I think I can see my impact on the pool website ( http://cryptonotepool.org.uk/)... I have 2 x g2.2xlarge and 2 x c3.8xlarge running, and it looks to me that the pool hashrate went up about 4 to 5 KH/s after I started those instances. Does that approximately check out? |
|
|
|
Maybe Do what smooth said:
sudo screen -r
will give you a list of process numbers. One is the cpu miner, one is the gpu.
Connect to one of these with:
sudo screen -r [put-process-number-here]
When you are done looking or interacting, press "control-a d" and it will disconnect you but leave the miner running in the background.
Sorry, should have said I already tried that  "There is no screen to be resumed" |
|
|
|
|
Okay... minerd at 3100% CPU.
How can I see the hashrate I'm getting?
|
|
|
|
|
Okay. So I have an instance of XMRminerToDevFund up and running.
How do I get it to start mining?
|
|
|
|
A few minutes before the rally started nearly all the bids on Bitstamp down to 360 were removed within in a second. Also quite a lot of asks were removed, but far less than bids. I switched over to the trading PC and by then everything was back to normal. Did anyone else catch that? I wonder what that was all about, there were literally only a few dozen coins worth of bids down to 360, basically just a long flat green line (on bitcoinity.org). A bug maybe? But would be a weird coincidence because it happened right before that rally.
About the rally itself: I kinda feel that this was orchestrated by a single entity, probably in order to induce a short squeeze. I doubt very much that this was "organic" buying by people who suddenly all decided to buy in unison. Or maybe I'm wrong and it was caused by a bunch of people buying because of the paypal news, but I doubt it...
I followed the rally early on and decided @ about $415 that someone was trying to squeeze those 11000 shorts out. So I went "picking up pennies in front of the steamroller" - I bought into the askwalls, then set up my own askwalls at a slighty higher price. Worked out well, but I would have been in trouble if the price had reversed suddenly. Bids were very thin, so I wouldn't have been able to sell the coins back at the price I bought them at. Was probably not a good idea, even though I made some profit.
Similar to my own ideas: I don't think it was "organic" either, in the sense of buying pressure slowly building up, then being released. Looked like a single entity to me as well, only question is: why? Seems by buying gradually, you could minimize slippage, so assuming the original assumption (one entity driving this one) is right, I can see two reasons to buy it all at once, across exchanges: to "make a point" for the bulls, or to squeeze shorts. The latter didn't seem to work (so far), however, judging by the finex stats. This was clearly a bug at bitcoinity, happens a lot. Their bids/asks live chart for stamp is so unreal and not realiable to monitor lively and track changes. You need to use stamp order book chart to help with it to see how things really stands. I'm not talking about bitcoinity, or any order book particulars. I simply agreed with colour that the action of the last hour looks more like a single massive buying entity ("whale") to me than organic release of built up buying pressure. stop loss hunt? who cares!? virtex is up. agreed. most likely, imo. that, or loaded made good on his implied promise |
|
|
|
A few minutes before the rally started nearly all the bids on Bitstamp down to 360 were removed within in a second. Also quite a lot of asks were removed, but far less than bids. I switched over to the trading PC and by then everything was back to normal. Did anyone else catch that? I wonder what that was all about, there were literally only a few dozen coins worth of bids down to 360, basically just a long flat green line (on bitcoinity.org). A bug maybe? But would be a weird coincidence because it happened right before that rally.
About the rally itself: I kinda feel that this was orchestrated by a single entity, probably in order to induce a short squeeze. I doubt very much that this was "organic" buying by people who suddenly all decided to buy in unison. Or maybe I'm wrong and it was caused by a bunch of people buying because of the paypal news, but I doubt it...
I followed the rally early on and decided @ about $415 that someone was trying to squeeze those 11000 shorts out. So I went "picking up pennies in front of the steamroller" - I bought into the askwalls, then set up my own askwalls at a slighty higher price. Worked out well, but I would have been in trouble if the price had reversed suddenly. Bids were very thin, so I wouldn't have been able to sell the coins back at the price I bought them at. Was probably not a good idea, even though I made some profit.
Similar to my own ideas: I don't think it was "organic" either, in the sense of buying pressure slowly building up, then being released. Looked like a single entity to me as well, only question is: why? Seems by buying gradually, you could minimize slippage, so assuming the original assumption (one entity driving this one) is right, I can see two reasons to buy it all at once, across exchanges: to "make a point" for the bulls, or to squeeze shorts. The latter didn't seem to work (so far), however, judging by the finex stats. This was clearly a bug at bitcoinity, happens a lot. Their bids/asks live chart for stamp is so unreal and not realiable to monitor lively and track changes. You need to use stamp order book chart to help with it to see how things really stands. I'm not talking about bitcoinity, or any order book particulars. I simply agreed with colour that the action of the last hour looks more like a single massive buying entity ("whale") to me than organic release of built up buying pressure. |
|
|
|
A few minutes before the rally started nearly all the bids on Bitstamp down to 360 were removed within in a second. Also quite a lot of asks were removed, but far less than bids. I switched over to the trading PC and by then everything was back to normal. Did anyone else catch that? I wonder what that was all about, there were literally only a few dozen coins worth of bids down to 360, basically just a long flat green line (on bitcoinity.org). A bug maybe? But would be a weird coincidence because it happened right before that rally.
