We are losing steam. My newbie sense of TA says that we are going to rebound somewhere around the 61% fibo @.00365 before breaking .00581 for good so this could be a good moment to short.
...
It is certainly possible. I am not into day trading XMR at this time, being more a medium to long term holder, but 0.0036 - 0.0039 is certainly an attractive range to add to an existing XMR position. This is a quote from 3 years ago. With hindsight was I wrong or was I right? Here are some charts that may help https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/poloniex/xmrbtchttps://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/bitstamp/btcusdThe answer to the above may depend on the hold time. |
|
|
|
Bear in mind that Dash has a much lower number of coins (about half) currently so in terms of market cap, $200 XMR = $400 DASH
This is true; however Dash has traded below 1 XMR as recently as one year ago. For example in December of last year DASH/XMR fell below 0.7. https://poloniex.com/exchange#xmr_dashEdit: In fact the history of prior XMR bull runs would indicate that DASH/XMR at ~3 is a sign that there maybe a fair amount of upside left in this XMR bull run. |
|
|
|
Monero has been in a consolidation mode for a year with respect to Bitcoin since it has not yet broken the 0.0265 XBT ATH. My take is that if the 0.0265 XBT ATH is broken on good volume then all bets are off. TO understand this I would suggest taking a look at the weekly chart with an exponential scale. https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/poloniex/xmrbtc. Play around with the chart look at volume and MACD. Draw some lines and reach you own conclusions. I see the situation now as very similar to the testing of ~0.004 XBT in 2016 or the ~0.004 hihg in 2015. A break on strong volume saw an ~6x increase in XMR/XBT. (2016) One the other hand if the resistance holds then expect some more consolidation (2015). Personally I just hold my long term XMR position and watch the fireworks. Sometimes when one is well positioned for the long term the best thing to do in the markets can be nothing. Edit: When it comes to the short term for the most part in the past I have been wrong. So I focus only on the long term. |
|
|
|
You know we're close to the bottom when the trolls start showing up. The next couple weeks should be interesting.
The trolls showing up likely has something to do with Bytecoin's zombie reawakening. They've always had a hard on for trolling Monero and yes there are paid trolling services that use sock puppet accounts, purchased accounts, etc. so the coordinated appearance of multiple 'different' trolls is not surprising (I've been personally solicited by them to use their services). Zombie is an apt description here. If we assume a constant price for BCN in inflation adjusted USD, my prediction is that with BCNs current emission curve, and assuming no CryptoNight ASICS within a decade it will be possible to launch a 51% attack on Bytecoin using a single video card. If a CryptoNight ASCIC is developed then its demise will be a lot faster. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
None of the coins in the poll.
|
|
|
|
Poloniex is a ponzi exchange and IMO a honeypot. I'd stay away from them. I have friends would have millions in crypto frozen there with slim chances of withdrawal. They had to hire an attorney to get them to begin the withdrawal process and nine months later its still ongoing. If they're freezing large amounts of funds it means theres a liquidity issue. That's probably why they impose their own internal fiat level KYC/AML standards on a crypto-to-crypto exchange to prevent large withdrawals. There is no law or statue that compels them to enforce AML/KYC on crypto-to-crypto exchanges. Interestingly their rise to popularity is also a direct result of Monero's Oasis DNM scam since they were the main XMR exchange.
