Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 637. (Read 3314316 times)

Monero is losing the "battle" right now as other coins pump like crazy, but I believe it is the one coin that will win the "war" in the end.

When Monero pumps in a big way down the road (like it did last year) I suspect there is going to be a FOMO rush that will be unprecedented in crypto.

Lol, I just ran across this.

http://www.webd.com/the-poloniex-review-that-got-me-banned/

Enough Norwegian already 

Tårene rant og smilet var større enn det hadde vært på mange år.

= Tears ran and the smile was bigger than it had been in many years.

Google translate is a dumb machine.
 

  Smart boy. Weed of unbearable strength made me unleash a norwegian speaking beast within myself   I put jwh18 and mj in one pot and took that. U got it right, I mixed weak ass cush with jwh strain and got the beater of conscience™. It shuttered both my body and conscience and everything inbetween. Woke up today morning and found six hundred empty folders named truncated pentakis dodecahedron  



Maybe more, Ill give it a check later. That beater crushed me hard, dragged my body left and right and everywhere and left in a superposition between two states of living, granting me a unique privilege to roll and flow through matter, in particular through a physical shell of mine.


Forget about rsi, it broke out of the 3yo parabolic curve this week hence a sharp weekly candle with head red. Sure it means nothing since ta sucks balls big time but anyways.


Since when inaccessible supply equals zero   Oh yeah First someone comes and says fiat is poop and all since the btc value is essentially what gears the universe. In the middle of fucking bubble//   Next, yet another genius comes up and shoots the dumbest possible fallacy of all fallacies ever posted on this message board.

Back to tail emission, who on earth cares about it? Its a fifth grade formula after all. They wanted to make the mining reward autoadjust so that the quantity of newly minted coins would balance out the quantity of hypothetically lost coins, they did, who cares. U appear to be this much obsessed with lost keys, fine. I dont care about that shit at all. I dont even know what timeframe u are talking about. 10 years 100 years 1000 years billion years. In 20 years from now u will simply bind ur private key or whatever it will be substituted with by that time, to ur dna nuclear envelop and then u are free to lose ur keys or get hit by an aerobus or get killed by walking truncated pentakis dodecahedron. U are goner and ur keys are lost. What happens next is ur descendant goes through a dna paternity test and whoa retrieves the coins. Nobody of living humans has enough intellectual capacity to comprehend what will happen in 100 years so dont bother about it. The 0.5 percent figure is a joke of course, they put it out of their ass. Its not applicable for covering all possible and theoretically possible scenarios in which keys could be lost and found retrieved and lost again. But its not a problem. Its not good its not bad its alright. But when u talk about 100 years LOL ffs just shut up.

A couple of strange ideas about bitcoin and its relationship to other real coins (are coins like eth, xmr even still altcoins?)...

Someone mentioned that btc will inevitably fall back down to 200 usd. Which I find really surprising that someone would say that.

Then everyone comparing XMR not rising as quickly as BTC... Isn't this just more money pouring into the crpyto market? Which will inevitably also by some percentage pour into XMR. The money that's pouring in now is, I would guess, at least 30% new money. New investors, new people getting excited, finally listening to their friends after years (I've had this experience myself... at least 4 of my friends have recently joined).

Surely it's more complex therefore than to say BTC is rising, XMR isn't. So dump it.

The more I read up on XMR, the better it seems, and a huge winner in the long run.

Awesome - good to get some cheap XMR in while its possible, I have every confidence it will be back up later =)

This is such a sweet point for XMR: It is holding its value in USD (50 USD), while on the 1 D XMR/BTC it is very near to the oversold territory.
Every touch to the oversold RSI on 1D chart resulted in a pump.

Some wishful speculation (tm)...

As painful as it is to see the price of Monero/BTC languish I am somewhat encouraged to see alts doing this across the board.

My thought is once the bitcoin air has escaped the alt balloon we will be ripe for a reshuffle.  Let alts with true utility and potential recover while the BS projects can stay in the gutter.   Markets correct in time.  We've been overdue.

Still painful to watch...

With an adaptive blocksize the total fees collected per block is at best proportional to the block reward. This means if the block reward goes to zero so do the total fees per block and the coin becomes in secure. What many fail to understand is that the real reason the Bitcoin core developers are so afraid of increasing the blocksize in Bitcoin is a very legitimate fear of there being no incentive to secure the proof of work as the block reward goes to zero. So they artificially keep the blocksize fixed in order to force fees up.

By the way the minimum block reward in Monero creates a maximum inflation rate below 1% per annum which is less than the historical inflation rate of gold. Gold of course is the "gold standard" for hard money.

The minimum block reward of 0.6 XMR in Monero is here to stay, just as much as the maximum 21 million XBT limit in Bitcoin.  

By the way it's falling vs Bitcoin?  I'd say wait for a little while.  This could go lower and could break below .01 BTC psychological support.  If that breaks, time to pick your spots people.  XMR's time is on 2018.

Maybe it means that the haterz and the bears are gnashing their teeth (tears ranted), and the hodlers and the believers and having their day in the sun (the smile was bigger).

Yes, if the loss is linear.  But the supply might decay exponentially.
As long as there's any coin left, it can be denominated in smaller and smaller units.

Not to mention a shrinking money supply ultimately dooms the currency (and all value associated with it). As long as the rate of lost coins is greater than zero, Bitcoin's total supply will eventually be zero.

So our friend kwukduck would rather have a non-existent currency than a currency that marginally inflates. I won't bother with the rest of his arguments because he's clearly not interested in understanding the issue.

Really? The only thing?

Please continue to make stupid statements like that. When we have intelligent pro-level FUDsters attacking us we might have something to worry about, but not from this.


Essentially guaranteed because to the extent that the rate of random loss is smaller, the coin supply and potential for loss will grow, and to the extent the rate of loss is larger, the coin supply and potential for loss will shrink. So there will have to be a rough (averaged over time) equilibrium where the two offset each other.

A coin with a fixed rate of emission and unknown (but reasonably assumed to be related in some positive manner to total supply) loss will reach an effectively fixed money supply. I don't know how you can get better money than that in terms of neutrality and predicability.

The argument for a shrinking money supply being better or more attractive to holders because of expected greater scarcity makes no sense. If a money supply that shrinks at 1%/yr is good, then shrinking at 2%/yr would be better, etc. Where does this end?

Yeah, man... you and me both.  Dat dere a-minor guy he sho nuff kin be a-talkin' good, eh?  (That, and he's also got the cool Hunter S. Thompson cat avatar.)

LOL

P.S. "There he goes.
One of God's own prototypes.
A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production.
Too weird to live, and too rare to die..."  

This seems hopelessly naive to me given that at least two of the zcash core team are former Mossad sigint staff, and that both Zooko Wilcox and Michael Green have publically attested than they are capable of implementing back doors to support subpoenas. (Please note that alphabay was taken down exactly 5 days after they first implemented Zcash transactions.)

We also know that the corporation has implemented a 20% parasitic mine in zcash effectively seizing one-fifth of the supply today therefore I can see very little reason why they should be inhibited from seizing an infinite proportion of the supply at a time of their own choosing in the future.

The only scenario in which I can foresee zcash transactiins keeping up with Monero is one in which a large  group is forced to use the corporate coin.

QFT



Spoken far more elegantly than I ever could as usual.

It was difficult enough to made the prudent adjustment to the social contract required to ensure a adequate block reward in perpetuity when the size of the community of contributors was much smaller. Attempting to reverse that prudent action would both be imprudent and highly unlikely given the difficulties of quorum size that would exist today. Moreover the conception of the problem is entirely erroneous since the rate of growth is both less than that of gold supply and very likely on par with the rate of random loss.

The smooth evolution of the six-month development heartbeat that we have experienced to date is largely attributable to the fact that the changes being implemented at each step are so obviously beneficial and non-controversial. Any change in the tail emission now would be a gross disruption of the social contract and inevitably lead to the kind of hard-forking traumas that we see in less well-managed coins, such as ETH and BTC.

I perceive our new quote-unquote friend kwukduck to be a social saboteur, perhaps a foolish short speculator who has sold in size at what is likely to be the lowest price of all pending futurity.  I would enjoy watching him cover, preferably perforce.

The coin is designed to be used as a stable form of money not to appreciate so right there is why you are not comprehending the reasons built into the design. As adoption increases the volatility needs to be kept to a minimum and as you can plainly see the coin is very stable in regards to USD which is the ONLY real metric that matters.

The main two arguments made are the 'problems' a capped coin runs into with;
A: A static limited block size.
B: A large (effectively infinite) block size.

I think i don't even need to explain why these two statements fail to make their argument work as they are just non-existent or at least unlikely scenarios.
With scenario A the issue raised is that it will cause insane fees and horrible scaleability causing users to leave the network.
With scenario B the issue raised is that fees will go down to zero causing miners to lose incentive to mine.

There is a fear that block rewards will not be sufficient to incentivise miners to secure the network.

The block reward doesn't drop to zero overnight, it's a slow process to which the users, miners and entire ecosystem adapt over time.
As for the block size, this should be dynamic, built into the protocol, calculating the size to be both sufficient to handle the majority of transactions while maintaining scarcity in the block. If the algorithm doesn't do this it needs to be reviewed.

The lost-coins argument is also mute right from the start, coin loss is not a bad thing, it increases the value of all other coins, making it more scarce.

I've heard the argument that this causes hoarding instead of spending which i believe is an empty argument too.
I hold a certain number of XMR static and i use it as well. Whenever i use XMR i also buy back to keep my amount the same. I do the same with other coins. I understand why people would want to hoard but that doesn't mean people won't spend just as well and just as much.

The only thing tail emission does is potentially dilute the coin supply into oblivion and suppress the price.