Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1765. (Read 3313576 times)

The risk of holding Bitcoin is certainly an issue with supporting bids on Polo. In a Bitcoin bubble I see Monero outperforming Bitcoin. There is considerable evidence for this in the performance of most alt-coins during a Bitcoin bubble.

The more interesting question is how will Monero perform during a Bitcoin crash due to the blocksize issue. One one level one would expect Monero to also crash given the past performance most alt-coins during Bitcoin bear markets; however Monero has a very viable long tern solution to the Bitcoin blocksize issue due to adaptive limits and a tail emission, so it could actually boom in such a scenario.

orderbook reflects current uncertainty. uncertainty regarding btc short-mid term price developement, even uncertainty on how xmr will react during a btc and/or altcoin bubble (i think many saw the ltc pump as a preview on how it might look like)

this even makes supporting the bids difficult. why should i buy 50 btc to support the bids when the risk of btc falling back to 200$ is very real?
No, i take what i get every day and many do the same. small trades, easy going.

bids never really reovered from when they first vanished durin polo's kyc stunt and have been declining ever since.

any news on the fiat exchanges? no news for long time and moneroinvestment.com still recommends xstock.io, but nothing is happening there. who has insght?

edit: screw this, after 15 months of faith I'm out. I am very disappointed.

WTS a medium to large 5 figure quantity OTC.

pm if you need more ammo to dump every time it moves.

The ask-side on poloniex is pretty impressive at the moment, 424k an counting. 162k just to reach 0.0025. I'm glad I was blessed with strong hands, cause this could make one nervous.

Some wise words from TrueCryptonaire again.

I can live with 0,50 $ XMR for at least one more year, assuming BTC holds it's price level. Should BTC rise, XMR will follow anyway.

Monero needs now to go up if it is worth to continue the project.
The price is so low that it basically still indicates the project is going to fail.
The factor that brings Monero to rising trend is the supply and demand.
The supply is getting tighter and tighter all the time. If it is not possible to get any meaningful rise nowdays, it will probably not do it at all.
50 % of coins are mined and stored somewhere and the additional 50 % are to be mined in the future (again ignoring the tail emission).
The fact that Monero is still so low is actually quite bad thing: it means there are not enough competition to buy the coins from the markets and that's why the price is low. When 9 million bitcoins were mined, the price used to be higher than the current Monero price. Even if Monero costs 10 usd each, it means the daily emission costs only 126 000 usd/day. It is not a big amount of money is it?

Nothing of the bolded part happened, but markets don't always go up on news only. We went up several times without any news, could just be a new influx of users. Some bitcoiners getting more privacy aware, you name it.

Is there any particular reason why xmr on polo goes up today so fast? Something has happen, such as, new version of bitmonero, or some good news regarding monero?

I am not so sure. It is not that simple to come up with an adaptive blocksize limit, that also allows for a fee market to develop in the absence of a block reward. I am not convinced it is even possible. The Cryptonote adaptive blocksize limit formula works in Monero only because there is a tail emission. Take away the tail emission, as in for example Bytecoin, and the blocksize can grow to infinity with no penalty once the emission runs out. This prevents a fee market from developing, and could cause the difficulty and security to plummet. It is this kind of issue that gives credence to those in the Bitcoin community that oppose growing the blocksize.

In any case I will believe a scaling solution in Bitcoin only when I see it, not before.

It's a reasonable discussion of mining and mining is certainly relevant to Monero Speculation, but let's try to keep it reasonably on topic (meaning mining in general is okay, especially Monero mining, but when we get to this type of electric heater or that one, that's a bit far off) or take it elsewhere. They're offering a good deal on the cost of starting new threads today: Free!

sigh.

really? You go through the trouble of arguing with me and fail to even make the connection that an oil heater is not $50 USD, but much more. Not to mention the cost of oil on top of that.

Are you just responding to respond? I hate to say it's obvious that I'm referring to an electric oil heater, but well it's obvious.

I even wrote wfw : They have the same electricity cost as an electric heater.

And then when I go on to use electric and oil heater interchangeably you latch onto that.

Fine I'll spell it out for you: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Cuori-1500-Watt-Electric-Oil-Filled-Radiant-Portable-Heater-Grey-HD904-A7Q/205210318

This product competes better for heat than any cryptocurrency ever will:

https://i.imgur.com/vYlIjSc.jpg

And I promise you I'm not leading you on or trolling you.

There will never be any way that any cryptocurrency can compete with the above. It's just much better at providing heat on every level than any cryptocurrency.

Advertising a gain in heat as a discount to producing cryptocurrency is conflate them unnecessarily.

It's like advertising a sale on breathable air, only we're not in space.

As pc's get cheaper and cheaper, the cost of a computational cycle will increase! People will come to consider the .0000001 second it takes to load their app faster infinitely more valuable that the .0000001 more cryptocurrency they can produce.

Computational cycles are much more valuable than any cryptocurrency, especially when its 'lottery value' deprecates.

There will always be better uses of computational cycles, and as such, mining will always be centralized.

Yes but it is unclear who the lowest cost producer is actually going to be. It could be massive specialized farms in Sweden or Mongolia or wherever, or it could be kids running a miner on a laptop that would otherwise be unused, or botnets stealing electricity from whoever is least effective in protecting their equipment, or people heating water, or something else. It is a mistake to assume that any of these will necessarily be the lowest cost, because we don't know.


This is not necessarily the lowest cost. That is only the case if non-variable costs are zero (or equal, but as you point out on the question of specialization, they almost certainly won't be), which in general is not the case. Also being able to use the waste heat productively is part of (net) energy cost, and it isn't clear who will end up being able to do that most efficiently.

yes, thats the root of my pessimism.
but: why are people buying lottery tickets? they know that they will loose money (ok, most do) but its the hope for the one time win. mining has much in common with a lottery.


what other services are possible? call me shortsighted but mining isnt much more than putting transactions in a block and submitting them.
i can imagine (eg what eligius did for mtgox a long time ago) contracts between bigger players to guarantee that specific transactions are put in the next block (even without a fee): but why should this bring a higher reward?


well we are in an agreement that we dont talk about teenagers
if only a few dozens indepent entities mine i fear they will be controlled. eg i smell blacklists. its just way to easy for govs to threat them (thats also one of the reaons i like monero: its hard to control sth you cant see)

But it would be cool if you could, and with Monero you can. I have come to grips this is the most resilient form of electronic cash ever devised, not only transactions are opaque to miners but you can meaningufully mine it with standard hardware, it gives the 1 cpu = 1 vote meaning again, Satoshi would be proud.

Ok, run that thought experiment. People get clever about using the heat from miners, so their effective cost of mining is less, and therefore mining is profitable for them. So they buy more devices that mine. Difficulty rises; mining becomes less profitable, until an equilibrium is reached... It will *always* be the case that given enough time for an advance (new ASIC tech, heat-capture/re-use, etc), the cost of mining and the revenue from mining will be roughly equal.

It will therefore always come down to the lowest cost producer (ie, who has the cheapest energy). They've got the advantage. Which I think is the root of your pessimism regarding the long-term dynamics of POW:


I disagree with the "doom" outlook. While it's true that there will be a single or very few entities who are ultimately profitable in the narrow scope of actually finding block solutions, market forces will also cause miners to differentiate services and vertically integrate. The margin on other services (whatever they be) will very likely be higher than the gross margin on just the block solving, so there's plenty of room for a healthy-enough number of players.

A POW coin doesn't have to millions of teenagers running miners on their laptops all over the world in order to be *meaningfully* decentralized. It's probably sufficient to have a few dozen independent entities (different countries, sectors of the economy, etc) running deep mining businesses/non-profits/research-institutions/whatever (even government orgs). It simply needs to be the case that it's incredibly difficult for any single entity to coerce >50% of the hashpower. Hopefully the longrun will involve hundreds or thousands of large(ish) mining entities, but I suspect far fewer than that will still provide sufficient transaction censorship protection.

you should not compare an oil heater to an electric heater. atm there are uses for electric heaters.
this doesnt change your point regarding initial investment though.

the problem is, i think ANY cryptocurrency (i dont like POS) is doomed when (long-term) there is not solution to get mining decentralized.

so instead of simply saying "not gonna happen" i try to think of ways to make it happen.

some servers are already used to heat pools there are projects to use the heat from datacenters to heat cities and so on (i only have some german links - sorry). the point is: if you are ONLY mining you cant compete with someone who mines AND needs the heat. he will always be cheaper - even if his power costs are a little higher.

pcs are getting cheaper and cheaper - atm you can buy smartphone/tablets for about 100$. it doesnt need to be much cpu-power, its enough when many people do it.

sadly that doesnt necessarily mean decentralization, but it would help

They have the same electricity cost as an electric heater.

An electric heater requires an infinitely less initial investment on an infinite timescale.

Computation tends toward efficiency, and while computational capacity increases as a result, initial investment tends toward a much higher cost.

An electric heater may only be good for ten years.

A computer will tend to be good for much less than that, due to it being a complex system. A complex system that is mostly unusable while it is producing this simple idea.

The idea of computers heating households is simple, but the idea of 1200w oil heaters is infinitely less simple, and infinitely less costly on even just a few decades time scale.

If people want heat in their households, miners or networks will have to compete with that.

The oil heater has a permanent edge. It's $50 USD for 1200w. Even in 2015 it's an easy $1500 USD just to produce 1200w in personal computational heat.

Will your extra $1450 investment ever be recovered?

Not gonna happen.

why not? quite miners are not hard to build.
they have the same running cost as an electric heater...just more expensive to buy one.

And no government can compete with the most altruistic, forward-thinking population who would never even commit a crime because laws don't even need to exist.

Not gonna happen.