No, that was mean
Rephrase: Please distill some of your knowledge on the topic in 12 lines for others to read!
Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 2173. (Read 3313576 times)
No, that was mean
Rephrase: Please distill some of your knowledge on the topic in 12 lines for others to read!
No, that was mean
Rephrase: Please distill some of your knowledge on the topic in 12 lines for others to read!
Sure. But unless you have a huge quantity of coins to sell, you cannot force it down by more than a few 0.00001s.
My interpretation on the situation is that it does make sense for latent buyers to buy because there is little to gain even from huge dumps (except if you arrange your buys as bid walls that the others have also done, aggravating the bid/ask imbalance). By waiting you win very little even if you are right. The walls are very real, nothing has been pulled during the downtrend.
I remember when 0.00334 was being defended with huge walls, after bouncing from that area many times. A huge dump ensued, taking it down to 0.00290 (lowest daily average was 0.00305, this is a better measure if you actually needed to try to buy that low). So a gain of less than 10% for the patient waiters.
If we just scale the numbers, the dump case now would be that 50k XMR get sold quickly to force the price from 0.00394 to 0.00342 as its lowest point, but the average for the lowest day would be 0.00360. This would scale very well with the ascending lows trend of 175-231-290-342, so would not be an impossible outcome (quite probable, actually) but also in no way "bad". Remember - it's only -10%, and nobody compels you to sell at a loss!
The upside is much more than 10%, and the resistance to get there is much smaller. I give this scenario a higher percentage as a result.
My interpretation on the situation is that it does make sense for latent buyers to buy because there is little to gain even from huge dumps (except if you arrange your buys as bid walls that the others have also done, aggravating the bid/ask imbalance). By waiting you win very little even if you are right. The walls are very real, nothing has been pulled during the downtrend.
I remember when 0.00334 was being defended with huge walls, after bouncing from that area many times. A huge dump ensued, taking it down to 0.00290 (lowest daily average was 0.00305, this is a better measure if you actually needed to try to buy that low). So a gain of less than 10% for the patient waiters.
If we just scale the numbers, the dump case now would be that 50k XMR get sold quickly to force the price from 0.00394 to 0.00342 as its lowest point, but the average for the lowest day would be 0.00360. This would scale very well with the ascending lows trend of 175-231-290-342, so would not be an impossible outcome (quite probable, actually) but also in no way "bad". Remember - it's only -10%, and nobody compels you to sell at a loss!
The upside is much more than 10%, and the resistance to get there is much smaller. I give this scenario a higher percentage as a result.
50k dump is not so big, we have had approx 80k daily volume now, if selling doesnt end it doesnt take many days to dump those walls to oblivion (if majority of those are even real)
Sure. But unless you have a huge quantity of coins to sell, you cannot force it down by more than a few 0.00001s.
My interpretation on the situation is that it does make sense for latent buyers to buy because there is little to gain even from huge dumps (except if you arrange your buys as bid walls that the others have also done, aggravating the bid/ask imbalance). By waiting you win very little even if you are right. The walls are very real, nothing has been pulled during the downtrend.
I remember when 0.00334 was being defended with huge walls, after bouncing from that area many times. A huge dump ensued, taking it down to 0.00290 (lowest daily average was 0.00305, this is a better measure if you actually needed to try to buy that low). So a gain of less than 10% for the patient waiters.
If we just scale the numbers, the dump case now would be that 50k XMR get sold quickly to force the price from 0.00394 to 0.00342 as its lowest point, but the average for the lowest day would be 0.00360. This would scale very well with the ascending lows trend of 175-231-290-342, so would not be an impossible outcome (quite probable, actually) but also in no way "bad". Remember - it's only -10%, and nobody compels you to sell at a loss!
The upside is much more than 10%, and the resistance to get there is much smaller. I give this scenario a higher percentage as a result.
My interpretation on the situation is that it does make sense for latent buyers to buy because there is little to gain even from huge dumps (except if you arrange your buys as bid walls that the others have also done, aggravating the bid/ask imbalance). By waiting you win very little even if you are right. The walls are very real, nothing has been pulled during the downtrend.