Utter nonsense - I've just been on a call with a law firm in the USA, and they confirmed that at least half the states in the USA have licensing and AML/KYC requirements for crypto-to-crypto pairs. Bullshit. Show me a law that has compelled Poloniex to collect user data since 2014 for crypto-to-crypto exchanges. Bittrex is also licensed in the same country as Poloniex and all their owners are listed on their website. If I remember correctly they both started out in Washington State. How come they haven't been practicing the same data collection policy as Poloniex? Because there is no law. If there were, Bittrex would be in the news for violating the law. FINCEN is a federal entity not a state one. If there were compliance issues it would be at the federal level since it deals with interstate commerce. Your "law firm" should of explained this to you. I trust the Bittrex team much more than I trust anyone from Polo. The only time one needs to register as a MSB is if they are transacting in fiat currency thereby they have to comply with AML/KYC. The US does not classify cryptocurrency as legal tender (yet) and therefore it is not subject to the same laws as fiat. I'm really surprised that you haven't informed your community about their unjustified data collection. Edit: BTC-e was recently taken down by FINCEN and other agencies for not registering as a U.S. MSB even though they were a foreign corporate entity operating on foreign soil. They accepted wire transfers and bank deposits from U.S. citizens which made them subject to US law (in the eyes of FINCEN). If Bittrex was in violation they would of went down a long time ago. Bottom line: Polo is a ponzi honey pot. The quicker people realize this, the quicker they will remove their funds. FinCEN issued guidance on this over 4 years ago. https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/FIN-2013-G001.pdf Crypto to crypto exchanges in the United States or involving US persons require MSB registration with FinCEN and AML/KNC compliance. Bold my emphasis the law is shown. |
|
|
|
Why quote me? ...
Quote removed |
|
|
|
monero stuck at that price because cryptonote still did not have the solution for its problem, it will goes no where untill next year or maybe it will goes down, there are a lot of good project outhere, they will compete with monero
Cryptonote alone does not have the solution to the scaling problem since it only has the adaptive blocksize limit with no permanent minimum block reward. Monero addresses the scaling problem with its adaptive blocksize and minimum, 0.6 XMR per 2 min block, blockreward. This is approximately equivalent to a 3 XBT per 10min block blockreward in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
My view on block size issue and how it affects BTC vs BCH vs Mernero. Mernero is technically the more "just" solution, but such a thing might not actually be beneficial if there is greater gain to be had by special interest groups backing the monopoly: What special interest groups neglected to tell you about the block size issue:
From an economics point of view, trying to force the entire planet onto a fixed block size with low scaling is a pro-usury extortion stance. Small blocks are a synthetic monopoly. If criminal banks believe they can take control of this monopoly, either through getting a large percent of the transaction validators, or by taking control of all services that facilitate off-chain transactions like Coinbase (or lightning) since on-chain transactions are too expensive to use, then the criminal banks would likely support small blocks over large ones.
The solution to the problem is not 1 MB or 8 MB blocks. Any system with a fixed block size is going to inherently be a pro-usury extortion scheme due to synthetic monopoly. You would need to use a dynamic, scaling block size like Monero to fix that.
r0ach is correct. Monero's adaptive blocksize limit poses a serious threat to special interest groups if those special interest groups are relying in whole or in part on centralized database solutions for digital payments. This threat is not immediate but rather long term and driven by the exponential falling cost of computing power, memory, digital storage and data transmission. To put this into perspective consider that Bitcoin was proposed in 2008 and launched in 2009. For comparison, the "special interest competition", multi purpose payment cards were conceived in 1949 and first launched in 1950 with Diner's Club. When it comes to technological change it is correct that with present technology Monero, on the main chain, could not provide the peak transactions per second of the VISA network. For the long term investor that is not the relevant question. The relevant question is how does Monero compare with the Diners Club in 1958 when it comes to reaching the current transactions per second of the VISA network? Let us not forget that the primary data processing technologies in 1958 were tabulating machines, punched cards and telegraph lines. It is here where Monero wins hands down. Markets of course try to price in the future. The potential transactions per second in the future of the Monero Network is directly related to the purchasing power of 1 XMR by the equation of exchange. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_exchange. The market's perception of the likelihood of this future is reflected in the current price. This is the reason why I like the long term prospects of Monero and have sold all of my Bitcoins. Maybe the fact that I was a toddler in 1958 has provided me with a longer term perspective. |
|
|
|
You may wish to follow the discussion in https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/6r2xsm/is_moneros_anonymity_broken/ The bottom line: The attack proposed fails in Monero because of Monero's adaptive blocksize and tail emission. I see little point in discussing this here any further since the author of the blog in question has been banned on this forum. Edit: The case of Dash is fundamentally different from Monero and should in my opinion be discussed in a Dash forum or thread where the author of the blog has not been banned. |
|
|
|
This was deleted by rpietila. He does not want to admit that he now also owns an equivalent amount of Bitcoin Cash on his Bitcoin debts. Pay your debts.
