[XMR] Monero Speculation

[americanpegasus]

Anyone releasing a crypto project with lofty claims will face a lot of opposition from intelligent minds. 
 
Sometimes they can generate temporary buzz while people figure out their bullshit, but they won't last.  Take for example VanillaCoin.  Initially the devs were throwing around lots of buzz words and razzle dazzle, convincing fools to part with their bitcoins.  It didn't take long before smart people (and smarter) began to take a closer look and found a mountain of irregularities, problems, and mathematical nonsense - all pointing to a definitive scam. 
 
With Monero you can do the same intense investigation (as I and much smarter people have done).  You will find that as far as complaints against Monero itself, there are no substantial ones.  The launch and all major decisions were handled as fairly as possible by a slowly growing community on top of revolutionary technology.  The only *real* criticism I can think of is that no one really knows where the hell this "cryptonote" came from.  Despite some people trying to downplay how big of a deal cryptonote is (calling it simple and flawed code in its original form), it is obviously the culmination of a lot of talent and effort. 
 
The good news is that we don't need to know much about the person who discovered/invented any technology or mathematical principle to use it effectively.  Take Calculus: All we need to know are the actual rules if we wish to put a man on the moon; knowledge of the person who wrote the rules doesn't change the fact that they work.   
 
This is the power of a global brain: once we have an idea, the idea itself is more important than the individual cell who thought of it.  Sure, you might not get all the same glory as the champion of the arena got back in the day, but the world you will share in will be a billion times brighter due to your sacrifice.

[phishead]

Maybe good start is this website which seems to be unbiased and compares different coins in therms of their launch:
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins

But still this is only one website. More research you must do probably.

Wow, that is a ton of information! Thank you for this! This will be my daily reading for this week, whenever I get the chance....

With Monero you can do the same intense investigation (as I and much smarter people have done).  You will find that as far as complaints against Monero itself, there are no substantial ones.  The launch and all major decisions were handled as fairly as possible by a slowly growing community on top of revolutionary technology.  The only *real* criticism I can think of is that no one really knows where the hell this "cryptonote" came from.  Despite some people trying to downplay how big of a deal cryptonote is (calling it simple and flawed code in its original form), it is obviously the culmination of a lot of talent and effort. 

Ok so I have one question for everyone here including you americanpegasus, I saw this in the link that owm123 posted above:

Monero will effectively mine out a lot of their currency relatively fast. As you can see from the mining data posted here, within one month the number of Monero generated decreased from 17.59 MRO to 16.85 MRO, a decrease of .76 MRO in a month. Obviously, there is a formula that determines the amount of MRO created and we shouldn't assume a purely linear relationship from here.

and

On one hand, a 4 year plan to produce 85% of the currency is waaaay better than 90% of the coins on this investigation. In comparison to bitcoin, we see that from its inception from January of 2009 to today, May of 2014 (roughly 5.5 years), bitcoin has produced around 60% of its expected coin totals 163). In that sense, Monero isn't too much of a divergence.

Why is this a good thing?  I would think that mining a currency would need to be a very low and steady thing over the course of time to always ensure miners that there will be profit to be made when mining coins... Why would you want to produce 85% of your coins in 4 years?  That doesn't make much sense to me.

[aerbax]

...
Why is this a good thing?  I would think that mining a currency would need to be a very low and steady thing over the course of time to always ensure miners that there will be profit to be made when mining coins... Why would you want to produce 85% of your coins in 4 years?  That doesn't make much sense to me.

Monero has a "tail emission" of 0.3 XMR.  So we will never be 100% fully mined.  The block rewards will slowly dwindle down to 0.3 and stay there forever.

[miragecash]

No, mining most in a few short years is bad. However, you misunderstand. The author is saying that, although not perfect, it is better than the other 90% of the shitcoins out there that are premined, instamined, and ninjamined. For example, shadowcash had POW for only TWO WEEKS before switching to POS. The mining lasted only 2 weeks until ALL the coins are mined. So, yeah 60% mined in 4 years is actually very good compared to this.

Maybe good start is this website which seems to be unbiased and compares different coins in therms of their launch:
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins

But still this is only one website. More research you must do probably.

Wow, that is a ton of information! Thank you for this! This will be my daily reading for this week, whenever I get the chance....