About the rally itself: I kinda feel that this was orchestrated by a single entity, probably in order to induce a short squeeze. I doubt very much that this was "organic" buying by people who suddenly all decided to buy in unison. Or maybe I'm wrong and it was caused by a bunch of people buying because of the paypal news, but I doubt it...
I followed the rally early on and decided @ about $415 that someone was trying to squeeze those 11000 shorts out. So I went "picking up pennies in front of the steamroller" - I bought into the askwalls, then set up my own askwalls at a slighty higher price. Worked out well, but I would have been in trouble if the price had reversed suddenly. Bids were very thin, so I wouldn't have been able to sell the coins back at the price I bought them at. Was probably not a good idea, even though I made some profit.
Similar to my own ideas: I don't think it was "organic" either, in the sense of buying pressure slowly building up, then being released. Looked like a single entity to me as well, only question is: why? Seems by buying gradually, you could minimize slippage, so assuming the original assumption (one entity driving this one) is right, I can see two reasons to buy it all at once, across exchanges: to "make a point" for the bulls, or to squeeze shorts. The latter didn't seem to work (so far), however, judging by the finex stats. |
|
|
|
Why no one said that "this part" = speculation subforum?
There are newbies around that might not be familiar with the forum structure.
And dumb people that might think the meta section is to post about BTC price
because it was posted in the speculation forum, then blitz moved it, so maybe not everyone realizes it's sort of out of its original context now. |
|
|
|
|
Very nice. Glad to see some real buying from them.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed in principle, OP, but look back a year or two - it wasn't much better then.
We lost one of the most insightful posters, imo (chodpaba), but on the other hand, people like RyNinDaCleM, or Peter R , are posting extremely high quality content.
My suggestion: skim the forum, but really read by posters. I have a list of good posters that I more or less "follow", which is a lot more efficient imo than trying to go through all the new threads.
|
|
|
|
|
Very good thread (and idea), OP. Always happy to see some serious discussion of modeling the market other than bulls and bears going into shouting matches.
Completely agreed on your main point: don't just look at demand, but also supply. But also, as you already mentioned, mainly useful for alts (which I don't trade - I only buy a handful out of my long-term fundamental estimates), and not so directly applicable to Bitcoin for two reasons:
- reward halving happens rarely, so in effect, the supply side for a "price era" is more or less constant.
- difficulty estimating on-exchange volume across eras and exchanges. Across eras, because I don't think the base volume stays constant as price increases, and across exchanges, because zero fee and non-zero fee volume are qualitatively different imo and shouldn't simply be added up. (I have a so far relatively crude method to normalize volume, but it still needs fine tuning and testing).
|
|
|
|
Not to spread FUD or anything, but here's some food for thought i'm gonna do it anyway! There, fixed that for you. His thread actually started one of the few worthwhile discussions in the last weeks, imo. LLook in mirror! troll is you!1! /doommeme |
|
|
|
Whatever the direction, things are going to look very different one year from now. Either we'll hover arround 50-200, or at 10-15k. Has anyone calculated the necessary bitcoin price for today's use excluding speculation / store of value (which is mostly black market, I imagine)?
That's the question amorous cow-herder asked a while ago. The summary of my answer in that thread is: That question is nearly impossible to answer, because BTC is de facto used as a store of value by some early adopters, but at the same time, their decision to use it as such is motivated by the, ultimately speculative, assumption that BTC will succeed. So, in my opinion, the question what is the purely "non-speculatve value" per coin can't be answered because usage and speculation are not entirely separable. If the question is, what is the current value purely motivated by transactional usage, then based on my very, very back of the napkin calculation in the thread above, I don't see current commercially motivated transactional volume at much higher than 1 billion USD per year, which together with some conservative assumptions about velocity of money and free float available for transactional usage, leads to a value below $100 per coin. Btw, I don't think black market usage is still as dominant as it was two years ago maybe, but it probably still makes up a relevant share, together with a portion of BTC denominated online gambling. Very crudely again I'd say gambling + black market add up to less, but not much less than 50% of total commercial TV. Big fat disclaimer: I'm not saying "that's the fair price for BTC right now". I'm just saying that this is the result of my calculation which coin price is necessary to support current commercial transactional value that occurs on-blockchain. |
|
|
|
[snip]
I on the otherhand have been buying, and will continue to buy. Not because I'm more clever, but because I have to have more risk tolerance than Risto needs to have.
Completely out of context, but that's a good, concise way to put something that I often try to phrase in a good, concise way. EDIT: otoh, it's my motivation for trading, not just buying - not xmr though. We're in a strictly 'buy only' relationship :D |
|
|
|
It has nothing to do with the newly mined coins. Really annoying hearing people spout that nonsense.
Like, totally! I mean, how on earth could an increase of the monetary base by about 14% this year lead to a lower evaluation per unit if insufficient speculative or usage-driven capital enters the market to counter that inflation. What a preposterous throught. The monetary base of bitcoin is fixed, only that all coins have not been found yet. They are there, somewhere in the integer space. It is fixed as a point of convergence more than 100 years into the future. Which is more than the life time of even the youngest market participants right now. That's 'increasing the monetary base' for all practical considerations of a market participant. Not indefinitely, of course - which is the "sound money" promise of a Bitcoin future. But until then, it's inflation all the way. |
|
|
|
|
I think a lot of people in here are under the misconception that closing price is completely uninformative in a market that is traded 24/7. It is not.
It might carry a bit less weight than in a traditional market with actual closing times of trading, but it still carries information on where the market moved, or stopped moving, towards the end of the candle time range. That alone makes close informative, even if the market never actually closes.
|
|
|
|
|
What's not to understand? Close below weekly lower BB = bad, with no precedent in trading history.
Or are you saying it's a bullish sign? :D
|
|
|
|
Of course miners selling coins affects the price. If there's insufficient demand to absorb the new coin supply, then the price will fall until demand picks up. This is bitcoin's distribution system doing what it's designed to do: distribute coins to those who value them.
Bitcoin is a strategizing women that will use your lust to accomplish her goals. It's your desire for wealth that precipitates the boom, and it's your hope and envy that fuels the accompanying media frenzy, propelling us another rung up the market-cap ladder. And she knows this. She also knows that in your despair you will sell your coins to those she hasn't dated yet, as though you're burning love notes from a women who broke your heart.
She has nobler goals than to enrich you. Although some of you will score and some of you will strike out, to her you were all only useful tools. We're building a new decentralized economy that, if successful, will reshape the world in unfathomable ways. She's the foundation of this new economy--sound money where each coin was forged by the greatest physical efforts of man to strangely produce a purely-digital asset…a digital asset that can be transferred in less than a second across the world without the permission of an authority or the assistance of a third party. She is an evolution in money.
Indeed the price must grow for the experiment to succeed, but it's more important that the price be the right price to best distribute coins to those who want them. The issuance of new coins is what keeps downwards-pressure on the price, testing the faith of hodlers: "why are your coins so special if miners are finding new coins everyday?" It prevents the price from deviating too far from true demand, as ruthless miners will put to rest the ambitions of lustful. This is necessary. We're all just playing out our roles.
How will it end? I don't know. Tales of great ambition are fraught with great tragedy. Only time will tell if she'll seduce her way to the very top.
Beautiful. (maybe just a tiny bit sexist as well, but mainly: beautiful :D) |
|
|
|
Appearances can be deceptive. All we know for sure is that on exchange there are more bitcoins for sale than buyers at the moment. Bitcoin's inbuilt inflation is decelerating with each block halving yet the price has risen throughout that time with bubbles and bursts. Why is this any different from before?
This is starting to remind me of those discussion with jorge, when he wants to find out the definitive "reason" for each rally or crash Keep in mind, I believe that technicals rule the market, or maybe the slightly weaker claim: market sentiment (which doesn't require external reasons) heavily factors into the interpretation of the fundamentals, to the point where it makes sense to say "technicals rule the market". So, the answer is probably somewhere in between cyclical market sentiment, professionalization of mining (with higher ratio of coins sold vs. coins held), professionalization of trading (with more emphasis on short term profits), lasting negative influence on user confidence from mtgox failure (something that this forum is very reluctant to accept, imo), and uncertainty if growth of user adoption is accurately captured by an exponential growth function (I know, hashrate very clearly is, but that's not the same as user adoption). |
|
|
|
It has nothing to do with the newly mined coins. Really annoying hearing people spout that nonsense.
Like, totally! I mean, how on earth could an increase of the monetary base by about 14% this year lead to a lower evaluation per unit if insufficient speculative or usage-driven capital enters the market to counter that inflation. What a preposterous throught. It didn't happen with the usd denominated bonds, so why should it, in bitcoin? Already answered, now in bold. (The same old disclaimer as always: no, I'm not a "Bitcoin skeptic", or "perma bear". Just pointing out a possible, quite likely in fact, reason for the long price decline we're seeing.) The point is, the mining of new coins is not causing the drop. Proof: last year new coins were mined at the same or higher rate and the exchange rate increased. New coins create downward pressure but that effect has existed since the dawn of bitcoin. Alright, I'll paraphrase: There is a strong pull downwards by the inflation inherent to Bitcoin's emission phase. Without major influx of new capital, this will greatly depress price. It appears that this year the influx of capital is not sufficient to overcome the downward pull from emission. But I suppose your question is: what is causing the reduced influx of new capital, compared to 2013, for example. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