For Bitcoin denominated debts, an equivalent amount of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash is now owed. |
|
|
|
Okay, since miners get a reward (bitcoin) for mining and help support the block chain, what will happen when the last bitcoin is mined? What incentive is there to mine bitcoin and thus support the block chain? Won\’t bitcoin crash at that point?
No, miners will be rewarded entirely from transaction fees which would be much higher per block due to bigger blocks (this was Satoshi's vision). The price will also be EXPONENTIALLY higher than it is today, which means the effect of losing the block reward will be countered. This is already the case with every block reward halving, where the price is at least double when the block reward halves than it was at the previous halving. This has been answered numerous times before, please search next time before making a new thread. This is one of the "fee market" theories that has not been proven at all. It is just accepted without question. The fear of this is what has led to Bitcoin core developers to restrict the blocksize to 1MB in order to force the "fee market" to raise fees to eventually compensate for the missing block reward. The idea that one can increase fees by increasing the blocksize defies the most basic rules of economics. One does not increase price by increasing supply. The most simple solution is to have a permanent block reward that does not fall to zero. This is what Monero has done with a minimum 0.6 XMR per 2 min block. For the Austrian hard money purists this is less than 1% per year and below the historical inflation rate of gold. Gold of course being the "gold standard" for hard money. With a minimum block reward then one can create an adaptive blocksize limit (Cryptonote / Monero) since a "fee market" is no longer necessary to secure the proof of work. One of the lessons from Monero is that this leads to a situation where the total fees collected per block is proportional to the block reward. If the block reward were to fall to zero then so will the total fees collected per block. Monero takes advantage of this to set fees! Now for the critical part. Any blocksize scaling solution that has a penalty that is equal to or lesser than in severity than the quadratic penalty for increasing the blocksize in Monero, in a coin with a finite number of coins.will lead over time to an insecure coin with the hashrate falling to zero. This would apply to Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dash, Zcash etc but not to Monero or Dogecoin. |
|
|
|
...
1. The premine portion is that which existed on the chain when the coin was launched in 2014, claiming 3 years of usage on the dark web, but which faked (including fake transaction activity) and actually just assigned 80% of the coin supply to the developers.
2. Bytecoin has implemented none of the traceability improvements, not even the change to the triangle distribution we implemented in 2015 (not very effective, by itself, but better than nothing). It is, I'm sure, highly susceptible to the blockchain analysis methods in the MoneroLink paper, much more so than Monero itself.
In addition to the above it is only a matter of time before Bytecoin becomes susceptible to a 51% attack. This is because Bytecoin does not have a minimum block reward like Monero but has the same kind of adaptive blocksize. At this point the Bytecoin's base reward is below 4860 BCN per block. When adjusting for the 10^4 divisibility factor between Monero and Bytecoin this is equivalent to a base reward of 0.486 XMR per block in Monero. This is already below the 0.6 XMR per block minimum block reward in Monero. Also Bytecoin's emission rate falls at a faster rate than Monero's. It will be very interesting to see how long Bytecoin survives before it falls to a 51% attack. Edit 1: For the above reasons I prefer to look at Bytecoin as the "canary in the coal mine" instead of as the "scam in the pre / ninja mine". Edit 2: Bytecoin has ~36% of Monero's market cap and ~2.2% of Monero's hashrate with the same POW algorithm. Do the math. |
|
|
|
Hash rate increases due to Moore's law and similar effects. It can't be directly compared over different time periods.
Yes Moore's law is part of the reason. The AMD Radeon RX 580 Video cards are extremely difficult to find because they are used for mining. Monero and Ethereum. Also if Ethereum drops in terms of Monero then this alone can cause an increase in the Monero hash rate since Ethereum has much greater market cap. |
|
|
|
...
Blockchain analysis using bayesian methods and markov chain Monte Carlo can easily surpass the "reasonable doubt" bar. Not always, but as sufficient data is accumulated.