With Monero you can do the same intense investigation (as I and much smarter people have done).  You will find that as far as complaints against Monero itself, there are no substantial ones.  The launch and all major decisions were handled as fairly as possible by a slowly growing community on top of revolutionary technology.  The only *real* criticism I can think of is that no one really knows where the hell this "cryptonote" came from.  Despite some people trying to downplay how big of a deal cryptonote is (calling it simple and flawed code in its original form), it is obviously the culmination of a lot of talent and effort. 

Ok so I have one question for everyone here including you americanpegasus, I saw this in the link that owm123 posted above:

Monero will effectively mine out a lot of their currency relatively fast. As you can see from the mining data posted here, within one month the number of Monero generated decreased from 17.59 MRO to 16.85 MRO, a decrease of .76 MRO in a month. Obviously, there is a formula that determines the amount of MRO created and we shouldn't assume a purely linear relationship from here.

and

On one hand, a 4 year plan to produce 85% of the currency is waaaay better than 90% of the coins on this investigation. In comparison to bitcoin, we see that from its inception from January of 2009 to today, May of 2014 (roughly 5.5 years), bitcoin has produced around 60% of its expected coin totals 163). In that sense, Monero isn't too much of a divergence.

Why is this a good thing?  I would think that mining a currency would need to be a very low and steady thing over the course of time to always ensure miners that there will be profit to be made when mining coins... Why would you want to produce 85% of your coins in 4 years?  That doesn't make much sense to me.

[generalizethis]

Maybe good start is this website which seems to be unbiased and compares different coins in therms of their launch:
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins

But still this is only one website. More research you must do probably.

Wow, that is a ton of information! Thank you for this! This will be my daily reading for this week, whenever I get the chance....

With Monero you can do the same intense investigation (as I and much smarter people have done).  You will find that as far as complaints against Monero itself, there are no substantial ones.  The launch and all major decisions were handled as fairly as possible by a slowly growing community on top of revolutionary technology.  The only *real* criticism I can think of is that no one really knows where the hell this "cryptonote" came from.  Despite some people trying to downplay how big of a deal cryptonote is (calling it simple and flawed code in its original form), it is obviously the culmination of a lot of talent and effort. 

Ok so I have one question for everyone here including you americanpegasus, I saw this in the link that owm123 posted above:

Monero will effectively mine out a lot of their currency relatively fast. As you can see from the mining data posted here, within one month the number of Monero generated decreased from 17.59 MRO to 16.85 MRO, a decrease of .76 MRO in a month. Obviously, there is a formula that determines the amount of MRO created and we shouldn't assume a purely linear relationship from here.

and

On one hand, a 4 year plan to produce 85% of the currency is waaaay better than 90% of the coins on this investigation. In comparison to bitcoin, we see that from its inception from January of 2009 to today, May of 2014 (roughly 5.5 years), bitcoin has produced around 60% of its expected coin totals 163). In that sense, Monero isn't too much of a divergence.

Why is this a good thing?  I would think that mining a currency would need to be a very low and steady thing over the course of time to always ensure miners that there will be profit to be made when mining coins... Why would you want to produce 85% of your coins in 4 years?  That doesn't make much sense to me.

Going off my recollection from a post from Fluffypony many months ago,  I believe it was designed to keep the market price low for entry--which seems to be working well. The tail emission keeps the miners rewarded.

[owm123]

Maybe good start is this website which seems to be unbiased and compares different coins in therms of their launch:
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins

But still this is only one website. More research you must do probably.

Wow, that is a ton of information! Thank you for this! This will be my daily reading for this week, whenever I get the chance....

With Monero you can do the same intense investigation (as I and much smarter people have done).  You will find that as far as complaints against Monero itself, there are no substantial ones.  The launch and all major decisions were handled as fairly as possible by a slowly growing community on top of revolutionary technology.  The only *real* criticism I can think of is that no one really knows where the hell this "cryptonote" came from.  Despite some people trying to downplay how big of a deal cryptonote is (calling it simple and flawed code in its original form), it is obviously the culmination of a lot of talent and effort. 

Ok so I have one question for everyone here including you americanpegasus, I saw this in the link that owm123 posted above:

Monero will effectively mine out a lot of their currency relatively fast. As you can see from the mining data posted here, within one month the number of Monero generated decreased from 17.59 MRO to 16.85 MRO, a decrease of .76 MRO in a month. Obviously, there is a formula that determines the amount of MRO created and we shouldn't assume a purely linear relationship from here.

and

On one hand, a 4 year plan to produce 85% of the currency is waaaay better than 90% of the coins on this investigation. In comparison to bitcoin, we see that from its inception from January of 2009 to today, May of 2014 (roughly 5.5 years), bitcoin has produced around 60% of its expected coin totals 163). In that sense, Monero isn't too much of a divergence.

Why is this a good thing?  I would think that mining a currency would need to be a very low and steady thing over the course of time to always ensure miners that there will be profit to be made when mining coins... Why would you want to produce 85% of your coins in 4 years?  That doesn't make much sense to me.

For more technical explanation you need to wait maybe for someone more knowledge to answer this. But, maybe here you can find some of the answers:
https://en.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/2u4m2u/the_thee_pillars_of_monero/

"The same consideration are given to the emission curve. We believe (and we are not the only ones), that relying only on transaction fees won't be enough of an incentive for miners (remember: the core of the blockchain is to rely on an economic incentive, because it is not possible to solve the Byzantine Generals' problem with math alone). This is why Monero implements a "tail emission" that will kick off once the main emission is over, in less than eight years."

[smooth]

Going off my recollection from a post from Fluffypony many months ago,  I believe it was designed to keep the market price low for entry--which seems to be working well. The tail emission keeps the miners rewarded.

I wouldn't say it was really designed, except that satoshi designed this general sort of scheme (declining rate of mining) for Bitcoin, with only somewhat vague justification and most other coins copied it (with variations such as using a smooth curve instead of big drops). In the case of Monero, there was a bunch of discussion, some disagreement and some confusion, with the current curve being the one that was launched.

Ultimately the curve in Monero ended up being a bit more than twice as fast as Bitcoin (not counting the tail reward, which offsets somewhat in the other direction). Some people suggested that might be good because the crypto market is far more mature now, and moves faster (the first year or two Bitcoin was very obscure and the code immature). However, regardless of that difference, there is no way to know for sure that the Bitcoin, or Monero, or any other schedule is in any way optimal or even good.

My philosophy is you have to get the coins out there, and it is better to give some years for the market to absorb them in an orderly manner rather than have 1-14 (or even zero) day fastmines/instamines/etc. that are easily manipulated, but other than that there isn't really an objective basis to say that 4 years or 8 years or 20 years is best.

I also agree that part of the goal of mining is to keep the price low, in the sense that it makes cornering the supply and thereby deliberately driving up the price difficult and expensive. If you want to control a large portion of the supply instead of merely holding coins you need to continually spend money to mine them or buy them, otherwise your holdings are constantly diluted. When a mined coin goes up in price and manages to hold on to those gains, it is a pretty good indication that there is actual demand in the market, not just some small group of insiders holding most of it and refusing to sell.

[rdnkjdi]

This is something that will eventually crush the current economic model of crypto (IMO).

Say you have a blockchain with .05% emissions daily with a market cap of $5,000,000.  You are paying a "tax" of 18% a year to blockchain security.

Fast forward 3 years and say you have a market cap of 100,000,000 with an emission rate of .01.  You are paying a tax of 3.6% a year.

The financial incentive to attack a network to short a coin marches towards something that makes sense the older a coin grows.  Where you should be paying more for security - you are paying multiple times LESS for security as your network grows.  The incentive to attack (large network that is competition with someone else or that you want to short) grows while the % of rewards fall.

[americanpegasus]

I will agree that the emission rate of Monero seems a bit quick, and also seems designed to intersect so that a majority of coins (and initial inflation) is done and over with by 2020. 
 
I would also argue though that if you extend out an intial issue curve for too long, you run the risk of your currency (and network) going undefended and unvalued. 
 
Pretend that Monero emission began at 20 XMR per block and after a year and a half had declined to just 19.8 XMR per block.  Where's the incentive to hurry up and mine it?  You can get around to it in the next year or two and it will still be just as (if not much more) profitable.  As well consider the massive new supply of coins hitting the market every year - it's almost impossible for a coin to stabilize because yearly inflation is absurd until decades have passed. 
 
As I have said before, the goal of a cryptocurrency is to provide equal and fair access to money for everyone on Earth.  Unfortunately, we're going to have to make a few people extremely rich in order to do that.  All we can do is hope that we make the right people rich.

[smooth]

This is something that will eventually crush the current economic model of crypto (IMO).

