[XMR] Monero Speculation

[kwukduck]

Monero is great tech, but i'm getting a bit sour here. Since fluffys great "announcment" this ship is sinking and there are no signs of rescue.

What great announcement?

The only thing that can save monero is if we change to protocol not to have an infinite coin supply but have a hard cap like Bitcoin. All arguments defending tail emmission fail horribly and make even worse baseless assumptions.

'We' ?

It isn't going to happen, it's a feature, not an obstacle for Monero. 

What brings you here instead of trolling the BTC threads? Seriously, do you actually have any XMR?

I actually do. I think it is a crypto with big potential.
As many people also misunderstand me regarding bitcoin, i'm not here to hate. I'm here to point out points that need improvement or better argumentation.

[Febo]

Monero is great tech, but i'm getting a bit sour here. Since fluffys great "announcment" this ship is sinking and there are no signs of rescue.

What great announcement?

The only thing that can save monero is if we change to protocol not to have an infinite coin supply but have a hard cap like Bitcoin. All arguments defending tail emmission fail horribly and make even worse baseless assumptions.

This is first positive post about bitcoin you posted on this forum so far. IT will become legendary.    
Announcement was that Monero is not your personal pump vehicle and that you should not trust what some guy says on Twitter.  It was boring announcement, nothing I did not knew already.

[kurious]

Monero is great tech, but i'm getting a bit sour here. Since fluffys great "announcment" this ship is sinking and there are no signs of rescue.

What great announcement?

The only thing that can save monero is if we change to protocol not to have an infinite coin supply but have a hard cap like Bitcoin. All arguments defending tail emmission fail horribly and make even worse baseless assumptions.

'We' ?

It isn't going to happen, it's a feature, not an obstacle for Monero. 

What brings you here instead of trolling the BTC threads? Seriously, do you actually have any XMR?

I actually do. I think it is a crypto with big potential.
As many people also misunderstand me regarding bitcoin, i'm not here to hate. I'm here to point out points that need improvement or better argumentation.

OK, well you're welcome to raise it - but I have seen people on WO arguing Bitcoin needs a tail emission 'like Monero' before, and it does seem to make sense, given natural wastage from lost coins reduces supply and the need to keep miners working to secure the network at the end of emission.

I am not bound to it, but it makes some sense - why do you feel it's a bad idea?  It's not hurt Monero so far (although it's not Monero's finest hour right now, I grant you) and the tech does generally have great respect across crypto.  Why pick this, instead of the usual 'poor marketing' criticism?

[Hueristic]

i dont really understand why monero keeps dropping in usdt price. if its not increasing okay but why drop?
any insights?

It's been pretty steady in USD terms (the actual dollar) and looks nailed to between $49 and just over $50.

With BTC rocketing so much that is remarkably steady.

That is quite telling.

Monero is great tech, but i'm getting a bit sour here. Since fluffys great "announcment" this ship is sinking and there are no signs of rescue.

What great announcement?

The only thing that can save monero is if we change to protocol not to have an infinite coin supply but have a hard cap like Bitcoin. All arguments defending tail emmission fail horribly and make even worse baseless assumptions.

WTH are you talking about? Please reiterate those failing arguments.

Just because your book is too heavy doesn't mean we are going to change shit for you. That Euro trash risto tried this and failed years ago what do you think your odds are?

[KeyJockey]

Basicly we have broken every possible resistance, including the great yearly trendline.

Compared to the whole crypto market Monero underperforming horribly. Dont tell my other are going down too, yes they do, but thy made 30x before so it doesnt matter.

Monero is great tech, but i'm getting a bit sour here. Since fluffys great "announcment" this ship is sinking and there are no signs of rescue.

BUY when there is BLOOD in the STREETS!!!   

[notrouble]

The price of monero makes me also a little bit sceptical now.
My fear is that even if it is not raising with bitcoin right now, that it will fall with it when the next drop comes...
I am a little bit fucked up that also some shitcoins are outperforming the last days, while monero price is falling today.
Do people read what is behind a coin and what announcements the devs made or are they just buying the ones with good marketing?

OK, now I will take a deep breath and HODL on

[kwukduck]

i dont really understand why monero keeps dropping in usdt price. if its not increasing okay but why drop?
any insights?

It's been pretty steady in USD terms (the actual dollar) and looks nailed to between $49 and just over $50.

With BTC rocketing so much that is remarkably steady.

That is quite telling.

Monero is great tech, but i'm getting a bit sour here. Since fluffys great "announcment" this ship is sinking and there are no signs of rescue.

What great announcement?

The only thing that can save monero is if we change to protocol not to have an infinite coin supply but have a hard cap like Bitcoin. All arguments defending tail emmission fail horribly and make even worse baseless assumptions.

WTH are you talking about? Please reiterate those failing arguments.

Just because your book is too heavy doesn't mean we are going to change shit for you. That Euro trash risto tried this and failed years ago what do you think your odds are?

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.

[Hueristic]

...

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

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.

[aminorex]

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.

[Hueristic]

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

There will be less than 34 million XMR in 2100.

Barring revolutionary life-extension technologies I won't see the supply double from where its now.

Monero is extremely scarce.

QFT

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 what's 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 forking traumas that we see in less well-managed coins.

I perceive our new quote-unquote friend kwukduck to be a social saboteur, perhaps a foolish short speculator who has sould at what is likely to be the lowest price of all pending futurity.

Spoken far more elegantly than I ever could as usual.

[aminorex]

Zcash creators can print Zcashes from the fresh air without noone noticing. Try google "zcash trusted setup". You are welcome

If they can, but I don't think they will.  That would be bad for business, unless they're really scammers which I think they're not.

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.

[KeyJockey]

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 what's 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 forking traumas that we see in less well-managed coins.

I perceive our new quote-unquote friend kwukduck to be a social saboteur, perhaps a foolish short speculator who has sould at what is likely to be the lowest price of all pending futurity.

Spoken far more elegantly than I ever could as usual.

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..."  

[smooth]

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

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.

very likely on par with the rate of random loss.

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?

[Johnny Mnemonic]

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?

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.

[birr]

As long as the rate of lost coins is greater than zero, Bitcoin's total supply will eventually be zero.

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.

[Millionero]

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

Google Translate is your friend...

Norwegian: "The tears ranted and the smile was bigger than it had been for many years" ... not sure what it means, of course LOL

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).

[tokeweed]

Now it really is cheap coins...

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.

[ArticMine]

i dont really understand why monero keeps dropping in usdt price. if its not increasing okay but why drop?
any insights?

It's been pretty steady in USD terms (the actual dollar) and looks nailed to between $49 and just over $50.

With BTC rocketing so much that is remarkably steady.

That is quite telling.

Monero is great tech, but i'm getting a bit sour here. Since fluffys great "announcment" this ship is sinking and there are no signs of rescue.

What great announcement?

The only thing that can save monero is if we change to protocol not to have an infinite coin supply but have a hard cap like Bitcoin. All arguments defending tail emmission fail horribly and make even worse baseless assumptions.

WTH are you talking about? Please reiterate those failing arguments.

Just because your book is too heavy doesn't mean we are going to change shit for you. That Euro trash risto tried this and failed years ago what do you think your odds are?

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.

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.  

[cAPSLOCK]

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...

[cryptimus prime]

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.