Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 2049. (Read 3314350 times)

I haven't really followed the market of this coin but pretty much everything I've heard about it has been good.
I guess it would be a good time to invest something into it

It is so easy that I am crying to make it accessible for you  


- Buy XMR now at $0.35. Most people can set aside $1,000 so that'll be 3,000 XMR, a rather easy buy even in the illiquid exchange.

- Write it off. Don't care about what you could have bought with it. Work overtime to recoup the money if you must, or skip a trip, to make it emotionally OK that you have given the money away.

- Do some productive stuff, don't follow XMR unless you care about the nascent payment network and services in alpha stage.

- Wait, until it hits $2 (not that hard, we were doing it for months last summer; the ath = $5), if the day arrives, sell 500 XMR and get back 100% of your original investment. If anything, now you should be totally ok to just wait where it goes.

- Continue your life.

- Sell 500 XMR every time it goes up 10x from the previous sale. This way the schedule is:

500 XMR @ $2
500 XMR @ $20
500 XMR @ $200
500 XMR @ $2,000 (gain $1 million)
500 XMR @ $20,000 (gain $10 Mm)
500 XMR @ $200,000 except since at this point you are set for life plus have XMR that is worth 100 million in purchasing power, it's hardly necessary to sell it unless you need something.

$200,000 * 18 million coins = $3,600 billion, still <1% of the current total in USD-denominated assets, so as such, not even a win for crypto but a good start


ADD: Oh forgot to mention: never, EVER:

- sell at a loss
- deviate from the plan in any other way.

Because with bitcoin you can't do it trustlessly and decentralized.



Except that Darkwallet transactions can be deanonymized, and there's likely nothing they can do to fix it.


Wrt instamine - in the big picture, we are all still instamining. When/if the mass adoption and wall street level investing occur, it doesn't matter much whether the instamine lasted for 2 days or 2 years.

= me not so serious.

It's pretty simple. If you allow a human point of failure besides the user themselves, this point will fail. A good privacy coin needs to be only dependent on the user himself for their privacy to be broken or safe. Darkcoin will fail because it imagines that its incentive scheme is greater than an incentive scheme(s) that a government can offer, or imagines the government won't ever use heavier coercion schemes.

This is a spy agency's wet dream: a broken crypto-system that no one believes (at least the users) is broken that they can pick and choose their targets and wait for the target to slip-up so they can point to that as the reason of arrest or can manufacture proof that the user failed and the system is still not broken--see England's handling of Enigma.

If I was paranoid, I'd believe this (the broken system strategy) is already happening with BTC.

Everyone with just a little bit of brain will see that this argument is utter bullshit.

Because with bitcoin you can't do it trustlessly and decentralized.



Except that Darkwallet transactions can be deanonymized, and there's likely nothing they can do to fix it.


Wrt instamine - in the big picture, we are all still instamining. When/if the mass adoption and wall street level investing occur, it doesn't matter much whether the instamine lasted for 2 days or 2 years.

I would like to advise caution concerning the exchange rate development. It is not likely to push through the recent high of 194k any time soon. There are not nearly enough people involved in the coin yet to warrant such development. I hate to make forecasts on timing, but have to: I believe it'll take 2-3 months before there is enough new interest for going higher.

Also we have still some weak hands eager to sell their coins between 115k-194k (the low limit is the price at the "announcement", which I don't believe will be visited except briefly at max, the high limit is the previous high, a medium-strong resistance). If these holders are not shaken out slowly, they will cap the rally by selling when their coins are much more expensive.

Staying in this area slowly confirmes that we have moved from downtrend to uptrend, continues to give time for the community to get back / strengthen their positions, enables my friends and the investors to start taking their positions, and provides time for an efficient marketing system to be developed.

Festina lente!

Except that Darkwallet transactions can be deanonymized, and there's likely nothing they can do to fix it.

I think smooth's point regarding off-chain/on-chain privacy leads to an important question: if you're going to depend entirely on off-chain privacy, why not just use bitcoin?

Bitcoin plus dark wallet is probably better than DRK, assuming it gets popular enough, and maybe already. For one thing it has stealth addresses and DRK does not.

A major company would never risk losing revenue with a scandal as big as colluding with governments and revealing personal data! The people would never stand for it and there's no way a company could handle the economic backlash as citizens unite and boycott their services all the way to bankruptcy court....  

Majority of nodes are run on amazon AWS VPS systems or the like. You wouldn't even have to go to each player directly, but go straight to the hosting service.

The problem is that it is set up as a many-way prisoner's dilemma. The data trackers won't go to a masternode convention and try to get a collective body of masternode operators to make a collective decision to share data. They will go to individual masterede operators and pay for data. The only rational decision for an individual operator is to accept the money. His individual decision to do so won't harm the privacy of the coin much at all. In fact according to your arguments about probabilities across multiple rounds and blinding making each operator individually insignficant, it won't hurt at all.

I suppose there is another possibility, which is that masternodes all end u being operated by the same party, in which case they can, possibly, make a rational decision to refuse. That's not very decentralized though is it?

And that's where we'll continue to disagree. You assign very high probabilities to your scenario playing out with the majority (if not all) masternode owners sharing data whereas I assign low probabilities of this being as large of an issue as you make it sound like it will be--strictly from an incentive trade off between data revenue streams vs risk of value loss to underlying holdings.

That is why the data will be shared. This if anything creates more incentive for entities such as data brokers (on the commercial side) and intelligence agencies (on the government site) to aggregate data from many masternodes, and shifts power away from individual masternodes even if they are ideologically driven (unlikely in a mature state). After all, if I'm a masternode, my thinking can be that if the data is spread out among many masternodes, there is not much harm in getting some extra money selling mine.

In fact the economics suggest that all masternodes will share data with these entities either knowingly or unknowingly.