Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1948. (Read 3313084 times)
for some reasons I think btc-e would be the best fit
I've been watching this market pretty closely lately and i just wanted to share an observation and some implications of that observation.
Earlier today someone posted a 10,000 monero buy wall at 0.003. That wall remained for about as long as it would take someone to send monero from cold storage to poloniex and than execute a trade. It was taken down in one fell swoop. I find it interesting that this seems to occur again and again any time someone puts up a buy wall of reasonable size near the current price. Who ever this/these buyers are, they are always willing to sell but never willing to take the price down in the process. They want to take some profit, but they care about not crashing monero into the ground. This would seem to indicate that they have a more monero in storage than they are selling. And we know they are selling a lot.
What can we infer about the buyer? well not a lot. He could be a whale who wants more, or he could be a fish hoping to grow into a whale, or he could be a lot of fishes hoping to grow into dolphins. So we dont really know much about them at all. So on average there is a reasonable chance that they are smaller holders.
This hints at the distinct probability that the currency holding is becoming more widely distributed.
If this is this is the case than there are some things we can deduce from this. In a market where the asset is more distributed prices are more useful and more meaningful. Thus as a currency monero has more utility. It means that so long as the price holds throughout this process, the smaller holders are going to be more likely to clench onto their small holdings. After all a small holder is more willing to take a loss than someone who invested a quarter of a million dollars. Also a small holder can wait to cash out on low liquidity (i.e. a higher price) a large holder cant be so focused on the price, he has to take advantage of liquidity where ever he can get it. So the longer this process goes on the more bullish things become. Its like a rocket that's slowly being fueled up.
Earlier today someone posted a 10,000 monero buy wall at 0.003. That wall remained for about as long as it would take someone to send monero from cold storage to poloniex and than execute a trade. It was taken down in one fell swoop. I find it interesting that this seems to occur again and again any time someone puts up a buy wall of reasonable size near the current price. Who ever this/these buyers are, they are always willing to sell but never willing to take the price down in the process. They want to take some profit, but they care about not crashing monero into the ground. This would seem to indicate that they have a more monero in storage than they are selling. And we know they are selling a lot.
What can we infer about the buyer? well not a lot. He could be a whale who wants more, or he could be a fish hoping to grow into a whale, or he could be a lot of fishes hoping to grow into dolphins. So we dont really know much about them at all. So on average there is a reasonable chance that they are smaller holders.
This hints at the distinct probability that the currency holding is becoming more widely distributed.
If this is this is the case than there are some things we can deduce from this. In a market where the asset is more distributed prices are more useful and more meaningful. Thus as a currency monero has more utility. It means that so long as the price holds throughout this process, the smaller holders are going to be more likely to clench onto their small holdings. After all a small holder is more willing to take a loss than someone who invested a quarter of a million dollars. Also a small holder can wait to cash out on low liquidity (i.e. a higher price) a large holder cant be so focused on the price, he has to take advantage of liquidity where ever he can get it. So the longer this process goes on the more bullish things become. Its like a rocket that's slowly being fueled up.
I have the same feeling but with a different way of thinking. I believe XMR is a WIP that slowly but surely gets where it should be. The good thing is, that it's pretty early for adopters to get in (the price is still pretty nice - I've averaged my stash @ ~0.002) and the variance gives the opportunity to traders to get more for less.
I strongly believe that XMR needs to be into more exchanges with high liquidity. Polo is nice but it's also a possible liability. I don't feel comfortable after being Goxxed leaving even 100XMR on an exchange, except if I wish to sell/buy...
I've been watching this market pretty closely lately and i just wanted to share an observation and some implications of that observation.
Earlier today someone posted a 10,000 monero buy wall at 0.003. That wall remained for about as long as it would take someone to send monero from cold storage to poloniex and than execute a trade. It was taken down in one fell swoop. I find it interesting that this seems to occur again and again any time someone puts up a buy wall of reasonable size near the current price. Who ever this/these buyers are, they are always willing to sell but never willing to take the price down in the process. They want to take some profit, but they care about not crashing monero into the ground. This would seem to indicate that they have a more monero in storage than they are selling. And we know they are selling a lot.
What can we infer about the buyer? well not a lot. He could be a whale who wants more, or he could be a fish hoping to grow into a whale, or he could be a lot of fishes hoping to grow into dolphins. So we dont really know much about them at all. So on average there is a reasonable chance that they are smaller holders.
This hints at the distinct probability that the currency holding is becoming more widely distributed.
