Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 2137. (Read 3313076 times)

Since most non-tech users have a hard time to set up the current monero wallet, they leave their XMR on the exchange. Bid/ask hardly says anything, walls could vanish when the price comes near. On top of that, you never now what's on the side ready for buying when they feel like it.

What is there to see? And what's funny? I don't get it...

Just saw the buy support vs sell support on poloniex 

Exactly.
Slow emission combined with building up services around the coin will drive the coin to bullish trend.
The bullish trend attracts new adoption. New adoption generates more services and thus the positive circle has kicked in.
The other alternative, which we have now, is a group of apathetic and poorer bagholders and zero or declining adaption rate.
There is no point and reason to support this high emission rate currently.
If there will be more adaption, there are whales and earlier adopters willing to sell their coins to noobs.
I would see a drastic cut in emission - perhaps even as drastic as dividing the next 4 years supply by 40-50 years.
Then Monero has some chances to survive.

Currently 1000-2000 new coins on daily basis is just enough. Not more is needed.

So we need a slow emission of coins for many  years. In the mean time, we find usage for the coin and build a strong community. Hopefully, when the emission is low, there will be enough transactions to sustain the network.

No, unless the price skyrockets.
Also high fees makes people avoid transacting with xmr.

I am worried if the transaction fee is not high enough in 4 years time, will miner still serve the network?

momentum is ever thus.  then it reverses and everyone gets excited with unrealistic visions, until the next reversal.  usually the turns are sufficiently volatile so that you can easily misinterpret the evidence as supportive of your chosen outcome.  right now we are in a bear pennant, but a new high about 0027 would turn it into a rising channel.  a channel rise to 0028 or better followed by a 2-4% decline would turn it into a cup n handle.

all of this is very short term, and largely irrelevant to the long term investment thesis which motivates me to continue accumulating:  xmr remains the most liquid and actively developed among all coins which provide rigorously verifiable assurances of privacy.  as such it is  still the leading candidate to fulfill the future role of the natural monopoly of dark instant global liquidity.

yes, that liquidity is inadequate for larger currency uses, but that will change very quickly when the natural beneficiaries of its value-add find its usability fit for their purposes.  that probably won't happen this year, given current project velocities on the software side.  this fact gives present accumulators a large edge.  it is an edge which comes with a painful carry cost, but it remains that most elusive and wonderful of things, a very large edge.

hopefully enough of us with the means and foresight to accumulate at the lows will recognize this situation so that the drawdown discomfort is minimized, and as little damage as possible is done to the present liquidity transfer capacity and efficiency of the coin, but it can still take a fair amount of price damage before it becomes unsuitable for transfers up to a few thousand USD, and that is quite adequate for the bootstrapping process to occur onve retail dark markets discover an easy to use crypto with strong privacy.

way far from death.

What is your opinion and what are the reasons?

I look at it slightly differently. I view distribution as bad in cases like NXT, where all the coins were given to extremely few people and that of course would make it difficult to obtain a diverse distribution due to most of the coins being in relatively few hands. When it comes to good distribution, it's sort of a dilemma. Since  cryptocurrencies aren't as well known and used like we would want them to be, even the best of distributions wouldn't matter as much compared to a coin that has had decent distribution. Unless most of the world adopts a coin as a reserve currency of sorts, then distribution will always be criticized/can't be perfect. My thoughts are that it's the things built around a coin that matters. So payment gateways that allow XMR to be accepted to buy goods imo(which in itself, if the companies convert to fiat, would distribute the currency further), is what matters more than any type of distribution(as long as the distribution itself is decent)

85% is four years I think, not three (well 3.5 now that six months has passed since launch).

But in any case the scenario you had in mind is exactly what exists, except that the services don't exist. Someone who wants to bet a tiny amount on fantasy football or micro stakes poker or play Crypto Kingdom can mine right now on whatever computer they happen to have. They won't get a lot but they will get something.

I see 85% as almost.  Basically I view distribution early on as something that was made to encourage early adoption / speculation.  So getting coins towards people who are going to use / save them initially (in my opinion) will increase adoption velocity more now than in 3 years.

But this is my opinion ... take it fwiw

This was composed as a reply to me, but I think we agree?

I see no reason to distinguish between different types of computers aside from the obvious fact that newer, more expensive ones will work faster and better than older ones (and at some point the even-older ones will stop working at all).

"Almost all" is misleading (it sounds to me like 99% or something, and down to just a maintenance reward or none at all). The actual number I've seen is something like 85% in 4 years, which means even if 4+ years there will be significant mining. The current proposal for a maintenance reward doesn't kick in for around 10 years or so.


That depends on the future value, which is impossible to know. Bitcoin rewards were cut in half, yet the value of a block (and of all mining) now is vastly higher than it was 2+ years ago.

In fact another way to look at the schedule of mining rewards would be to attach a current value at the time they are mined. By that measurement Bitcoin is much less than 60% mined or whatever the current number is assuming constant-value BTC.

Almost all Monero will be mined in 3 years.  So if initial distribution in mining matters.  It matters more now in early adoption when the release schedule is trying to drive adoption than it does in 3 years

If the technical distinction between grandma and your voluntary miner is 3 years, forget about a relevant way to distinguish them in the POW. We cannot  assume that we will change the POW every 3 years, so this kind of question is of little relevance.

Yeah but you have to figure grandma isn't going to be mining crypto ... someone else is mining with grandma's computer.  I'm willing to give her up to get rid of botnets:p

But you are right.  It is an academic question.  If there was a way of forcing blockchain storage to mine I think that would do wonders because people would find it if botnets were being used.

Maybe someone needs to figure out how to incorporate a proof of consent.

Well the question then is whether you want to exclude grandma and focus on gamers. I sure don't.

This is kind of an academic question right now though (since neither have any good reason to be interested), but an important distinction when it comes to statement of purpose longer term.

In fact on the altcoin observer thread we had an interesting discussion about a billion cell phones mining while on chargers.

The security idea is good. There have been some ideas I've seen to use multisig as a form of decentralized 2FA (both your PC and cell phone would have to sign a transaction for example).

I could dig deeper into this but my impression is that the cryptonote algo isn't as efficient at punishing lower end older CPUs as it could be.  The tendency of botnets is to capture grandma's computer (Walmart computer from 3 years ago)  Not the gamers/hipsters/business professionals high end gaming pc/mac/ultrabook computer.

This might be a misperception on my part.  The newer the PC, the less likely to be infected by a botnet as the owner probably cares more about controlling his own hardware.

+9999 on the guy who mentioned security.  A wallet that limited withdrawals to a small amount per 24 hour period unless multisig from a second device was used.  And then sent a warning message to the second wallet (maybe phone thin wallet?) Would be amaxing.

I believe Ethereum is working on a method to force miners to keep the block chain on the local machine (would help in making botnets less of a factor)

I have a windows machine.  I refuse to use Linux even though I work in IT.  I live in fear of keeping too much on an exchange and more fear of keeping it on my local machine.