Laggy, I am.

100 smj #34 txid 995ca7387f4c019e9bda165152275b6b116fdf5a931ba3b676b9411b489ddb8a
100 smj #78 txid 607cbdc81033ad8a9ef067945f212abf8ec051a9c96c761a51ac2249108eb4b7
200 smj #34 txid 1f47d3dbb54fe2c538e0edebdcc11757efa313ab17304b6c42c32b54f753393f
200 smj #78 txid ff0810b35336cf78c30114e8f1349f78228c5af64ff03a47b082e525f4bf4250

34 & 77 of each, please.

Seems to be working this year.

For most folks doing things gradually keeps risk closer to their tolerance.  You don't want to be chasing it up in the FOMO frenzy, so starting to nibble a bit early, and patiently enduring a tolerable drawdown should one occur, means you at least have some skin in if the correction takes you by surprise.  I think we are about half the fundamental PQ=MV price right now, so a correction seems inevitable, eventually, unless the dnm economy suddenly contracts to match.  I allocate a % of powder to limit bids increasing in size all down the book, and a % of disposable income to periodic buys, under such circumstances.  But yeah, the staircase has not confirmedly reversed yet.

It's a good time to buy, methinks.  Recent events rang my cheap bell.

I would tend to apply it over the pre-asic era to calibrate a scaling factor, and over the post-asic era to make an estimation. It's just a price-of-electricity estimation of a support level. I should add a Bitcoin price factor to test correlation to historical price:

(H*(T - aR) *  b + c)*B

a, b, c are the parameters to fit.  Since I was going from a one parameter model to a multiparameter model, I thought I should remove the ratio hack as no longer useful, thus eliminating the time window stealth parameter.  

Adding a hype factor: Use Google trends on "Monero" to obtain

(H*(T - aR + dG) *  b + c)*B

My intention was to describe a time series which should correlate with XMR USD over some local time window. the time window would have to be short enough so that the approximative use of a ratio spread instead of a subtracted spread did not lead to excessive distortion, and long enough for constant noise not too interfere too much with the correlation. The series would need to be scaled by some constant factor to have any utility for supply/demand price estimation. The use of a ratio spread was motivated by a desire to avoid calibrating a scaling parameter.

Multiply hash rate times transaction volume and divide by emission. Extrapolate linearly.

I disagree.  The major p&d cycle that made us wealthy is still there, and will remain there until the adoption curve slows significantly.  That has happened in several coins, but has not yet happened in Monero.  It has to rise simply because the fundamental value continues to rise.

No. I sold a little between 420 and 300 on the way down, but since 200 and through the bottom I have been a net buyer, looking toward the 600 to 1k range in 4q18 or 1q19.  After a nice blow off top I may sell 1 or 2% again, but never all at once.

I haven't really been tracking this much since now is the time for waiting and quietude. I am focussed on angel activities for the time being.

Masari forked for 23 blocks after switching to anti-asic hashes.  Looks like a pattern to me.

Not sure I have that much self-control. I just sold my zcl, so the timing seems providential.

If they work as per theory, zk-snarks offer a larger anonymity set.  Only time will tell if defects of design or implementation, or of covert intent, demolish this merit.

My principal objections to Zcash are the 20% tax, the corporate governance, the statements of Wilcox and Greene regarding responsiveness to subpeona, and the sigint associations of various team members, not zk-snarks.

Zclassic does not suffer from such problems.

I am "down" with that.

In a novel domain like crypto the market will be wrong quite a lot. One big question is whether you can be right any more often than that.  If you lack the confidence to do so, your interest lies in owning the broad market, cap balanced.  Therefore, things move in sync more than fundamentals would dictate.  When that synchrony breaks under pressure of fundamentals, the moves will be strong and fast.  Therefore, if you are betting on a supposed edge, expect long weeks of boredom, followed by sudden moments of wide-eyed shock.

The market has no ideology, so moral merits take a back seat to technical suitability for purpose and vibrancy of the denominated economy. 

Personally, I think Bitmain et filia sold as fast as they could. The remaining miners will include a higher proportion of hodlers than when ASICs were online, so that supply is slightly reduced from now on.  Being just a bit behind the most profitable coins is the sweet spot for price appreciation.  Too low and your coin is dying.  Too high and you minimize the number of miners with a long horizon.  Supply is dwindling anyhow, but price is set at the margins.

I doubt we will see a quarter in which the predecessor quarter VWAP was higher than the current quarter for a while - not until BTC tops in the 25 to 40 range and retreats to 16 to 20 range, at least.

To clarify, I contend that when increased competition for block rewards raises the amortized cost of a mined coin above what allows a competitive margin, the miner is incentivized to hold until prices rise, thus constraining supply in s subtle but persistent manner.  Most hash power will follow the margin to another coin, but hash power always remains, and the desire not to take a loss will mean that coins mined above market will be withheld from the market until prices rise. The higher that support level of persistent hashing rises, the more supply is constrained.

The causality seems clear to me, but has been a source of controversy whenever I have suggested it.

My contention has always been that an important albeit secondary feedback, from increased hashing power to increased hoarding, is omitted from this diagram.

Ok, I have some thinkingtime now, as I actually filed IRS, CRA, NYS ahead of the deadline for once.  (My happiest tax payment ever thanks to forethought and a god-send of an accountant.) So now it is time to speculate.

Winter is ending.  Barring major persistent geopolitical shock, U.S. stocks should have a blow off top this Summer, but I don't expect BTC new highs, nor XMR, until fall.  My EOY central estimates are now SPX 2700±200 (after a 3000+ ATH), BTC 25000±5000 (no extrema), XMR 900±300 (no extrema) with UST to end closer to 2% than today, after a low near 3%. ± factors are roughly proportionate to estimated volatility, obvly.  In 2019 the crypto/equity ratio should, on balance, increase, out to 2024 before reversing the cycle trend. For Summer I like oil  and coal,  and for EOY I hate industrial metals.

I admit experiencing some schadenfreude when observing that XMR is at 40% of it's highs while ZEC (the nearest functional comparable) is at 30% of it's highs. (Is the market saying XMR is 33% better?) Time will out whether the levels or the volatilities hold the stronger trend, but I expect a middle course as they both recover, disregarding for the moment both fundamentals and catalysing events.

Consider the position of an ASIC system builder.  If their rigs are profitable to operate why would they deliver them to customers?  The only reason would be to nourish guanxi.  Sales are all to the good - cash in hand being king - but deferring delivery on those sales means the bulk of the mining reward on that hardware can be earned in a few weeks or days, and the hardware sold at the high early price but delivered with much less ROI later in the hardware cycle.

I mean, it would be strange if it was not being done, since it would de-optimize the producers ROI.  Impetus to deliver to customers only arises when a competitor begins selling, driving the rig price down, and/or crashes your reward share.

In any case, it is not a conspiracy unless multiple actors collude for an unlawful purpose.  Nothing to see here then; move along.