Jump to content

philwynk

Member
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by philwynk

  1. This is logically unsound unless you're of the belief that the current drop in the price of XRP is just market "noise," and that the technology is fundamentally sound and will eventually become an accepted standard of global monetary transfer. I do believe that. That's why I'm holding it. I can see the intuitive emotional appeal of "never sell in the red," but what if the stock, commodity, or coin never comes out of the red? There's no intrinsic, logical reason why you should have a better chance of getting your "lost" investment back in the stock where it's currently invested than in some other stock, commodity, or coin that's on the rise. So long as brokerage fees are low, you're better off moving your $$ to something that's rising than leaving it languishing in the depths where it is. The money I've got in cryptocurrencies, I had in a brokerage account at a discount broker invested in a mining company that did well two years ago. I expected that the election of Trump would shake markets a bit and that gold and silver proxies would rise. Boy, was I wrong. I lost almost 1/4 of the value of my investment in that company over the year or two that I held it there. If I were following your advice here I would have continued to hold it until it rose enough so I would break even. And I'd still be holding it and would have lost even more. Instead, I transferred it over to Ethereum. I did that in June, and by the end of December I had all my investment back and then some. Now I've got XRP and XLM as well. Yeah, I'm down a little today, but I'm still way ahead of where I was last June. What makes an investment worth holding while it drops is that the investment is fundamentally sound and you know it. Markets always rise and fall, but you have confidence that despite the short-term fluctuations of the market, the thing in which you've sunk your money is going to rise over the long haul. Plus, day-trading is a high stress activity fraught with risks. So for the average investor, the smart thing is to pick something that's fundamentally sound, put your money on it, and forget it. But there's no point in holding on to a dog just because you're below break-even. If it's a dog, dump it and choose something better.
  2. Oh, one more thing: XLM and XRP appear to be tethered to each other so far as market performance is concerned, at least for the moment. XLM is roughly half the price of XRP, and at least for the last 2 months they've been rising and falling together at roughly the same rate.
  3. Stellar and Ripple are not exactly competitors. Yes, companies can use either for the same purpose, but no, it's not likely that one will win while the other loses. What is more likely is that both will prosper within their chosen niche: Ripple with the small-to-midrange banks, Stellar with third world nations, individuals, and Progressive purists. Stellar addresses the biggest problem that crypto purists have with Ripple: it's not an "Evil Corporation"-based currency. Note that IBM has made a commitment to Stellar's technology and is rolling out blockchain-based money transfers throughout Southeast Asia and Australia using Stellar's technology and lumens for the transfers. I don't see that any of Ripple's corporate partners have committed to actual use in this manner yet, but I'm fairly sure that they will, and both companies will do just fine. Ripple and Stellar are both more or less in the "global wealth transfer" space, and that market is brand new and full of potential. Whatever benefits the general market will benefit all competitors within the market. Think about how the automobile was accepted: the acceptance of the Benz automobile created a market for Chrysler and Ford. The same will happen with blockchain wealth transfers--what boosts one will boost the other. That's why I've got roughly equal numbers of both coins.
  4. PS: Here's the CBOE's expiration calendar. http://www.cboe.com/framed/pdfframed?content=/aboutcboe/xcal2018.pdf&section=SEC_RESOURCES&title=2018+Cboe+Expiration+Calendar
  5. You are correct. First of all, there are weekly futures that expire every Friday. There are also SPX weeklies (Standard & Poor's 500 weeklies) that expire every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. So, no, the expiration of options is not going to be the cause of a decent-sized dip. That's silly. Plus, the only futures expiring today are weekly futures. Second of all, futures don't cause major price shifts, they anticipate them. Think about what futures are. They're bets on what the price is going to be in the future. If one is buying a stock expecting its price to rise, one can at the same time buy (at a much lower cost) an option to sell at today's price if the price happens to drop, protecting oneself against the contrary motion of the market. Whoever picks up the option is obligated to buy at that price later on, so you're guaranteed a buyer at that price. That buyer is betting that the price will rise at the same time that you're betting that it will fall. Bets on the future price thus balance; for every bet that the price is going up, there's another bet that it's going down, or else puts or calls are going begging. The net of all options bought and sold is always zero. Claiming that futures affect the market is like saying that your bet on a horse at Pimlico affects the outcome of the race. It simply doesn't work that way. The only way that futures can affect the market is when there are enough requests for options in a given direction that the sheer volume of the options changes peoples' expectations of what the market is going to do. Expectations CAN affect the price of a stock or commodity in that way, but as you said, the volume of options would have to have been enormous for that to happen--and by the time the options expire, that effect has already been incorporated into the price of the stock. It's an expectation, remember? It's about the future, not the present. I'm no expert, and anybody should feel free to tell me where I've got this wrong. But that's my understanding.
  6. FUD, to be ignored. Three reasons: (1) Ripple does not require anybody to use XRP. Their first product is Xcurrent, which is a public ledger which makes transfers quicker and cheaper. Acceptance of Xcurrent will increase the perceived value of XRP, though. (2) He's talking about the biggest banks, and those are not Ripple's primary target market. They're aiming at small-to-medium-size banks. (3) He's saying "Nobody's using it yet." Duuuuhh... we already know that. The people who claim to be interested are in pilot stages at this point.
  7. Nah, it really doesn't matter what BTC (or XBT on Kraken) is worth, so long as it's relatively stable at that moment. You only have to hold the BTC for as long as it takes you to convert them to USD. Unless BTC is crashing at the very moment you're doing it, you won't lose much due to the exchange, no matter what the price is.
  8. I have roughly equal amounts of XRP and XLM. Of course, the XLM is worth about half what the XRP is worth. I bought XLM as a sort of hedge, although I really don't think XRP and XLM are strictly competitors. I don't know of anyplace where you can buy XLM using $$. I buy them on Kraken; I buy XBT (bitcoin on Kraken) and then use XBT to buy XLM. It's a nuisance but not difficult. You need to know the XLM/XBT ratio, usually something with four zeros following the decimal point (it's now around .00005400); you multiply that by the current bitcoin price in USD to get XLM/$$.
  9. Nope, I don't think so. The volume of XLM being traded on Kraken and Bittrex is way low. Doesn't look like whales are pushing this. But, please, somebody with more experience ought to look, since I'm pretty new at reading charts.
  10. If XRP rises to $100 per, there will be plenty of people wanting to buy in. I can't imagine that you'll have any difficulty selling. The more likely difficulty will be the ability of the exchanges to meet the demand for liquidity--you may have limits on how much you can liquidate per day or per month. For my part, if I'm sitting on the sort of $$ that my XRPs will be worth at $100, I might sell something like 30% and invest it in something safe like a good mutual fund. But I'd hold on to the rest.
  11. What I'm seeing is XRP finding a new floor. Its value appears to be hovering around $1.30-$1.35. That appears to be the new "normal." Mind you, I'm pretty new to reading charts, so somebody please correct me if I'm getting this wrong. If you were buying XRP for a quick turn and profit-taking, oops, oh well. But if you're buying and holding expecting the Ripple technology to revolutionize bank transfers across national borders in the next few years, this is all part of the day-to-day volatility that's expected to occur while the technology develops. By the way, I decided to hedge my bets on the technology and put a few hundred $$ into stellar lumens (XLM), which are pretty much the same thing as Ripple except aimed at third world users and governments. "Poor man's Ripple," if you will. And XLM is doing pretty well right now, if you're looking for short-term growth. But I'm not selling my zerps.
  12. The explanation is crystal clear, but now I have another question. I noticed that you're using the 1 day interval for your candles. However, I can plot the same data using intervals of 4 hours, 2 hours, 1 hour, 15 min, 5 min, etc. Does the same analysis apply to the other intervals? For example, if I'm day-trading and viewing 5 minute intervals, if I see three green candles in a row can I reasonably expect an uptick to continue for the next, I dunno, 15 minutes? Or is there something relevant about observing the 1-day trends?
  13. So? It's still maybe $8 billion in assets. A huge percentage of the assets in the world are illiquid.
  14. Tweet dated Oct 13, 2017. Here's what Fortune said about that ruling back in October: "A source familiar with the litigation, however, challenged the significance of the ruling, claiming the Delaware court had declined jurisdiction to hear the case, and that a legal fight would continue in New York or California." http://fortune.com/2017/10/13/blockchain-ripple-r3/ Brad Garlinghouse disputed that assessment in the October article, but now here's a comment from the latest Fortune article about the matter, dated Jan 9, 2018: "The outcome of the court fight in New York, which comes after procedural skirmishes in California and Delaware, is hard to predict. According to a contract law expert, the matter is likely to turn on whether R3’s failure to inform Ripple about the departure of partners like Goldman Sachs amounts to a “material breach.” http://fortune.com/2018/01/09/cryptocurrency-ripple-xrp-lawsuit/ Apparently the lawsuit continues in New York, along with Ripple's counter-suit claiming that R3 failed to uphold their side of the contract. None of this affects the news at the top of the chain here, suggesting that a large number of banks are on board the R3 project. As an investor in XRP, this is unsettling news to me. But then, I guess I'm to blame for not knowing the status of bank clearing software development before I invested. No matter; it's not a huge amount of money in any case, and the story is far from being over. I'm still holding...oh, right, "hodling".
  15. Ok, so here's my current understanding of what is meant by "blockchain technology". This is Opus 2: Blockchain is a particular, public database management architecture and related protocols for updating, security, and verification that incorporates the following features: * distributed processing, data storage and decision-making * distributed, collaborative certification of data integrity * immutability of data records * cryptography guaranteeing personal anonymity and security * some degree of backwards auditability Thanks, all, and particularly Sukrim, for helping me grasp the details better. Any comments or corrections are welcome.
  16. Oh, wait, have I misunderstood? You mean, the blockchain might not be auditable back to its original state? Just back to the state as of the last "pruning" event?
  17. Ah. Ok, so "blockchain" implies cryptography but not necessary cell-level encryption. Thanks, that's a worthwhile distinction of which I was ignorant. Yes, but that's just a feature relevant to the application retrieving the latest value. It is still the case that for the entire database the current value of each cell is the original value of that cell plus all transactions in the database affecting that cell. That's what makes it auditable. Maybe I should add "auditable" to my definition.
  18. By "group-level" I mean that the verification and certification of the integrity of the data is achieved by common action of the servers on the network, not by a single, central hub. No, I included it in the term you didn't grasp, "group-level" verification. No encryption in bitcoin? Why is it "crypto" currency, then? I thought that the beauty of the scheme was that the individual owner held the key to his own records, making it unavailable to others. Where am I confused? By "superseding," what I mean is that new versions of the accepted database are achieved by creating new transactions, not by overwriting the previous value. The official value of any data cell is the original value plus all individual transactions that affect that cell. Have I misunderstood what is meant by "immutable?"
  19. So, I'm reaching some clarity (I think) about the meaning of "blockchain" as a technology. Let me take my first stab at a formal definition: "Blockchain" denotes a specific type of database structure coupled with a protocol for updating and verification that incorporates the following features: * distributed data and decision-making; no official, central server * group-level verification of accepted records to keep distributed versions in synch * cell-level encryption * hashing to connect related links in the data chain * immutability of data records; values are superseded rather than updated Different blockchain technologies go about meeting those criteria in different ways, but they all meet all of those criteria somehow. How'd I do?
  20. Ah, right. Yes, this clears up my confusion; we're not talking about the physical data structure on the disk(s), we're talking about the architecture of the protocol. Yes, I suspected that this was the case. As every Grammar Nazi has learned to his or her chagrin, in the end the Public, that Great Beast, wins. Thanks for the clarity.
  21. This is bilge from ideological purists. They want to see the Evil Capitalist™ banking system demolished, and love blockchain solely for its democratic nature, not for it's improved functionality. The very idea of blockchain being used by the very banks they had hoped to bury is so odious to them that they invoke Biblical images, even though "Bible" is even more odious to most of them than is "capitalist." Ignore it. It will discourage a few of the idly curious but will not affect long-term use of the technology. Let 'em yap.
  22. I'm an old IT guy with some understanding of the theory of DBMS systems as they developed. I understand the technical difference between a sequential file, a chain of records, and a file with hashed indexes. I've looked at simple update routines to add/change/delete individual data items in a chained dbms. I know it's old school, but hey, that's how we all learned. I understood that one of the advantages of Ripple's protocol was that it wasn't a blockchain like bitcoin but rather a ledger, so current displays don't have to traverse the entire history of records. So I get a little confused when I hear journalists referring to Ripple as a player in the blockchain space, and even more confused when I see the Ripple dot com web site echoing that usage. Is that just a convention so they can gloss over the technical details? I don't need the full, detailed description, but I'd like to understand in what way Ripple uses the concept of a blockchain. Anybody got a nice tutorial I can read or watch, or a nice explanation they can post here? The high-level descriptions of the ledger that I've seen make it sound as though every current instance of the ledger is complete; it has all rows and columns plus whatever transactions were applied to make this instance different from the last current instance. Maybe this is a stupid question, but doesn't that make all the instances of the ledger uncomfortably large and unwieldy to copy? Or, is the ledger distributed, in the sense that each cell in the ledger has an address the first element of which is something like an IP address so the ledger can exist in pieces spread around on different machines? Or does the ledger not really even care--since disk storage can be distributed seamlessly throughout a subnetwork so that storage is independent of physical considerations like "which machine is it on?" Or am I confusing myself by thinking too hard? Thanks in advance for any enlightenment offered.
  23. Them using the ripple protocol (xCurrent) strengthens the Ripple company, as Ripple gets income by selling their API (Application Program Interface). Also, the more they sell the protocol, the closer it comes to being an international standard. And the more Ripple becomes a standard, the more its reputation is going to get reflected in the value of XRP. So they're not completely disconnected. If I've got this right, using the xCurrent protocol suite allows banks to save time and expense by bypassing national clearinghouses and allowing more direct point-to-point transfer of funds. The transfer takes place several orders of magnitude quicker and the fees are about 1/3 lower. They can transfer any electronic value that they like. Using xRapid (which uses XRP as well as the protocol) saves additional currency conversion fees, reducing the costs by another 1/3 or so. So you're exactly correct: they don't have to use XRP but they save perhaps twice as much $$ if they do.
  24. Oh. Well, yes, that makes sense. They only had to cover the initial value, not the gains. Plus, that bitfinex'ed fellow is alleging outright fraud. Yikes. And, like the MBS bundles, none of this is a problem so long as the value of the coins is going up, but it creates an immediate and possibly financially fatal problem when the values start going down. Pretty scary.
×
×
  • Create New...