I remember when 0.00334 was being defended with huge walls, after bouncing from that area many times. A huge dump ensued, taking it down to 0.00290 (lowest daily average was 0.00305, this is a better measure if you actually needed to try to buy that low). So a gain of less than 10% for the patient waiters.
If we just scale the numbers, the dump case now would be that 50k XMR get sold quickly to force the price from 0.00394 to 0.00342 as its lowest point, but the average for the lowest day would be 0.00360. This would scale very well with the ascending lows trend of 175-231-290-342, so would not be an impossible outcome (quite probable, actually) but also in no way "bad". Remember - it's only -10%, and nobody compels you to sell at a loss!
The upside is much more than 10%, and the resistance to get there is much smaller. I give this scenario a higher percentage as a result.
We have made a quadruple bottom in 394-397 range, after bouncing once from 400 first, and very recently from 401 also.
The bottoming process seems quite complete to me. Therefore I dare to predict that the next move is up, towards some of the various fibonacci levels between 510->394->X.
It is impossible to say now if the monthly high was just made in 510, or if this was a more-vicious-than-normal battle in preparation for taking down 580. My understanding is that 510 is currently the zone to watch. Should we blast through, the battle of 580 is actually won already. Most resistance will be in 450-480 area.
The bottoming process seems quite complete to me. Therefore I dare to predict that the next move is up, towards some of the various fibonacci levels between 510->394->X.
It is impossible to say now if the monthly high was just made in 510, or if this was a more-vicious-than-normal battle in preparation for taking down 580. My understanding is that 510 is currently the zone to watch. Should we blast through, the battle of 580 is actually won already. Most resistance will be in 450-480 area.
other possibility is (and maybe more likely) that we are resting right above support, without bounces and waiting when the selling starts
We have made a quadruple bottom in 394-397 range, after bouncing once from 400 first, and very recently from 401 also.
The bottoming process seems quite complete to me. Therefore I dare to predict that the next move is up, towards some of the various fibonacci levels between 510->394->X.
It is impossible to say now if the monthly high was just made in 510, or if this was a more-vicious-than-normal battle in preparation for taking down 580. My understanding is that 510 is currently the zone to watch. Should we blast through, the battle of 580 is actually won already. Most resistance will be in 450-480 area.
The bottoming process seems quite complete to me. Therefore I dare to predict that the next move is up, towards some of the various fibonacci levels between 510->394->X.
It is impossible to say now if the monthly high was just made in 510, or if this was a more-vicious-than-normal battle in preparation for taking down 580. My understanding is that 510 is currently the zone to watch. Should we blast through, the battle of 580 is actually won already. Most resistance will be in 450-480 area.
If you have XMR, yet want to put a lid on its rise (for example: in the process of acquiring more), listing them for sale is very reasonable. It costs you little extra, and if some part of them are listed lower, you can actually let them fill to gain extra income from the waves. While they are just sitting there, they count towards indicators such as bid depth, attract more traders, keep the price in the desired range etc.
Also, when it is time to sell, it is not proven whether a wall is better or worse than incremental selling. Often there is a buyer for the whole wall at the same time, so that it functions as an attractor that may be bought 5%, even 10% away from market, resulting in a very good trade for the seller.
Also, when it is time to sell, it is not proven whether a wall is better or worse than incremental selling. Often there is a buyer for the whole wall at the same time, so that it functions as an attractor that may be bought 5%, even 10% away from market, resulting in a very good trade for the seller.
This may be a dumb question, but I'm genuinely curious why people put up huge ask/bid orders far beyond where the price will likely go in the near future. For example, the 18,000 XMR sell order at 0.008 on poloniex. Beyond the obvious reasons, what are they hoping to accomplish?
Possibly hoping to accomplish selling them for 144 BTC at some time.Some folks like to have all their coins up for sale/purchase just in case.
...
I can see why LTC would trade a high correlation to BTC, forever: It is fundamentally the same.
...
