16000 XMR wall at 0.010745....
So was this all whale play?
EDIT: hadn't refreshed, Dotto - you beat me to it. Large whale fun indeed. Fun to see walls that big though...
Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 905. (Read 3314350 times)
Loving the ping pong - enough volatility to hit a few of my sells and then drop a little so I can buy 'em back and accumulate MOAR!
XMR looking chipper though, Dotto - I trust you're well, Sir?
I was coming here for the same, Kurious. It seems it´s just whales copulating
Nice price action... Any news I am missing?
Can I move coins from a paperwallet without having to download the whole blockchain?
Code:
monero-wallet-cli.exe --daemon-host node.moneroworld.com
For privacy reasons it is however advised to run your own node.
I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm a pretty hardcore monero maximalist...
Ha... well, yeah... thing is that I too seem to be 'evolving' into a Monero Maximalist as well BUT I'm tryin' to be "reasonable" here and consider how that might still be "wrong"... just to be conservative LOL
This-here thread on XMR Speculation is a great, epic thread but all the same it seems to me to sometimes be a little too much fanboys preaching to the choir too.
I want to keep my overall crypto-portfolio balanced properly between BTC, XMR and "others" but lately it's felt to me like "all in on XMR alone" might be the way to go.
But that's crazy talk. Isn't it? AAAAAAAAA what to do? What to do? LOL
I think you are, and it has to do with fungibility and traceability....
OK actually I agree with that too: the issues of fungibility for even "normal users" like coinbasers who get their account closed because some transaction two or three hops away from their wallet "just happened" to pass thru a tumbler or a gambling site, for example, are just going to get more and more problematic in the coming few years. KYC / AML in this situation just cannot "work" in any conventional sense, IMHO...
So, is this a scenario where bitcoin "just fails" due to fundamental flaw of no "true" fungibility, and/or the blocksize issue being unresolvable to boot... and thus XMR takes the throne due to being truly "bitcoin 2.0"...? Or you see some other end-result scenario?
I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm a pretty hardcore monero maximalist. I indeed just wrote a long diatribe about some hybrid system where the state would use something bitcoin like and the people would use Monero, but then I was like "well duh viewkey and auditable record management" (thanks to that sweet new work being done by core team) so I reasoned myself out of that argument.
I think you are, and it has to do with fungibility and traceability....
OK actually I agree with that too: the issues of fungibility for even "normal users" like coinbasers who get their account closed because some transaction two or three hops away from their wallet "just happened" to pass thru a tumbler or a gambling site, for example, are just going to get more and more problematic in the coming few years. KYC / AML in this situation just cannot "work" in any conventional sense, IMHO...
So, is this a scenario where bitcoin "just fails" due to fundamental flaw of no "true" fungibility, and/or the blocksize issue being unresolvable to boot... and thus XMR takes the throne due to being truly "bitcoin 2.0"...? Or you see some other end-result scenario?
Also... correct me if I'm wrong but can't any 2nd layer anon solution like TumbleBit etc "on top" of bitcoin ALSO work just as well as a 2nd-layer solution ON TOP of MONERO... thus providing even MORE anonymiity overall, as a total solution.
Seem again to me like a no-brainer "XMR wins" situation here, unless I'm missing something important...?
In one of his recent interviews, Fluffypony mentioned adding Tumblebit to Monero, so I think you're right.Seem again to me like a no-brainer "XMR wins" situation here, unless I'm missing something important...?
edit: Here's the Reddit thread with a link to the interview. There's also some Tumblebit discussion in that thread.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/5fi4mo/interview_with_fluffypony/
Hmm... question for all y'all here who know more about this stuff...
IF these kind of 2nd-layer systems *ever* actually see the light of day, IF they are implemented on top of both Bitcoin and Monero for example... would end-users even really need to know the difference?
Do we -- as simple "wallet users" -- even need to care?
OR would "sending a payment" in either case just be sort of transparent and ultimately "settle" some way, on the underlying "real blockchain" (BTC or XMR or really "whatever") without the "payer" to "payee" really knowing or CARING one way or the other...??
IF it can somehow be made to appear just simple & clean like this, to the actual end-user... then how can anyone see anything other than a huge potential future upside to ALL this technology here?
Yeah of course there's gonna be bumps in the road to actually "getting there" but isn't this really what we are all expecting to see ultimately evolve in this space?
Or am I missing something "big" in this 'big picture" point of view here?
I think you are, and it has to do with fungibility and traceability. As far as I understand any second layer stuff, it always has to settle on the main chain, and the main chain can be tracked, traced, and blacklisted. So say you're on the receiving end of some payment channel contract thing you set up, i dunno, a month ago with entity X, and X is a hub that others have setup channels with etc. Somehow its decided that X is blacklisted, and in this strange new world the mining conglomerates have merged with bitcoin account management firms (aka banks / exchanges) and therefore are all KYC'd and have to follow regulations so they have to follow the blacklisting rules so now... what the hell happens to your contract? The final settlement can never get added to the ledger, so the original opening of the contract will just go back to the sender after the nlock time expires.
