Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1905. (Read 3314330 times)

My biggest quibble with the posited result of Bitcoin being overtaken is exactly your last paragraph. 3-5 fairly strong coins doesn't upend the entire premise of scarcity at all. It simply gives us a scarce ecosystem of 3-5 fairly strong coins. Of course, if that turned into 100 equally strong coins or something like that, with more fairly strong coins arriving every day (both highly improbable), then scarcity would indeed be completely destroyed.

But in practice most of the concern over destroying scarcity is based on a false premise. People indeed observed 100s of alts and more being created every day but, importantly and incorrectly, ignored the question of whether they are actually fairly strong or fairly worthless.

The most important conclusion, though, is that even if the theory and conclusion (that Bitcoin being overturned would be catastrophic) is correct, that alone won't prevent it from happening. It simply means that cryptocurrency either doesn't work at all, or will, as you suggested, take 10+ more years to really work. There is no alternative short of a central authority imposing an outcome by its will, which makes the whole experiment an abject failure anyway.

I never said anything about a "moral responsibility" to uphold bitcoin, nor what you put inside quotation marks. Please do not misrepresent what I actually said.

My point is that I think the state of the ecosystem, and the crypto-value-store proposition itself, is so new/unstable/untested, that bitcoin being unseated in the near/medium term stands a good chance of causing a crypto depression. A possibility that you seem to ignore. I respect Smooth's response to ack the theory but disagree on the probabilities. I think you too should consider the probabilities, or at least articulate your analysis of them better if you are indeed taking that line of thought.

This is coming from several years worth of discussions with various people, many of whom are sophisticated investors, execs at successful companies, etc, etc. Many have been tip-toeing in to Bitcoin one way or another, and I think a flip right now in where the value store is in the ecosystem would cause many of them to basically say: "eh, too chaotic right now. I'll wait a while until taking another look." That's problematic for me, in that I think the ecosystem as a whole needs to contain far more value in terms of fiat-market-cap in order to even begin to scratch the surface of the real benefits of the technology for the world. Thus, I consider Bitcoin remaining #1 for the foreseeable future, in order to thus yield the highest chance of more cryptocapitalization in general, as optimal right now.

That said, I concur with others that there will be an ecosystem of coins, with maybe 3-5 being fairly strong. Most likely outcome in terms of relative market-cap seems like a power-law distribution to me, though, since it's a free market in a domain that exhibits strong network effects.

Current channel:



Let's try to stay in it.

+10000

The number of people holding the coin is largely irrelevant, as long as the coin is not manipulatable by preminers, and its market cap therefore reflects the current market perception of its value by at least some degree.

Why?

If the marketcap of the coin is constant, then more people holding just means that the average holding is smaller. What matter to the coin's future the most, are the people who have their skin in the game, ie. the larger holders. Nothing is easier than distribute a coin evenly to all people in Iceland, and claim huge number of holders, but this approach does not lead to many enough people appreciating the coin, or a high marketcap, or any success.

XMR mcap is about $4 million. If we accept the higher end of the distribution, it means that $2.7 million in value of this is held by 1,000 people, leaving $1.3 million for the rest.

If we had 50,000 holders which was suggested, the average holding in this smallholder group would be $27, hardly an amount that indicates much trust or skin-in-the-game.

It is therefore probably more likely that the # of people at any one time holding a balance of XMR is 7k, which also was suggested. This would mean that their average is $217, a more likely figure. Or somewhere in between, as per my suggestion.

No matter what the truth is - for it's not knowable - I believe it indicates more strength for the coin to have a healthy number of reasonably large holders than a large number of small ones.

My last visit as the prisoner of the system predates Monero by 1 year and your account by 1/2 a year so consider shutting the fuck up  

1) Crypto is still in the stealth phase, or in the quantum-foam phase, where you cannot really say if it is black or white until you look, and I can change the marketcap of Bitcoin by 10% without sweating my brow, creating or destroying $500 million if I so wish.

2) As long as this persists, short term events do have their effects, but you cannot evaluate the effect just by looking at the current numbers.

3) Every change is perceived progress. So if some Bitcoin holders decide to move their value to an alt, and consequently the value of Bitcoin crashes, the culprit is Bitcoin, which was perceived inferior to the alt. If the alt was never invented, of course there would not have been the change, but it is incredulous to think that this outcome would be better for the society. Proof: Soviet Union also collapsed.

4) It is unlikely, or in every case not long-term credible, to say that a change to the better in crypto value storage alternatives would lead to a decrease of people's willingness to store value in crypto. Cryptos are competing with other asset classes, so an improvement in crypto leads to an increase in interest to store value there, and the increase in the total crypto marketcap.

5) In all due respect, sir, towards your long-term membership here in the forum, and many valuable contributions, but the idea that we should have a moral responsibility to upheld Bitcoin because "otherwise people would not know whom to trust and the whole industry would collapse" is equivalent to the cry from the ludicruously overbloated monopolized taxi racket against Uber and liberalization in general. I mean if you could secure your livelihood by pleading it from the government (as the taxi people could over 50+ years), go for it. But in a free market such fallacy is costly for your self.

I have no control over what he posts in other threads and I'm not going to delete posts purely on the basis of reputation (unless there are repeat offenses here and I ban someone, which I don't think I have ever done). If his posts here have on-topic content, which they occasionally do, they are welcome. If not then not.

You should just delete this trolls posts

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11398985

TaunSew, just no to posts like that. Nothing more to say

Actualy, I agree and disagree with that, dollar vs euro have +/- the same price because the central banks manipulate the markets to this happens that way, in case of cryptocurrency there are no central autority to manipulate that, and for example, even now i am more confortable to have moneros than bitcoins and keep my wealth private, I dont think bitcoin will decrease the value, right now alot of services are start to looking on bitcoin and acept it, in the short time i dont see big bumps but the price will rise steady..
In case of monero we have alot work to do, but i think in long time we have potencial to overpass the bitcoin price.... but alot of work to do before that of course

The 70K number is not addresses either, it is registered polo accounts.

Risto is a lot of things but hacker is not one of them, or if he is he sure does a great job of hiding it.

I personally doubt the number is as high as 50K though. Probably a lot of the Polo accounts are fake/throwaways, and some are from people only ever interested in some other coin. But there are probably a few Monero users who never had polo accounts too.

Addresses =/=users.   95% of those addresses are probably Risto's, when he snuck into the aslyum's computer system,and created scripts to spam address creation.

except a large gulf exists between something making sense to someone, and that thing being true, or even likely to be true.  

The more I think about this, the more it seems that new altcoins should base their total numbers to "play nice" with the original vision of 21 million bitcoins.  As you said, due to cognitive load, we are already asking a lot of the common man.  
  
It willl make it much more difficult if the commoner has to keep track of different magnitudes of relevance (i.e. Dogecoin's 100 billion+ cap).  Because Monero is poised to "play nice" and scale similarly to bitcoin, there is a much greater chance for mass familiarization and adoption.  It will just feel more comfortable to deal with after making the leap to understanding the 21 million coin universe of bitcoin.  
  
In fact, it may be the case that neither coin has to 'win' over the other.  I can even imagine a future where the market caps of bitcoin and Monero are nearly equal, and they joust like the dollar and euro do.  People will just inherently understand there are about 40 million-ish cryptocoins out there, about half of them private and the other half public.  
  
It makes a lot of sense.  
  
I would even venture that there is still room for 1 to 3 more major contenders.  I think people are willing to bear the cognitive load of 3 to 5 major 'brands', but only if they offer compellingly different experiences than each other.  
  
Imagine a line of 'for Dummies' books:  *Which Cryptocurrency is right for me and my business?*  
  
I think that successive alts that wish to have a real shot at making it should keep to the formula of approximately 20 million coins (so that even with 5 major names we will only have 100 million total 'coins' in the world).  
  
In fact, the more I think about it, the more this future makes sense to me.

Brands are actually a good model for this. Cryptocurrency is indeed not scarce because of alts. (You can't "blame" alts for this though, it is just the nature of the technology.) But coin brands (and therefore meaningful alts) in general are scarce for the same reason that other brands are: limits of cognitive load. Most if not all markets have a handful of significant brands, the rest are largely irrelevant. So if the Bitcoin brand is shown to be not scarce because of Litecoin, Monero and a few others, then so be it. Instead of 22 million coins, there might be the equivalent of 100 million. That's still scarce. It does not mean there will be arbitrarily large number of coins.

 
  
I agree.  People keep looking at that little peak to 240 and imagining three successively larger peaks based off of that before another period of consolidation.  
  
It would seem though that my entry into the Monero market has sparked off a new wave of public interest, and personally I'm looking at that big ass peak to the 4000 and imagining three successively larger peaks based off that before the next major consolidation period.  
  
This isn't a BBQcoin short game gentlemen.  Don't let your expert trading experience blind you to the size of the forest you are wandering in.

Imho giving up a reasonable position at this price has more potential to bite you in the ass than potential to decrease your avg. buy in. Especially with the last spike to ~ 0.0043 in mind, it feels like this could be just the beginning of things.

By now a bigger buy can take us into the 0.003s and the bidside down to 0.002 keeps stacking up.

Ah. what wonderful discussion... thanks.

The flaw in this is that crypto is so much bigger and more compelling than any one brand.  Nothing can stop it really...  What it becomes is going to be hashed out and at the moment Bitcoin leads the pack, and I agree if it is somehow displaced that will have chaotic effects.

I agree with your conclusion though.  There is room for Monero to gain #2 status in time, and it's unique features allow it to have a symbiotc relationship with Bitcoin.

Just buy back and shut up.

Smooth feel free to delete my useless post, but please delete his crap too, enough of "it's crap, but it's meaningful in a (convoluted) way". It's not, it's just annoying. Maybe consider the history of the poster in the thread when judging a single post.