If this is this is the case than there are some things we can deduce from this. In a market where the asset is more distributed prices are more useful and more meaningful. Thus as a currency monero has more utility. It means that so long as the price holds throughout this process, the smaller holders are going to be more likely to clench onto their small holdings. After all a small holder is more willing to take a loss than someone who invested a quarter of a million dollars. Also a small holder can wait to cash out on low liquidity (i.e. a higher price) a large holder cant be so focused on the price, he has to take advantage of liquidity where ever he can get it. So the longer this process goes on the more bullish things become. Its like a rocket that's slowly being fueled up.
Earlier today someone posted a 10,000 monero buy wall at 0.003. That wall remained for about as long as it would take someone to send monero from cold storage to poloniex and than execute a trade. It was taken down in one fell swoop. I find it interesting that this seems to occur again and again any time someone puts up a buy wall of reasonable size near the current price. Who ever this/these buyers are, they are always willing to sell but never willing to take the price down in the process. They want to take some profit, but they care about not crashing monero into the ground. This would seem to indicate that they have a more monero in storage than they are selling. And we know they are selling a lot.
What can we infer about the buyer? well not a lot. He could be a whale who wants more, or he could be a fish hoping to grow into a whale, or he could be a lot of fishes hoping to grow into dolphins. So we dont really know much about them at all. So on average there is a reasonable chance that they are smaller holders.
This hints at the distinct probability that the currency holding is becoming more widely distributed.
If this is this is the case than there are some things we can deduce from this. In a market where the asset is more distributed prices are more useful and more meaningful. Thus as a currency monero has more utility. It means that so long as the price holds throughout this process, the smaller holders are going to be more likely to clench onto their small holdings. After all a small holder is more willing to take a loss than someone who invested a quarter of a million dollars. Also a small holder can wait to cash out on low liquidity (i.e. a higher price) a large holder cant be so focused on the price, he has to take advantage of liquidity where ever he can get it. So the longer this process goes on the more bullish things become. Its like a rocket that's slowly being fueled up.
yeah but with list blacklist we're forgetting the point ENTIRELY of cryptocurrencies - a trustless financial network. You introduce a blacklist and once again you're beholden to the whims and "wisdom" of some higher authority, and you must trust this authority to make these blacklists. The first blacklist is the death knell of bitcoin. "Oh, my money could all of a sudden become unusable? No thanks"
Black lists could also be market driven.
"Don't be evil" doesn't work (see google and Bitcoin), "can't be evil" works (blacklists are impossible with Monero).
Which makes a huge problem and point of contention in bitcoin just go away. Pooof.
I am worried, however, about the reaction of the regulators to cryptonode/monero, and, as a result, the adopting of a totally anonymous payment system by businesses.
Nice thread title, btw.
Looking at the rise from .001x to .043 as a whole, a return to .0018 to .0022 would seem a likely retracement zone
How likely? I possibly regard it as less likely than you, therefore making a +EV bet possible for both of us!
Fundamentally, I don't think there's any way to know what XMR will do. One player acting alone can totally change the game. It's just a guess based on a fibs.
risto seems the kind of guy who like to celebrate. On new year eve he was here smoking cigars, drinking moskito wine and pumping monero i think he'll do the same tomorrow for xmr first birthday!
Looking at the rise from .001x to .043 as a whole, a return to .0018 to .0022 would seem a likely retracement zone
How likely? I possibly regard it as less likely than you, therefore making a +EV bet possible for both of us!
Fundamentally, I don't think there's any way to know what XMR will do. One player acting alone can totally change the game. It's just a guess based on a fibs.
Looking at the rise from .001x to .043 as a whole, a return to .0018 to .0022 would seem a likely retracement zone
How likely? I possibly regard it as less likely than you, therefore making a +EV bet possible for both of us!
Looking at the rise from .001x to .043 as a whole, a return to .0018 to .0022 would seem a likely retracement zone
yeah but with list blacklist we're forgetting the point ENTIRELY of cryptocurrencies - a trustless financial network. You introduce a blacklist and once again you're beholden to the whims and "wisdom" of some higher authority, and you must trust this authority to make these blacklists. The first blacklist is the death knell of bitcoin. "Oh, my money could all of a sudden become unusable? No thanks"
Black lists could also be market driven.
...
What to do if you receive funds before they are blacks-listed and then they become blacklisted after you receive them. It wouldn't be right to punish someone who couldn't have known. So any criminal will take advantage of this and swap the bitcoins for clean ones instantly, the exact moment of the crime. His bitcoins will be clean, and so will be the ones that the recipient never could have known were involved in a crime.
On the other hand the government might decide that it wasn't particularly interested in being reasonable, which they rarely if ever are, than they might blacklist coins after people receive them. In which case the lack of fungibility would be a HUGE problem. It could destroy bitcoin.