I can see why LTC would trade a high correlation to BTC, forever: It is fundamentally the same.
...
That just means LTC is fundamentally irrelevant. It's just (unfortunately) taking this rise of new alt/app coins that *attempt* to do something meaningfully different for all the weak-minds around here to realize it.
Yes I agree. It shouldn't correlate with BTC because it should just trade down to zero. If there is a good case for network-effect, it is two otherwise-identical coins. The larger network will destroy the smaller one. How long it takes the rats to get off the sinking ship remains to be seen.
This may be a dumb question, but I'm genuinely curious why people put up huge ask/bid orders far beyond where the price will likely go in the near future. For example, the 18,000 XMR sell order at 0.008 on poloniex. Beyond the obvious reasons, what are they hoping to accomplish?
Because they're whales and don't want to babysit exchanges. They'll check back in a month or two and see what happened.
...
I can see why LTC would trade a high correlation to BTC, forever: It is fundamentally the same.
...
I can see why LTC would trade a high correlation to BTC, forever: It is fundamentally the same.
...
That just means LTC is fundamentally irrelevant. It's just (unfortunately) taking this rise of new alt/app coins that *attempt* to do something meaningfully different for all the weak-minds around here to realize it.
Edit: Didn't mean to assert that you, aminorex, are one of the "weak-minds", obv. Just realized it may have come across that way. :/
...
I doubt there is going to be a different regulatory regime for Monero than for Bitcoin.
...
I doubt there is going to be a different regulatory regime for Monero than for Bitcoin.
...
Do you remember when Lawsky pondered during the NYDFS hearings early this year, something to the effect of: "...maybe we should require that all virtual currencies use a transparent ledger."
Regulators have been aware of the possibility of true-privacy coins for some time (the reference was in response to theorizing about Zerocoin, IIRC, during the hearings), and the unique challenges, vis-a-vis bitcoin, that they pose for regulation.
Hence my theory that the inevitable rise of a dominant and actually-utilized anon coin is bullish for bitcoin: regulators will embrace bitcoin at the expense of anon coins.
This may be a dumb question, but I'm genuinely curious why people put up huge ask/bid orders far beyond where the price will likely go in the near future. For example, the 18,000 XMR sell order at 0.008 on poloniex. Beyond the obvious reasons, what are they hoping to accomplish?
The most obvious explanation tends to be the right one.
This may be a dumb question, but I'm genuinely curious why people put up huge ask/bid orders far beyond where the price will likely go in the near future. For example, the 18,000 XMR sell order at 0.008 on poloniex. Beyond the obvious reasons, what are they hoping to accomplish?
Bearish scenario is unravelling for Bitcoin, so far, no ALT was ever able to resist cash flight in such circumstances. I believe XMR will recover (and reach new heights) only, when BTC resumes its growth. We are talking weeks, not hours.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. I can see why LTC would trade a high correlation to BTC, forever: It is fundamentally the same. I can't see why XMR should trade with a high correlation with BTC once you can buy it and trade it against fiat. The transparent and private liquidity markets are largely decoupled, in their fundamentals. Any coupling tends to compromise privacy, after all. That may take a while yet to become manifest, however. The exchange mechanisms need to exist, and become usable.
One issue I see (could be wrong) but the powers that be who allow exchanges to take fiat and exchange for crypto. I can see them allowing bitcoin - but not Monero. Or eventually shutting it down. Or at the very least Monero being unwanted by exchanges who are trying to operate within the good graces of the IRS etc & limiting you to a few crapsty exchanges.
In that case there might be local monero - but bitcoin serving as the gateway will hold monero down imo
I doubt there is going to be a different regulatory regime for Monero than for Bitcoin. The regulators are going to require the same AML/KNC in both cases and exchanges can avoid issues simply by requiring that crypto-currency withdrawals and deposits be to and from an address controlled by the owner of the account. A barrier to adoption of Monero by exchanges may actually be technical since Monero and other CryptoNote coins require additional programming on the part of the exchange for proper implementation.
Edit: IANAL I suspect that an exchange such as the, United States based, Poloniex will have way more regulatory risk in the United States with something like the SuperNET IPO - ICO https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8648210 than they will ever have with Monero.
In that case there might be local monero - but bitcoin serving as the gateway will hold monero down imo
If US based exchanges cannot have Monero trading, foreign or decentralized exchanges will fill the gap. I don't really see it as a big issue. In any case there is less coupling of the markets when BTC is used as a mere transmission mechanism as opposed to a savings store. Anything that results in more flow BTC and less hoard BTC being used to buy monero tends to decouple the markets.
Is NxtAE/mgw adaptible to this end? I suspect all it requires is a market-maker.
Bearish scenario is unravelling for Bitcoin, so far, no ALT was ever able to resist cash flight in such circumstances. I believe XMR will recover (and reach new heights) only, when BTC resumes its growth. We are talking weeks, not hours.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. I can see why LTC would trade a high correlation to BTC, forever: It is fundamentally the same. I can't see why XMR should trade with a high correlation with BTC once you can buy it and trade it against fiat. The transparent and private liquidity markets are largely decoupled, in their fundamentals. Any coupling tends to compromise privacy, after all. That may take a while yet to become manifest, however. The exchange mechanisms need to exist, and become usable.
One issue I see (could be wrong) but the powers that be who allow exchanges to take fiat and exchange for crypto. I can see them allowing bitcoin - but not Monero. Or eventually shutting it down. Or at the very least Monero being unwanted by exchanges who are trying to operate within the good graces of the IRS etc & limiting you to a few crapsty exchanges.
In that case there might be local monero - but bitcoin serving as the gateway will hold monero down imo
So to get money to Monero I still have to go thru bitcoin gateway.
Bearish scenario is unravelling for Bitcoin, so far, no ALT was ever able to resist cash flight in such circumstances. I believe XMR will recover (and reach new heights) only, when BTC resumes its growth. We are talking weeks, not hours.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. I can see why LTC would trade a high correlation to BTC, forever: It is fundamentally the same. I can't see why XMR should trade with a high correlation with BTC once you can buy it and trade it against fiat. The transparent and private liquidity markets are largely decoupled, in their fundamentals. Any coupling tends to compromise privacy, after all. That may take a while yet to become manifest, however. The exchange mechanisms need to exist, and become usable.
One issue I see (could be wrong) but the powers that be who allow exchanges to take fiat and exchange for crypto. I can see them allowing bitcoin - but not Monero. Or eventually shutting it down. Or at the very least Monero being unwanted by exchanges who are trying to operate within the good graces of the IRS etc & limiting you to a few crapsty exchanges.
In that case there might be local monero - but bitcoin serving as the gateway will hold monero down imo
Bearish scenario is unravelling for Bitcoin, so far, no ALT was ever able to resist cash flight in such circumstances. I believe XMR will recover (and reach new heights) only, when BTC resumes its growth. We are talking weeks, not hours.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. I can see why LTC would trade a high correlation to BTC, forever: It is fundamentally the same. I can't see why XMR should trade with a high correlation with BTC once you can buy it and trade it against fiat. The transparent and private liquidity markets are largely decoupled, in their fundamentals. Any coupling tends to compromise privacy, after all. That may take a while yet to become manifest, however. The exchange mechanisms need to exist, and become usable.
One issue I see (could be wrong) but the powers that be who allow exchanges to take fiat and exchange for crypto. I can see them allowing bitcoin - but not Monero. Or eventually shutting it down. Or at the very least Monero being unwanted by exchanges who are trying to operate within the good graces of the IRS etc & limiting you to a few crapsty exchanges.
In that case there might be local monero - but bitcoin serving as the gateway will hold monero down imo
I actually utilized the Poloniex market for NXT/XMR today. Had some NXT I didn't really want and managed to sell some, receiving XMR in exchange. Probably could have accumulated a few more XMR if I'd sold the NXT for BTC, then used the BTC to buy XMR, but it was only 2348 NXT. Thought I'd give that market some action!
Jump to: