 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
|
The plan on the charts is to use Java, it looks like I forgot to mention that. We won't be using Flash.
The charts don't require someone to have the access that the API and other features mentioned do so we can get someone to work on it at the same time.
I can make a separate post asking for someone but I'm assuming this is going to be read and there are quite a few people that could do it.
Priorities are:
Security (always)
API (basically ready and testing it but want it to be secure obviously)
Modifying instant buy / sell to be more compatible with the API
Adding tickers
Math on buy/sell orders and showing balances etc
This is off the top of my head and I'm not coding so I can't say what other internal issues they are working on.
We're bringing a lot of people on board and spending time getting them up to speed currently.
Once they're up and running the changes should be coming quickly and we have a decent list of features we want to implement.
In regards to keeping user data intact that is paramount. If Mt Gox is going to continue to move forward and they make the changes needed
then we will support them. This isn't the same as saying "it's cool guys, no big deal". Larger companies have lost considerably more data and moved on.
Ultimately the users will decide. If people continue to send Dollars and Bitcoins to Mt Gox they will continue to operate. Regardless I don't imagine anyone
forgetting what happened anytime soon. If they open up again without taking the proper steps that is something else completely. It looks like they're doing the
right thing and time will tell.
Is instant buy/sell supposed to be a market order? I would think you'd have market and limit orders instead of just limit orders... |
|
|
|
So I was wondering, could one manipulate the market by using a very large, moving 'wall'? What I mean is, put a very large buy order below the current trading level. Then, other traders will move their bids up so they can buy; when they see your bid they assume the price will never get over the 'wall'. Then, if the price moves toward your bid you just cancel it and put a new 'wall' a bit lower. Would this pull the price down, without having to spend any money? Or would this just push the price upward? Or would it have no effect at all?
Have you ever watched the realtime market depth on a NASDAQ stock in a good L2 quote system? This stuff goes on constantly there. Computers keep big blocks of bids just below the real bid or just above the real ask... |
|
|
|
Give me any reason these socio-paths we've elected won't do this as they worsen everyone's economic situation?
Because they don't really care about this? |
|
|
|
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.
Cool, spent a week there once doing cold weather testing on the T6A... OK, way colder than cool.  |
|
|
|
Yeah.... I'm just argumentative today  . Thanks for being my target. You seem refeeshingly intelligent for these forums. Hopefully those with interests in keeping things the way they are don't slow things down too much. But I won't hold my breath. LOL, no problem at all. I'm pretty argumentative, too. I'm sure we could go for rounds on the details... |
|
|
|
I assume you mean economically safe since there are many people near me with unsafe levels of methane in their water near where I live due to natural gas fracking. A very large portion of people around here have no water lines and must rely on well water. And if you were referring to CST as exotic, there are several plants in operation already and more are being built.
Yes, I mean economically safe. Any yes, that's the process, a few people go out on a limb and build pilot plants (almost always with some sort of subsidy) and once things work out, more and larger plants are constructed utilizing the same technology. The thing is, people won't pour in the billions of dollars required without either a government safety net or a very strong financial model. I'm not saying you don't understand this, just clarifying my statement. |
|
|
|
Please remember the average power in the US per kw does NOT include additional fees and taxes. The state I live in has average costs, around the quoted 10c kw/hr. But by the time I get my bill a good 35% of additional fees are tacked on making my real costs closer to 14c kw/hr than 10. And that is not even including all the above real, non-trivial additional costs.
To the above laundry list of costs I'd like to add the labor cost to set up and maintain the mining gear. But while that reflects true cost of BTC the original title is all about the power cost. I'd say .7 is way too low, I'm planning using $2.5/btc and expecting to up that to $3 come next Tuesday, possibly $5 for the next difficulty jump. I don't think we'll see $9/BTC in power costs for a very, very long time.
Also realize that power costs vary significantly based on when you use your power. Home users typically pay lower rates in regulated markets because they're assumed to use their power off-peak, while businesses pay high rates due to the expectation of peak hour usage. Interestingly, for the "can't your just fill those deserts with solar panels" post, solar generation still doesn't really pay without significant subsidization from the government. The payout on a panel using reasonable discount rate ALMOST works if you lie to yourself about it with the subsidies currently being offered in the US. You know what else doesn't work without massive subsidies? Digging up and burning coal. Yet that's where about half the power in the US comes from. If all subsidies were eliminated, there would be many viable options that don't involve fossil fuels. Look up Coal River Mountain in West Virginia. In order to avoid mountaintop removal mining, some people put together a proposal for a wind farm on the mountain. It has some of the strongest, most consistent winds in this country. The government would have received 1.7 million a year for the use of the land, and it would produce more energy at a lower cost than mining and burning the coal. The coal company won out even though they only have to pay 36k a year to destroy the mountain. All our state politicians are corrupt. Wind was better all around, but the coal industry controls nearly all campaign funding. Really not the point of my post. I'm not a strong proponent of utilizing fossil fuels, either, but they're largely a better solution than photovoltaic cells right now. Putting some subsidies out there to drive technology is a good thing, because it keeps people investing in R&D, so I'm not against the subsidies, but suggesting that building enough PV generation to supply power for large populations with the current state of the technology is off-base. I can agree with that. There are currently much better ways to do solar than PV panels. Maybe one day, but we don't have it figured out yet. A shitload of mirrors and a tower painted black with molten salt to transport the heat is much more efficient, and actually economical even in the fucked up political environment here in the states (in areas with enough sun). I have no idea about Australia though. The key thing is that you can't change things overnight. Significant capital has been spent on our existing infrastructure and it's already bursting at the seams, so none of it is going offline anytime soon. Things that provide obvious ROI will be done, things that are marginal will be done with some amount of subsidy, but mostly things that are safe will be done, which is why natural gas generation is almost the only thing that's been built significantly for some time. Wind is the next most logical thing (with subsidies). Other novel approaches will take someone leading the way and betting a lot of capital before they're widely adopted. |
|
|
|
Please remember the average power in the US per kw does NOT include additional fees and taxes. The state I live in has average costs, around the quoted 10c kw/hr. But by the time I get my bill a good 35% of additional fees are tacked on making my real costs closer to 14c kw/hr than 10. And that is not even including all the above real, non-trivial additional costs.
To the above laundry list of costs I'd like to add the labor cost to set up and maintain the mining gear. But while that reflects true cost of BTC the original title is all about the power cost. I'd say .7 is way too low, I'm planning using $2.5/btc and expecting to up that to $3 come next Tuesday, possibly $5 for the next difficulty jump. I don't think we'll see $9/BTC in power costs for a very, very long time.
Also realize that power costs vary significantly based on when you use your power. Home users typically pay lower rates in regulated markets because they're assumed to use their power off-peak, while businesses pay high rates due to the expectation of peak hour usage. Interestingly, for the "can't your just fill those deserts with solar panels" post, solar generation still doesn't really pay without significant subsidization from the government. The payout on a panel using reasonable discount rate ALMOST works if you lie to yourself about it with the subsidies currently being offered in the US. You know what else doesn't work without massive subsidies? Digging up and burning coal. Yet that's where about half the power in the US comes from. If all subsidies were eliminated, there would be many viable options that don't involve fossil fuels. Look up Coal River Mountain in West Virginia. In order to avoid mountaintop removal mining, some people put together a proposal for a wind farm on the mountain. It has some of the strongest, most consistent winds in this country. The government would have received 1.7 million a year for the use of the land, and it would produce more energy at a lower cost than mining and burning the coal. The coal company won out even though they only have to pay 36k a year to destroy the mountain. All our state politicians are corrupt. Wind was better all around, but the coal industry controls nearly all campaign funding. Really not the point of my post. I'm not a strong proponent of utilizing fossil fuels, either, but they're largely a better solution than photovoltaic cells right now. Putting some subsidies out there to drive technology is a good thing, because it keeps people investing in R&D, so I'm not against the subsidies, but suggesting that building enough PV generation to supply power for large populations with the current state of the technology is off-base. |
|
|
|
We know botnets can get really big if they're run by clever people. The question I have is, if someone creates a clever botnet and turns it on once mining has become unattractive financially to those who pay their own electric bills, isn't getting over 50% pretty feasible?
If a botnet guy would get over 50% network power (which I found unfeasible since machines with decent GPU performance are usually not in the hands of computer illiterate people), they would already make so much money off it that they wouldn't even need to cheat. 1000 btc roughly every 2 weeks, that's between 10k - 20k USD depending on how the price will move after mtgox reopens. Lots of Dells and Apples and HP's used by average Joe's have Radeon 5xxx and 6xxx cards in them, but I think you missed my point. I'm thinking of 6 months from now when, if BTC doesn't appreciate significantly, mining won't pay for the electricity required to do it. At that point, if the computational growth from legitimate miners slows or goes negative, and mining becomes mostly a botnet business, those same folks will have the power to turn BTC upside down at will. I'm not saying that they're want to or that they could profit from it, but it's a real possibility. |
|
|
|
Please remember the average power in the US per kw does NOT include additional fees and taxes. The state I live in has average costs, around the quoted 10c kw/hr. But by the time I get my bill a good 35% of additional fees are tacked on making my real costs closer to 14c kw/hr than 10. And that is not even including all the above real, non-trivial additional costs.
To the above laundry list of costs I'd like to add the labor cost to set up and maintain the mining gear. But while that reflects true cost of BTC the original title is all about the power cost. I'd say .7 is way too low, I'm planning using $2.5/btc and expecting to up that to $3 come next Tuesday, possibly $5 for the next difficulty jump. I don't think we'll see $9/BTC in power costs for a very, very long time.
Also realize that power costs vary significantly based on when you use your power. Home users typically pay lower rates in regulated markets because they're assumed to use their power off-peak, while businesses pay high rates due to the expectation of peak hour usage. Interestingly, for the "can't your just fill those deserts with solar panels" post, solar generation still doesn't really pay without significant subsidization from the government. The payout on a panel using reasonable discount rate ALMOST works if you lie to yourself about it with the subsidies currently being offered in the US. |
|
|
|
Yeah, what I meant was "How is that an attack on 'the bitcoin net'"? It's not.
In theory, if a single botnet/coalition of botnets gained over 50% of the network, they could start double spending. Otherwise, they are just hardening the block chain. We know botnets can get really big if they're run by clever people. The question I have is, if someone creates a clever botnet and turns it on once mining has become unattractive financially to those who pay their own electric bills, isn't getting over 50% pretty feasible? |
|
|
|
|
Also, I love MHash/J, not a unit the measure I would have used even though it makes perfect sense. I probably would have left it MHash/s per W since those are the units people are used to thinking in (this is the same as MHash/J as the /s cancels).
|
|
|
|
|
Am I the only one who thinks it's funny/strange that he went through all the trouble of publishing this data instead of just acting on it and eliminating the arbitrage opportunities himself?
|
|
|
|
|
Not really a huge selloff yet considering the thinner market at Tradehill...
|
|
|
|
lots of entertaining and true stuff
Besides, if you were that well educated, you'd probably already know that day trading is either grinding out pennies on the cycle, or just plain gambling, but it's not investing.
Great answer, summed up best in the last sentence. |
|
|
|
LOL, OK. FYI, the transaction was just .1 BTC, which should be above the mandatory fee threshold, as I understand it. That's why I was head scratching. Going to read up a little... |
|
|
|
|
Everyone says be super careful with paypal...
|
|
|
|
|
Just got this:
"This transaction is over the size limit. You can still send it for a fee of 0.0005, which goes to the nodes that process your transaction and helps to support the network. Do you want to pay the fee?"
Does this mean that the per block transaction limit on one of my bitcoins has been exceeded?
|
|
|
|
wheres the best place too trade In GBP? no-one seems too want too sell too me on here, and all other sites iv found only do USD, or should i convert into USD and do it like that?
It seems that most of the sites don't have integrated currency conversion in their marketplace, and I believe USD is the most liquid, and perhaps EUR after that? |
|
|
|
|