Say you have a blockchain with .05% emissions daily with a market cap of $5,000,000.  You are paying a "tax" of 18% a year to blockchain security.

Fast forward 3 years and say you have a market cap of 100,000,000 with an emission rate of .01.  You are paying a tax of 3.6% a year.

The financial incentive to attack a network to short a coin marches towards something that makes sense the older a coin grows.  Where you should be paying more for security - you are paying multiple times LESS for security as your network grows.  The incentive to attack (large network that is competition with someone else or that you want to short) grows while the % of rewards fall.

I don't really see where you can say that, for example, 3.6% is "not enough" security. How much would you want to pay? I'm pretty sure you can secure gold or other valuable assets quite safely for less than that. If 3.6% isn't enough, then crypto will fail simply because it is uncompetitive.

[rdnkjdi]

This is something that will eventually crush the current economic model of crypto (IMO).

Say you have a blockchain with .05% emissions daily with a market cap of $5,000,000.  You are paying a "tax" of 18% a year to blockchain security.

Fast forward 3 years and say you have a market cap of 100,000,000 with an emission rate of .01.  You are paying a tax of 3.6% a year.

The financial incentive to attack a network to short a coin marches towards something that makes sense the older a coin grows.  Where you should be paying more for security - you are paying multiple times LESS for security as your network grows.  The incentive to attack (large network that is competition with someone else or that you want to short) grows while the % of rewards fall.

I don't really see where you can say that, for example, 3.6% is "not enough" security. How much would you want to pay? I'm pretty sure you can secure gold or other valuable assets quite safely for less than that. If 3.6% isn't enough, then crypto will fail simply because it is uncompetitive.

I don't think you can really compare gold and crypto.  For instance "securing" crypto is paid via dilution vs gold being an outright expense.  Also an attacker for gold is just trying to get your stash - not crash the entire gold market.

I just see incentives running the opposite direction of where you'd want them to if securing the network was your primary goal.  I think it's really a competition between driving adoption (get rich quick by getting in early) and security once a coin grows big enough.  Maybe I'm wrong ... guess we'll know in 5 years

[smooth]

This is something that will eventually crush the current economic model of crypto (IMO).

Say you have a blockchain with .05% emissions daily with a market cap of $5,000,000.  You are paying a "tax" of 18% a year to blockchain security.

Fast forward 3 years and say you have a market cap of 100,000,000 with an emission rate of .01.  You are paying a tax of 3.6% a year.

The financial incentive to attack a network to short a coin marches towards something that makes sense the older a coin grows.  Where you should be paying more for security - you are paying multiple times LESS for security as your network grows.  The incentive to attack (large network that is competition with someone else or that you want to short) grows while the % of rewards fall.

I don't really see where you can say that, for example, 3.6% is "not enough" security. How much would you want to pay? I'm pretty sure you can secure gold or other valuable assets quite safely for less than that. If 3.6% isn't enough, then crypto will fail simply because it is uncompetitive.

I don't think you can really compare gold and crypto.  For instance "securing" crypto is paid via dilution vs gold being an outright expense.  Also an attacker for gold is just trying to get your stash - not crash the entire gold market.

I agree with the differences at that level, but from the perspective of a holder, I don't see a difference. Why would I pay 3.6%+ when I could secure my wealth for less?

[rdnkjdi]

This is something that will eventually crush the current economic model of crypto (IMO).

Say you have a blockchain with .05% emissions daily with a market cap of $5,000,000.  You are paying a "tax" of 18% a year to blockchain security.

Fast forward 3 years and say you have a market cap of 100,000,000 with an emission rate of .01.  You are paying a tax of 3.6% a year.

The financial incentive to attack a network to short a coin marches towards something that makes sense the older a coin grows.  Where you should be paying more for security - you are paying multiple times LESS for security as your network grows.  The incentive to attack (large network that is competition with someone else or that you want to short) grows while the % of rewards fall.

I don't really see where you can say that, for example, 3.6% is "not enough" security. How much would you want to pay? I'm pretty sure you can secure gold or other valuable assets quite safely for less than that. If 3.6% isn't enough, then crypto will fail simply because it is uncompetitive.

I don't think you can really compare gold and crypto.  For instance "securing" crypto is paid via dilution vs gold being an outright expense.  Also an attacker for gold is just trying to get your stash - not crash the entire gold market.

