Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1814. (Read 3313576 times)

Can't tell if serious...

Really like what you're doing, Bronero. Keep it up!

If you pm me / add a donation address in your sig I will transfer you some.

You are all early adopters:
https://twitter.com/XMRpromotions/status/628904857659834368

10 years from now we can all look back and remember the time that we were able to envision what Monero would one day become

Dropping names huh

OK you made me look it up  and while the top 3 search results where rehashing the same info, I found this.

Gleick's bio actually puts it at 125. There are a couple reasons to not care about this factoid:
- Feynman was younger than 15 when he took it, and very near this factoid in Gleick's bio, he recounts Feynman asking about very basic algebra (2^x=4) and wondering why anything found it hard - the IQ is mentioned immediately before the section on 'grammar school', or middle school, implying that the 'school IQ test' was done well before he entered high school, putting him at much younger than 15. (15 is important because Feynman had mastered calculus by age 15, Gleick says, so he wouldn't be asking his father why algebra is useful at age >15.) - Given that Feynman was born in 1918, this implies the IQ test was done around 1930 or earlier. Given that it was done by the New York City school district, this implies also that it was one of the 'ratio' based IQ tests - utterly outdated and incorrect by modern standards. - Finally, it's well known that IQ tests are very unreliable in childhood; kids can easily bounce around compared to their stable adult scores.
So, it was a bad test, which even under ideal circumstances is unreliable & prone to error, and administered in a mass fashion and likely not by a genuine psychometrician.
As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data, and this isn't even a very good anecdote. (I charitably assume that Feynman isn't joking here about the score; Gleick gives no source.)



Sorry for your loss.

Maybe we should start a banana fund.

Thats 1 monerit for aminorex.

i speculate bananas.

You're telling us you didn't make any backups?

Here, because I know you all want to play along at home (yes, even you nutildah): 
 

(THERE ARE MANY PICTURES IN THIS POST, PLEASE DON'T QUOTE IT AND CLOG UP THE THREAD)

I think there is another quality we are all forgetting when it comes to money. 
 
You joined Facebook when all your friends were on it and you could deny it no longer.  Reddit adoption was probably a little more intense because of the ability to join multiple special interest groups.  But with both of these phenomenons if you didn't join, you were simply missing content and entertainment.  You didn't feel the sting of missing out on exponential potential profits. 
 
We have seen again and again through history that people don't slowly and fairly price assets.... This is my bubble theory, and here's what seems to happen again and again through history: 
 
1.) A new asset comes onto the scene. 
2.) It carries certain technical merit, which will improve everyone's lives to a certain degree if mass adopted.  (can be minor or significant) 
3.) This drives hype.  The hype creates an initial lift off that propels the price way beyond what it should be. 
4.) Then we see a crash. 
5.) This is the valley of adoption where everyone's expectations got ahead of them, the technology still needed to mature, and the innovators and early adopters sold to the foolhardy lemmings rushing into a "sure thing".  Remember when idiots were getting second mortgages and clearing out their savings to buy bitcoins at $800 because "it only goes up" and they were going to miss out on incredible gains? 
6.) There is an irrational amount of hate regarding the crashed asset at this point. 
7.) This is key:  IF there is long-range technical promise to the asset, it will recover from it's bubble and slowly gain steam again. 
8.) If there is significant possible growth remaining in the asset/technology, it will undergo another bubble cycle, even bigger than before. 
 
Rinse and repeat until maturity, with the price oscillating until it finds a stable and mature equilibrium. 
 

 
     

 
 
   
(No long term technical prospects for this one... the bubble died) 
 

---

 
 
And on and on and on. 
 
We will be no different.  Why would be we be different than every other financial asset that has EVER come before us when it's the same humans doing the speculating? 
 
You want to know what the next 20 years of Monero price history will look like, assuming we are successful long term?  The exact dates are impossible to predict, but the shape sure isn't: 
 
[SPOILER ALART] 
 
 
 
Hold onto your butts. 

This is why my expectations are conservative (I don't see Monero surpassing $100 in less than 5 years) but thanks to the sheer force of it being alive with a strong foundation (honest launching and good tech), it should eventually get there.

Bing!  Winner!  Thanks, PM with XMR address if you want a present on Halving Day!

Yes that was it, thanks for the reminder!  Taleb is so smart, he's explained higher mortality rates for infants and children at the cybernetic level, whether the subject is restaurants (most fail in the first year), offspring, or altcoins.

Monetary disruption appears to move tectonically, in fits and spurts, as it scales from particular instances of fiat (Reichsmark LOL!) to fiat as an institution.  Of course these black swans/earthquakes are only cumulative/iterated effects of the incremental proceedings you mention, when the system jumps (through chaos) from a depleted basin of attraction to the fresh next, presumably lower (notwithstanding variance, YMMV) energy level.

(This process continues until the Ultimate Observer disrupts the false vacuum.  Getting in the way seems pointless and silly, except for all the drama and lulz produced therein.)

Here's a scary thought: is the fiat meme antifragile?    The gold/silver meme certainly appears to be...  

I think thermodynamics are on our side.  Maintaining petro-fiat hegemony simply takes more energy than the easier (more efficient) crypto alternative.  Similarly, transparent Bitcoin tx incur (for some purposes) higher costs than Monero's, because privacy and risk capital are by default valuable.

Yes that's the one.

You're probably referring to the Lindy effect.

I don't know the name of it but Taleb discusses it quite a bit in Antifragile I believe. He adds that a reasonable (rough of course) estimate of how long something will last is how long it has been around already.

If you apply that to, for example, fiat money, it makes the big-bang scenarios where we wake up one day and Bitcoin/crypto just takes over appear quite unlikely. More likely is that disruption proceeds slowly and below the radar in markets that fiat money doesn't serve very well.

I wish I had known about Amara's Law four years ago, as I enthusiastically threw cheap early BTC at anything that would accept them.   


I won't (ie will try not to) make that exorbitantly expensive mistake again.   

PS What was the name of the "Law" recently discussed which (roughly) states 'The longer something succeeds/remains viable, the longer it tends to succeed/remain viable?'  It made a good point about technological/economic inertia, as in the US telephone system, which also gave us hope as Monero celebrated its first birthday.  The inverse was 'the longer something doesn't fail, the less likely it will fail in the future.'

Sadly the hard drive with my keys was lost in a boating accident. All I have left to show is a couple of hundred on my (fully validated) poloniex account.  So naturally I will be a dip buyer again.

Qubes supports 64 bit out of the box: https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/QubesDownloads/

Smartest man I ever worked with was Feynman.  His tested IQ was 125 -- far lower than my own.  Naturally I have  healthy skepticism about the ability of Weschler tests to compact infinite-dimensional mind into a positive bounded integer.  Stupid is as stupid does.

Thanks for the advice. Done. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12056693