this bullshitcoin is still alive?  prepare your anus for sub 0.001  Just in case this is of interest. One can sell XMR short on Poloniex now. |
|
|
|
Is it a good thing to have MP on board? It seems pretty clear that Satoshi intended for larger blocks to come back (apparently original block size was 32 MB in bitcoin), and MP and his acolytes have been trolling hard to prevent any change and keep 1 MB blocks. XMR devs have committed to changing the code to add infinite inflation, 1% a year I think; is it unreasonable to think he would be virulently opposed to a significant change like this in Monero, even though it's essentially already agreed upon? Not saying it's necessarily a bad thing he if he is a Monero holder/supporter, just that maybe could be more trouble than it's worth... Monero has adaptive blocksize limits which means there is no fixed 1MB (or some other size) blocksize cast in stone as in the case not only with Bitcoin but also with the vast majority of alt-coins. This is the reason why I found out about Monero in the first place and one of the reasons why I am a strong supporter of Monero. Edit: Forking Monero to add fixed blocksize limits would be a huge violation of the social covenant. |
|
|
|
I'd love to see the margin stats. It would only take about 20k USD to completely wipe out all the margined shorts, I think.
Yes. This could be the really interesting angle to this market after the start of margin trading on Poloniex. |
|
|
|
|
This is a a very different market now with the advent of margin trading. One has to ask, for example, how much of the recent selling was actually short?
|
|
|
|
https://poloniex.com/lending#XMR One can borrow XMR and sell it short if one belives in mrkavasaki's investment advice. Of course he can be wrong in which case, one could need the services of a bankruptcy trustee.
|
|
|
|
When you lend to other users using the Platform’s P2P lending system, you risk the loss of an unpaid principle if the borrower defaults on a loan and liquidation of the borrower's account fails to raise sufficient funds to cover his or her debt. Be warned. Also, Poloniex, if you're reading this, check your spelling. How could this be? Wouldnt the algorithm liquidate the position prior to any loses for investors? Has anyone ever lost BTC lending on finex? A margin call on a short is basically a market buy order. Now there are over 30,000 XMR on loan offer. Try buying 30,000 XMR at market. It actually gets better. Let us say some long term XMR investor smells short blood and decides to market buy by taking out a fake sell wall. If there are significant over leveraged short positions the resulting short squeeze can easilly set off a buying panic and the shorts cannot be covered without a loss to the lenders. |
|
|
|
moooon?? lol THIS PIECE OF SHITCOIN IS GOING NOWHERE BUT DOWN!!!!! There are over 30000 XMR on offer for lending at Poloniex with some very attractive rates, for those who wish to act on mrkavasaki's recommendation and sell XMR short. I for one am not planning on following mrkavasaki's recommendation. If a real short squeeze develops here it can be very interesting. |
|
|
|
Every coin I own has been removed from all exchanges, i expect this i.d crap to spread among them quickly. I could also be wrong I had like 97 XMR on Poloniex this AM. I had forgotten about them. They have been whisked off as of today. It gets easier to be a bagholder. I would not leave funds in an exchange unless one is activley trading. AML/KNC is the least of one's concerns. Ever heard of MTGox? By the way I will be going for level 3 verification on Poloniex and did not have funds on deposit there when the changeover occured. On another note: The most effective way to squeeze the shorts to the wall is to buy and then take delivery. |
|
|
|
Shorting Monero at Poloniex is now pretty affordable.
It might give some good opportunities if the price bottoms.
On the other hand, borrowing bitcoins to entering into long position is more expensive than opening a short position.
At some point this will trigger a wave of short positions as long as the interest rate gap between Monero and BTC becomes more or less the same.
That's how the free markets work.
Haha - still trying to push the markets down then? Good luck meeting your somewhat risible 0.0005 target. truth is, we need people like TrueCryptonaire, there is little merit in things that aren't tested, Monero need lots of tests. Yup. Shorting Monero is actually a good thing. At some point the shorts need to be closed and hopefully it has to be done at lower price than the entrance price. The other factor that one need to take account into is the interest rate. Seems not many people are willing to short so I am afraid that will change as things need to be stabilized. The long side is somewhat stronger as the rates are high there. I am sure at some point people will see the opportunity at entering into short positions. I hope for everybody not to be the last guy shorting. I sold a significiant part of my Moneros above 0.003 over 1 month ago and still I have not bought because Monero feels it wants to go down. The gravity is there. Monero needs people like me who are able to buy back in at lower prices since the hope is not there when the price is at the very bottom. Still way too much optimism to make me entering. Ask yourself why people aren't willing to short Monero right now. Your argument boils down to "No one is stupid enough to short Monero right now, because that would be an obviously bad move, so everyone better short Monero." Your logic makes sense in a large and relatively stable asset like Apple stock, but even then shorting volatile and promising tech companies is a fools game. Shorting a tiny crypto, who has the best long term future of any crypto (besides bitcoin)? Are you mad? Do you realize how stupid you sound? Imagine in 2011 when bitcoin was hovering under $1 if you had given the same advice: "everyone should short because it's inevitable." You would lose your shirt and shit quick. Monero isn't some sideways trading shit coin. It's trajectory is exponential, and the moves upward won't always be predictable. They will come violent and quick, far faster than you can exit your shorts. Your account will be liquidated faster than you can react. For you pros out there, you already know how stupid this guy's advice is. For you rookies out there (and I know some of you read this too), please don't listen to this guy. He is giving some of the worst advice I've heard. If you think Monero is in a downtrend and you don't want to acquire it right now, fine. But no one can predict the moves in such a small and volatile (and upward bound) asset.  pirateat40 built up a massive Bitcoin short position in late 2011 early 2012. It did not end well. In spite of the advice above, I would not be surprised if someone goes for a big Monero short. |
|
|
|
not sure if you guys already heard, but poloniex will require personal info and introduces new stricter withdrawal limits from 20th may onwards. (they also introduced margin trading today)
I wonder how this will influence the price/liquidity short term.
that would totally defeat the purpose of monero, wouldn't it? No it does not. Install GNU/Linux and keep your moneroj on your own computer under your own control. |
|
|
|
How does Monero fare in the blocksize debate that's currently going on with Bitcoin? Is a 1mb cap going to be an issue?
There is no hard blocksize cap in Monero and other Cryptonotes, so this shouldn't be an issue. Cryptonotes implement a coinbase reward penalty if the blocksize is larger than the median of the last 'x' number of blocks, but there's no hard limit. Monero stands to gain considerably from any disruption of Bitcoin over the 1MB limit. |
|
|
|
I will. Intermediate goal is to save up and reach the 10,000 Monero mark (almost there). I'm pretty sure that should put me in/around the top 100 current holders.
I mean, it's at 50 cents parity before we even have a solid graphical wallet (which sounds juicy from what the devs are saying), and we're only on one reputable exchange.
I like these odds. I'll poke around and learn more about it over the coming weeks. I'm still in the first chapters of my "Mathematical Introduction to Cryptography" so I probably won't be able to contribute much technically. I have other talents though.
Welcome. Your are not the only one because there was an over 20,000 XMR spike just over an hour ago. |
|
|
|
|
The problem as I see it is that Poloniex generates many unique dust outputs, which cannot be sent with a mixin greater than 1, unless we break outputs down to 0.000000000001 XMR. So for example 0.000000004321XMR would be broken into 0.000000004000 XMR, 0.000000000300 XMR, 0.000000000020 XMR, and 0.000000000001 XMR etc.
|
|
|
|
I don't know if his personal crusade is still going on.. but I really wish that Smooth would focus more of his efforts on making Monero better rather than trying to make DASH worse.Im a Monero supporter but I'm glad people brought this up. I thought it was a display of weakness and jealousy to attack DASH. I understand it's important to bring up the past so people dont forget about the dash instamine, but unfortunately it doesn't look well if a person in Smooth's position does it.
smooth is entirely, absolutely, completely entitled to say whatever he wants as an individual, and I will defend his right to do so even to my detriment. Obviously if he suddenly said something on behalf of the Core Team that was incorrect I would discuss it with him and/or correct him publicly, as I hope he would do for me.
Just imagine if let's say Bill Gates, during his free time, started trashtalking Apple. Don't you think this would put off the Microsoft shareholders? Wouldn't it look like Bill was very intimidated by Apple? Sure everyone has the freedom to say what they want. But just because you can doesn't mean you should, especially when you are holding a position as a "public figure".. A certain amount of elegance is required. Linux is a cancer Steve Ballmer, CEO Microsoft Corporation, June 2001. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/Edit: It is actually a very accurate statement because the growth of a FLOSS project can, in its early stages, be modelled with a simple exponential function just like the growth of a cancer in its early stages. |
|
|
|
Smooth, take note that Anonymint seems to think that Monero's distribution model is suboptimal. In fact, he shares the exact concerns that I brought up several times over the last few months. Setting things up so that you have to rely on donations was clearly a mistake.
Monero would not have one tenth of the current support if it had any had of shady or scammy background as the case of other coins, marketcap at this stage is an illusion. Comparison with communism is ridiculous, monero is an open source project that do not aim to make anyone rich quick not even the developers, it should be obvious by now. It has nothing to do with current market cap! Monero needs the best talent if it is to succeed. If you want the best people to put forth effort, they need to be given a stake. How can you get people like Anonymint to contribute when the funds for development are so scant? Funding development by donations either in kind or financial as opposed to using part of the emissions has the advantage of avoiding the kind of regulatory issues that Ripple has recently gone thorough. This is the key reason why FinCEN left the Bitcoin developers alone and went after Ripple Labs. The real test will come with DASH. If FinCEN leaves DASH alone then one could argue that Anonymint has a point; however if FinCEN goes after DASH then the Bitcoin / Monero development model will be vindicated. My take is that it is way better here to be safe than sorry and stick with a donation based development model even if this is at the expense of slowing down development. |
|
|
|
Dealing with the 1 MB blocksize limit is far more important than this so I voted no.
What is the procedure when we hit 1MB? We've been very close to hitting it on some blocks. Transactions that do not fit in the 1MB block simply do not get confirmed period. Of course this will cause transaction fees to skyrocket as there would be an ever increasing demand with a fixed supply. My take is that free market will solve this problem by moving away from Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Dealing with the 1 MB blocksize limit is far more important than this so I voted no.
|
|
|
|
The free market provides a solution. When the block size fills up, people will pay higher transaction fees to get their transactions through. Free riders paying zero or low transaction fees won't get their transactions processed.
The block size can only be increased if the big miners agree, and it's not in their interest to increase it.
That may work for a while but not for ever. The situation becomes a fixed supply with an ever increasing demand so transaction fees will skyrocket. The free market will of course find a solution to this; namely use a non Bitcoin blockchain without this artificial limitation. Edit: There are alternatives to Bitcoin right now that do not have this blocksize limitation baked in. |
|
|
|
...
Actually it was originally going to go to 60% gradually, the proposition is to actually diminish the masternode reward.
If I understand this correctly the current emission breakdown, once the transition period is over and it gets fully implemented is 60% - Masternodes and 40% Miners. If the proposal passes, which it seems highly likely to, the emission breakdown becomes 50% Masternodes, 40% Miners and 10% for projects to be voted upon by the Masternodes. This places DASH in a very interesting situation when it comes government regulation, in particular in the United States since both Even Duffield and the Darkcoin foundation are US persons. It is important to consider the recent events with Ripple, http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/05/05/settlement_agreement.pdf, where Ripple is being regulated as a Centralized Virtual Currency as opposed to currencies such as Bitcoin or Monero that fall into the De-Centralized Virtual Currency category, http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html. The key is this from the FinCEN guidance c. De-Centralized Virtual Currencies
A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort. DASH could very easily lie in between the Centralized Virtual Currency and De-Centralized Virtual Currency categories. It is clear that the 40% miner portion of the emissions falls into the De-Centralized Virtual Currency category; however the 50% masternode and 10% project share could very likely fall into the Centralized Virtual Currency category. In addition to this we have also to consider the impact of spork. If on top of all of this we add the insta-mine the US government may have a very good case to regulate Even Duffield and the DASH masternode operators as MSBs. The ramifications on how FinCEN chooses to regulate or not regulate DASH will have very significant ramifications throughout the crypto-currency space. |
|
|
|
I think Bitcoin needs more radical development. This block adjustment needs to be done during the next radical update.
Here's an idea. Take 1% of each block reward and send it to an address controlled by the Bitcoin Foundation. This would provide revenue for development, branding, lobbying, etc. Alternatively, you can send them a % of the transaction fees. Call it a network fee.. whatever.
I'm not saying this is a good idea, but we need change. They say if it's broken don't fix it, but bitcoin is broken.
I think this is a really bad idea for a number of reasons. First of all this would centralize Bitcoin as the one entity (TBF) would be receiving all of the funding for Bitcoin development and most of the stakeholders in the Bitcoin world would likely be left out. Secondly, TFB has a very bad track record, has a history of poor transparency and probably more people then not would prefer TBF to be completely dismantled. And probably most importantly, the best people to finance the development of Bitcoin would be businesses and people who have a financial interest in seeing bitcoin succeed over the long run - examples of this group would be companies like Bitpay, mining manufacturers, and companies that do large amounts of business denominated in bitcoin I agree this is a terrible idea. By the way the now centralized TBF would likely become a MSB under US law and be subject to MSB regulations. There is a clear lesson here from what recently happened to Ripple. Now back to the thread topic. Increasing the 1MB blocksize limit is an absolute must for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