I agree with the differences at that level, but from the perspective of a holder, I don't see a difference. Why would I pay 3.6%+ when I could secure my wealth for less?

Man there are so many reasons.  Have you ever tried to cross borders with gold?  Is there any chance that gold can allow frictionless transactions by all market players from criminal to mom and pop businesses outside corrupt government control?  Wealth is simply things being more efficient than they were and humans reaping the benefit (often the wrong people reap the benefits but still the wealth was created)

Crypto has the potential of making things more efficient .  Gold is simply a limited supply that represents a store of value.  I view them completely differently.

Crypto may very likely wither and die (aweful store of wealth).  Gold won't.

Crypto may usher in a new economic era uncontrollable by powers that be.  Gold can't.

Gold is the currency that always has been.  Crypto is the currency that might be. 

[smooth]

This is something that will eventually crush the current economic model of crypto (IMO).

Say you have a blockchain with .05% emissions daily with a market cap of $5,000,000.  You are paying a "tax" of 18% a year to blockchain security.

Fast forward 3 years and say you have a market cap of 100,000,000 with an emission rate of .01.  You are paying a tax of 3.6% a year.

The financial incentive to attack a network to short a coin marches towards something that makes sense the older a coin grows.  Where you should be paying more for security - you are paying multiple times LESS for security as your network grows.  The incentive to attack (large network that is competition with someone else or that you want to short) grows while the % of rewards fall.

I don't really see where you can say that, for example, 3.6% is "not enough" security. How much would you want to pay? I'm pretty sure you can secure gold or other valuable assets quite safely for less than that. If 3.6% isn't enough, then crypto will fail simply because it is uncompetitive.

I don't think you can really compare gold and crypto.  For instance "securing" crypto is paid via dilution vs gold being an outright expense.  Also an attacker for gold is just trying to get your stash - not crash the entire gold market.

I agree with the differences at that level, but from the perspective of a holder, I don't see a difference. Why would I pay 3.6%+ when I could secure my wealth for less?

Man there are so many reasons.  Have you ever tried to cross borders with gold?  Is there any chance that gold can allow frictionless transactions by all market players from criminal to mom and pop businesses outside corrupt government control?  Wealth is simply things being more efficient than they were and humans reaping the benefit (often the wrong people reap the benefits but still the wealth was created)

Crypto has the potential of making things more efficient .  Gold is simply a limited supply that represents a store of value.  I view them completely differently.

Gold was just an example. There are very few asset classes of any kind that you can't secure for less than 3.6% per year. And, yet, you've suggested that 3.6% is too low. How high do you think it should be?

[rdnkjdi]

I'm not pretending to know or have a solution because I don't ... But look at what happens to bitcoins price when we whisper about a fork to increase transactions.  Value falls by 30%.  

Or spam/stress test the network.  

No other asset class depends on intentionally burning energy (money, electricity, whatever) to secure it.  They depend on guns and laws.  No other asset class has security bound together by who is willing to burn the most energy.  

As much as I hate PoS I'm starting to think the cryptos that survive will be PoW that convert to PoS when the rewards get too low.  Not like these fly by their seat 3 month PoW coins.  But after years of PoW

[iCEBREAKER]

ShapeShift started to use mixin and had to stop due to problems.  

Coming soon there will be a service that allows BTC -> XMR transfers supporting mixins 3+ by default and payment IDs.

 

This is a positive development!

And this.

https://shapeshift.io/site/blog/2015/09/24/new-tool-shapeshift-skeleton-allows-site-exchanges-video

Please welcome ShapeShift Skeleton to our suite of merchant/user tools! Skeleton enables any website to allow instant purchase or sale of digital assets and cryptocurrencies. The tool allows for exchanges to be made by a site’s users without them leaving the site.

Skeleton’s code is free and open-source and offers a template that is customizable, giving integrators the ability to brand the tool with their own assets and colors.

Why would you want to have this offering on your site? For all cryptocurrency-related sites, this gives your users instant ability to purchase the assets you support without having to take an additional step of visiting an exchange to make their purchase. Additionally, you remove the risk of the person leaving your site to make a purchase and never making back to your own website.

[smooth]

No other asset class depends on intentionally burning energy (money, electricity, whatever) to secure it.  They depend on guns and laws.  No other asset class has security bound together by who is willing to burn the most energy.  

