Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 2168. (Read 3312350 times)

I like what you're saying, but...Things which are different are not the same.

SuperNET is definitely OT here, so I will restrain my comments on that for yet another day and yet another thread.  

A difference which you have not explained.

There is a clear difference between this (where the issue was solved) and when the BTC Bubble popped (actually bad news).

Actually I think this attack did more good to monero than bad, some external consultants were hired to resolve the issue and look at the code. Probably more bad or sloppy code was found which can be fixed now.

Yeah, those that panic sold BTC at $500-1300 must be kicking themselves.

Yep. Panic dumping out of fear is ALWAYS a bad idea. I watched it happen with BTC on the March 2013 hard fork, the SR crash, and all of the mini panics when Gox was freezing up all the time. This is reminiscent of those times.

Was dumped to +- 0.00375 and went straight up again, I think he meant that

It was dropping yesterday before this incident, so they've not really got a lot of cheap Monero.

More like panic bought a lot of Monero.

Looks like some folks just got a lot of cheap Monero!

That is a rigged game you are playing especially when you had deleted that second block completely with a message specifically for aminorex. I guess now it has fallen to this level in order to rally around for markets.

My speculation is from now on, XMR blockchain will be used as a testnet for exploits in the foreseeable future. Incidents like today are far more likely to be the determining factor than throwing mud on anonymous developers.

The marketing of this coin has taken a wrong turn.

Thank you for the ?'s & explanation.  Helps answer some (not all) of my questions surround CN in general.  

We may speculate on the motives of others, but actions are more important than intentions.

I too trust Risto, but my point was to illustrate how strongly your objections to BBR ascendancy resemble those raised against XMR.

Anything positive said about purely speculative investments like XMR/BBR will inevitably be perceived as pumping, so lets be consistent in our criticisms and praises.

No doubt risto's buying has increased the clearing price.  So has mine, Goat's, and yours.  No matter who is buying, it's going to increase the clearing price.  If Risto weren't a net buyer, there probably would be another of similar size.  I actively recruit them, after all.
I only do it to the degree that I think they are healthy to have involved at the current liquidity level, however.

Using the word "pumped" is misleading.  It implies a dumping intention.  Risto has expressed an intention not to be a net seller.  I share this intention.  So do the investors I recruit.

I found the revised post acceptable. Big money being averse to reputational risks and possible negative associations is a legitimate investment consideration as long as it doesn't consume the thread. Responses will be held to the same standard of relevance.

aminorex, please fix the formatting on your post

What I did there, do you see it?

Objection. Reaching.

smooth, please don't allow it and feel free to delete my post too.

The bigger money is more risk-averse.

The development team structure is an area of risk.

Less confidence can be placed in an anonymous party than in identified parties.  Open-source code-review, if thorough, can dispell some but not all of this uncertainty.

The relative market caps of XMR and BBR are pretty well explained by the difference in team structure.

To make this point speculative, consider that CZ could identify himself at any time, or even just disavow the Sabelnikov identity, or more broadly, participating in bytecoin.

If he did, money flow to BBR might reduce moneyflow to XMR.

The market priced this so that the XMR-invest, BBR-hedge was nicely asymmetric, but now SuperNET has pumped BBR.  I consider that the hedge has paid off.  Thus I tend to short the hedge when it is overbought.  But when it all blows over, I expect the cheap hedge to come back, and I plan to make more use of it in my portfolio.

It was in this context that I provided these points:


I am definitely a monero supporter.  I don't tolerate misinformation, and when I am wrong I try to make sure no one was deceived by my errors.  I've never met anyone who didn't suffer from some degree of confirmation bias, however.

There is some reason to believe he is Andrey Sabelnikov.  The code style is arguably similar.  That may seem weak, but I know from my professional work that these things can be quite accurate.  I haven't done sufficient work to measure the accuracy of this one with error bars.

In general, he demonstrated a much higher level of mastery of the codebase much faster than anyone else.  There's no evidence that this results from the sort of 30-point IQ differential that would be required if he had no prior exposure.  In fact, there are both population statistics and anecdotal evidences to refute that hypothesis.  The obvious remaining adequate explanation is extensive prior exposure.

Few are really conclusively convinced by these arguments.


Yes.  The probabilities are well-defined, and computable in closed form.

EDIT:  This applies to the math, not to the implementation.  Substantial review has been conducted, but much more is required.

My post was more concerned with the original source of CN and how it doesn't add up that CN Devs are Altruists as they wouldn't have had the close alliance with BCN.  And also that generally ground breaking tech doesn't come from scammy coders.

(Dropped reference to BBR)

Tie it in then. Directly. Alternately discuss the investment angle but reference the scam allegations, etc. that are well covered elsewhere.

There was no intent to suggest trolling, just off-topic. Again tie it in.

I mildly object.  It's not coin wars to raise factual, unbiased issues about the fundamental investability of the principal most parallel coin.

Moreover, you're creating the impression that my posts had trollish content.  Being controversial doesn't make them less factual or non-confrontational.

Two coin wars posts deleted. Please don't keep bumping that subthread unless you are going to directly tie it to speculation.

aminorex...you know better.