can do the same thing with gold, or even another cryptocurrecny such as XMR.

Edit: XMR is a better example than USD as to how Bitshares can fail, since XMR could all of a sudden rise very sharply in purchasing power on its own accord. A sudden sharp rise in purchasing power of XMR is not going to cause CK items to fall sharply in value, rather the exact opposite is more likely.

Thanks. That was quite old piece, but really informative and funny.

BTS actually resemble CK in some respects, except that CK did not dare to create itself to existence completely from nothing - as BTSX did. We have the now 105k XMR and 100 BTC, which are representing "outside value" in the system, and also the system itself is not prone to succumb to "cascading market calls" or even "cascading withdrawals". If the holders of that 105k XMR would collectively decide to withdraw, they could completely do it, since it is 100% deposited in the XMR blockchain (just like any honest exchange like Bitstamp or Poloniex would treat their client balances). The market value of many of the items in the game would be trashed in the process for sure (a COL at 425 XMR would not catch a buyer), but the more speculative things are financed by equity anyway, and if foreclosures happened, the assets would be repossessed with the lender footing the losses from his equity.

The way BTS/X was presented, was that it works perfectly as long as we assume that an imaginary asset is capable to be the ultimate extinguisher of debt (similarity to SuperNet as well). The high and powerful banksters in the world have tried to make an imaginary asset - called fiat money - to be the ultimate extinguisher of debt, with such a dismal record that it is a product of ignorance of monetary history to attempt the same as completely a desktop exercise with no value being produced in the process (as CK for instance is producing - great fun that catches players).

But since it is evident that you are not a proponent, I'd like to see a marketing speech linked by someone else as well! 

Nevertheless, have a 12*W1603A as a sign of gratitude for the link! (recorded)

http://prestonbyrne.com/2014/08/17/dont-walk-away-run/

Meanwhile, CK still at ~105k. I give my heartfelt congrats to Riccardo for beating our nearly-one-year effort in a week! 

Well got almost final green light for a new significant injection to CK by an external investor, so expect things happening there as well...

It's so best to be in Monero which actually has things happening!!

BTW. sorry slight off-topic - BTS was also mentioned in our shareholders' meeting to be a promising coin. I have not checked. Can some of the proponents give me an investment-oriented summary, the potential investment is about $50k.

Last time I read something about the # of masternodes the number was above 3000, this is 3 million coins, total supply is less than 6 million.

So more than 50% of the supply is locked up in masternodes.

I wonder how the MoneroDice bankroll compares with Dash (mal)invested in MasterNodes, in absolute fiat terms and relative % of the coins.

"Is that the XMR balance of all users of MoneroDice combined?" No, it's just the investors' funds. No one except the owners knows how much is on hand total.

Yes, it's the aggregate of all people that invested (thus playing bankroll). The maximum win is 10% of the total bankroll, so simply multiply that with 10 and you get the total bankroll. In addition, maximum win is denominated in XMR.

Is that the XMR balance of all users of MoneroDice combined? That would be impressive!
And are you refering to the balance in the 'Maximum win' box (29964.936004348564)? I read this balance as 29thousand 9hundred sixtyfour and a few cents (after the dot).