So yes, it does matter what the settlement layer is made of.
the blockstream core implementation is facing strong opposition because they intend to cripple the main chain at 1MB
and have everyone transact on their L2 solution for profit
making the blocks progressively larger over time or dynamic scaling would be a better and cleaner solution imo
in monero it would likely be a cleaner implemenation because there is no crippled 1mb block
Well, that's my opinion of the current situation too... albeit only as an "observer" of the whole debate going on a couple YEARS now already... seeing this situation seeming to devolve into an intractable "mexican standoff" where neither SIDE will budge to effect any kind of resolution.
My own long-term investment in XMR is largely driven by two factors: the expectation that The Market -- if push comes to shove -- WILL attempt to "route around" this "damage" and find another way to utilize the basic crypto-currency concept at all, hence Monero becoming "Bitcoin 2.0" sooner or later.
OR, alternatively (as alluded to above) both technologies maybe finding their relevant NICHE -- bitcoin being the "gold" settlement layer for 2nd-Layer tech used by large concerns and Monero becoming the true-fungible "cash" digital currency that real people can transact their coffee purchases private and anon "ON CHAIN", plus maybe *also* use via these 2nd-Layer tech solutions to boot...
Or, maybe this is totally back-asswards and there's still some scenario here where only BTC can survive as The Single Winner and XMR never amounts to anything more than it has achieved already today?
Anyone here wanna play devil's advocate and point out how Monero might NOT have a role to play at all in the future of the whole crypto market scene to come
Also... correct me if I'm wrong but can't any 2nd layer anon solution like TumbleBit etc "on top" of bitcoin ALSO work just as well as a 2nd-layer solution ON TOP of MONERO... thus providing even MORE anonymiity overall, as a total solution.
Seem again to me like a no-brainer "XMR wins" situation here, unless I'm missing something important...?
In one of his recent interviews, Fluffypony mentioned adding Tumblebit to Monero, so I think you're right.Seem again to me like a no-brainer "XMR wins" situation here, unless I'm missing something important...?
edit: Here's the Reddit thread with a link to the interview. There's also some Tumblebit discussion in that thread.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/5fi4mo/interview_with_fluffypony/
Hmm... question for all y'all here who know more about this stuff...
IF these kind of 2nd-layer systems *ever* actually see the light of day, IF they are implemented on top of both Bitcoin and Monero for example... would end-users even really need to know the difference?
Do we -- as simple "wallet users" -- even need to care?
OR would "sending a payment" in either case just be sort of transparent and ultimately "settle" some way, on the underlying "real blockchain" (BTC or XMR or really "whatever") without the "payer" to "payee" really knowing or CARING one way or the other...??
IF it can somehow be made to appear just simple & clean like this, to the actual end-user... then how can anyone see anything other than a huge potential future upside to ALL this technology here?
Yeah of course there's gonna be bumps in the road to actually "getting there" but isn't this really what we are all expecting to see ultimately evolve in this space?
Or am I missing something "big" in this 'big picture" point of view here?
the blockstream core implementation is facing strong opposition because they intend to cripple the main chain at 1MB
and have everyone transact on their L2 solution for profit
making the blocks progressively larger over time or dynamic scaling would be a better and cleaner solution imo
in monero it would likely be a cleaner implemenation because there is no crippled 1mb block
Can I move coins from a paperwallet without having to download the whole blockchain?
Also... correct me if I'm wrong but can't any 2nd layer anon solution like TumbleBit etc "on top" of bitcoin ALSO work just as well as a 2nd-layer solution ON TOP of MONERO... thus providing even MORE anonymiity overall, as a total solution.
Seem again to me like a no-brainer "XMR wins" situation here, unless I'm missing something important...?
In one of his recent interviews, Fluffypony mentioned adding Tumblebit to Monero, so I think you're right.Seem again to me like a no-brainer "XMR wins" situation here, unless I'm missing something important...?
edit: Here's the Reddit thread with a link to the interview. There's also some Tumblebit discussion in that thread.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/5fi4mo/interview_with_fluffypony/
Hmm... question for all y'all here who know more about this stuff...
IF these kind of 2nd-layer systems *ever* actually see the light of day, IF they are implemented on top of both Bitcoin and Monero for example... would end-users even really need to know the difference?
Do we -- as simple "wallet users" -- even need to care?
OR would "sending a payment" in either case just be sort of transparent and ultimately "settle" some way, on the underlying "real blockchain" (BTC or XMR or really "whatever") without the "payer" to "payee" really knowing or CARING one way or the other...??
IF it can somehow be made to appear just simple & clean like this, to the actual end-user... then how can anyone see anything other than a huge potential future upside to ALL this technology here?
Yeah of course there's gonna be bumps in the road to actually "getting there" but isn't this really what we are all expecting to see ultimately evolve in this space?
Or am I missing something "big" in this 'big picture" point of view here?
Also... correct me if I'm wrong but can't any 2nd layer anon solution like TumbleBit etc "on top" of bitcoin ALSO work just as well as a 2nd-layer solution ON TOP of MONERO... thus providing even MORE anonymiity overall, as a total solution.
Seem again to me like a no-brainer "XMR wins" situation here, unless I'm missing something important...?
In one of his recent interviews, Fluffypony mentioned adding Tumblebit to Monero, so I think you're right.Seem again to me like a no-brainer "XMR wins" situation here, unless I'm missing something important...?
edit: Here's the Reddit thread with a link to the interview. There's also some Tumblebit discussion in that thread.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/5fi4mo/interview_with_fluffypony/
LOL "HoneyPony" meme seems to be really starting to get traction here... hopefully will spread further in the coming weeks, months, etc.
too funny... happy to have been part of getting it launched & spread from here on out LOL... HoneyPony LOL tell your friends.
Who's gonna be the first to put out a t-shirt? LOL
P.S. {Edit} Image :
too funny... happy to have been part of getting it launched & spread from here on out LOL... HoneyPony LOL tell your friends.
Who's gonna be the first to put out a t-shirt? LOL
P.S. {Edit} Image :
Also... correct me if I'm wrong but can't any 2nd layer anon solution like TumbleBit etc "on top" of bitcoin ALSO work just as well as a 2nd-layer solution ON TOP of MONERO... thus providing even MORE anonymiity overall, as a total solution.
Seem again to me like a no-brainer "XMR wins" situation here, unless I'm missing something important...?
Seem again to me like a no-brainer "XMR wins" situation here, unless I'm missing something important...?
...
There are presently limits to Bitcoin's TSP, but there is no limit to how valuable those 2-7 tx are. Hence Bitcoin's destiny to become high powered super money used for settlement between institutions which issue their own tokens backed by BTC.
...
There are presently limits to Bitcoin's TSP, but there is no limit to how valuable those 2-7 tx are. Hence Bitcoin's destiny to become high powered super money used for settlement between institutions which issue their own tokens backed by BTC.
...
This assessment of Bitcoin destiny as "high powered super money used for settlement between institutions which issue their own tokens backed by BTC" could in fact be very accurate. What Bitcoin is not becoming is a platform for individuals to make transactions among them selves without the need for a "trusted" third party. This reality is fundamentally different from the original purpose of Bitcoin as presented by Satoshi Nakamoto. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Quote
1. Introduction
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party.
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution ...
What is becoming clear is that Bitcoin is not the solution here and that another crypto currency at least has a chance of becoming the solution. Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party.
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution ...
Honeybadger will still be the King but Honeypony has its own skillset and is probably going to swallow zcash and then ltc and sit in the third spot.....
If I had to bet I would say Honeypony will be the third ever crypto to reach a $1 B marketcap....By 2018
what is this huge increase in the hash rate? One week ago 27Mhs, now 41.
Price gonna burst soon. Everybody leaves the scams zcash and eth and boards our train. I am expecting a burst to 20$ about XMRmas.
Okay, guys srsly is hashrate *always* been indicative of price rally increase? IS this "no-brainer" time to "back up the truck" OR something else going on?
Srsly anyone/everyone with more data to chime in here... now's the time to help a brother out LOL
Let's hear it.... this IS "speculation" forum after all... interesting weekend shaping up IAC...
Monero v0.10.1 - Wolfram Warptangent - released! | Mandatory upgrade!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/5i5wvd/monero_v0101_wolfram_warptangent_released/
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/releases/tag/v0.10.1
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/5i5wvd/monero_v0101_wolfram_warptangent_released/
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/releases/tag/v0.10.1
This is a mandatory upgrade that is required for the hard fork that is scheduled for January 05, 2017 and also for the GUI. Thanks.
If you don't upgrade you will no longer be on the network come the hard fork @ block 1220516 around Jan 10
...
There are presently limits to Bitcoin's TSP, but there is no limit to how valuable those 2-7 tx are. Hence Bitcoin's destiny to become high powered super money used for settlement between institutions which issue their own tokens backed by BTC.
...
There are presently limits to Bitcoin's TSP, but there is no limit to how valuable those 2-7 tx are. Hence Bitcoin's destiny to become high powered super money used for settlement between institutions which issue their own tokens backed by BTC.
...
This assessment of Bitcoin destiny as "high powered super money used for settlement between institutions which issue their own tokens backed by BTC" could in fact be very accurate. What Bitcoin is not becoming is a platform for individuals to make transactions among them selves without the need for a "trusted" third party. This reality is fundamentally different from the original purpose of Bitcoin as presented by Satoshi Nakamoto. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Quote
1. Introduction
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party.
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution ...
What is becoming clear is that Bitcoin is not the solution here and that another crypto currency at least has a chance of becoming the solution. Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party.
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution ...
Jump to: