bitperson, you have gained a fan. I actually LOLd at that one

@OP - you can buy them, but any audit will show most of your followers as fake. If you're wanting to enter bounty campaigns etc, you're on a loser. If "getting teh free bitcoinz" is your sole reason for being here, then you should look at other opportunities....e.g. getting a job that allows you to invest money you earned.

I'm not curious. This is classic some idiot trying to build activity.

http://bfy.tw/GI3e

Ah, sorry, I should have come back to thread earlier. I also should have rephrased the question, as reading back, I an see I wasn't specific enough

So, I read through this, which gave a nice rundown on arbitrage: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/49819/cryptocurrency-arbitrage-what-do-i-need-to-know

I guess my question is if you do this the same way, or you have a different method involving more movement of coins between exchanges?

I'd like to play with arbitrage, but I can't fund 2 exchanges (I am playing with tiny money at the moment), and I am worried that (a) I miss the boat if I transfer, and (b) the fees will eat the profit. This is based on my (oversimplified) idea of buying coins at one, sending to the other, and then selling them higher.

Assuming the above won't work, do you think funding 2-3 exchanges is enough, or should I be looking at 5+?

Hi Deevan,

If you're an Arabic speaker, may I suggest also posting this on the Arabic-speaking board? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=241.0

Hope you get the info you need

I'm going to assume that you intend to add links to this.

May I suggest that you edit the title to something less clickbait-y?

I'm trying to work this out.

It seems like you need to have reasonably large funds at each exchange.

Also it looks like your trades need to be fairly big in order to eat the transaction fees, if you're moving BTC.

Can you please share a full example, rather than your spot, profit and loss?

I think this is awful advice. The problem with intuition is that it gets mixed with emotion.


This, on the other hand, is excellent advice. Whether it be news about the currency, an awareness of whale-moves, or whatever, underlying reasoning is the best indicator there is.

@OP - I am at about the same point as you at the moment, but I am trying to not just learn the basic TA stuff, I'm also trying to monitor news and announcements. This is not easy, and my success has so far been limited

This looks really good! May I ask if you are planning to cover any coding for exchange APIs?

Well, I wasn't assuming that any coin would ever get as big as Bitcoin (although I have good feelings about Eth), but you are right about the supply - I still have a lot to learn.

What I am trying to do ultimately is identify fast trade opportunities to increase my position overall. Perhaps an example is easier. Here's my plan:

- Identify coin
- Buy x amount
- Sell limit 30% @ x3 (i.e. my capital back)
- Sell limit 20% @ x6 (more capital)
- Other 50% will be hodl or further sell limits, depending on whether I determine it's in for the longer haul or a PnD.

Does that make sense? It does in my head, but it's tricky to explain here

Good point about the volume, but to be honest, I'm kinda looking at how to make that work for me. A small volume market is going to be more easily swayed by any real move. If it nosedives, there's not far to fall, but if it gets pushed by a few whales, there's a long way to go up. Still, you're not wrong about the amount of crapcoins banking on this. Hard to select one

With regard to market cap, you're 100% right. I need to pay more attention to supply of the coins. My bad.

Thanks for the advice

Hi all,

So as the title says, I am having difficulty squaring off percentage gain with pair/fiat-gain on altcoins.

On the one hand, I can see that 50% is 50% is 50%, no matter what way you spin the maths of it. And therefore every quid put in can give you back one and a half.

However, I favour a very aggressive trading strategy (possibly not a wonderful idea, but hey, my money ), and I'm being draw to the idea that it's much easier for a $0.01 coin to go to say $0.05, than it is for a higher market-cap asset like BTC to go from 10K to 50K.

I suspect that I am mentally falling prey to some kind of gambler's fallacy here, but there are so many examples....

Anyone got a good source/video/article etc that might be able to help me out?

In a nutshell, I have some Eth, I want to trade, but I am not sure whether to take a massive punt on the shitcoins, or go slower and steadier with the established ones. My instinct is to take the punt. But it's only that - instinct. I have a gambly streak

Advice appreciated.

Sure thing. I'm not interested in derailing this thread with personal insults. But his/her/its remark needed to be addressed.

Completely happy to move the "discussion" into a thread seperately.....if Lauda wants to take on someone who's not afraid of the Legendary tag.

Expected response from Lauda: "You couldn't handle me, honey"....or some such trash.

Ohhh, we're editing back in more insults, are we? Awesome!!!!

Updated quote:


"That doesn't go well with intelligence". Would you mind explaining, from your lofty perch of arrogance, WHAT the fuck that ridiculous statement means?

You know what? Don't bother - you post enough meaningless drivel that I actually don't care. Your post history proves that. As does your lack of response when you're called out on it.

And nope, I don't want to turn the discussion to gender. That has nothing to do with it. You are well aware of this, but want to deflect from the battering you're taking at the moment in terms of your image. And trust me, it's a battering. You're looking more and more stupid with every word you type. By all means, continue, I'll just make some popcorn.

Y'know, I've met people like you before. People who think they see more deeply than others, people who think that they have some sort of intellectual advantage.

You don't.

And the irony is, you're too stupid to realise how transparent you are. We see it, and you think we don't.

Let's look at the current situation....

You, and other DT2s, are running about tagging people as scammers because they don't write stuff you want to read.

EDIT THE SECOND: Except some of the others are salvaging a little respect, by engaging in intelligent discussion and talking solutions. YOU on the other hand, have come out all guns blazing, with your little book of insults. Not very clever ones, either, but I realise that you can't see that from your perspective.

And yet, YOUR post history is nothing but concentrated hostility, aggression, and abuse. I'd say that's every bit as valid for a scammer tag.

Oh wait, you got one already, for your lovely little extortion attempt...

Yep, you're a card. I'd prefer to be a "cute leftist", than a downright scumsucker like you, Lauda. You're a bottom-feeder, and I think deep down you know it. It's what drives your aggression.

I had to read that several times in order to believe my own eyes.

You're a fucking horrific excuse for a human being. Truly disgusting. Scum.

Remove your comment, regain a tiny bit of dignity, and I'll remove this quote. You might still be able to salvage some sort of goodwill.

Fair enough on the "rampage" comment if it's to do with megathreads - I admit I only scanned. I can edit or remove the comment if you wish. I'm not here to score cheap points.

I like that you are being so open-minded on this - regardless of whatever you infer from my posts, I want you to know I respect this.

Your idea of bulk PMing is excellent. May I suggest that the PM list be shared with the mods also? That way they can filter the ones you have to tag by banning as many as possible before they get loose - if they don't improve, of course. 2 weeks seems more than reasonable - very fair.

Great reply. Thank you

No, that's not what I meant. I guess I was kicking the can around. Didn't think that one through- thank you for correction

It's a very difficult problem to solve, and you're right....trust after the fact is open for abuse.

But tagging in advance should be regulated. The behaviour highlighted in this thread (and others) is too far in the other direction. Operating on a guilty until proven innocent basis doesn't work either.

That's a fair observation.

How about implementing a trust system where only people involved in a transaction are given a (one time per transaction) ability to tag the trade?

That way there would be a reference for every rating, it's easy to moderate, and there's no room for subjective opinions like the quality of someone's english.

EDITED: Correctly shown to be naive. My bad, guess I just picture a perfect world

Just another idea

The issue is that the whole damn thing is based on opinions.

The Pharmacist has a boner for people he feels don't speak English to his standard. This does not make them untrustworthy, and so is misuse of the system.

Lauda has no time for people she feels don't see as deeply as her. I'm not entirely sure on what map the direction she's looking can be found, but that's my issue. This also does not make them untrustworthy, and so is misuse of the system.

Actmyname....well, this one is tricky. He's engaged in discussion on this topic, which shows an open mind. But then there are those....rampages...which are also opinion based.

You know, I get that all these people are trying to protect the foremost forum for a subject they care deeply about. And they're working with broken tools. Theymos probably never realised this forum would grow like it has, but there you go - yay, crypto

The practices that are happening at the moment are exclusionary. This is not good. The forum was founded for people to discuss crypto, and this includes the clueless, the stupid, the slow, the rude, the arrogant and the just plain weird.

Warn the abusers. Ban the persistent. Trust tag the scammers.

If they're not scamming, leave the trust button alone. It's not what it's for.

To be honest with you, I'd pull the whole trust idea completely. But I realise this might not be practical.

The issue arises when the word "suspicion" gets into the mix. It's not objective, and it's opinion-based.

There are a few ways the current situation could be improved, but ultimately, it needs moderators, and not a militia.

I 100% get this, and I completely agree.

They should be warned, directed towards the community guidelines, and then they should be banned if they persist.

This is not what the trust system is for though. And it is just simply being abused.

Get more mods. Who says they have to be Hero or Legendary? They just need to be engaged, and obviously monitored - use the DT network for that? You'll have a hundred volunteers, and the abusers will be fairly obvious, fairly quickly.

What is happening at the moment is that people with poor English are being tagged as untrustworthy. There is a word for this, but I won't be the one to invoke Godwin's Law.