What to do if you receive funds before they are blacks-listed and then they become blacklisted after you receive them. It wouldn't be right to punish someone who couldn't have known. So any criminal will take advantage of this and swap the bitcoins for clean ones instantly, the exact moment of the crime. His bitcoins will be clean, and so will be the ones that the recipient never could have known were involved in a crime.
On the other hand the government might decide that it wasn't particularly interested in being reasonable, which they rarely if ever are, than they might blacklist coins after people receive them. In which case the lack of fungibility would be a HUGE problem. It could destroy bitcoin.
Yes, This is the crux. Those coins can be Seized as one of a list of definitions whether they be considered assets or any other medium.
And for those that say the US gov is not the world, wake up, they rule the world economy whether you I or anyone else likes it.
wouldnt a blacklist make the currency completely unusable since the atomic units have allready been mixed so much? or would they just try to block "recent" crime coins so the currency still works?
Don't worry. The state will confiscate and clean them up for us. Then they'll give you the privilege of buying back those shiny white coins through any of the state approved outlets in your area of residence.
wouldnt a blacklist make the currency completely unusable since the atomic units have allready been mixed so much? or would they just try to block "recent" crime coins so the currency still works?
Don't worry. The state will confiscate and clean them up for us. Then they'll give you the privilege of buying back those shiny white coins through any of the state approved outlets in your area of residence.
yeah one of the big ideas behind p2p money in my eyes is that no trx can be blocked.
as long as this is technically possible it will be done, or dont you know our enemy? with btc this is not far away in my opinion. a little bit more mining centralization and boom. first only merchants will block. later miners will be forced to block too.
wouldnt a blacklist make the currency completely unusable since the atomic units have allready been mixed so much? or would they just try to block "recent" crime coins so the currency still works?
i think there has been a bigger chain analysis of a bigger theft (sheep maybe) in the past but i can not find it. they found out an unexpected high % of all the wallets contain these kind of stolen coins. even the author had some of them in most of his wallets (if somone knows this thread please post here, thank you
)
as long as this is technically possible it will be done, or dont you know our enemy? with btc this is not far away in my opinion. a little bit more mining centralization and boom. first only merchants will block. later miners will be forced to block too.
wouldnt a blacklist make the currency completely unusable since the atomic units have allready been mixed so much? or would they just try to block "recent" crime coins so the currency still works?
i think there has been a bigger chain analysis of a bigger theft (sheep maybe) in the past but i can not find it. they found out an unexpected high % of all the wallets contain these kind of stolen coins. even the author had some of them in most of his wallets (if somone knows this thread please post here, thank you
)
yeah but with list blacklist we're forgetting the point ENTIRELY of cryptocurrencies - a trustless financial network. You introduce a blacklist and once again you're beholden to the whims and "wisdom" of some higher authority, and you must trust this authority to make these blacklists. The first blacklist is the death knell of bitcoin. "Oh, my money could all of a sudden become unusable? No thanks"
Yea i don't think all of your points are valid here but you do bring up at-least one really good and valid point.
you think blacklisting may work?
how do you imagine it?
What to do if you receive funds before they are blacks-listed and then they become blacklisted after you receive them. It wouldn't be right to punish someone who couldn't have known. So any criminal will take advantage of this and swap the bitcoins for clean ones instantly, the exact moment of the crime. His bitcoins will be clean, and so will be the ones that the recipient never could have known were involved in a crime.
On the other hand the government might decide that it wasn't particularly interested in being reasonable, which they rarely if ever are, than they might blacklist coins after people receive them. In which case the lack of fungibility would be a HUGE problem. It could destroy bitcoin.
On the other hand the government might decide that it wasn't particularly interested in being reasonable, which they rarely if ever are, than they might blacklist coins after people receive them. In which case the lack of fungibility would be a HUGE problem. It could destroy bitcoin.
i imagine it like an automated process. eg owner tells police someone stole my coins. and police setting them on their blacklist. they need to protect the money before they loose it completely.
so i think they will blacklist immediatly and come talking to you. depending on what you have to say they release the coins (not sure to whom.. thats up to lawyers)
but this is just a guess
I was about to write a reply similar to this but i realized while writing it that it isnt actually correct. I was preparing this awsome analogy of needing to pull out a microscope at the 7-11 to make sure your change didnt have any cocaine residue on it. But I think it would actually be quite easy to check bitcoins against some government blacklisted database. So it wasnt really an apt analogy.
Of course there are other problems with this. The possibility for tyranny resulting from the governments ability to simply "turn off" your money. But i digress.
and which government blacklist you want to check?
americans: needed, because they think their law is global
your local one: needed, thats obvious
...and how fast is this check?
if i'd steal a huge amount and my exit-strategy includes something like shapeshift i would do it immediatly before the tx in question even could get blacklisted.
and blacklisting is another problem..
done on mining level: which jurisdication? all or we risk a network split.
at a user / shop level: how deep is this check? is it enough to just sent that tx to a new address or do i need to do it multiple times?
