Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 208. (Read 3314309 times)

This is an interesting discussion.  Have you considered that fungibility could be pretty strong on layer 2?  Granted this leaves us with a completely transparant base layer which presents it's own challenges.

This is actually at the crux why I believe Monero has a very unique value proposition.  It is fundamentally something bitcoin may never be able to fundamentally be.

But fungibility isn't one. I'm talking about the stated goal of being "electronic cash," which has been kick the can down the road problem for years with add on features that never address the issue head on. If anyone thinks that BTC will become cash in the next year, I'll take their bet.

^  Wtf.  Lol.


Yup and I tend to agree with the 'if you wanna scale, you should go off chain' argument.  I think some Montereans would tend to agree too.

And generalizethis, Monero had its share of flaws too.

I liked your post, this is what I thought of after...

The lasting legacy of Bitcoin will be the total market cap of the cryptosphere, this pool of wealth is only 10 years old, and unlike any other in human history, it is free of conventional control, growing over time, and can morph itself into other forms almost immediately with minimal costs. Bitcoin and all other current crypto tokens might not exist in 10 years, but the pool of wealth will, it will continue morphing into new tokens by new tech as long as humans exist.

https://medium.com/s/story/the-domestication-of-cryptocurrency-acc832a0ad1c

I tend to fall on the small block (at least for now) side of that argument, and believe bitcoin will find it's way in the end. 

Montero does an interesting job of pointing to a lot of possible solutions though...

scale of testing != best implementation

The bug recently found underscores that even BTC, with its obvious limitations, isn't flawless or vetted enough. Also, there's the well-known fact, at least in this neck of the woods, that Bitcoin's aim to be an "eletronic cash" hasn't panned out.

If you had one job to do and couldn't do it, would you consider yourself the best?

But we should also consider that BTC is still the best implementation of a cryptocurrency.  And if there was something that's gonna outlive every coin in the space, it's still gonna be BTC imho.

The rest haven't really been tested at the same scale that BTC has.

Hah, Great to see you posting!
Chart looks nice today.

Monero is one of my most trusted projects in the future. I'm thinking of investing in the first opportunity. I wish I had known so long ago. We still have the opportunity to have a solid project.

Heh... okay okay yah I disappear for almost a year then come back and can't fucking shut up, huh... LOL

Well it'll happen or it won't happen regardless of my whistling past the graveyard or screaming into the storm winds, right?  Heh...

Then, there's this, too... LOL



      

I believe in this coin, and it seems to me that today is a good time to invest in Monero. I am sure that anonymous coins will be very much in demand soon. People want to keep online privacy.

I say YES.



Yup, smart. I too have been trying to do the same for the last year.

@KeyJockey seems to just want to yell it from the rooftops.


...shit I lost a big post...too lazy to redo it.

BTC going up and XMR going up with it - as are some of the other alts.

Ok, it could be temporary, but it feels pretty bullish after dips and endless sideways motion....  Is it going to be a pleasant November?

Taleb mentions, if I recall correctly, the term "at least" / "minimum" for non-perishable stuff. Thus, following the Lindy effect, a non-perishable good that has existed for 10 years is expected to at least exist another 10 years.

Now, I suppose Bitcoin is technically an implementation of something non-perishable, which somewhat weakens the Lindy effect.

Taleb specifically addresses robustness vs antifragility and they shouldn't be used interchangeably

Robustness is static durability. A concrete wall is more robust than a wooden fence. However, on a long enough timeframe, shocks large enough to destroy both structures are guaranteed and they have no mechanism to adapt, so they will be destroyed. The more robust structure can be expected to last longer. However, small shocks to the system won't improve it's expected duration. Intermittently hitting your concrete wall with a hammer won't improve its life expectancy.

Antifragility is a property of systems that specifically gain from disorder. Antifragile systems must have mechanisms for repair and adaptation. Biological evolution is the example. The culling of unfit individuals from populations by prior shocks to the system actually increases the resilience to unpredictable future stressors. Bone density is another example. Small shocks to your bones through controlled weight lifting will decrease your chances of long bone fractures to larger stressors.

Lindy does not mean bitcoin will only live another 10 years. Nor does it imply a symmetrical relationship (as is being suggested above). The most common example of the Lindy effect is in actuarial life expectancy tables. Your life expectancy is SHORTEST at birth. Every additional year you live, your life expectancy increases. For men in the United States, your life expectancy is 75.4 at birth but increases to 79 at age 50. Saying a male who lives 10 years is expected to live another 10 is a gross misunderstanding of the concept. Lindy simply means the life expectancy grows with time, by some unknown factor. Lindy applies most directly to memes, and has no application to strictly perishable good. Humans are partially perishable, so obviously, the lindy factor is much lower than for art or technology.

I think you have the wrong impression of what Bitcoin/Monero is if you are comparing Taleb’s hypothesis on that.  It’s a decentralized effort on the part of people that makes any crypto currencies successful. Bitcoin is still being tormented by the “politics” of Roger Ver & Co. while at the same time continually ignoring all the reasons why... and Monero is still achieving the feat of being able to fund developers on donations on the whim of whether people feel generous or not.

... I wouldn’t chalk up any real cryptocurrency projects to not have any “human-ness” about them at all.

Hmm... by your logic, Bitcoin will always be half way through its life.

You might want to read Taleb again, I believe he did suggest factoring in the health of something, too - since as Globbo rightfully says; this simplistic view is logically nonsense.

What Taleb meant is that the longer something survives the more robust, or anti-fragile it tends to become.  But I don't think that meant an eternal half-life.

"If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry."
LOL
Hey, by your logic, which requires taking Lindy totally literally, then Lindy must imply that nothing would ever survive past the first spark of creation.
But you needn't put any effort into accommodating concepts that don't immediately fit some naive expectations, if you don't so wish.
Taleb is worth reading.