i guess i polluted this thread to the pt where Zhou has left  |
|
|
|
It wouldn't be that hard, true, but it would be very risky. The difficulty lies not in the execution, but in the fact that none of us here has the capital required in order to do it - or else we wouldn't be complaining about it in public.
hey, speak for yourself  |
|
|
|
I know "smart" is in scary quotes here, but we, as a community, are not any smarter than the general populace. Calling them meatheads is hardly appropriate when half the board can't comprehend simple speeling, sYntax, grammars and: punctuation.
I hope people realize I was being deliberately flippant with my 'meathead' comment. And I was referring to 'non techie traders' (i.e professional traders) as meatheads, not the general population. I.e. the stereotypical wall street 'meathead' who thinks that the world can be plotted neatly on a graph and that reality is nothing more than a trivial nuisance. Or did you mean by your post that 'meathead' was not strong enough of an adjective? Hehe. I'm not quite sure. heh, i resent this too! |
|
|
|
Then you would have lost a lot of money creating a sizable spike, would you not?
Those pesky spreads would widen like like his eyes when he realized that he wasn't able to exit at anywhere near the price he had spiked it to. Shucks. But actually, this worries me a lot. If he was somehow able to prevent the reflex movement by continuing to buy/sell, the spreads might indeed stabilize at an exit point that would be quite profitable for him. in an uptrending market like we have now, that wouldn't be hard. |
|
|
|
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. what if the spike comes at exactly 4 sec after the customer pushes his button? what if a series of ramps occur? i know, i know; he says he only executes 50 BTC at a time but in his explanation above he says 50, 100, sometimes 150 BTC. which is it? If the spike comes exactly 4 seconds after order placement, we can be sure that the customer was not intending to exploit the spike because no one actually knew. So it can be 0, or 50. 100 and 150 are possibilities when multiple customers place order at the same time, and it's extremely rare. what if i'm the one who pushes the button on Bitcoinica, counts off 4 sec, and pushes the button on mtgox creating the spike? Then you would have lost a lot of money creating a sizable spike, would you not? not if at a given pt in time both gox and bitcoinica have respective asks say @ $4 and $4.10 due to low activity in the market. example: i have accts at both gox and bitcoinica. i push the buy button at bitcoinica to buy say 100 btc, count off 4 sec to secure the buy @ $4.10, then push the mtgox buy button to buy whatever it takes to create a spike to $4.5 before bitcoinica has a chance to hedge @ $4. once bitcoinica adjusts its bid to say $4.4 i then sell those same 100 btc on bitcoinica for $4.4 |
|
|
|
A second bubble will not occur any time soon. All those people who have taken losses on the way down are waiting to sell in order to recoup some of their starting capital. There will be far too much selling pressure on the way up this time for a bubble to form, there was nobody in a losing position the first time around to dampen the spike.
I wouldn't worry about it.
au contraire. most of the large geek holders of btc already coughed up all their btc on the way down not understanding the fundamental dynamics of what they had created. these have now moved into more strategic non techie investors who will not be shaken out of their positions easily on the way up. |
|
|
|
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. what if the spike comes at exactly 4 sec after the customer pushes his button? what if a series of ramps occur? i know, i know; he says he only executes 50 BTC at a time but in his explanation above he says 50, 100, sometimes 150 BTC. which is it? If the spike comes exactly 4 seconds after order placement, we can be sure that the customer was not intending to exploit the spike because no one actually knew. So it can be 0, or 50. 100 and 150 are possibilities when multiple customers place order at the same time, and it's extremely rare. what if i'm the one who pushes the button on Bitcoinica, counts off 4 sec, and pushes the button on mtgox creating the spike? |
|
|
|
Last day of half price trading!
better get in now! |
|
|
|
now thats the panerai i know! |
|
|
|
don't worry, Zhou stands ready to change his algorithm at a moments notice... [/quote] hard on for the guy huh? [/quote] OMG, real words! |
|
|
|
The end of the wedge is nigh! This is suspenseful  I love the top two threads right now. One of them was created by you on the 24th and in it you predict a correction down to $2.5-3 in 1-2 weeks from the date of your post . The other was created by you today and in it you predict a continuation of the rally to $4.6-5 in the next day or so. Anyway, I hope you're right. The juxtaposition is striking, but opinion can swing as wildly as the price in bitcoin world. I wouldn't hold it against ineedausername. If i might ask though, what did change your mind on this INAU? Was it anything tangible, or just you solidifying a position? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested. I as well. Do elaborate INAU, please. I thought there would be a correction, but the price has failed to plunge through the strong supports like I originally thought it would. Instead, it went and created a bullish wedge. Additionally, I went and looked at the weekly chart for a bit, and observed that the weekly MACD would cross over this week, which is obviously a strong long-term bullish signal. tl;dr: I thought the price would spike down, but it failed to do so, confirming the support and the rally. I'm a bit surprised it took you guys so long to see this juxtaposition It really shows how the Bitcoin markets work; they're volatile and unpredictable, which means that if you hold a strong opinion one day, you must be ready to change it at a moment's notice. don't worry, Zhou stands ready to change his algorithm at a moments notice... |
|
|
|
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. what if the spike comes at exactly 4 sec after the customer pushes his button? what if a series of ramps occur? i know, i know; he says he only executes 50 BTC at a time but in his explanation above he says 50, 100, sometimes 150 BTC. which is it? |
|
|
|
The only thing in nature that grows exponentially is cancer. Keep that in mind.
c'mon, lighten up. this is the Spec forum. can't i engage in a little fear mongering? |
|
|
|
I bought at $2.20, and sold again at $4.30. I was more than happy for someone else to take it from there. 95% profit. Wishing for >100% would just be greedy. Whoever bought those coins off me for $4.30, I apologize. but now you're in a quandary; the price hasn't tanked like you hoped it would. we're only 7 cents below what you sold at and your tension is palpable. who knows what your target was. $3, $2.5, only you know. if it goes to $5 tonite while you're sleeping, then $8, then $12, and on up to parity with gold somewhere around $1000, i think he'll be apologizing to you.  |
|
|
|
nothings ever right more than once.
2+2=4 Hyperbole is never correct . ...when it comes to markets. |
|
|
|
Never
Why are we the only ones saying this... seriously. I can't believe people really think it'll go back to $2 after all that's happened. i truly think that Bitcoinica's short selling capabilities introduced in September caused an overshoot to the downside below the level of profitability for miners. we had a classic double bottom or triple bottom depending on how you read the charts. the strong rebound off $2 is telling you (or me at least) we will never go back there. This, and the fact that there weren't many bids. People didn't know when it would stop, so the $$$ in Gox just sat on the sidelines, which in turn allowed the price to fall farther. yes, a spiral down. question is; did all the short selling cause the bids to dry up? Here's the problem with the BTC value: it's driven mostly by geeks with a few large holders of BTC. If any of those get spooked and decide to start selling, it can result in a panic sell that leaves us back in the $2 range. I don't see $2 happening any time soon, but then I also didn't see $4+ coming again, certainly not before 2012. It happened once, and all it will take is a similar set of circumstances and it can (and probably will -- several times) happen again. People talk about fundamentals and such, but the people I know who are really into technology all think Bitcoin is a joke. "Okay, cool, a cryptocurrency" they say, "but what can I do with it?" As someone else pointed out in a different thread, the people putting money into Bitcoin are just transferring their money to the miners who are selling it off to pay for hardware/electricity. The idea that BTC is somehow going to become mainstream, or take over regular currencies, or whatever... no, I just don't see it. My feeling based on recent history is that BTC value is tied pretty closely to fiat values and the stock market. When those do well, BTC will trend up; if they do poorly, it goes down. Sure, there are exceptions, but I think there are people waiting for the new year before they do any serious investing -- they don't want to blow a bonus right at the end of the year, so they play it conservative, in stocks as well as in BTC. I expect one way or the other, things will get a little chaotic around Jan 2. Are we going up or down, that's the real question. I'm inclined to say down. But the great thing is that if you naysayers are right, I don't have to pay out! ;-) you hit it right on the head; its the tech guys who don't know anything about economics who think Bitcoin is a joke. they don't appreciate what they've invented. successful boomers like me who are non-tech who've studied Austrian economics for many years and bought gold and silver back in 2005 are the ones who are going to drive this rocket ship up as more widespread appreciation of the technology becomes apparent. it took me only one weekend to understand what i was looking at and i started selling my gold and silver in the Spring and top ticked the market perfectly. now you've got other pm guys like Max Keiser and Robert Prechter and his son, BrightAnarchist all over this thing. silver bull David Morgan follows my blog on Twitter and he is a long term silver bull analyst. this is slipping away from you right under your nose. +1; The way I'm seeing it, bitcoin (and possibly other cryptocurrencies) will have money poured into it at a rate that is inversely proportional to the rate at which stocks and other traditional assets fail... And that failure is already happening. There will be no other alternative for investment. If stocks and other assets fail, why should Bitcoin be safe? It's not like you can actually store your Bitcoins separate from the network; if that were ever compromised, your digital currency is worth less than fiat, because at least you can burn fiat. Bitcoin seems more like the pre-2001 dot com bubble, and at some point it's likely to burst until/unless it's backed up by more than geeks with computers and Internet access. Just my two cents, naturally. well thats just it. the Internet will never be compromised. after all, it was built to withstand nuclear attacks was it not? and look how successful Egypt was at shutting down its Internet. the banksters were the ones crying Uncle while it was down. they couldn't shovel their money around behind their citizens backs w/o it. Bitcoin is the newest, most undervalued asset out there and the way i see it, the most protected from confiscation and inflation. |
|
|
|
Here, I found it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_volume_indexDysart’s theory, expressed in his 1967 Barron's article, was that “if volume advances and prices move up or down in accordance [with volume], the move is assumed to be a good movement - if it is sustained when the volume subsides.” In other words, after prices have moved up on positive volume days, "if prices stay up when the volume subsides for a number of days, we can say that such a move is 'good'." If the market “holds its own on negative volume days after advancing on positive volume, the market is in a strong position.”  Is this right? nothings ever right more than once... |
|
|
|
What if the price moved down but not enough to force any liquidations and the longs stood firm. At that point, he would not have enough reserves.
wouldn't this just be a "paper loss" since the shorts couldn't cover their positions despite being in a profitable position? Exactly... Screen says I'm winning, and my call was correct but I can't take my profits. Worse yet, I can't get those profits until a long takes a loss or it moves far enough to force such. *no I wasn't really short* you were smart to vacate Bitcoinica... |
|
|
|
I've been reading a bit on technical indicators. Is it not a bull signal when price increases with falling volume? I do not remember the specific indicator; if anyone could help me out I'd appreciate it.
the Dow rose 110% btwn 3/09 and 5/11 on decreasing, low volume. it was one of the most amazing rallies i've ever seen of course driven by QE 1&2. We're about to get QE3 soon. |
|
|
|
"I promise to buy @ $2, I promise to buy @ $2."  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
