Confidence is building. That is, IMO, why the price is rising. I assume this is exactly how it will continue to go (over the long run), if the Bitcoin protocol (or any widely used implementation of it) stays uncompromised. Trust is building slowly, as trust can only do. I think that the momentum is strong, hope that bitcoin will be able to be a good substitute to Paypal as a form of payment in the time ahead. I do not know how long, but I do believe that bitcoin can play a part in transactions especially over the Internet at far cheaper rates than any of the current payment providers.
In my opinion you are missing the point. Bitcoin is a currency, there is no reason a currency should replace PayPal. If Bitcoin becomes popular, why wouldn't PayPal just allow payments in bitcoins? There is no opposition between PayPal and bitcoin (the currency). Bitcoin can, in some situations, be used as a substitute for PayPal (because bitcoins are inherently easily transferable over the internet). But PayPal provides a valuable service by protecting users via chargebacks. That service will still be valued no matter how popular Bitcoin becomes. You are right that Bitcoin certainly has the power to disturb PayPal's virtual monopoly on easy online payments. But if PayPal plays its cards right, it need not be replaced by Bitcoin, because it still has something users value (chargebacks). this is an interesting point. how would you foresee they do this? i mean, how can they recover btc's that have already been sent? isn't that part critical to allowing chargebacks? |
|
|
|
I’m sure he’s long now.
no way. It has to be the cognitive dissonance that won’t allow him to turn up here anymore. Or maybe shame. think of ALL the Bears who were raging here just a month ago. we even have one for a forum moderator. |
|
|
|
proudhon, you were barely right  But right, nonetheless!  you could've made loads on a bet! |
|
|
|
Most fantastic!
did u get ANY sleep last nite, what with it being News Years Eve and your bedside laptop? LOL! |
|
|
|
|
do we have another Bullseye event?
|
|
|
|
I’m sure he’s long now.
no way. |
|
|
|
Happy New Year, Nagle.  |
|
|
|
A year ago, btc was trading at $0.292, with a total valuation of $1.4M. Now, seemingly every week, a buy for $50k-$250k USD worth of coins happens. Pretty nifty.
You are assuming all new minted coins end up being available for sale. I think this is very, very far from the truth. My guess is at least 90% of all coins is not for sale, and just being hoarded regardless of exchange rates. That means the influx of money is vastly smaller, at least proportionally to this hoarding rate. Some small indication to back up my gut feeling here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56128.0My coins are not for sale, not if the price goes to $100 tomorrow, not if it drops to $0.1. And yet In a few years time I might decide to get out and sell at either of those prices. I think this is not an exception but rather the rule, so you could say the current BTC price is all but meaningless; its just a reflection of the sentiment traders have about the sentiment of other traders. And those are trading a tiny fraction of the all BTCs. No wonder its so volatile. he sees the light! |
|
|
|
happy new year to everybody and thanks for all the trust
As of today, we have added live charts in http://bitcoinbullbear.com, thanks to Clark Moody.
Looking forward to a rocking BITYEAR :-) where the hell you been, boy? Happy New Year! |
|
|
|
$5 is coming, as predicted Or high quality correction... $6 is much closer on the horizon than $3 atm but Proudhon said... |
|
|
|
$5 is coming, as predicted yes it is. BUT YOU TOLD ME IT WAS COMING YESTERDAY!   |
|
|
|
Thanks for not adding anything to my understanding... Only Zhoutong can tell me what I want to know. Essentially it boils down to what percentage of positions are able to liquidate? Is this percentage constant, or does it vary? If it varies, how is it calculated?
It's a constant percentage of open positions in a certain direction with an absolute minimum threshold. There are variations such as withdrawals and currency conversions, but I have tested the feature against past data to ensure effectiveness. The risk is actually very minimal, but we won't publish the exact numbers in order to prevent abuse. Thank you for you answer Zhoutong. you're happy with that answer? |
|
|
|
Amateur Hour Revisited:since i'm not getting any answers to my last question, let me ask some more, or better yet, let me issue some warnings. Update on the OP's suggestion
Now whenever Bitcoinica is out of reserves (either USD or BTC), everyone can expect:
- Free to close any previous positions regardless of direction and order type (until the critical quantity, which should almost never happen).
its already happened twice in how many days? this is the effect of allowing too much leverage with inadequate reserves. - Not able to establish new positions (or increase existing positions) in certain direction until the reserve has been re-established (by others' deposit, or opposite trading).
- The price will show like *4.70594 (with the asterisk) to indicate trading restrictions.
have you ever heard of painting a Big Red Bullseye on one's own forehead? when "someone" sees this little "*", that someone is gonna jam the market higher with a spike and "execute" all the shorts. even if they have a stop loss order in place, in a thin market such as this, they might not get that exact price in a vicious spike and you'll be back to issuing alot of refunds trying to revive the zombies or just let them die at their own expense. and then i'm confident new updates will be uploaded with yet another pause in trading capabilities.
- All pending orders are shown as "No reserve" and they will be "Active" again once the reserve has been re-established.
"Please Shoot Me" It's highly recommended to place limit orders when trading restrictions are imposed, so that there won't be surprise execution prices after the removal of restrictions.
again, ethical customers should have the freedom to issue market orders w/o a 4 sec delay w/o the fear of being terrorized by a spike which is the result of that 4 sec rule (which is equivalent to an eternity). also, i would like an answer to my previous question about Guaranteed Liquidity vs. Mushoz's explanation in regards to limit orders. Now you can safely place stop loss orders because any trade restrictions will have no effect on these orders!
Safely? a stop loss order would effectively be a limit order. lets take the example of a Big Red Bullseye event and a short seller. in a vicious spike, what happens if there are no specific asks at the stop loss "buy to cover" price as the price shoots up and the bots withdrawal their asks scrambling to get out of the way? edit: these same bots or providers of liquidity (sellers that would allow a short to cover) will see that same "*" and start withdrawing their asks, mark my words.
|
|
|
|
We have virtually no risk.
The market doesn't slip every 5 seconds. And during most of the violent moves previously, we received no or only a few orders. The high volume was always generated after the violent moves.
Now thankfully, Zhoutong, you seem to have the risks of slippage covered as explained above this quote, but your reasoning in this quote is flawed. Never _ever_ think something is not going to happen because it hasn't happened before. Always expect the worst and then some. This applies to anything, not just slippage risks. If you haven't made simulations in which there was heavy trading _during_ price movements, you should! Even though I don't have any practical experience to prove this (because it never happened before), I do have theoretical consideration. The main problem of any system with guaranteed liquidity is adverse selection. We are exposed to the systematic risk of customers trading only when they have opportunities to take advantage of price differences. A similar example is exchange quotation. TradeHill gives users 5 seconds to confirm a Instant trade quotation. But since there's no cost to get a quotation, theoretically there's one possibility: a user gets a quote every 5 seconds, and confirm only when there's huge slippage. What I have done here is to delay all order execution by 1-4 seconds. This makes sure that when you click Buy/Sell button exactly during the slippage, the actual execution will happen after the major price move. And this is still considered as "guaranteed liquidity" because we update prices globally, not just for individual pending orders. Mushoz: can u translate this? It means he is protecting himself against slippage due to random moves by using spreads, but the biggest risk is people trying to exploit slippage. Let's say the price is at 4$ on Mtgox and suddenly a spikes causes it to go down to 3.60. Someone wanting to exploit slippage could quickly sell at Bitcoinica, where the prices wouldn't have been updated yet. That's what the 1-4 second order execution delay is for. It allows the price on Bitcoinica to catch up to the market price, so that people aren't able to exploit slippage. the corollary way to look at this is that it punishes the majority of ethical users who sometimes need to use market orders to get out of a bad situation fast. example: ethical user sees ask displayed @ $4.70. he's already lost significant money from a short executed @ $4.30. the market continues to grind higher like its doing now. he's terrified of a continued climb and wants to cover now but he's even more terrified to place a market order buy to cover b/c of the 4 sec delay rule which may subject him to a vicious spike. he shouldn't have to continuously place limit orders at the ask which could fail to execute multiple times as the Bitcoinica ask price changes to catch up to gox leaving the customer behind. is the 4 sec delay implemented more to protect Bitcoinica from slippage exploits at the expense of the avg ethical user who should be able to use market orders when he feels necessary? edit: in regards to limit orders: correct me if i've made a mistake here. i may be misunderstanding something. Mushoz in his example above states the 4 sec rule "allows Bitcoinica to catch up to the market price" in the event of a spike thus preventing exploits. to me this means that a limit order @ the ask may not be executed 4 sec after i push the button if the ask on Bitcoinica is forced to update to a higher price. OTOH, Zhou has said they guarantee liquidity up to 50 BTC but with the 4 sec delay which implies that a limit order should be executed @ the original displayed ask after 4 sec no matter if there is a spike and a change in the ask as Bitcoinica catches up to gox. this appears to be an inconsistency. |
|
|
|
Probably lost his ass. lol
I gave bitcoin up but I've been watching it to see the behavior of a dying stock. I didn't look at it for about 4 weeks. then I saw it get back up to $4. I was like WTF?!
Then I checked everything out and it looks like mtgox, although basically a monopoly in bitcoin right now, looks to have gotten his shit together! He even took my suggestion about being a virtual bitcoin bank. I don't have to worry about messing with bitcoin or clients, I can send and receive funds to other users using a simple transfer from mtgox. Because of this, I think this currency has a whole new life ahead of it. I'm excited!
why would u think that it died? the sourcecode has never been hacked and the blockchain is intact. thats all that matters. gox is just a peripheral player. |
|
|
|
Thank you cypherdoc!
Seen oldminer around lately?
no, i haven't. alot of the old guys have disappeared and been replaced with new ones. probably died during the crash.  |
|
|
|
|
See, this is whats gonna drive us down to the Satoshi level. and that's neither a good nor a bad thing. it just is based on the fundamentals of demand usage.
Everyone else will be dealing in those units and the early adopters will be sitting pretty.
As i see it, this is where the real "Greatest Transfer of Wealth the World has ever Seen" is going to take place; not gold or silver.
|
|
|
|
Just woke up, and I totally called this rally from last night. You bears just got pwned!!!
Wish I knew who it was, I'd give them a BIG thank you. But, you know what? They made a safe investment this time. The price is going to hit $10 easily and they're going to make a quick $250,000, $500,000, or even a cool mill if they stay in the game that long. Another big thanks to MtGox for saving the entire bitcoin project. Without them, bitcoin wouldn't exist. Welcome Back, Genius Boy! |
|
|
|
By the way, in my opinion what he did should be called market manipulation and is criminal.
I though Zhou did a pretty good job with Bitcoinica, up until that point. I don't think I'll ever use it after that. Not that there was a high chance I would have used it anyway. Someone in his position should not be saying some of the things that were said, whether it was obvious to the market or not. I apologize for the words that shouldn't come from the mouth of a broker. I was too angry (or maybe excited) dealing with the flood of non-sense and unreasonable arguments. Really, it was beyond my logical control. Please do not take it as a market recommendation. I just wanted to tell everyone that I was not going to take advantage of the possibility, and anyone who did would be out of my responsibility. you know what? i'm tired of being nice to you just b/c you're a 17 yo kid. f*ck you prick! i've rooted out several valid problems with the way Bitcoinica functions. while i had to do some catching up with exactly how your service works b/c its so opaque, it turns out that most of my suspicions are real. and i would posit that NO ONE around here knew that your service could freeze up like this and prevent shorts and longs from covering or buying due to a red flag event. too bad your short clients will have to be liquidated. its either you or them who will take losses Zhou. who will you choose? the fact that you're constantly having to "revise" your algorithm is testament to this. the fact that i was able to jam your algorithm as up to 4.95 10d ago is fact, not fiction. you need to keep your mouth shut. I really appreciate your feedback. However, all the problems you pointed out had already been pointed out by someone else. All in all, just a few issues in recent month: - Transparency (pointed out by mjcmurfy, I already released the hedging volume data, and continue improving.) - The spike algorithm (pointed out by phantomcircuit with solid data support. I reversed all wrong trades and apologized to affected customers. Fixed the issue in 3 days. Plus I released a nice chart to show all history prices to be fully transparent. You pointed out this problem after everything has been fixed.) - Can't close position problem (pointed out by some customers, and further suggested by Mushoz. Fully fixed, plus some nice little features.) - My "recommendation" (I regret saying that, and I'm really sorry.) I feel sad that you felt that I was disrespectful to you. But really, there's almost no value to repeat others' valuable feedback and turn them to negative comments like angry complaints without being a customer at all. And removing all the repeating issues that you brought up, you had these original things to tell me: - Bitcoinica's business model is doomed. - Short selling is harmful. - cypherdoc never used Bitcoinica before. - Bitcoin leverage trading is like speculative derivative paper tower. - Bitcoinica is always losing money! These don't help me at all. We're a community that makes everyone better off. We need creative solutions and innovative ideas, not superficial complaints. Bitcoinica is a proven viable business and we have attracted a lot of interest from investor-like people. Bitcoinica believes in free market spirit and economic liberalization. Bitcoinica aims to push up the web-based development standard and professionalism of the whole community. No disrespect here. I'm always listening. You just have to make sure what you said actually made a difference rather than merely making someone upset. i suppose i have been too negative about Bitcoinica. most of it centers around philosophical issues more than fundamental issues with your service. for instance: i do believe that short selling should never have been implemented at such a young age in Bitcoin's evolution. i think its like letting your 5 yo smoke. you may not realize it's bad until 50 yrs later when he has lung cancer. i think it has been very detrimental to the btc price as well as to the economy as it generates a very negative sentiment. i also don't agree with the amount of leverage you're offering to customers. i'm not sure i agree with leverage at all given what we're trying to accomplish here with Bitcoin. while you may have algorithms in place to protect Bitcoinica, i think its asymmetric protection and doesn't protect your customers nearly as well. i understand that these are my own beliefs and that many others will disagree and that you are just offering a service that apparently has demand so in that sense i don't blame you. but i do think ppl are getting hurt; perhaps deservedly so as this is the market sorting things out. my other source of extreme pessimism comes from what i was able to do to your algorithm 10 days ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=55970.msg667447#msg667447and i'm just one guy. what happens to your customers when a larger more motivated competitor comes along? the fact that you have to keep adjusting the algorithm every time an issue comes up is concerning. it seems like you're always playing catch up and its costing someone money; either you or your customers. i'm just glad that the short selling didn't drive the Bitcoin economy off the cliff for good. now that we've made the turn back up i'll try to be a little more objective when it comes to Bitcoinica. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
