Quote from: kwukduck on August 12, 2017, 07:20:45 PM

Quote from: Hueristic on August 12, 2017, 03:59:23 PM

Quote from: kurious on August 12, 2017, 09:16:05 AM

Quote from: guesswho1234 on August 12, 2017, 08:55:56 AM

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.

Quote from: kwukduck on August 12, 2017, 01:53:42 PM

Quote from: doc12 on August 12, 2017, 12:39:49 PM

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.