One possible reasons can obviously be this:
As reward increases towards 10. The network hash rate and difficulty is expected to increase many fold.
Now at this time if the exchange rate of zec is forced at low level, difficulty can be kept under control. Because not a lot of people will come to mine for a thin margin. Now the people who are still mining at this phase will make profit when zcash get its use case market.
I see what you mean. the common situation in this moment is the price decrease, but some âbig playersâ have enforce the price down. if you check buy orders in Poloniex you will see a lot big orders (20 btc, 45 btc 140 btcetc) trying to push it down. i ve tracked zec pprice and it is not common. in my opinion, they are trying to decrease the profit of ZEC to be iqual to other coin like btc. they can do it if the zec price achive 0,25 btc. 4 time less fo btc related qtd x price
At this point the depth seems normal. Not super skewed. But anyway this scheme can be proved to be good in long term. Because this will discourage anyone coming to mining for quick cash. They would have sold it whenever there is a rise, for whatsoever reason. This will increase volatility. Unless the currency is stabilized, it can not find its use case market. Unless it is widely adopted, it doesnât have a value.
1 Like
Weâre certainly going under $100, probably under $50, maybe under $10, unlikely under $1.
2 Likes
At this point from pure technical perspective we can say itâll have resistance level at around 0.1BTC
@deeiip Youâre certainly right, if everyone uses a t-address then Zcash is useless. As far as I can tell, the only reason people arenât using z-addresses is because of a bug with z_sendmany when using multiple z-addresses. I expect this to change when the bug is resolved and big pools start making payments to z-addresses.
I hear you and I think the price will continue to fall.
However, small mining has been a loss-taking endeavor thus far and the price is determined not only by supply and demand but also what sellers are willing to sell at. Miners are disincentive to sell at a loss and may hold after that point - limiting the supply even as the slow start decreases. This added pressure (mixed with increasing difficulty) means that there will be a solid bottom to the price drop. If there is a crash it will bounce back up to that point. I think some have calculated that the number might be around $130-150/zec for miners to break even. That number will increase with mining difficulty over time.
Your point bring us to a much worse, but unlikely scenario in short term. If break even is at $130, miners are not ready to sell bellow that price but there are no buyers at that price. Some miners will move to mine something else. Difficulty will be re-adjusted due to reduced network hash rate. Thus creating a lower break even below $130. So the logic doesnât hold good.
Normally you would be right - but Zcash is different because a great number of ânew minersâ bought rigs and new systems specifically for Zcash. There are also a lot of cloud mining services which will continue automatically for a year no matter what the price is - because thatâs what people bought the H/s rate at. This means that they wonât (or canât) stop mining, thus they will hold instead of sell at a loss.
Further, the demand may still remain steady and if a price point looks stable people who arenât mining will purchase Zcash at that price as a future position.
Also many of these newcomers arenât interested in Ethereum as many previous ETH miners were interested in Zcash (thus the drop in difficulty for ETH).
I see your point. And I just want to make a remark. If the demand from non-miners is only source of demand, and that too for taking position only for long term. It is not going to last. First the currency should be stable, second there should be a steady growth in adoption, fungibility should be properly maintained via using z-address and there must not be a critical vulnerability. Only then we have a good future return in zcash.
P.S: donât get me wrong, actually Iâm very hopeful in zcash. But I feel for investment a balanced portfolio of xmr and zec should be maintained.
Monero is a losing bet because almost noone uses it or trusts it long-term. The big three will be Bitcoin (larger transactions), Ethereum (contracts) and Zcash (private and quicker transactions).
But, I agree that the price point could go either way. Most people didnât want to miss cheap coins at the start, but with the slow start that was prevented. Some people want quick returns but Iâm pretty sure a lot of people are long. If the ZEC price goes to $1 or $10 miners like myself will be buying instead of mining - because weâre interested in 5 years from now instead of 6 months. But - could go either way!
This is not entirely true. The standard definition of fungibility applied to a currency means that if presented with two equal-value ânotesâ, either would be accepted by a vendor. Within your proposed scenario, there are two possibilities:
- If the endpoint only accepts payment to a t-address, you can pay them directly from a z-address.
- If the endpoint requires payment from a t-address, simply generate a new one, spend to it from a z-address, then spend from that to the endpoint.
In both instances, fungibility is preserved: the endpoint doesnât have any visibility as to the history of the ZEC it receives, and thus can only make judgements based on the face value of the transaction.
Now, if the endpoint chooses to require payment from a t-address, and discriminates based on how long the ZEC has been in transparent addresses, that is a loss of fungibility. But if theyâre planning on doing that, I doubt they would add support for Zcash in the first place.
From a technical blockchain perspective, z-addresses are the default, because mined ZEC is required by a consensus rule to be spent in entirety to a z-address. So at some point, someone (whether a miner, mining pool, or user) has to make a conscious decision to unshield the ZEC to a t-address.
However, I believe what you mean is that thereâs no requirement forcing the use of z-addresses in most places, and you are correct: there is no restriction on individual users as to whether they want to use t-addresses or z-addresses. So for a user obtaining their ZEC in a t-address, it could be considered transparent âby-defaultâ.
5 Likes
Ya I actually meant to say z-address is not forced. And thanks for the explanation. It cleared my understanding in some places. I didnât realise you can send a payment from z-address to t-address.
Stop the mining, we have to stop the mining for few hours, the price will increase ! this price was drop because we have resources and we started to mine in huge volumes.
Right now are : 10,729 Coins with Market cap 3,681,665 if tomorrow for example the total number of Coins will be 15K and nobody will invest/buy zcash then the price/coin will be 245 USD.
If the mining will stop then the price will be more stable and provide more trust for investors, i donât think i have to remember that this is a digital currency and is control by us! We just have to do it right !
This is nothing new, is the same as for the bitcoin ( but the BTC, was controlled by China ) for sure they donât want the Zcash.
the amount of hashpower has nothing to do with the supply of ZCash. the number of coins mined will remain the same at 2.5minute block time no matter what.
1 Like
You should not write us in capital letters, itâs look like US ⌠U.S. ⌠United States (of America). I believe this wasnât your intention.
I can see that part of the problem is the pools automatically selling for BTC⌠It would help if some of you miners would hold your ZEC.
Itâs a game. You can win or you lose.
If you hold your ZEC and in 3 or 6 Month 1 ZEC is equal to 1$, you will be sad that you not sold your Coins for 300$ per ZEC.
Otherwise you can be happy, if in 3 or 6 Month 1 ZEC is nearby 2000$ and you didnât sold your ZEC for ridiculous 300$ per ZEC.
I decide to sold every 0.001 ZEC until the ZEC is above 100$.
Yes, right.
I was tired.
The price of the zcash will not be affected because of the total amount of coins ?