Something that hit me today ... and this might be impossible to do.  I think that either Edward Snoden or Wikileaks could see the value in an anonymous cryptocurrency.  These seem like more legitimate causes that could benefit from anonymous currency than the blackmarket or ISIS Funding

In the same breath - getting Snowden or Assange to advertise your anonomous cryptocurrency might be a tough thing to do.  If someone pledged enough XMR to make it worthwhile to get a donate button on wikileaks it might work for advertisement (get picked up on coindesk, etc).

I'd feel more comfortable sending XMR than BTC to either of these projects ...

So rather than overcoming a 15 minute learning gap, you'd rather place your money in someone else's API, who is in control of likely 7.5% of the mint, even after they've been hacked in the last year, and Mt. Gox, and everything else? I'm not trying to be accusatory here, just stating what I see.

So collectively, I see that many people (With at least a representative ~7.5% of the mint) would rather have point-and-click operation with no functionality (as the 'coins' you see on the exchange are just representative of the value that you're owed, and not actual value tokens), over typing an average of five words on a command line with full functionality of what cryptonote offers you?

I have to ask, for speculation purposes, what is it, exactly, that people think they have bought?

Additionally, I'd like to point out that I think lower prices are great for higher adoption. So, do people think adoption would suffer if price rises upon release of a GUI wallet, or would adoption fuel a rise in price after release of a GUI? So, if the GUI was already 'priced in', could adoption suffer because the price increased to matched the hype related to a government GUI, or if the GUI was somehow prevented from being 'priced in' before its actual release would adoption then be helped?

Further, what do people view adoption as? Is adoption the moment the software is downloaded and run on your computer, or the moment you click buy on poloniex? I think that's a very important question. My personal view is that adoption is the moment the software is downloaded and run on my computer, and then used for its intended purpose. As this is a currency, the intended purpose would likely be to transact with it. So, as a third question, could adoption be the moment you transact with the software on your computer?

So, other than exchanges and the pending MEW game, what can I use this for to transact in?

Edit: Consider that you can purchase plots of land on the moon right now. Did you buy this as a gag for friends and family, did you purchase with the intent to hold onto it to pass down to your children in case the plot of land becomes claimable, or do you really think you're gonna go and move to the moon tomorrow? Maybe this is a weak analogy, but I consider that anyone who has not downloaded this software and used it on their computer to have not really adopted the coin, in the same way they don't intend to move to the Moon.

I'm curious why people think the (two) third party GUI wallets are so insufficient they are hurting the market. For comparison purposes, most Bitcoin users today use third party wallets such as Electrum (or web wallets -- also third party). I would expect this to be more normal than not as a coin matures.

1. Don't like
2. Don't trust
3. Don't know about
4. Can't get to work
5. Doesn't support preferred platform (the .NET one is Windows-only; supposedly the other one is cross platform, but I haven't tried it)
6. other?


On this thread apparently.

If there is no GUI wallet before this then It will all be downhill.

Hey look I'm in a Moderated topic. This post will be deleted because I'm not delusional.

I think it's the fear hanging around (see McHaggis' reply), not what you've stated above. The devs never gave a timeline for these things. So basicly that can't lead to disappointment.

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

How do you interpret that bid megawalls of +30000 coins?

My intention (along with some that the others have already interpreted), has been to elucidate the asymmetry between the impact needed for price going down and price going up.

Currently, to force the price down 10%, one needs to sell 39,000 XMR. About ~9 people have this amount if they sell it all. Needless to say, it is unlikely that the price would go down unless many of them combine to sell large parts of their holdings.

To keep the price from going down 10%, one needs to absorb the 39,000 XMR by selling 100 BTC. There are 10,000 people in the world with 100 BTC, and if fiat holders are taken into account, the number rises to high 100s of millions(!).

Therefore, any 1 out of 100s of millions can keep the price up (or make it go up, which is analoguous), but it takes concerted (in)action of several out of ~9 to make it go down.

wtf, I fail to see how any "believer" should be "forced" to buy all the coins and support the market alone.

only peep complaining about the price are trolls using to bash Monero once again (not saying you are one!)

I disagree for this reason. As long as the continuous auction is going on, it is a price setting process and other trading must agree with it, since you can't have more than one market price in the same market at the same time. What may happen is if that Risto decides he doesn't like Monero, that decision and actions he may subsequently take based on that decision may in turn convince everyone (or all but one person) that a lower price is more appropriate. But as long as two people steadfastly believe the price should be X, then the price will be at least X.

There is some truth to it given that the mechanism for mining set up something like a continuous auction where everyone (including the original miner) bids for each block. In that sense I would slightly disagree with the original comment. There need to be two people who agree with a price in order to sustain it, not just one, because otherwise the high bidder can bid less and still win.

The mechanism for going down requires everybody to simultaneously decide that the current level is too high. If there is even one who thinks otherwise, it does not go down.

Going up is much different. A few, even just one, people deciding to buy, make it go up.

Double the total coin supply.  Then change emission curve to something closer to BBR's emission curve?

I'd be on board with that.  Be ready for a price tank.

Without GUI, adoption will remain sluggish. With sluggish adoption, not only will price be pressured, but more importantly - and this is a coin killer - the emission will run its course to the point that XMR will considered to be a "community premine" despite all our good heroic efforts.

Since changing the emission also can be considered to be a premine of sorts, we are between a rock and a hard place with (yet) no solutions that would have the unanimous support of everybody.

I can also be wrong concerning the future perception of "community premine".

I have been on holydays and disconnected from the breaking news. Can someone point me to that BCX threat thread?

I don't believe anyone with money to move the markets is waiting on that. Weak hands sold, strong hands held, new hands are buying. Business as usual. With a little less Monero-centric worldview you could see that Bitcoin and alts are fighting for their life, so a low price is just sympathy.

hey, man, may be there is no tomorrow for Monero, but not for Boolberry.


fluffypony, didn't know that you so sensetive after all that you was saing before about me and our project.
But, anyway i'm pleased to know that you trust me so much that pull my commits without even read it.

Notice: If someone want to push few exploits into monero code, you know how to reach me


PS: Storm is over, relax and have a some fun, eveyone do mistakes, don't take seriously my joke.

When Monero can have some use for private transaction, so that its usefulness is proven, then it will fly. Before that, it is all speculation.