Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1370. (Read 3314669 times)

I do not know you but personally I am not worried about the price of XMR. The rise has not been bubblish 30 % a day for a couple weeks but pretty slow and steady (a sudden pump + consolidation, pump + consolidation, rinse and repeat). In that way it is possible to bring the price pretty much up for ever (obviously later the pumps are not that sharp as they are now when price is still sub 1000 usd or so).
I personally prefer a coin that pumps for ever. Theoretically Monero type of currency should be one as the coin is slightly deflationary in the future (the overall long-term economic growth is ca 2 % pa and the inflation of XMR will probably be lower than this).

In the beginning the rises are pretty steap as even small increase in demand will drive the price crazy (XMR is pretty illiquid at these low levels). When the price is higher, also if person needs to buy a house/a space yacht etc it will not crash the price.

I was here last year - despite the charts are looking very similar, I see some major differences (not the least: last year the price was driven up with buying bots that shooted buy-orders with fractions of Moneros creating an illussion of increased demand). This year I am seeing a huge trading volumes and not faking bots attempting to create artificial demand.

Bitcoin has been, even historically, very stable over the last 30 days.

If history indeed repeats itself, bitcoin price will go up. Since most here think of Monero's value in Bitcoin, I understand why there is xmr/btc selling pressure (especially after the 3x rise).

Disclaimer: I am not (day)trading.

I can feel the waves of terror climbing throught the column of our shorter whale

These kind of machine is only good for scientific computing with double precision operation. It is too expensive for mining.

Nvidia unveils DGX-1 - The World's First Deep Learning Supercomputer in a Box

http://www.nvidia.com/object/deep-learning-system.html

GPUs : 8x Tesla GP100
TFLOPS (GPU FP16 / CPU FP32) : 170/3
GPU Memory : 16 GB per GPU
CPU : Dual 16-core Intel Xeon E5-2698 v3 2.3 GHz
NVIDIA CUDA® Cores : 28672
System Memory : 512 GB 2133 MHz DDR4 LRDIMM
Storage : 4x 1.92 TB SSD RAID 0
Network : Dual 10 GbE, 4 IB EDR
Software : Ubuntu Server Linux OS, DGX-1 Recommended GPU Driver
System Weight : 134 lbs
System Dimensions : 866 D x 444 W x 131 H (mm)
Packing Dimensions : 1180 D x 730 W x 284 H (mm)
Maximum Power Requirements : 3200W
Operating Temperature Range : 10 - 35 °C

Note : 134 pounds is 60kg.


3200W power requirement ... *whistles*.
My Seasonic PSU definitely won't be able to support this 

There might be potential applications for this in GPU mining, depending on the price of this hardware.

I think they really don't give a shit about those things.  They have a plan already to game it, or it would never proceed.

It's pretty clear the big banks just want to use underlying blockchain technology to reduce operating costs and increase efficiency.
They definitely don't intend to use BTC or any altcoins as its not in their best interests to do so.
All the *coins have been stripped out of the equation.

I didn't read the article but she's not talking about bitcoin or similar.  She's talking about bank chain.  Last time I was in her office we were discussing the repo market and the novation of those repos via a centralized clearing hub to prevent another lehman like catastrophic failure in the system, except this time with central banks involved.  She only wants to securitize and clear transactions of $100MM USD notional or above in her system and it will have lots of "private ledger" and centralized control features in it.  Still, I guess it could be considered "blockchain" so that's good.

Edit:  I'm pretty sure they announced that news a month or two ago, so that info on the repo stuff is no longer confidential.

I don't trust Ms. Masters and neither does Bitcoin Talk apparently.

Report on blockchain usage by banks.
Blythe Masters is formerly CIO of JPM and creator of CDS.
One of the more notable female figures in finance.

http://www.c-n-b-c.com/2016/04/06/blockchain-in-banks-a-reality-in-less-than-2-years-blythe-masters.html

EDIT : hey what happened. why does it say "suspicious link removed"? It's a report from CNBC.

EDIT 2 : solved the puzzle. I think bitcointalk blacklisted the "[Suspicious link removed]" domain. Just remove the dashes from CNBC when using the above link.

Yes, having been on both sides of the fence I can tell you the lending rates battling that goes on to try to undercut the next lender is a giant waste of time.  You are just putting money in the speculator's pockets.  A speculator don't care - if he thinks a position is good enough to take margin on, he assumes there will be enough profit to make any interest paid trivial (even ridiculous rates like half a percent).  He is focused on price action, and will pay the asking rate for a loan without sweating it too much. 
 
So it makes no sense to ever offer any kind of lending for less than 10 bips, even though I know people won't listen.

Lending demand seems very inelastic w/r/t price, in that when there is no demand it doesn't matter how cheap you offer loans and when demand is high borrowers aren't sensitive about rates (probably because they intend to close them in a few hours or at most days).

Rates down to central banker levels  (0.0013%).  NIRP on the horizon! 

It might be plain stupidity, but remember banks and other loan sharks often rope in suckers by using an introductory "teaser" rate, because they may count on people getting in over their heads being forced into much higher "balloon" payments.

Same principle as the crack/smack dealer.  First hit is free, because they know you'll be back for more and willing to pay anything.

Or there may be a whale that wants to add 40k XMR to their stack without moving the market up, so BullWhale offers that many for shorters, fulling intending to buy them back as they dump (possibly triggering stops and margin calls for an ever better deal).

So they are more objective, subjectively? 

No.   If you originally requested .02, it will que until there is a taker, but if your .02 goes full term, it automatically loads the lowest available loan(s) to maintain your position, be it .001 or 5%.  With such a large pool, it would be near impossible to game that way. All you could do would be to ensure it is cheap for shorters to do their thing, and then sit and catch everything dumped to you at nice low levels before you have to up-level.  Look familliar? Combined with a nice big sell wall, it could take a while to fully milk the shorters, but eventually they will catch on.

With all due respect, I can't imagine that is what happens.  If it is, then it is one more compelling reason to get your crypto off of Poloniex.

Plus, it would be completely game-able.  Find someone to lend you an amount for just a day at an absurdly low rate, without auto-renew.  According to your logic, you then have a perpetual loan at that artificially low rate as no-one will match it.

If it were true, Polo would be running a fractionary reserve scheme, so I don´t think it works like this. I guess once the loan time ends the system automaticly loans the next best offer so they don´t do the fractionary reserve thing and keep gaining his 15% cut. Otherwise it would be risky for them and would gain less interest

So insane.  Really?  A sell wall worth more than $100K at .0037?

SO CLEAR that somebody wants to buy low.

No they dont.  Once the loan time ends (lets say it was a loan at .02%), it automatically tries to find them new loans at .02% or less and takes those.  If it cannot, it put up a loan demand order at .02%, that anyone can fill.

Until someone fills that, they pay no interest at all to hold the short open.  Once its filed they pay .02% again.


It sounds dumb, but I believe that is how it works from my experience.  Anyone offering low rates in an attempt to trap shorts by later increasing their rates is doing it wrong.  All they are doing is giving away low rates.  The correct play is to only offer coins at high rates, and to increase the time limit from 2 days to a higher number to trap them at high rates longer.