"they" are FUDing the "new" (from July) XMR (CN) exploit in the Polo trollbox.
I couldn't help myself and bought more at what looks like the panic bottom of 382
Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 2159. (Read 3313576 times)
what incentive should an early buyer have tohold a coin when a S-cure is used?
S-curve emmission is in my opinion only possible with a central institution (call this a weakness or a strength of a social contract in cryptocurrencies)
S-curve emmission is in my opinion only possible with a central institution (call this a weakness or a strength of a social contract in cryptocurrencies)
it can be achieved without central instutution... Hard coded limits can be programmed.
For example: the high emission rate will only start when the hashrate crossed a certain point. It's all possible to programm
But this has nothing to do anymore with the XMR speculation, so let's stop this discussion here
The stabilization of mining growth is obscure to me, although perhaps it is motivated by wanting to buy XMR with a credit card. XMR always seems to be just shy of break-even, lately, no matter how much the hash rises.
Emission is declining 14 bp/diem at present.
Emission is declining 14 bp/diem at present.
The mining revenue is about 10% below the electricity cost for me. That is quite stable for about a month.
what incentive should an early buyer have tohold a coin when a S-cure is used?
S-curve emmission is in my opinion only possible with a central institution (call this a weakness or a strength of a social contract in cryptocurrencies)
S-curve emmission is in my opinion only possible with a central institution (call this a weakness or a strength of a social contract in cryptocurrencies)
The curve can be implemented in code, and hence distributed. The same central institution is always present: The development process. The curve can be implemented so as to automatically calibrate itself on the basis of transaction activity, although that can be gamed (and counter-gamed).
The biggest problems are (1) complexity -> unexpected consequences, and (2) unpredictability -> lack of investor interest.
Anyhow, it's a suitable pretext for a new alt-coin, as the traffic goes.
Ideally during the early stages one wants to see a small steady rise in price rather than a speculative boom bust cycle
I tend to agree, but I'd like to know your reasons. Also, to ask: Is there any point where this would not be desirable? I should think it always desirable. It is intrinsically unsustainable, however.RP's options and market-making activities, and the hitbtc market making incentives, may have contributed substantially to the decline in volatility -- they certainly correlate in time -- but it is perhaps impossible to segregate the factors with useful clarity.
The stabilization of mining growth is obscure to me, although perhaps it is motivated by wanting to buy XMR with a credit card. XMR always seems to be just shy of break-even, lately, no matter how much the hash rises.
Emission is declining 14 bp/diem at present.
The opposite is more nearly true. The future begins when the mining depletes.
before there is a sharp speculative spike in the XMR/XBT rate.
The market should be able to price the emission schedule in, when determining the price. At this point in the cryptoworld, having shart speculative spikes in a new coin's valuation is far from certain anyway.
What IS reality, however, is that some people such as me, automatically reject coins that are too much mined, unless the coin has exceptional merits. This leads to such coins not receiving any investment from the likes of me.
If Monero had been 70% mined when I heard about it, and otherwise same coin, same community and all, I would hardly have been interested.
Yes, but there is a critical difference. By the time Monero reaches a 70% mined rate it will a fundamentally different investment than it is today, for better or for worse. This means a vastly different risk vs return consideration for any investor. We are talking 8 or more years since the start of crypto currencies in 2009.
the disadvantage is that monero could be accused of ninjamine/premine... The early adopters would have gotten twice the ammount from mining...
I see. And here I was worried it would be a bad idea for some mathematical reason ("No tx propagation! Without integration!" /chant).
Don't really see the risk of ninjamine accusation as that likely tbh. After all, it would ideally be a community vote deciding on the change of emission, not a top down decision by the devs.
what incentive should an early buyer have tohold a coin when a S-cure is used?
S-curve emmission is in my opinion only possible with a central institution (call this a weakness or a strength of a social contract in cryptocurrencies)
S-curve emmission is in my opinion only possible with a central institution (call this a weakness or a strength of a social contract in cryptocurrencies)
The opposite is more nearly true. The future begins when the mining depletes.
before there is a sharp speculative spike in the XMR/XBT rate.
The market should be able to price the emission schedule in, when determining the price. At this point in the cryptoworld, having shart speculative spikes in a new coin's valuation is far from certain anyway.
What IS reality, however, is that some people such as me, automatically reject coins that are too much mined, unless the coin has exceptional merits. This leads to such coins not receiving any investment from the likes of me.