There's always money being spent to employ those guns and laws. Not specifically energy, but something of value being consumed.

[americanpegasus]

Reading back through all 400 pages of this topic, and just had a few words of wisdom from the future to share with some of you in the past:  

Monero is quite the addiction, lately I don't care much about my BTC stash. just collecting as much XMR as i can before it's too late!  

 
Don't worry my friend; you have plenty of time... in September of 2014, that is.  
  

We're supposed to hold off on the marketing blitz until the database and wallet are done-ish.

Then we'll commission a spiel for exchanges ("zomg look how much btc/xmr volume already and just imagine the fiat pairs...!") and translate it for the hardworking prosperous BRICs and lazy heathen PIIGS.

I did not get that memo.  Oops.  

What's the pontentil of this coin? price predictions in dollar per coin after 1 year?

I see $10-20/coin as easily possible. I'm not saying likely necessarily, but possible. That puts it in the range of LTC.

If there is a big increase in BTC then it could go much higher.

 
  
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.  
  

Bid side collapsed hard, volume too. market seems exhausted. where do we go?

Yea.. forum activity and participation of prominent members also on the decline. I think there is overall disappointment that the database and GUI, which were just around the corner two months ago are still not here. I guess the majority of investors are in the red, which doesn't add much to the enthusiasm..
I started developing a service based on XMR, but put it on hold until I see clear signs that things are going in the right direction.

 
  
This was nearly a year ago.  It was right around the time that Monero "died" with this topic at about 50 pages.  Since then it has been another year and we have over 460 pages of conversation - much of it substantial.  Hopefully we have the distinction of dying many more deaths as we grow.  
  
  

. A growing acceptance of crypto in general (vs the current stagnation).  Everyone I know now knows about bitcoin without me telling them.  None of them show much interest in it.  Adoption has ceased as everyone knows and anyone who wants to use it is.  This is much the same with XMR.  Everyone who wants to use it / be in on it now is.  Most people who own bitcoin and are semi regulars in the crypto world know about it.

Yes I describe this as a crypto dark age. There just isn't much going on in terms of opening of new markets or increased demand for the technology (broadly speaking I include both XMR and BTC here). Look at the BTC chart over the past 10 months. In the moment it seems like a lot is going on with daily/weekly pumps and dumps, China bans, MtGox implosion, but zoomed out you just see stagnation and slow decline.

It will take something new and important to break out of this pattern.

 
  
I almost think that we will see the development of crypto move in a speculatory wave pattern which began with frequent rises and crashes (which were relatively large, but tiny in the big scheme of things) and will conclude with infrequent rises and crashes that are very severe in magnitude.  
  
In 2009/2010 when crypto first burst into existence there were massive quakes all the time that caused insane rises and falls in the value of the entire cryptocurrency universe.  Finally around early 2014 things stabilized - in a downtrend.  But that doesn't mean that we stay here.  The bottom of this wave has already been reached (or will be reached by Spring 2016 at the latest) and the next wave up will be both longer than any before it AND more severe (to the upside).  
  
Basically: as slow and dismal as things seem now, it's going to slowly do a 180 and rock the world of cryptocurrency with an anti-crash that the world will most *definitely* notice.

[smoothie]

Fully agree. Please dont jump and get hyped about any coin, because of some strangers in the internet. Take time and do plant of research and, before you start trowing many on any coin.

I guess the main question I would have now is, where would I go to do a non biased research on the coin I want to look further into?  It seems impossible to do this, especially with all of the information about cryptos being on the internet.  What made you feel strongly about Monero in the first place?  What makes you feel even more strongly about Monero now? I want to see for my self, but I would have no idea where to start.

A good start is doing what I'm doing...


Reviewing the latest source code file by file, line by line.

[smooth]

Fully agree. Please dont jump and get hyped about any coin, because of some strangers in the internet. Take time and do plant of research and, before you start trowing many on any coin.

I guess the main question I would have now is, where would I go to do a non biased research on the coin I want to look further into?  It seems impossible to do this, especially with all of the information about cryptos being on the internet.  What made you feel strongly about Monero in the first place?  What makes you feel even more strongly about Monero now? I want to see for my self, but I would have no idea where to start.

A good start is doing what I'm doing...


Reviewing the latest source code file by file, line by line.

Works better for people with a technical background. phishead has stated he doesn't have that. What is the alternative then?