If the market can be moved that heavily with seemingly not a whole lot of effort, what's to stop a person or group of people with a big enough bankroll from putting up bogus bids/asks and slowly stepping the market price up to a certain point, then cashing out? Is this what is referred to as a "pump and dump"?
Thank you all for humoring me.
The cashing out would be the hard part - you can make the market price move up just by spending cash. But you can't make people put up bids - and there's usually very few bids up. And as you're seeing right now, as soon as someone starts selling, the buyers all stop putting up bids. And yes - that would be a pump and dump attempt. |
|
|
|
Any ideas why the share price is diving right before the dividend release? Last trade was barely above the last tranche evorhees released.
It's absolutely tiny volume. One person selling 0.01% of the outstanding shares needs no reason other than that one person needed or wanted to sell their shares. There's usually very few buy orders up (other than at low prices to catch anyone who mistypes the number of zeros) so it only take someone selling a few 10ks of shares to make it look like the price is crashing. If there was some significant reason then you'd be seeing Ask walls up with hundreds of thousands of shares in them. There's one person trying to sell 30k shares - looks like he just automatically undercut a 1k order at .006. The other small sell orders will be people who just got sold into and are looking to flip the shares quickly to pick some more up from anyone who is panicking. When there's only one sell order of any size at a low price there's two possibilities: 1. One person somehow knows something major about S.DICE that noone else knows. 2. One person needs some cash quickly. One of those two options is a regular occurrence. There IS actually at least one more option - but you'll have to work that one out for yourself. Awesome! Thank you for this. As a person new to btc and investing I greatly appreciate clear explanations.  What happened next is also standard. He puts up his sell order. Other people (I'm one of them) realise he's in a rush to sell - so lower their own bids and also put up small asks just below his. Although those orders are small they force him to either undercut or to sell into the bids. But he's in a rush to sell and will have noticed bids being taken down/lowered. Which is why the 30k Ask vanished and bids got filled down to .005. But he left up a single 100 bid at .005. What does that mean? That means he still has shares left and left it up as he wants people to overbid it. So of course anyone with awareness of what's happening will put up more bids BELOW that to try get shares as cheap as they can (though inevitably someone who doesn't know what's going on will overbid it and everyone else then has to raise their bids). That's one of the ways to make profit in an illiquid market - when you see someone is desperate to sell OR buy, try to make them do it from YOU at the most advantageous price you can. Well the 637k ask wall came down. About 100k has been bought around .005-.0055 in the last 10 minutes. So I would say there is about 537k of 'shadow' inventory for sale at .0050001. If you want to put a bid up at or above there, I'm sure it will get sold into. Didn't have much cash there to spend - but bought what I could in the .005-.0055 area. Was deliberately low on cash as expecting the S.DICE dividend which I have to convert to LTC for my pass-though - so had run cash down so as not to need to move or exchange funds. EDIT: And yeah, looks like its a more significant quantity that has been in decreasing Ask walls for a while. Someone who bought out one of the vorhees batches and didn't manage to flip for the profit they expected and now wants cash in a rush would be the obvious guess. If he got them in the first batch then he's still doing OK if he sells at .005. |
|
|
|
Any ideas why the share price is diving right before the dividend release? Last trade was barely above the last tranche evorhees released.
It's absolutely tiny volume. One person selling 0.01% of the outstanding shares needs no reason other than that one person needed or wanted to sell their shares. There's usually very few buy orders up (other than at low prices to catch anyone who mistypes the number of zeros) so it only take someone selling a few 10ks of shares to make it look like the price is crashing. If there was some significant reason then you'd be seeing Ask walls up with hundreds of thousands of shares in them. There's one person trying to sell 30k shares - looks like he just automatically undercut a 1k order at .006. The other small sell orders will be people who just got sold into and are looking to flip the shares quickly to pick some more up from anyone who is panicking. When there's only one sell order of any size at a low price there's two possibilities: 1. One person somehow knows something major about S.DICE that noone else knows. 2. One person needs some cash quickly. One of those two options is a regular occurrence. There IS actually at least one more option - but you'll have to work that one out for yourself. Awesome! Thank you for this. As a person new to btc and investing I greatly appreciate clear explanations. What happened next is also standard. He puts up his sell order. Other people (I'm one of them) realise he's in a rush to sell - so lower their own bids and also put up small asks just below his. Although those orders are small they force him to either undercut or to sell into the bids. But he's in a rush to sell and will have noticed bids being taken down/lowered. Which is why the 30k Ask vanished and bids got filled down to .005. But he left up a single 100 bid at .005. What does that mean? That means he still has shares left and left it up as he wants people to overbid it. So of course anyone with awareness of what's happening will put up more bids BELOW that to try get shares as cheap as they can (though inevitably someone who doesn't know what's going on will overbid it and everyone else then has to raise their bids). That's one of the ways to make profit in an illiquid market - when you see someone is desperate to sell OR buy, try to make them do it from YOU at the most advantageous price you can. |
|
|
|
Any ideas why the share price is diving right before the dividend release? Last trade was barely above the last tranche evorhees released.
I had been wondering when the ownership of the shares is taken for the calculations. If for instance it is midnight UCT then regardless of when the actual payment is shares could change hands without affecting the payout. On the other hand if the calcs are done on the basis of share ownership at the time of payout then selling up prior is not the best idea. Maybe MPOE-PR can clarify? I'm pretty sure it's at time of share payout. It's time of payout. |
|
|
|
Any ideas why the share price is diving right before the dividend release? Last trade was barely above the last tranche evorhees released.
It's absolutely tiny volume. One person selling 0.01% of the outstanding shares needs no reason other than that one person needed or wanted to sell their shares. There's usually very few buy orders up (other than at low prices to catch anyone who mistypes the number of zeros) so it only take someone selling a few 10ks of shares to make it look like the price is crashing. If there was some significant reason then you'd be seeing Ask walls up with hundreds of thousands of shares in them. There's one person trying to sell 30k shares - looks like he just automatically undercut a 1k order at .006. The other small sell orders will be people who just got sold into and are looking to flip the shares quickly to pick some more up from anyone who is panicking. When there's only one sell order of any size at a low price there's two possibilities: 1. One person somehow knows something major about S.DICE that noone else knows. 2. One person needs some cash quickly. One of those two options is a regular occurrence. There IS actually at least one more option - but you'll have to work that one out for yourself. |
|
|
|
Isn't taking a BTC-denominated loan to buy something (silver) valued in USD rather risky when BTC is rising fast?
I want to point out this popular misconception. The price of silver is denominated in dollars in the U.S., but it is denominated in euros in the Europe, and pounds sterling in the U.K. In other words, it is denominated in the local currency, not just dollars. More importantly, it doesn't matter what currency is used to buy the silver, because it can easily be converted from bitcoins. In other words, the denomination of the price is irrelevant when the conversion is trivial (and free). While agree it would be risky to borrow BTC to buy silver, it has nothing to do with the value of the dollar. The "value of the dollar" (whatever you mean by that) isn't the issue - it's changes in the BTC/Fiat (whichever fiat you like - I identified USD as that's what usagi's comments suggested was being used) exchange-rate that give the risk. As it's highly likely changes in that exchange-rate will impact the BTC price/value of silver far more than any other factor. Which of course, is all irrelevant, given that the loan is denominated in USD. EDIT: It seems you're arguing that something can't be valued in USD if you can buy it with a different currency elsewhere. That's ludicrous. Usagi identified the savings to be made in USD - pretty clearly indicating that the silver being bought was priced in USD. |
|
|
|
|
LTC rose very slightly causing a tiny drop in NAV/U. No trade occurred in the last 40 minutes.
At time of sale:
Exchange-rate : .00242
Adjusted NAV/U : 56.4266874
The 75 units sold into market were in theory placed at : 62.06935614
In practice they sold a bit higher into a single existing bid:
Received Ask Order: 75 @ 62.0694 LTC
Sale 75 @ 67.25 LTC Complete.
Looked to me like there were at least two people trying to place bids at last minute - well done whoever won.
The 25 units bought by myself were transferred for 56.99095427 each (a total of 1424.77385677 LTC)
Weekly payment has now been made on our bonds (the funds for this were already put aside when calculating NAV/U).
Adjusted NAV/U is now 57.2767 - the increase being due to the premium paid on the freshly sold units.
1000 new bonds are being placed on the market.
Weekly report, as usual, tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
Release of the 75 units is about 40 minutes away.
Exchange-rate : .002395
Adjusted NAV/U : 56.544
No real change since previous post. I won't update again unless there's a significant move in either direction (LTC seems fairly stable within a few % at current which would only move NAV/U under 0.5% in either direction).
At present adjusted NAV/U Ask would be placed at 62.198 and would immediately be filled by existing bids.
I'll try to place the ask as near as I can exactly to the hour - so snipe away if you want.
|
|
|
|
If a pool discards S.DICE transactions but intentionally allows competing transactions from same source to process then the pool only needs a few % of network power for anyone to profitably attack S.DICE by trying to double-spend any losing bets - the few % of times the pool includes the double-spend (and cancels the losing bet) then outweigh the house edge on the rest of bets. You underestimate the extent to which some are opposed to S.DICE (not me - obviously).
I don't know if you're aware, but there's already a bot that routinely double-spends lots of losing SatoshiDice bets. Its transactions almost never get picked up by the miners though. All it would need would be for an anti-SD pool to start deliberately mining the double-spent transactions to make SD unprofitable. Can you think of anyone with a mining pool who's vocally against SD and has used the pool for morally questionable things in the past?  I'm sure the person you're thinking of is the one I had in mind when making my comments. |
|
|
|
|
Exchange-rate : .00236
Adjusted NAV/U : 56.6615
Bid at : 55.2
Just a quick update for those placing bids for the units later tonight. We've made a little more trading profit but LTC rose vs BTC slightly cancelling some of it out - so no real change in adjusted NAV/U.
|
|
|
|
So this is the profit (before other expenses) for exactly 1 day?
How high are "other expenses"?
Even if these are $34 per day, this already puts us roughly into the "very optimistic" category from above with a sound 25%/year ROI.
Definitely a promising start! If I read correctly, I think the company is in the US and the books are USD. Don't forget to include taxes in the calculations. I think you'd have to find out the tax rate from the Ziggap folks, as it's an LLC and taxes pass through to the owners in most cases, thus making the rate dependent on their other income sources if any. Depends to an extent how they're treating payments to investors for accounting purposes. They can't treat them as dividends (or they'd be running an unlicensed security) but can they treat is as loan interest (which could be paid pre-tax)? Or will it just have to be paid off the books (i.e. after taxes paid in full as though it were payment to them personally). |
|
|
|
Second point, this is a 100% secured loan with a real payment plan attached to it and it is something which will increase the strength of bitcoin.
Actually it's NOT a 100% secured loan (it's 100% backed right now - but not necessarily for the loan duration) - as the majority of the backing is BTC denominated (BTC-BOND). If BTC falls vs USD then so does the value of BTC-BOND in USD and the security is no longer 100% covered. To be genuinely 100% secured it would need to be backed by something that had a USD value not a BTC one. The ESECURITY bonds, on the other hand, ARE valued in USD (though sold in BTC) so should retain the same level of backing regardless of any exchange-rate moves. To be clear I have no doubt that you'll repay the loan - but your statement is, nonetheless, inaccurate. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Continuing on from your line of reasoning, there is no such thing as a secured loan because the value of the securities used to back a BTC loan can decline WRT the price of BTC. Interesting. Well for what it's worth I've been speculating a little on the mtgoxUSD price, you may enjoy this little gem I came up with recently: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=148358.0I think we're in a speculative bubble. I may just redo the loan in BTC anyways. Could be to my advantage :> Well I'd not go so far as to say there's no such thing as a secured loan - but for something to be 100% secured then whatever's backing it needs to hold a value higher than the loan throughout the entire loan duration. That rules out pretty much any BTC security. It can have 100% backing at the start - but can't really guarantee keeping that level of backing given the rate of default around here. Although BTCJam's claims of 100% backing are inaccurate it definitely IS a step in the right direction. I actually tend to agree that we're in a speculative bubble - but I don't think we're at (or even particulary close to) the top yet. Definitly a classic Meow though |
|
|
|
Second point, this is a 100% secured loan with a real payment plan attached to it and it is something which will increase the strength of bitcoin.
Actually it's NOT a 100% secured loan (it's 100% backed right now - but not necessarily for the loan duration) - as the majority of the backing is BTC denominated (BTC-BOND). If BTC falls vs USD then so does the value of BTC-BOND in USD and the security is no longer 100% covered. To be genuinely 100% secured it would need to be backed by something that had a USD value not a BTC one. The ESECURITY bonds, on the other hand, ARE valued in USD (though sold in BTC) so should retain the same level of backing regardless of any exchange-rate moves. To be clear I have no doubt that you'll repay the loan - but your statement is, nonetheless, inaccurate. |
|
|
|
I have an opportunity to put cash to work and make a great return in a relatively quick period of time.
I believe I will be able to buy S.DICE back cheaper and save myself some money on the loan.
How do you plan to cover the dividend payments each month? What the rate you're paying people? You're going to get MURDERED, especially on the dividends, in my opinion. The dividends really aren't an issue. If he gets murdered anywhere it'll be on the exchange-rate if BTC keeps rising vs USD (he's borrowing the money for USD-denominated purpose). A 2% dividend/month pales into insignifance if BTC were to rise by 50% between now and May (which is LESS than it's risen in the last two months). Just hope his "great return" is large enough to justify that risk (some of other stuff he's borrowed and sold is 100% fixed-price in BTC so will in no way fall due to exchange-rate moves). |
|
|
|
If you want to speculate on the future value of XRP: What is a reasonable price customers can be expected to pay to fund a new Ripple account? One dollar? 50 millibitcents? What?
Well that's already answered on the Ripple site. They say the cost of a transaction is about $0.0001 - 1/100th of a cent. And we know the default cost of a transaction is 0.00001 XRP 1/100,000th of an XRP So if 1/100th of a cent is 1/100,000th of an XRP then 1 cent is 1/1000th of an XRP and an XRP is worth $10. So the cost for a ripple account will be about $2k. Either that or one of the ripple site (giving the cost per transaction in USD) or the ripple wiki (giving the cost in XRP) are wrong. This seems surprisingly high to me. But the cost per transaction can't really be much lower (in USD) and still deter spam - forwarding of 10,000 transactions for $1 isn't going to deter anyone who is making any profit from them (and those trying to just flood the network don't need to pay XRP to do it anyway ). The obvious conclusion to me is that the default cost per transaction (in XRP) is set far too low in comparison to the account opening fee. This leads to either the cost per transaction being too low to be any kind of deterrent OR (as is the case at present) the value of a new account being stupidly high. Put another way, IF the value of XRP is such that their website's claim of 1/100th a cent per transaction is true (at the default fee of 0.00001 XRP) then the 40k ripple they give away in the freebie thread are worth $400k and everyone should be busy trying to buy forum accounts. Or have I, somewhere, got my decimal places horribly wrong? Either I have - or OpenCoin has. Keep in mind that all these parameters will evolve an converge dynamically through gateway consensus, so not much to worry about here ... True - we don't need to worry about getting any details right, as consensus can solve that later. |
|
|
|
If you want to speculate on the future value of XRP: What is a reasonable price customers can be expected to pay to fund a new Ripple account? One dollar? 50 millibitcents? What?
Well that's already answered on the Ripple site. They say the cost of a transaction is about $0.0001 - 1/100th of a cent. And we know the default cost of a transaction is 0.00001 XRP 1/100,000th of an XRP So if 1/100th of a cent is 1/100,000th of an XRP then 1 cent is 1/1000th of an XRP and an XRP is worth $10. So the cost for a ripple account will be about $2k. Either that or one of the ripple site (giving the cost per transaction in USD) or the ripple wiki (giving the cost in XRP) are wrong. This seems surprisingly high to me. But the cost per transaction can't really be much lower (in USD) and still deter spam - forwarding of 10,000 transactions for $1 isn't going to deter anyone who is making any profit from them (and those trying to just flood the network don't need to pay XRP to do it anyway ). The obvious conclusion to me is that the default cost per transaction (in XRP) is set far too low in comparison to the account opening fee. This leads to either the cost per transaction being too low to be any kind of deterrent OR (as is the case at present) the value of a new account being stupidly high. Put another way, IF the value of XRP is such that their website's claim of 1/100th a cent per transaction is true (at the default fee of 0.00001 XRP) then the 40k ripple they give away in the freebie thread are worth $400k and everyone should be busy trying to buy forum accounts. Or have I, somewhere, got my decimal places horribly wrong? Either I have - or OpenCoin has. |
|
|
|
Active shares: 11,393
Dividends paid out today: 23.63967749 BTC
Dividends per share paid out today: 0.00207493 BTC
Dividends paid out for all time: 114.02708295 BTC
Dividends paid out for all time per share: 0.0292967163171353 BTC
Assets held:
106 BTC-MINING
1000 BTCMC
1000 ASICMINER
Dividends:
15.00 BTC from BTCMC
23.54454 BTC from DMC's ASICMINER shares
8.73502434 BTC from my ASICMINER shares
Progress:
1691 to 1966 BTC paid into DMC
1015 BTC returned for 9,330 shares
8.95 BTC returned for 186 shares
114.02 BTC dividends paid
553.03 to 828.03 BTC still owed
What's the remaining wallet balance? I notice you've paid some of the received dividends out and bought back shares with some - but some is, as yet, unused/unaccounted for. |
|
|
|
What the bitcoin network could do is make changes to disencourage "spammy" transactions like SatoshiDICE. For example, this could be done by weighing the bitcoin days more heavily, and require a more substantial fee if the bitcoin days are lower. This should not be ruled out, but it shouldn't mean the end of S.DICE - just a small to moderate drop in the amount of players.
Problem with that approach is it means penalising ALL small transactions. Which is pretty dangerous with BTC rising. Plus it would hurt S.DICE less than others doing similar sized transactions - as S.DICE has sufficient capital to send small transactions from aged coins (wouldn't take much effort for them to use aged coins only for small transactions) whilst many others don't have that luxury. There's no way to penalise S.DICE specifically without also harming many others - so I'd argue it's probbaly better to put the effort into working towards being able to handle S.DICE type transaction volumes rather than into trying to somehow block S.DICE only to then encounter the same issues again with some other company. |
|
|
|
|
Looks like his bitoind died - along with the cron job that was supposed to automatically restart it if that happened.
Rest of the site works fine (try going to it in a different browser if you're already logged in - and it'll work fine until you log in again).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