If Monero had been 70% mined when I heard about it, and otherwise same coin, same community and all, I would hardly have been interested.
the advantage of a faster emission is that people are convincing other to buy early on, because now the inflation is still high... adoption goes faster it seems.
Again, I think an emission based on the S-curve of adoption is the best emission scheme for any coin.
The opposite is more nearly true. The future begins when the mining depletes.
before there is a sharp speculative spike in the XMR/XBT rate.
The market should be able to price the emission schedule in, when determining the price. At this point in the cryptoworld, having shart speculative spikes in a new coin's valuation is far from certain anyway.
What IS reality, however, is that some people such as me, automatically reject coins that are too much mined, unless the coin has exceptional merits. This leads to such coins not receiving any investment from the likes of me.
If Monero had been 70% mined when I heard about it, and otherwise same coin, same community and all, I would hardly have been interested.
Even the most dedicated (group) of buyers will need to spend some real effort to overcome that pull.
This basically ensures that no artificial pump on Monero will be profitable. If it pumps, the reason must be real outside investment entering in (current holders are already used to these prices and not likely to buy in higher - same as with BTC by the way).
I believe the right course of action is to enable the said investment, by several ways, of which I am also involved in some.
Not disagreeing here. I still would have preferred if the outcome of the April vote would have elected a curve closer to that of Bitcoin, but what we have is what we have. And one of the advantages is the one you bring up.
Exactly. I also lament the outcome of the April vote, but I wasn't there to influence it
well, just consider the fact that some people already bought a few thousand XMR and that their balances would be halved with the changing of the emission scheme...
So if you bought 18000 XMR (called BMR back then) because you wanted to own 1/1000th of the total supply, you would have 9000 XMR after the change, while the total supply remained 18 million.
Not very fair, imho
You're referring to the April proposal, where miners were supposed to "give back" a number of coins depending on which curve (other than the original) would have been chosen, right?
I'm not completely sure why that would be the only option. Is it absolutely necessary to have a continuous function generating the coins over the entire lifetime of a currency? Would it break something I cannot think of right now making a clean break and saying: before coin N, emission was according to curve 1, after coin N, emission will follow curve 2?
the disadvantage is that monero could be accused of ninjamine/premine... The early adopters would have gotten twice the ammount from mining...
Even the most dedicated (group) of buyers will need to spend some real effort to overcome that pull.
This basically ensures that no artificial pump on Monero will be profitable. If it pumps, the reason must be real outside investment entering in (current holders are already used to these prices and not likely to buy in higher - same as with BTC by the way).
I believe the right course of action is to enable the said investment, by several ways, of which I am also involved in some.
Not disagreeing here. I still would have preferred if the outcome of the April vote would have elected a curve closer to that of Bitcoin, but what we have is what we have. And one of the advantages is the one you bring up.
Exactly. I also lament the outcome of the April vote, but I wasn't there to influence it
well, just consider the fact that some people already bought a few thousand XMR and that their balances would be halved with the changing of the emission scheme...
So if you bought 18000 XMR (called BMR back then) because you wanted to own 1/1000th of the total supply, you would have 9000 XMR after the change, while the total supply remained 18 million.
Not very fair, imho
You're referring to the April proposal, where miners were supposed to "give back" a number of coins depending on which curve (other than the original) would have been chosen, right?
I'm not completely sure why that would be the only option. Is it absolutely necessary to have a continuous function generating the coins over the entire lifetime of a currency? Would it break something I cannot think of right now making a clean break and saying: before coin N, emission was according to curve 1, after coin N, emission will follow curve 2?
I am far from convinced that the fast emission curve of Monero relative to Bitcoin is a negative. In fact the market may be saying the exact opposite. If the XMR/XBT rate remains relatively constant or rises slightly this would indicate that the emission curve is about right particularly during the early stages of Monero when it is the most critical. Ideally during the early stages one wants to see a small steady rise in price rather than a speculative boom bust cycle, and an emission curve that matches demand is close to ideal. In this respect a slightly bearish XBT/USD market over the next few months may actually also prove positive for Monero in the long run, as this would delay a speculative bubble in the XMR/XBT rate driven by a speculative bubble in the XBT/USD rate.
I would like to see critical fundamental work such as the database and also a reference GUI completed before there is a sharp speculative spike in the XMR/XBT rate.
I would like to see critical fundamental work such as the database and also a reference GUI completed before there is a sharp speculative spike in the XMR/XBT rate.
The current schedule is inhibiting people from investing in XMR because they believe the coin has no future once it starts to be 70-80% mined, which happens too soon.
The opposite is more nearly true. The future begins when the mining depletes.
Even the most dedicated (group) of buyers will need to spend some real effort to overcome that pull.
This basically ensures that no artificial pump on Monero will be profitable. If it pumps, the reason must be real outside investment entering in (current holders are already used to these prices and not likely to buy in higher - same as with BTC by the way).
I believe the right course of action is to enable the said investment, by several ways, of which I am also involved in some.
Not disagreeing here. I still would have preferred if the outcome of the April vote would have elected a curve closer to that of Bitcoin, but what we have is what we have. And one of the advantages is the one you bring up.
Exactly. I also lament the outcome of the April vote, but I wasn't there to influence it
well, just consider the fact that some people already bought a few thousand XMR and that their balances would be halved with the changing of the emission scheme...
So if you bought 18000 XMR (called BMR back then) because you wanted to own 1/1000th of the total supply, you would have 9000 XMR after the change, while the total supply remained 18 million.
Not very fair, imho
I don't think that would be the outcome (or even possible). Existing balances and total number of coins stay intact, only the formula how quickly the future coins are generated, changes.
It could still be done, since XMR is only 20% mined. And should, imo. The current schedule is inhibiting people from investing in XMR because they believe the coin has no future once it starts to be 70-80% mined, which happens too soon.
Even the most dedicated (group) of buyers will need to spend some real effort to overcome that pull.
This basically ensures that no artificial pump on Monero will be profitable. If it pumps, the reason must be real outside investment entering in (current holders are already used to these prices and not likely to buy in higher - same as with BTC by the way).
I believe the right course of action is to enable the said investment, by several ways, of which I am also involved in some.
Not disagreeing here. I still would have preferred if the outcome of the April vote would have elected a curve closer to that of Bitcoin, but what we have is what we have. And one of the advantages is the one you bring up.
Exactly. I also lament the outcome of the April vote, but I wasn't there to influence it
well, just consider the fact that some people already bought a few thousand XMR and that their balances would be halved with the changing of the emission scheme...
So if you bought 18000 XMR (called BMR back then) because you wanted to own 1/1000th of the total supply, you would have 9000 XMR after the change, while the total supply remained 18 million.
Not very fair, imho
if you're going to post that you're pessimistic about 6 months price of btc (without backing it up), then it should be your most likely scenario
Not really. The total weight of mostly bearish scenarios is probably higher at the moment in my mind than the bullish ones, for a 6 month time frame. Which doesn't necessarily imply that a single bearish one is the most likely. And even then, you'd be a fool to trade (solely) on such a vague prediction. I know I don't. But I guess the notion "everyone in here purely talks book" is so deeply entrenched, it's hard to get out of people's heads.
so you are thinking that most likely scenario for 6 months is pessimistic, you are starting to sound like politician =D
EDIT. you have to realize that we did not talked about one single pessimistic outcome
Even the most dedicated (group) of buyers will need to spend some real effort to overcome that pull.
This basically ensures that no artificial pump on Monero will be profitable. If it pumps, the reason must be real outside investment entering in (current holders are already used to these prices and not likely to buy in higher - same as with BTC by the way).
I believe the right course of action is to enable the said investment, by several ways, of which I am also involved in some.
Not disagreeing here. I still would have preferred if the outcome of the April vote would have elected a curve closer to that of Bitcoin, but what we have is what we have. And one of the advantages is the one you bring up.
Exactly. I also lament the outcome of the April vote, but I wasn't there to influence it
Even the most dedicated (group) of buyers will need to spend some real effort to overcome that pull.
This basically ensures that no artificial pump on Monero will be profitable. If it pumps, the reason must be real outside investment entering in (current holders are already used to these prices and not likely to buy in higher - same as with BTC by the way).
I believe the right course of action is to enable the said investment, by several ways, of which I am also involved in some.
Not disagreeing here. I still would have preferred if the outcome of the April vote would have elected a curve closer to that of Bitcoin, but what we have is what we have. And one of the advantages is the one you bring up.
Even the most dedicated (group) of buyers will need to spend some real effort to overcome that pull.
This basically ensures that no artificial pump on Monero will be profitable. If it pumps, the reason must be real outside investment entering in (current holders are already used to these prices and not likely to buy in higher - same as with BTC by the way).
I believe the right course of action is to enable the said investment, by several ways, of which I am also involved in some.
Jump to: