1 day candle just closed as a green hammer on bitcoinwisdom. That has been a bullish reversal signal multiple times in the past. I think it was rpietila that first pointed that out. About 5000 of the 13500 wall at .00300 got taken out by a single sell. There were about 630 BTC in buy orders that dropped to 407 this afternoon. Volume is very low. I think the question is still open, are we in an uptrend or a downtrend? I think there is btc on the sidelines waiting to find out how this descending triangle plays out.
Notice something we haven't seen in a long time, resistance. |
|
|
|
I'll make a bold prediction: within 60 days, monero will be in the top 5 of the ranking on coinmarketcap.comReason? DRK is crashing. Only a few of the whales looking for the best alternative for dash are needed to get us at 12 M USD market cap. Implosion of DRK will also make people aware of Monero as an alternative. And when they discover the superior tech, it's easy to get there. Combine this with the current development and we are on the good side of the bet  Whats the story with dark crashing? I mean i know it ought to crash. But it ought to have crashed a long time ago and it didn't. So whats different now? Are there any catalysts? Not really asking you specifically, just anyone who might have some input. |
|
|
|
Sold all my XMR. i will buy back at 0.0020-0.0015  Btw mrkavasaki, this is not an ad hominum, I just think selling in this range isn't a good idea  But let's see what the market has in store for us. He has cojones, you have to give him that. With that kind of trading strategy he will probably be either really wealthy or really poor some day. Not a whole lot of room for in between. |
|
|
|
we need a lot more to break this wedge. wall flashed up to 30k to show strength. the real 0.00 300!!, what a fight for such long time, we should move on soon up or down? i dont know. yesterday it felt weak and me too, today is a new day. moving up would be beautiful, the community would have managed to collectively build a nice floor for future adventures <3 but its not done yet.. Ha! This is begging for some sort of meme. We have been fighting at 0.00 300 for so long it really does feel like the Battle of Thermopylae. |
|
|
|
|
Another strong wall of support at 0.003. Seen this so many times. Every time it gets torn down in about 10 minutes. Probably going to happen again. But if it doesn't, that means our seller (sellers) may out of ammo. That's the bull run signal I'm looking for. If that wall of support is still there a few hours from now, fasten your seatbelts.
|
|
|
|
cool stuff. thanks for link! Lightning is very cool, the whitepaper is a *little* difficult to parse if you're not switched on to that way of thinking. Thankfully, rusty has a series of posts he wrote explaining Lightning as he understands it: http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=450http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=462http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=467http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=477It's imperative to understand *why* Lightning or something similar is important: it solves the scalability issue without sacrificing breaking Bitcoin's trustless model. I was at the Bitcoin Africa conference over the past two days and I heard more than one speaker (Jonathan Levin from Chainalysis, in particular) say that in order to scale Bitcoin we need to add trust. Needless to say they earned my ire, and a good shafting of critical Tweets (such passive aggressive, much brave, wow;) Thanks for stopping by to check out my thread fp. I had a feeling that my idea was either broken or already on someones radar. Can this be done with monero do you think? We have time locks already right? We just need multisig. Is the dev team hopeful about being able to work out a method of doing multisig in monero in future? |
|
|
|
|
I sort of sympathize with the maniac. If the ridiculous ideas that he believed in were true it would make sense to murder oil workers. If they were actually causing the future destruction of the planet, another literal mass extinction level event, than i would be out there with a gun too. Too bad he had his mind so twisted up by the sociopaths who hope to make advantage of this dangerous rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
cool stuff. thanks for link! |
|
|
|
So as I understand it we have a solution for how to do trustless micro-payments in bitcoin. See here: https://bitcoinj.github.io/working-with-micropayments What we are going to do is leverage up this concept. From the website. The micropayment protocol allows one party (the client) to make repeated micropayments to another party (the server). It works in two stages. Firstly, some value is locked up with a multi-signature transaction that places it under the control of both parties. The parties collaborate to create a signed refund transaction that spends all the value back to the client, but is time locked using the nLockTime feature of the Bitcoin protocol. This ensures that the refund won’t become valid until some period of time has passed (currently, one day).
The refund transaction is prepared in such a way that the client gets a fully signed copy before the initial multi-signature transaction (the contract) is sent to the server. In this way, we avoid a potential crash/attack that could cause the client to lose money - once the client receives the refund transaction, only then is the money locked to both parties control. If the server halts at any point in the protocol, the client can always get their money back.
Once the refund transaction has been obtained by the client, it transmits the multi-signature contract to the server which then signs it and broadcasts it, thus locking in the money and opening the channel. To make a payment the client prepares and signs a new copy of the refund transaction that refunds slightly less money than before. The signature is sent to the server, which then verifies the signature is correct and stores it. The signature uses fairly lax SIGHASH modes so the server has a lot of leeway to modify the refund transaction as it wishes, but normally it will just add an output that sends back to its own wallet.
In this way once the payment channel is established, a micropayment can be made with just one signature operation by the client and one verify by the server.
Eventually the client will decide that it is done. At this point it sends a message to the server asking it to close the channel. The server then signs the final version of the contract with its own key and broadcasts it, resulting in the final state of the channel being confirmed in the block chain. If the server doesn’t co-operate or has vanished before the client gets a chance to cleanly close the channel then the client must wait 24 hours until the initial refund transaction becomes valid. This idea is great so long as actors have regular dealings, but what about one time exchanges, or infrequent exchanges between parties. What if for infrequent exchanges, both parties used an intermediary. A trustless clearing house if you will. Alice and bob both have long term open payment channels with charlies clearing house. Alice and bob tell charlie what they believe are the terms of the exchange, charlie makes sure everyone is on the same page, charlie creates two new versions of the contract, one paying paying from alice to charlie and one from charlie to bob. Alice signs the updated contract and charlie signs the updated contract. Now in order to facilitate competition in the market. Assume that alice and bob chose their clearing house from a long list of service providers. Alice chooses charlie and bob chooses dave. All of the clearing houses have open payment channels with all of the other clearing houses. Alice signs an updated contract with charlie, charlie signs an updated contract with dave, and dave signs an updated contract with bob. Now im not saying this is the end all be all solution. It's just one possible solution. I do think, unless i have missed something, we can say this is reasonable contingency plan. If all else fails, this is good enough to allow bitcoin to scale as big as we need it to with manageable drawbacks. Now you might be thinking. "Your solution to bitcoin scalability is BANKS!?!?, we are going to just make bitcoin like the legacy system it is intended to replace in order to save it? This sounds a lot like when bush said we have to kill capitalism to save it." However these clearing houses would not be like banks. They would have very little capacity to get up to mischief. They certainly wouldn't be betting depositors funds on risky investments with 10% reserve for privatized profits and socialist government guarantees against losses. They wouldn't be custodians over your funds. They would just be processing transactions. The most that a clearing house could ever scam anyone is a single transaction. And the whole point is that these are small transactions, if they were very large than they would just be placed on the blockchain. Thanks once again for humoring my inane ramblings! - Anon. |
|
|
|
|
Hey risto. At what price are we having the party at your house? Also, am I invited?
|
|
|
|
|
I've been watching this market pretty closely lately and i just wanted to share an observation and some implications of that observation.
Earlier today someone posted a 10,000 monero buy wall at 0.003. That wall remained for about as long as it would take someone to send monero from cold storage to poloniex and than execute a trade. It was taken down in one fell swoop. I find it interesting that this seems to occur again and again any time someone puts up a buy wall of reasonable size near the current price. Who ever this/these buyers are, they are always willing to sell but never willing to take the price down in the process. They want to take some profit, but they care about not crashing monero into the ground. This would seem to indicate that they have a more monero in storage than they are selling. And we know they are selling a lot.
What can we infer about the buyer? well not a lot. He could be a whale who wants more, or he could be a fish hoping to grow into a whale, or he could be a lot of fishes hoping to grow into dolphins. So we dont really know much about them at all. So on average there is a reasonable chance that they are smaller holders.
This hints at the distinct probability that the currency holding is becoming more widely distributed.
If this is this is the case than there are some things we can deduce from this. In a market where the asset is more distributed prices are more useful and more meaningful. Thus as a currency monero has more utility. It means that so long as the price holds throughout this process, the smaller holders are going to be more likely to clench onto their small holdings. After all a small holder is more willing to take a loss than someone who invested a quarter of a million dollars. Also a small holder can wait to cash out on low liquidity (i.e. a higher price) a large holder cant be so focused on the price, he has to take advantage of liquidity where ever he can get it. So the longer this process goes on the more bullish things become. Its like a rocket that's slowly being fueled up.
|
|
|
|
I was about to write a reply similar to this but i realized while writing it that it isnt actually correct. I was preparing this awsome analogy of needing to pull out a microscope at the 7-11 to make sure your change didnt have any cocaine residue on it. But I think it would actually be quite easy to check bitcoins against some government blacklisted database. So it wasnt really an apt analogy.
Of course there are other problems with this. The possibility for tyranny resulting from the governments ability to simply "turn off" your money. But i digress.
and which government blacklist you want to check? americans: needed, because they think their law is global your local one: needed, thats obvious ...and how fast is this check? if i'd steal a huge amount and my exit-strategy includes something like shapeshift i would do it immediatly before the tx in question even could get blacklisted. and blacklisting is another problem.. done on mining level: which jurisdication? all or we risk a network split. at a user / shop level: how deep is this check? is it enough to just sent that tx to a new address or do i need to do it multiple times? Yea i don't think all of your points are valid here but you do bring up at-least one really good and valid point. What to do if you receive funds before they are blacks-listed and then they become blacklisted after you receive them. It wouldn't be right to punish someone who couldn't have known. So any criminal will take advantage of this and swap the bitcoins for clean ones instantly, the exact moment of the crime. His bitcoins will be clean, and so will be the ones that the recipient never could have known were involved in a crime. On the other hand the government might decide that it wasn't particularly interested in being reasonable, which they rarely if ever are, than they might blacklist coins after people receive them. In which case the lack of fungibility would be a HUGE problem. It could destroy bitcoin. |
|
|
|
is fungibility of ALL bitcoins really important though?
Consider that you own 50,000 bitcoins. If 1,000,000 bitcoins were found to be in the hands of ISIS, and blacklisted, what would that do to your bitcoins? Well, how would that be different, from 1,000,000 bitcoins that are simply lost forever? That some bitcoins are no longer fungible/available doesn't harm your coins in any way. In fact, it would benefit you, since the less coins in existence, the more valuable your coins are.
The only thing would be if blacklisting of coins is backtracked (dunno the term so I invented one). What I mean is, say you did business with a company, and your coins are connected to their addresses. That company then proceeds to scam people and engage in terrorist activity say a year later.
In such cases, I think that there would be laws that would prevent your coins from being blacklisted. It shouldn't be difficult to see that your coins were obtained before the time they engaged in illegal activities, or at least before the public was aware that they were engaged in illegal activities. In such cases, I would think that there would be laws preventing those coins from being blacklisted.
So unless you are planning to do something illegal yourself, other people's coins being not fungible doesn't harm your coins. It makes yours more valuable.
if something is not fungible a shop cant accept it without extensive checking if its ok. imagine eg a bitstamp hack. coins immediatly send to shapeshift and converted to xmr. now shapeshift has a problem. shapeshift is a little bigger and can deal with this, but a small shop cant. another point to consider: many jurisdication require to return stolen goods (eg when a car is stolen and sold by the thief the new owner must give it back). if lawyers come to the conclusion (and it seems they already thinking in that direction) that bitcoin is not fungible they might require shapeshif in the example above to return the "stolen" bitcoin - just leaving them with the option to sue the thief themselves (means: they are fucked). so fungiblility is absolutely necessary for money. I was about to write a reply similar to this but i realized while writing it that it isnt actually correct. I was preparing this awsome analogy of needing to pull out a microscope at the 7-11 to make sure your change didnt have any cocaine residue on it. But I think it would actually be quite easy to check bitcoins against some government blacklisted database. So it wasnt really an apt analogy. Of course there are other problems with this. The possibility for tyranny resulting from the governments ability to simply "turn off" your money. But i digress. |
|
|
|
Great post. I agree with everything that i know enough about to comment on. Though we might be pleasantly surprised. Especially if there is a catalyzing event such as people being kidnapped by the state as a result of block chain analysis.
Wow. Is that something that big bitcoin holders actually fear ? I don't know about the big holders. But I would definitely fear it if i were running a dark market business or a dark market customer. |
|
|
|
Might be for the reason mentioned above. No one is interested in a closed source project. Quite sad really because i messed around with it a bit and it looks really cool |
|
|
|
My Long-Term Outlook:
Bulls are unable to protect $300 BTCUSD or $1 XMRUSD price levels. Now XMR and BTC must look to their "real economies" (non-speculative uses) as baseline support. Because XMR and BTC both have double-digit supply inflation, their real economies must expand at a triple-digit rate to safely overcome supply inflation. Let's look at the real economies.
XMR's real economy is driven mostly by Crypto-Kingdom.
BTC's real economy is driven mostly by Silk Road's descendants. (NOT Coinbase, Bitpay, Dell, Microsoft -- they don't soak up supply. They juggle bitcoins and then throw them back onto the market.)
Silk Road's descendants are not transparent so it is difficult to measure this economy's expansion. We can see that the number of listings has increased, but not at triple-digit rates. Crypto-Kingdom is more transparent. Its growth is good, but maintaining a triple-digit growth rate of players and economy will be difficult. Without the bulls on our side, we have to prepare for a long, drawn-out decline to baseline support, where almost no one wants BTC and XMR except for Silk Road users and Crypto-Kingdom players. Where they are the only people standing between oversold price levels and oblivion.
In 2021, the inflation situation will be reversed. Bitcoin and Monero's supply inflation will be down to single-digits (closer to 2-3%), but their real economies will likely be expanding at double-digit rates. Sometime between 2015 and 2021, the pin will drop. We don't need to defeat the bears. We only have to survive them.
There is a pretty good chance that monero will take over a good portion of what you are calling the "real economy" of btc. Aye, there is. But by then, the pie will be much bigger. The real economies of both BTC and XMR will be much more than a small handful of enterprises. Maybe. But even if that isnt the case. Even if the whole pie shrinks, even if the total use cases shrink, if monero takes over a good portion of bitcoins dark market utility, we could be looking at sizable returns. Just by virtue of the fact that monero is so much less capitalized than bitcoin. I would like to believe that dark net market administrators and customers would be quick to adopt new, superior alternatives. Unfortunately, humans are creatures of habit and often won't change unless forced to change. People are in the habit of using BTC and in the habit of using centralized, trust based marketplaces. We see that the dark net market rouges are very slow to adopt multisig transactions, very slow to adopt XMR, and very slow to try Open Bazaar. If I had to make a bet, I would bet that they'll still be doing the same thing years from now that they are doing today. In other words, I wouldn't peg my hopes on them being smart enough and forward looking enough to do what's in their best interests by using XMR. Some may be drawn to DASH, which may survive or even thrive for many years before the occurrence of a systemic meltdown event. Dark net market activity is not part of XMR's real economy and may never be. Luckily for XMR, there are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of legal opportunities for XMR: offshore banking, cross-border corporate transactions, tax avoidance (not evasion), online gambling, porn and any and all ordinary transactions where privacy is desired. The space into which XMR can expand has a trillion dollar ceiling. We don't need to worry about the ceiling. For now, Crypto Kingdom is here and it's real. Great post. I agree with everything that i know enough about to comment on. Though we might be pleasantly surprised. Especially if there is a catalyzing event such as people being kidnapped by the state as a result of block chain analysis. |
|
|
|
My Long-Term Outlook:
Bulls are unable to protect $300 BTCUSD or $1 XMRUSD price levels. Now XMR and BTC must look to their "real economies" (non-speculative uses) as baseline support. Because XMR and BTC both have double-digit supply inflation, their real economies must expand at a triple-digit rate to safely overcome supply inflation. Let's look at the real economies.
XMR's real economy is driven mostly by Crypto-Kingdom.
BTC's real economy is driven mostly by Silk Road's descendants. (NOT Coinbase, Bitpay, Dell, Microsoft -- they don't soak up supply. They juggle bitcoins and then throw them back onto the market.)
Silk Road's descendants are not transparent so it is difficult to measure this economy's expansion. We can see that the number of listings has increased, but not at triple-digit rates. Crypto-Kingdom is more transparent. Its growth is good, but maintaining a triple-digit growth rate of players and economy will be difficult. Without the bulls on our side, we have to prepare for a long, drawn-out decline to baseline support, where almost no one wants BTC and XMR except for Silk Road users and Crypto-Kingdom players. Where they are the only people standing between oversold price levels and oblivion.
In 2021, the inflation situation will be reversed. Bitcoin and Monero's supply inflation will be down to single-digits (closer to 2-3%), but their real economies will likely be expanding at double-digit rates. Sometime between 2015 and 2021, the pin will drop. We don't need to defeat the bears. We only have to survive them.
There is a pretty good chance that monero will take over a good portion of what you are calling the "real economy" of btc. Aye, there is. But by then, the pie will be much bigger. The real economies of both BTC and XMR will be much more than a small handful of enterprises. Maybe. But even if that isnt the case. Even if the whole pie shrinks, even if the total use cases shrink, if monero takes over a good portion of bitcoins dark market utility, we could be looking at sizable returns. Just by virtue of the fact that monero is so much less capitalized than bitcoin. |
|
|
|
My Long-Term Outlook:
Bulls are unable to protect $300 BTCUSD or $1 XMRUSD price levels. Now XMR and BTC must look to their "real economies" (non-speculative uses) as baseline support. Because XMR and BTC both have double-digit supply inflation, their real economies must expand at a triple-digit rate to safely overcome supply inflation. Let's look at the real economies.
XMR's real economy is driven mostly by Crypto-Kingdom.
BTC's real economy is driven mostly by Silk Road's descendants. (NOT Coinbase, Bitpay, Dell, Microsoft -- they don't soak up supply. They juggle bitcoins and then throw them back onto the market.)
Silk Road's descendants are not transparent so it is difficult to measure this economy's expansion. We can see that the number of listings has increased, but not at triple-digit rates. Crypto-Kingdom is more transparent. Its growth is good, but maintaining a triple-digit growth rate of players and economy will be difficult. Without the bulls on our side, we have to prepare for a long, drawn-out decline to baseline support, where almost no one wants BTC and XMR except for Silk Road users and Crypto-Kingdom players. Where they are the only people standing between oversold price levels and oblivion.
In 2021, the inflation situation will be reversed. Bitcoin and Monero's supply inflation will be down to single-digits (closer to 2-3%), but their real economies will likely be expanding at double-digit rates. Sometime between 2015 and 2021, the pin will drop. We don't need to defeat the bears. We only have to survive them.
There is a pretty good chance that monero will take over a good portion of what you are calling the "real economy" of btc. |
|
|
|
|
It's interesting that the orderbook always has so much more liquidity on the buy side than the sell side even in times when clearly supply and demand are clearing with each other rather equitably (such as over the last couple weeks where we have been hovering in a 0.003-0.004 range). If there were really so many more buyers than sellers than we would not be trading in a range we would be going up. So the sellers are out there, they are just not accounted for on the order book. Any idea why?
|
|
|
|
Can you name a single respected scientific organization that rejects anthropogenic global warming or the reports from the IPCC? Surely you see the problem with this question? Not really. Care to explain? You have respected scientific journals like "Nature" and "Science" that have published scientific breakthroughs in many fields of science for decades. Are they suddenly wrong on climate change, after even the computer you are using right now is a result of research being published in those and other journals? Is all science just a scam (despite all the things it has done for you)? You cant say, any group of scientists that doesn't believe in AGW is disreputable and AGW is real because no reputable group of scientists argues that it isn't. Its circular. Of course this does rely on the assumption that if i told you about a group of scientists and then told you that they are AGW skeptics than you would consider them disreputable because of this fact. But i think that is a pretty safe assumption. This isn't about who I personally find reputable, but rather about their position and standing in the scientific community. That makes my point even more effectively. You cant have a scientific community populated by people who will consider AGW dissenters as disreputable and then say AGW is obviously real because there are no reputable scientists who dissent against it. It's circular. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