Sure if the evidence is presented in court. This is not what we are talking about here. We trace Bitcoin transactions across hundreds of entities and help you connect illicit Bitcoin activity to real world actors.
Our proprietary database links millions of Bitcoin addresses to thousands of clear web and dark web entities. We back this up with transparent documentary evidence. https://www.elliptic.co/law-enforcement/ Translation: We have a proprietary database, accusing people of serious crimes by association, that we will let law enforcement agencies to take a look at for a fee. Elliptic is very careful to say this is evidence for investigations. They do not mention trails before a court of law. The likelihood of false positives here is very high. A good example is a criminal who purchases perfectly legal goods and / or services from a law abiding business on a regular basis using Bitcoin. Criminals do actually purchase perfectly legal goods and / or services on a regular basis. Bayesian methods will flag this in no time, since the algorithm has no way of knowing if the transactions are legal or not. A fact that these blockchain analytics companies conveniently ignore. Edit: This is guilt by association pure and simple. |
|
|
|
...
Hansa was thought to be fine after AB went down, but it actually wasn't, it was being run by law enforcement. In other words, a market being up does not imply that it hasn't been compromised.
Blockchain analysis wasn't the thing that caught them, but it will be what convicts them.
I doubt blockchain analysis will be of much use in convictions. For starters the false positive rate is simply very high, producing at best circumstantial evidence. It is at this point where the true strength of Monero; however comes into play. It protects the innocent from false accusations by proprietary algorithms owned by for profit companies. If the arrested criminal has used Bitcoin before his arrest to purchase perfectly legal goods and / or services from legitimate and law abiding vendors those vendors could easily be falsely accused. I am currently sitting at a coffee shop and paid for my coffee and a sandwich with a 20 CAD bill. Do I need to concern myself that particular 20 CAD bill could have been used for some illegal activity say 20 transactions back? Should the coffee shop have a similar concern? It is called fungibility. |
|
|
|
Any reason for BIP91 getting these all these "fans" all of a sudden? It's been having a stratospheric rise no other BIP or proposal ever had...
No one thought that BIP 91 could be locked in so soon, without much effort. A week back, I thought that there was hardly any chance of the proposal getting locked in. But this is like a lottery jackpot for all the users who hold Bitcoins in their wallet. Look at the exchange rates, they are on their way to $3,000 per coin. Check this: https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/bitstamp/btcusdStill doesn't answer the question and raises another regarding what you refer as "lottery jackpot". Any reason for BIP91 getting these all these "fans" all of a sudden? It's been having a stratospheric rise no other BIP or proposal ever had...
People don't like chain splits. I'd say that simply people don't like stalemates. Its really incredible how this miners suddenly jumped in and save the day for us.
What I find incredible is how miners did a 180 degree turn. They must have something up their sleeve or are really confident on quickly scaling Bitcoin. It's time to bury our differences and build.
I agree, but it's sad we have to bury our differences favoring one groups' opinions. Bitcoin will eventually get through this an improve anyways  Actually the miner behavior here is highly predictable. If we start with ~83% of the hashrate rejecting non segwit blocks or at least threatening to then the risk for a miner to mine a non segwit block or mine on top of a non segwit block is simply not worth it. Rejecting a non segwit block before mining on top of it effectively means enforcement. My take is that we will see segwit lock in at the end of the next difficulty period with 100% support. This will happen around August 12th with segwit activation towards the end of August. What happens next is what gets interesting; namely the 2x part of the New York Agreement. This is scheduled for BTC1 clients 3 months after segwit lock in or around mid November. It is at this point where the real controversy and possible chain splits could occur. |
|
|
|
SEC is limited to usa teritory,thay cant act outside of usa.It is wild west,pure capitalism,if usa prefer to stay in nationalised by big corporation sociallsm it is his choice,eth devs will not regulate ico,etherum and market dont belong to them
Sure and Liberty Reserve escaped by hiding in Costa Rica. Not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_ReserveEdit: When it comes to regulators, my take is that keeping one's hands out of the till by not tying to monetize the token is one way to avoid most of the issues. This of course requires relying solely on donations to fund development, marketing etc. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
