|
This should teach you to never leave money in your mtgox account. If you transfer money to mtgox from dwolla then just leave money in dwolla until you need it. It only takes a few minutes to transfer the money. If you have bitcoins, send them to a wallet somewhere else like GLBSE and make some interest on your sitting bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't these magazines just be released digitally anyway?
|
|
|
|
Also, as other arbitrage bots have seen the ban hammer from exchanges, what assurances do you have that yours will not?
I wasn't aware of that anyone had been banned. Seems kind of strange to ban someone for brining liquidity to your market while paying you fees... I also have not heard of any bots being banned. I did hear that some were disabled because they were inputting the wrong password to log in. Also, mtgox sent emails to those accounts using its API that the authentication was going to change on March 1, but they did not ban any trading bots. That is what an API is for. |
|
|
|
"If you are doing this triangular arbitrage how will you protect against slippage in the fiat currency exchange rate?"
We will not protect against slippage other than be relatively balanced in what we hold. Yen goes down dollars go up a small amount. The difference will be not noticeable.
If we do 2000 trades a day and make 50 cents a trade the 5$ we might lose in the currency slippage for the day wont really matter all that much.
This system is not perfectly efficient but it will be more efficient than what is in the wild now if funded fully.
Do you have your bot hooked into fiat trading exchanges so you can exchange USD for EUR or RMB, ect? At this time no. We can do this work by hand. No need to risk safety for speed in this case. OK. Triangular arbitration has a lot of potential with bitcoin. Looking at exchanges that are denominated in the minor and exotic currencies shows that there is a lot of inefficiency in those markets. The problem is the volume. Since you will be exchanging fiat currencies by hand I assume you will not be doing triangular arbitrage as all three currency exchanges need to occur simultaneously or else you have a risk of price change. It seems like you will be sticking with two-currency arbitrage and taking advantage of inefficiencies between bitcoin exchanges. For more information on three or multi currency arbitrage you can read this pdf on the subject. A way to hook in a bot is to use Interactive Brokers. I unfortunately do not have the capital to open up an account with them, but their API is really nice. |
|
|
|
"If you are doing this triangular arbitrage how will you protect against slippage in the fiat currency exchange rate?"
We will not protect against slippage other than be relatively balanced in what we hold. Yen goes down dollars go up a small amount. The difference will be not noticeable.
If we do 2000 trades a day and make 50 cents a trade the 5$ we might lose in the currency slippage for the day wont really matter all that much.
This system is not perfectly efficient but it will be more efficient than what is in the wild now if funded fully.
Do you have your bot hooked into fiat trading exchanges so you can exchange USD for EUR or RMB, ect? |
|
|
|
So scammers are allowed on the forum but you arn't allowed to suggest a bitcoin purchase to other members? Am I reading that right?
Just go into off-topic. |
|
|
|
Will you be attempting to do any triangular or multi-currency arbitrage or are you going to only stick to two-currency pair arbitrage?
Yeah, that is the whole point of this. We are going to be the biggest fastest arb bot out there. So both? I am sure you will do what most other bots in the bitcoin world do by taking advantage of inefficiencies between two bitcoin exchanges. Will you be taking advantage of different exchanges that use different currencies? For example, an inefficiency exists between the BTC/USD on mtgox, BTC/RMB on btcchina.com, and USD/BTC at your bank. If you are doing this triangular arbitrage how will you protect against slippage in the fiat currency exchange rate? |
|
|
|
|
Will you be attempting to do any triangular or multi-currency arbitrage or are you going to only stick to two-currency pair arbitrage?
|
|
|
|
I cannot argue with the WISH to have the ability to post "ghost bids" (I still call them "fake").
I can only say that in any serious environment, they only post problems.
Right now they fill two functions:
- have ppl place low BIDs everywhere and see which gets filled
- act as nonexistent but visuial "demand".
if both is desireable is questionable.
both are, however, NOT congruent with how a "real" stock exchange works.
Tell me what is the difference between someone with a lot of money coming placing lots of low bids (because they have the capital for the reserve) all over the place, then when an order is executed canceling all those other bids, with someone placing multiple orders and once an order is executed all other orders are automatically canceled or reduced to the amount of BTC in their account? |
|
|
|
I thought this thread was about feature requests, not debate other people's requests. (Edit: I thought I was in the request thread.)
even in the feature requests thread we are encouraged to discuss the shit out of each other. we the users, ... we should be able to request features, argue/discuss them, sort out the differences and if they can not be reconciled at least summarize the problem, know options and arguments pro/contra. so yes, please, debate other people's requests or nefario starts to implement them in their raw form and will eventually end up reverting the changes. if he programs faster then we discuss we may and up with a glbse we don't want to. so why should any virtual buying power be allowed? could it be charged with extra fees? and as it is spend the remaining buy orders should be either downsized or right away cancelled but how? I think having fake bids is worse than having a slow exchange (I have a strange pathologically obsessive nature with staying on topic.) I don't see how making multiple bid orders if I have the available money for any of those orders is not real. I have the ability to make the purchase and I have the intention. So once that order is filled my money is taken away and I own whatever contract that is. Once I don't have any more money then I don't have the ability to make the other purchases so those other orders should be canceled. With higher volume then yes I don't see a problem with making these reserve requirements, but in that theoretical world a bid would be executed fairly rapidly and there would be a narrow bid/ask spread. In today's GLBSE world we can only see the demand for a contract as either being there or not, while normally demand would be seen in a continuous matter in the bid side. People don't want to lock in their bitcoins and have it not working for them. There will be outrageously low bids, as no one will bid a reasonable amount and lock in a significant amount of bitcoins in the small GLBSE market. People talked about phantom bids before, now they really are a ghost as you can't see the demand at all anymore. |
|
|
|
1. Do you return any dividends to shareholders? (I must not be able to read capital letters)
What percentage of dividends is returned to shareholders?
2. Are more shares going to be issued in the future or is this ideally a closed-ended fund?
3. Are you going to short bitcoin to hedge against fluctuations in the BTC/USD exchange rate?
One of the fund's primary goals is to generate positive bitcoin returns. Putting the fund's money in very risky things like options is not good for investors. If I invest in S 2 I am making 2 investments. Betting that your fund will make money and that bitcoins will hold or increase in value. |
|
|
|
answer #2 is above you too
THE FUND will raise capital by issuing 610 shares of stock. 500 shares will be offered to the public at a price of 1 bitcoin each. 110 shares will be distributed to the officers of THE FUND. The shares withheld for the officers of THE FUND are identical to the shares offered to the public and convey the same rights as to any owner of the shares. THE FUND reserves the right to issue further stock to raise additional capital for THE INVESTMENT. Should THE FUND issue stock in this manner it will maintain the ratio of shares offered to the public and shares withheld for its officers.
Yea I was hoping for a more concrete answer from the operators. It seems when a lot of companies on GLBSE offer more shares they are not completely sold out. |
|
|
|
50k for a wedding ring!!! Baller! Congrats Roger! I am happy for you!
You should be happy for the girl... I am lucky mine is more frugal than I am. |
|
|
|
|
1. Do you return any dividends to shareholders? (I must not be able to read capital letters)
What percentage of dividends is returned to shareholders?
2. Are more shares going to be issued in the future or is this ideally a closed-ended fund?
3. Are you going to short bitcoin to hedge against fluctuations in the BTC/USD exchange rate?
|
|
|
|
what's your broker's approach here?
remind you that glbse is not offering lines of credit nor margins and no leverage as bitcoinica is doing.
please educate me and refine your wish to behavior of buy orders in case they would start executing.
we're messing here with market depth and rules should be well described, understood and implemented.
forgot to reply to this, noticed you mention something in another thread about it. I think the way my current broker handles it is real simple though I am not sure exactly how they handle it as I haven't actually looked at the actual rules. This is how it acts however: Your order is checked at order time to make sure you have the balance / margin / credit available. If this first check passes, the order is posted. Kind of like a "soft" check / pre-approval. At execution time, the order is checked for margin again and then executed. The "hard" check. Now the way my broker works, is they give you a certain # called "buying power" which takes into account other holdings and things too. I think for GLBSE purposes, this could just be based on cash on hand. IE: if I have 100 BTC on hand, I should be able to place 100BTC orders, as many as I want, whatever price I want, and these should all pass the soft check. At execution time, if the order fails a hard check, it is removed from the order book / cancelled. Something like that anyway. I agree this would be more desirable than 2.0's current BTC reserved rules, especially since the volume of GLBSE is so low. We have no idea when my orders are going to be placed, so now I have place orders of those I think has a higher chance of being processed and not place orders that would take longer to execute. As can be seen on GLBSE 2.0 now, there are many more sell orders than buy orders which is a direct result of these new rules. You should not be able to place an order unless you have cash on hand to execute THAT EXACT order. Reason for this: Someone with, say, 500 BTC could place 50000000 orders for 500 BTC each and never fail a soft check, thus completeley destroying any credibility into the market. I thought this thread was about feature requests, not debate other people's requests. You do realize you are talking about a market with less than 15 actively traded contracts. If now one order gets partly filled for 100BTC , which of the other orders do you delete/modify?
If all orders would stand "as is", you'd have the same situation as in the old GLBSE, where "fake" orders (or simply those that didnt have funds allotted to them) would fill up the BID side without ever being traded! Easy, if 100BTC of a 500BTC order is filled and there are other orders for 500BTC then reduce all other orders equally by 100BTC. This allows for the buyer to place multiple bids. As long as a bidder has the money and the intention of purchasing then I don't see any problem with them placing a bid. If they then don't have the funds anymore the system can remove any outstanding bids. In a market this thin a buyer will now be more likely to place bids on contracts that are more likely to get filled and he or she loses the ability to say "I want contract x for y BTC. There is ONE order type that takes care of that which is called "OCO" (one cancels other) that allows one to place two orders of 500BTC each and as soon as one is filled, the other order gets cancelled automatically. Then the OCO order type should be implemented or the bid side of GLBSE will be too thin. all orders in the order book MUST represent REAL orders. else, the whole idea of determining the price of an asset on demand and supply gets screwed. if you want a stock, buy from the ASK instead of building fake BID walls in every other stock waiting for shit to drop into their lap. selling my portfolio and discovering that 50% of the bid sides were fakes? nice! didnt we love these fake bid and ask walls on MTGOX? well, at least there's REAL money behind those. if you "intend" to buy a share, BUY IT. Right now once someone buys a contract they can do two things with it. Do nothing or put it on a sell order. If I have a mining company AAA that pays 10% dividend each week I might as well put AAA on a sell at some value higher than I purchased that contract. So there is no logical reason for anyone that has bought a share to not put it on the order book. If it doesn't sell then I still get my 10%. If it does sell then I get some capital gains. With the current locking of bitcoins there is no reason to put in bids. Like you said, might as well purchase at the ask price. But the ask price is way too overpriced. Now that it is pointless to put in bids, the demand looks soft so there is no clear bid-ask spread. The ask will be overpriced. Go through any of the contracts right now and you will see they almost all have about twice as much ask prices than bids. |
|
|
|
what's your broker's approach here?
remind you that glbse is not offering lines of credit nor margins and no leverage as bitcoinica is doing.
please educate me and refine your wish to behavior of buy orders in case they would start executing.
we're messing here with market depth and rules should be well described, understood and implemented.
forgot to reply to this, noticed you mention something in another thread about it. I think the way my current broker handles it is real simple though I am not sure exactly how they handle it as I haven't actually looked at the actual rules. This is how it acts however: Your order is checked at order time to make sure you have the balance / margin / credit available. If this first check passes, the order is posted. Kind of like a "soft" check / pre-approval. At execution time, the order is checked for margin again and then executed. The "hard" check. Now the way my broker works, is they give you a certain # called "buying power" which takes into account other holdings and things too. I think for GLBSE purposes, this could just be based on cash on hand. IE: if I have 100 BTC on hand, I should be able to place 100BTC orders, as many as I want, whatever price I want, and these should all pass the soft check. At execution time, if the order fails a hard check, it is removed from the order book / cancelled. Something like that anyway. I agree this would be more desirable than 2.0's current BTC reserved rules, especially since the volume of GLBSE is so low. We have no idea when my orders are going to be placed, so now I have place orders of those I think has a higher chance of being processed and not place orders that would take longer to execute. As can be seen on GLBSE 2.0 now, there are many more sell orders than buy orders which is a direct result of these new rules. You should not be able to place an order unless you have cash on hand to execute THAT EXACT order. Reason for this: Someone with, say, 500 BTC could place 50000000 orders for 500 BTC each and never fail a soft check, thus completeley destroying any credibility into the market. I thought this thread was about feature requests, not debate other people's requests. (Edit: I thought I was in the request thread.) You do realize you are talking about a market with less than 15 actively traded contracts. If now one order gets partly filled for 100BTC , which of the other orders do you delete/modify?
If all orders would stand "as is", you'd have the same situation as in the old GLBSE, where "fake" orders (or simply those that didnt have funds allotted to them) would fill up the BID side without ever being traded! Easy, if 100BTC of a 500BTC order is filled and there are other orders for 500BTC then reduce all other orders equally by 100BTC. This allows for the buyer to place multiple bids. As long as a bidder has the money and the intention of purchasing then I don't see any problem with them placing a bid. If they then don't have the funds anymore the system can remove any outstanding bids. In a market this thin a buyer will now be more likely to place bids on contracts that are more likely to get filled and he or she loses the ability to say "I want contract x for y BTC. There is ONE order type that takes care of that which is called "OCO" (one cancels other) that allows one to place two orders of 500BTC each and as soon as one is filled, the other order gets cancelled automatically. Then the OCO order type should be implemented or the bid side of GLBSE will be too thin. |
|
|
|
I guess what would be helpful is if you define "objective", and "rights", and go from there.
If there is isn't a concise universal understanding of those two words and their usage, then everyone will differ in their application. Start with an axiom and go from there is what I'd suggest.
Right - an entitlement of power or good. Objective - Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Applies to a universal human goal, that is in fact universal across all humans. See above bolded areas for subjective words. |
|
|
|
On another note, I believe we have everything we need purchased, now it's just the waiting game! We have about 27BTC of extra funds. What does everyone propose we do with this?
IMO, get an emergency fund created in case of unexpected expenses. |
|
|
|
|
On the Portfolio section, have the Bid and Ask in the Asset section next to the contracts owned. Also when going to a contracts page, have it show how many shares I currently own of that asset and/or if I have any outstanding orders for that contract.
Also, have the the respective contract listed in the Fees Paid section.
It would be nice to be able to export all transactions, dividends, and fees paid in a .cvs file.
|
|
|
|
News source U.S. bill ending oil company tax cuts clears Senate hurdle.I know it is politically advantageous to say you voted to tax the oil companies, but don't politicians realize that taxes is also a cost of doing business. If the cost of doing business increases either a company wills top doing that business or raise prices. They can't run a business and sell the product for less than their investors demand. Are they trying for Trickle-down Taxation now? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