Yea i don't think all of your points are valid here but you do bring up at-least one really good and valid point.
What to do if you receive funds before they are blacks-listed and then they become blacklisted after you receive them. It wouldn't be right to punish someone who couldn't have known. So any criminal will take advantage of this and swap the bitcoins for clean ones instantly, the exact moment of the crime. His bitcoins will be clean, and so will be the ones that the recipient never could have known were involved in a crime.
On the other hand the government might decide that it wasn't particularly interested in being reasonable, which they rarely if ever are, than they might blacklist coins after people receive them. In which case the lack of fungibility would be a HUGE problem. It could destroy bitcoin.
is fungibility of ALL bitcoins really important though?
Consider that you own 50,000 bitcoins. If 1,000,000 bitcoins were found to be in the hands of ISIS, and blacklisted, what would that do to your bitcoins? Well, how would that be different, from 1,000,000 bitcoins that are simply lost forever? That some bitcoins are no longer fungible/available doesn't harm your coins in any way. In fact, it would benefit you, since the less coins in existence, the more valuable your coins are.
The only thing would be if blacklisting of coins is backtracked (dunno the term so I invented one). What I mean is, say you did business with a company, and your coins are connected to their addresses. That company then proceeds to scam people and engage in terrorist activity say a year later.
In such cases, I think that there would be laws that would prevent your coins from being blacklisted. It shouldn't be difficult to see that your coins were obtained before the time they engaged in illegal activities, or at least before the public was aware that they were engaged in illegal activities. In such cases, I would think that there would be laws preventing those coins from being blacklisted.
So unless you are planning to do something illegal yourself, other people's coins being not fungible doesn't harm your coins. It makes yours more valuable.
Consider that you own 50,000 bitcoins. If 1,000,000 bitcoins were found to be in the hands of ISIS, and blacklisted, what would that do to your bitcoins? Well, how would that be different, from 1,000,000 bitcoins that are simply lost forever? That some bitcoins are no longer fungible/available doesn't harm your coins in any way. In fact, it would benefit you, since the less coins in existence, the more valuable your coins are.
The only thing would be if blacklisting of coins is backtracked (dunno the term so I invented one). What I mean is, say you did business with a company, and your coins are connected to their addresses. That company then proceeds to scam people and engage in terrorist activity say a year later.
In such cases, I think that there would be laws that would prevent your coins from being blacklisted. It shouldn't be difficult to see that your coins were obtained before the time they engaged in illegal activities, or at least before the public was aware that they were engaged in illegal activities. In such cases, I would think that there would be laws preventing those coins from being blacklisted.
So unless you are planning to do something illegal yourself, other people's coins being not fungible doesn't harm your coins. It makes yours more valuable.
Because it will be YOUR bitcoins one day that will be blacklisted. If you don't protect the fungibility of all coins - YOURS will eventually come under scrutiny.
Why? Because of "association", because who ever paid you had 'bad' coins, because you donated to some political cause, or because police required them to be under civil forfeiture, because someone challenged you (unrightfully) in court, because you are *insert whichever race randomly unpopular at the time*.
Political persecution IS A REAL thing, even (and very much so) in the Land of the Free. (here's a contemporary example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy)
Laws and societies change. Sometimes for worse, and it seems we are head-first into one of those worse periods these days and years.
If you don't mind the prospect of your coins being blacklisted (whatever the consequences may or may not be) use BTC--I'm gonna use Monero and not worry about it.
Bitcoin and anoncoins are two different systems. Bitcoin is shared global ledger, and for example, Monero is anonymous paying mechanism.
I was about to write a reply similar to this but i realized while writing it that it isnt actually correct. I was preparing this awsome analogy of needing to pull out a microscope at the 7-11 to make sure your change didnt have any cocaine residue on it. But I think it would actually be quite easy to check bitcoins against some government blacklisted database. So it wasnt really an apt analogy.
Of course there are other problems with this. The possibility for tyranny resulting from the governments ability to simply "turn off" your money. But i digress.
and which government blacklist you want to check?
americans: needed, because they think their law is global
your local one: needed, thats obvious
...and how fast is this check?
if i'd steal a huge amount and my exit-strategy includes something like shapeshift i would do it immediatly before the tx in question even could get blacklisted.
and blacklisting is another problem..
done on mining level: which jurisdication? all or we risk a network split.
at a user / shop level: how deep is this check? is it enough to just sent that tx to a new address or do i need to do it multiple times?
Jump to: