Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 2139. (Read 3313076 times)

yeah it's fully legal in Colorado (out of state DL with no medical prescription.  Limited to buying 1 oz at a time).  Legal in Washington & Alaska with some caviots (less restrictive than needing a medical prescription)

Laws regarding this have changed over the last couple years.
There are many US states where MJ can be bought with an ID.
I think more than half US citizens are in one of these states now.

http://norml.org/states

It can only be purchased in Arizona, and you have to have a medical card for it. Only about 35,000 or so people in Arizona have this card, or at least so I have heard.
Those with the card are limited to just a few ounces being purchased every two weeks. That means that with enough funding, they could very easily fulfill their promise.

retail price of a gram of cannabis is more like $14-17 i think. who buys just a gram anyway?

seriously I do not know what the F*** is wrong with this market - I am not in the cannabis business but how much does one gram cost 8$-12$?

this stuff is traded at 5 cents, with 90 Million Coins - I want to see the vendor who sells 90 million grams for 5 Million$.

This stuff simply does not make any sense at all.

Regarding xmr price - this is the price I expected to be around the buttom (in btc terms) in boring times of xmr - there will be less boring times ...

When they announced that they will peg CANN to a gram of cannibis ofc the price will rocket.

What would happen if "someone" announces that 1 XMR can be traded for 1 once of silver?

But not in the gaming industry, since it obviously cannot succeed.

Just wondering, are they fluoridating your water? 

Monero has lost 2 positions in the coinmarketcap in favor of cannabiscoin and nubits.

Something is wrong here

Bitcoin startup companies.

I'm not reading all that.

But you have a nice day, too.

You're right, it's a little tedious. It's okay though, we can disagree and that's alright. I look through these threads and I see a steadily increasing amount of cryptocurrencies priming themselves to be used in conjunction with games over the next year and likely beyond, for various and unique reasons between currencies. Monero now has an avid supporter trying to provide a trustless faucet/pay to win game on any internet browser. Gameleaguecoin seems to be focusing on tablet and phone app devices. Hyper coin seems to be focusing on downloaded games like counterstrike. Huntercoin has an actual implementation of a game on the blockchain. Gamerholic coin is another one that popped up - I'm not sure what they're up to yet. I look at the gaming industry, and see that it's rapidly heading towards open source platforms. Noting that the cryptography used in cryptocurrencies can be applied to fields other than cryptocurrencies, I mix the two together and say that, perhaps, it would be a bit harder to hack games if there was a cryptocurrency implementation?

If they decide to use their own currency, that's fine. If they decide to use another currency, that's fine too. Point is - I see a use for the technology found in cryptocurrencies in games. If you'd like to see my long-ass rambling on that, it can be found here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9026406 .

If you don't agree with this becoming a trend, then that's fine. If you don't agree with this becoming a necessity, that's fine too. There were people saying for months that anon didn't matter in a cryptocurrency, then they got pumped to hell. Those people got a lot quieter for a little while, while anonymous currencies flourished to the point where people were sick of them. Even after this recent phase, some people are saying they're not necessary and some people are saying they're necessary. To this day, we still don't know if it's a necessity. We understand news interviews like the most recent one from bloomberg, here: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/benjamin-lawsky-we-can-police-bitcoin-aZCPkB8PSdSPVzaeZFME~g.html, a link from NewLiberty, where lawsky outlines a situation where cryptocurrencies will face regulation based on technical aspects that have since been changed and are different from bitcoin. Regulations will likely be passed, that may affect some cryptocurrencies and not others. Maybe some people will see a new legitimacy to anon coins, maybe they won't. Anyways, I'm rambling .. damn I'm tired.

If nothing else, then let's leave it at, "I do think it will happen, but perhaps time will prove me wrong", and if it doesn't happen, then you will have been totally right about something and time won't prove you wrong. Seems time's the only thing that actually has anything relevant to contribute to the conversation, so I guess I'll be back tomorrow.

What needs crypto to in order to succeed?

Oh God. Here we go.


OK sure that sounds fine. What does this have to do with my point? What point are you trying to make?



Of course I support cryptocurrency usage. I'm talking specifically about crypto in video games, which clearly do not need it to succeed.



Pie-in-the-sky. When fiat is no longer an option, we will all have much bigger problems than how to pay for our video games.


For the simple reason that it hasn't happened yet. Like I said, maybe time will prove me wrong.


How about this? "I don't think it will ever happen, but perhaps time will prove me wrong."

Sarcasm, excellent. Then why do they not allow direct trading in company shares, or physical gold, or physical silver? How sure are you that it's not just because, for the purpose of the exchange, the USD has been made into a convenient digital medium of exchange with value they can monitize?


So then, am I to understand that you do not support cryptocurrency usage? Serously, I'd like to know - as I've been operating under the assumption that you did see a reason for cryptocurrency usage at all. If fiat was no longer an option, what methods have you conceived by which games can be monitized?



I'm not really following why you don't see it. Care to try and convince people/me otherwise?




You contradict yourself: "Perhaps time will prove me wrong." and "So, lets just leave it at it won't ever happen." are two completely different statements, and they're even within the same post! Are you trying to deliberately make a non argument here and just write words for the sake of writing words?

Because the USD has a reputation and is backed by the US government. Pretty big reasons, really.


Yes, OK I agree entirely so far.


Also agreed. Video games don't need crypto at all.


That's a fine opinion to have, but I just don't see any major game developers integrating outside cryptocurrencies into their games. Perhaps time will prove me wrong.


This is a weird conclusion to draw based on your arguments. If I was the SEO of Valve I would much rather hire a team to make Steamcoin than use an outside crypto as there are far fewer risk factors to consider (hidden premines, pump n dumps, mining manipulation, exploits purposefully introduced into the code, etc). I'd develop SteamCoin internally, have it be the in-game currency for all new releases and trade it on Poloniex.

But this also won't ever happen due to legal and compliance issues. So, lets just leave it at it won't ever happen.

For this reason you don't see Steam or anyone else (other than rpietila, and a few gambling sites) integrating cryptocoins with games today. In the future who knows. The entire cryptocurrency concept is an exercise in speculating about what may or may not happen in the future (with a small measure of trying to influence that future). What customers (or people) know about today is not the point.

Feelings are for children, the point of the statement was that by being biased, you're showing me that you are curbing your potential to participate in a discussion you seem to want to participate in

Anyways, in response, I'd ask this: Why do these companies currently take the risk on integrating the USD with their in-game payment systems?

Why could I originally go to Diablo III and have a USD/in game item market place? Or why can I buy in-game currencies with my USD? Why do companies offer the pay USD to win campaign? Because it offers all the return with very little work.

Why mint your own currency, when there's already a framework in which people can already exchange and measure value? The effort to create such a financial structure is vast, and reasonably outside the scope of these companies who forego re-inventing the wheel every time they want to have a similar measure of wealth in a game. Usually, that's points or gold in exchange for the dollar with pay-to-win or pay-to-play games.

Plus, imagine all of the accusations of people who scream insider trading information at the top of their lungs? Just not a good mix and it would result in the ability to pump the currency every time a new game came out. When it settled on reasonable exchange rates again, people will have lost money. They're just not gonna go along with that. I wouldn't. I'd want my in-game currency to be tradeable for currency waaay outside the direct control of my gaming company, especially if the final denomination is tied to my fiat wealth going into the system.

I see your point about it being technically easy, but as far as it being fiscally responsible - absolutely not.

qfpw.

Most of their customers still have no clue what cryptocurrency is, because most people still have no clue what it is.

Only if customers prefer it.