Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 2144. (Read 3313070 times)

XMR is the future.

From the perspective of development, we need more use for XMR.
Therefore I am hopeful for Risto's Crypto Kingndom project.

Bitcoin used to have Silk Road which brought constant demand for bitcoins, we need similar things for Monero. I think non-kosher money is not the way we should engage actively but this type of projects like Risto's one.
Those projects, when successfully monetized, will bring large amounts of money (I am talking here about not millions but tens of millions, even hundreds of millions usd). If the game is done optimally and it is marketed the best possible ways. it might be a huge success and bring tons of non-crypto people to Monero-community.

I am not capable to do coding and I do not have financial resources to do big projects like this but those who wish I hope they will do them. If you can code, then do.

Also, what I would like to see is a Monero-dedicated auction site (like ebay but in Moneros), then perhaps e-book library which forces one to buy moneros first in order to borrow e-books etc.
This type of services are the ones that will hoover the excessive Moneros from the Poloniex - now there is a flood of Moneros. Slightly below 20 000 Moneros are daily mined currently and I am sure some miners would like to do something with their moneros instead of directly dumping them into Poloniex.  

Of course I am assuming here the Monero services are not direct dumpers (like the major btc-merchants are just another way to dump the coins into the fiat-btc-markets).

Very interesting, I'd forgotten how much ram this takes up (my comps run 16/32Gb ram w/ i7's so I forgot about the validation time and that the blockchain is in ram). A few situations I can consider:

1) a gov't GUI and the core protocol had a DB implementation that didn't bring the entire chain into ram and that does use your entire bandwidth
2) no gov't GUI, but the core protocol had a DB implementation that didn't bring the entire chain into ram and has some kind of bandwidth management
3) The situation now where there are GUI's, but they're clunky because of the rough underlying protocol and the network bandwidth isn't managed (i think this is still happening?)
4) Match the existing GUI's to an updated core protocol with a good DB implementation that didn't bring the entire chain into ram and had network management

Assuming you're someone who, in my point of view, is on the verge of adoption, but haven't totally adopted it yet (where you may own the currency on plx, but do not have the wallet on your computer), and momentarily excluding people who we want to adopt the software (everyone of course ), do you personally see any real difference between the above scenarios in regards to the likelihood that you'd personally put the software into use on your computer?

So which of the four likely situations above do you see having the greatest effects on both adoption and price, comparing yourself as a likely future adopter, and someone who may have not even heard of this yet?

Could I ask what date you had acquired some of this currency?



Interesting again, because after the core team had picked this project up, I had initially operated under the assumption (from what data on this forum I could skim through within a couple of hours) that one of them was a full-time cryptocurrency developer and the rest were unknowns to me, this was april at the time. Since then, I've discovered that at least two others seem to have solid development experience (with limited cryptocurrency development experience), at least one had management/IT experience, and at least one more also seems to have emerged as a software developer with a likely strong understanding of cryptography. That's only the core team, and since then they've gotten in touch with mathematicians/cryptographers and hired general developers. If anything, I've come evaluate this metric on an increasingly higher value than when I first took note of this. What makes you value it less highly than when you bought?





It seems my questions have brought about a contradiction, as your answer to what you think you bought and your answer to what this is are different. What you think you bought, and what you say this is are two different things because what you think you bought is "The promise of a truly anonymous cryptocurrency with a fair launch, a strong development team & active community that can fulfill the promise(s)", while what you say this is "is purely a speculative vehicle".

My personal answer to what I think I bought was "The promise of a truly anonymous cryptocurrency with a fair launch, a strong development team & active community that can fulfill the promise(s)", but where I think we differ is that I see that Monero currently is "A truly anonymous cryptocurrency with a fair launch, a strong development team & active community that can fulfill the promise(s)." But what I can't seem to understand is why we both agree with what we think we bought, be fail to agree on what we both say this is. Do you have any ideas on this? Could it be, simply, because I've got 16Gb of ram and an i7, and therefore the technical capabilities of the software still match my capability to use them? We say speculation drives the price, but I don't have anything against the claim that "The price is always at the right level to allow the highest level of adoption achieveable currently".

With that statement, do you think that it would be the speculation that drives the adoption, or the adoption that drives the speculation?

I would suggest starting from the beginning, even getting people to understand that obtaining a single bitcoin block 4 years ago would have let them live comfortably for an entire year today (or, at least earlier this year, before the return to sane prices ). So, for as little as a $20.00 investment in Monero today, one could have the proven possibility of not working for an entire year in 4-5 years, if you were in agreement that decentralized blockchain technology is what drives bitcoin. That's only the economical aspect. Additionally, you can have a legitimate dialogue where you explain what blockchain technology is and what it can do for people. Maybe you can convince them to purchase a graphics card instead, and invest $20.00 in power bills instead of buying it on the market. It's surprising to me that creativity is lacking in this likely unlimited implementation of a sound technology.

Because you're an early adopter. I'm not saying hand them your money (unless you really think that's all they want), but if you can't even exchange simple dialogue with them about your hopes, dreams and future prospects for the technology, then what does that say about everyone walking in the door after you? Share ideas with them, and letting them do the developing seems to have gotten me the best turnaround with something so new. Personally, I've shared two ideas with them. Both ideas I've seen manifest (one just very recently, and only one of the two I know came specifically from me). If I must live vicariously through these people, then the least I can do is spare an idea or two .

I'd make the point here that this is likely why we have <10 core team members, because any more than that would see the same barriers here you do. Even then, someone will eventually see the barrier as small enough to spend some time on. It's not a fault of your own or anything, more that events haven't lined up for either of the parties involved to make it happen, yet. I think it will. Might be a few years, might be never, but when it does I'll be very interested in what someone came up with.

Generally this will put current holders in a position to take profit, and actually halt the increase to adoption until the price is driven low enough and enough development occurrs that adoption may continue (because people are terrified of being screwed over by all the other people that overbought). Are you saying that as the current holders take their profit, they will be putting their money into services? Or, are you saying that if the price goes up faster, then this cycle can move faster and we can be at the end of the adoption cycle faster? While that may seem logical, I believe that pushing the adoption cycle too fast will likely inhibit the penetration into society. Additionally, I believe that any dropoff in adoption by investors taking profit will inhibit the penetration into society (until such a time where they cannot reasonably take their profit eg: a low).

It's with these ideas in mind, that I'd like this to take as long as possible, and for development to occur in as much free time as possible, because for the market to pull back like it's been doing is showing to be catastrophic to the cycle overall. Look at bitcoin. $275 a few days ago. Eventually the price always returns to the point where healthy adoption levels can be achieved. I bet for every ten people buying it at $1000, there was double that wanting to buy it at $275. Who knows though?


Add: Thank you very much for helping me identify something that I think is pretty unique in this cryptocurrency landscape. I believe we'd identified a unique hinderance to CryptoNote adoption that nobody really foresaw and many still aren't sure what to do about for the time being. With Bitcoin, there never really was the ability to have coins on the exchange but in no way actually own them, because the core protocol was to a decent enough level where people could take their coins and move them in and out of exchanges freely and never really have a technical reason not to take them out of the exhcange.

The technical pitfall that Cryptonote, and in this case Monero, is going through is that people really want to adopt the coin, and have taken the steps toward doing so, but have placed themselves in a situation where they have to settle for the 'fiat' version of Monero. I think it's obscuring many viewpoints, and believe this is a legitimate and dominating source of the general hostile feedback loop that's taken root in the atmosphere of CryptoNote. People wanted a cryptocurrency, but have to live with a fiat version of it. In turn, this seems to have confused people. They've been dealing with it so long that adoption is literally 'backing up' (cautiously avoiding the term 'stunting'). Perhaps, in hindsight, it would have been best to go with the simple ramswap that the other coins were doing temporarily rather than let it get so backed up? Time will only tell though.

If these technical limitations hadn't been in place, perhaps the adoption cycle would have been less hindered (because, by my definition, people could acutally adopt the coin)? Oh well, hindsight here will never be a foresight for me so what's the point of asking that one.

It's not about the learning curve, it's about the fact that I can't do anything on my laptop when running Monero. Because of this I can only run it when I actually want to use it, but then I have to wait for ages for syncing, or have to re-download the blockchain.

1. The promise of a truly anonymous cryptocurrency with a fair launch.
2. A strong development team & active community that can fulfill the promise.
Currently I evaluate #2 less highly than when I bought.

Monero is purely a speculative vehicle, and it will take very long time before real adoption is driving the price. Even in bitcoin speculation is what driving the price, and not adoption, although real adoption levels are certainly part of the speculative value.
Declining prices are bad for adoption, why would I tell my friends about my investment if I'm down 40%? why would I donate to the dev team? why would I spend my free time on developing services? Rationally, I should because that is what might actually prop my investment, but psychologically it's not that easy to do.
The DB & GUI are also part of the speculative value, because they are both necessary for adoption and are part of the confidence people have in the dev team. So, I think their release will drive up the price, which will put current holders in a position to help increase adoption.

So rather than overcoming a 15 minute learning gap, we'd rather place our money in someone else's API, who is in control of likely 7.5% of the mint, even after they've been hacked in the last year, and Mt. Gox, and everything else? I'm not trying to be accusatory here (I am part of this group for the moment), just stating what I see.

So collectively, I see that many people (With at least a representative ~7.5% of the mint) would rather have point-and-click operation with no functionality (as the 'coins' you see on the exchange are just representative of the value that you're owed, and not actual value tokens), over typing an average of five words on a command line with full functionality of what cryptonote offers you?

I have to ask, for speculation purposes, what is it, exactly, that people think they have bought?

Additionally, I'd like to point out that I think lower prices are great for higher adoption. So, do people think adoption would suffer if price rises upon release of a GUI wallet, or would adoption fuel a rise in price after release of a GUI? So, if the GUI was already 'priced in', could adoption suffer because the price increased to matched the hype related to a government GUI, or if the GUI was somehow prevented from being 'priced in' before its actual release would adoption then be helped?

Further, what do people view adoption as? Is adoption the moment the software is downloaded and run on your computer, or the moment you click buy on poloniex? I think that's a very important question. My personal view is that adoption is the moment the software is downloaded and run on my computer, and then used for its intended purpose. As this is a currency, the intended purpose would likely be to transact with it. So, as a third question, could adoption be the moment you transact with the software on your computer?

So, other than exchanges and the pending MEW game, what can I use this for to transact in?

Edit: Consider that you can purchase plots of land on the moon right now. Did you buy this as a gag for friends and family, did you purchase with the intent to hold onto it to pass down to your children in case the plot of land becomes claimable, or do you really think you're gonna go and move to the moon tomorrow? Maybe this is a weak analogy, but I consider that anyone who has not downloaded this software and used it on their computer to have not really adopted the coin (yet ), in the same way they don't intend to move to the Moon.

I think part of the large "ask" side is people holding their coins on polo because they don't want to use the wallet.

I think that the issue is not (only) the wallet.

The blockchain is still huge and make the daemon slow down everything. Imho that should be the first to be fixed. I was *very* happy when the devs decided to take a look on that, but I saw no news on that matter for quite long time.

Wallet is the main way to connect to ordinary users. So it is very important.

I don't think the BitcoinQT wallet is one for the masses. As we can see now, that is more a hardcore wallet due to the space and interface (though it has gotten better).
(I prefer a light wallet like Electrum for a variety of reasons.)

For me, I wanted something that would install easily on my MAC. I am an ex IT guy and I couldn't install the simple wallet from source - I spent a few hours and just gave up trying to get it to run right. I did get it running by just double clicking on the downloaded files, and I did download the blockchain, etc. but I wanted something from source. Having something visual with more options for privacy and such is important imo.

A bigger reason though, is that I think we need something a bit more attractive, just to attract the average person AND keep up with other offerings (other coins). Feature sets are important. Comparing wallets will inevitably be a part of the selection process and if something like Cloak, Dark, etc. (even though INFERIOR) start to take the lead then the average person will be none the wiser.

Just my perspectives and you made some good points, but I think we have to approach this from a "common" user perspective, not expert or power user. I realize it is early in the game, so I don't mean to get ahead of ourselves but I feel we have to stay on top of things to be able to secure that #2 position, and we are a bit down the list, though technically a GREAT coin. So, sooner rather than later on the wallet is what I feel.

IAS

truth be told i'm currently down about -40% on monero at current dumper prices

but i will tell you that i do not care. i have been here before, these times only strengthen the resolve : D

XMR is the future.

The market seems to be judging the news as of little consequence

To me it's mostly about confidence in the dev team. I want to know that there is a clear roadmap, and what is promised, is being delivered. As far as I understand the developers that are doing the GUI are not those who handled the crisis, still fluffypony said it was put on the backburner, which I don't quite get.

It is now!

so rptelia's post is the basis for the rumor?

How reliable is the source of that rumor, if I may ask?

6. Not governmentally subsidized, approved, provided, or licensed. So many people have had to settle for using the fiat version of the coin found on exchanges for so many months now that they feel that the potential profit they can take by hyping a gov't GUI is actually owed to them. I'm sorry.

I'm curious why people think the (two) third party GUI wallets are so insufficient they are hurting the market. For comparison purposes, most Bitcoin users today use third party wallets such as Electrum (or web wallets -- also third party). I would expect this to be more normal than not as a coin matures.

1. Don't like
2. Don't trust
3. Don't know about
4. Can't get to work
5. Doesn't support preferred platform (the .NET one is Windows-only; supposedly the other one is cross platform, but I haven't tried it)
6. other?


On this thread apparently.

where's this rumor?

i think you pushing it so hard is probably the biggest negative indicator I've seen.  your posts are crossing from suspicious over optimism into desperation.

Now is the time to buy, considering that rumor says the webwallet is out in 2 weeks..