|
Appears so, this is really annoying ... but the funds are safe I hope.
|
|
|
|
Here's one of them, it has a poll and everything. Specifically, I'd recommend reading nanotube's post regarding iceberg style orders. The poll option to keep the dark pool but replace dark + normal orders with iceberg orders received the most votes. Of course, Mt Gox is not a democracy, but MagicalTux was obviously interested in what people thought about dark pools. I remember reading that MagicalTux was planning to implement iceberg style orders, but I can't remember in which thread(s) I might have read that. Also, if you're going to start a new discussion about this, please don't make up your own terminology. Currently there are three types of orders on Mt Gox: Thanks, that's very informative post there, the iceberg option indeed looks like the best one ... it is essentially the same as if someone set up a bot to place orders automatically for him and if someone is buying in bulk he can get past that order so no unfair advantage there. So is this going to be implemented? It would be good idea to disable dark+normal until it is ... it's really annoying, I can't trust the market data now. So please MagicalTux if you're reading this could you respond regarding what's the plan? Thank you ... |
|
|
|
I'm talking about people that have money to burn. And when they do....
Is this another version of "BUY BUY BUY NAO!11!!!1" ?  |
|
|
|
Were the other threads about this not good enough?
People place large orders visibly and are accused of rigging the market, people place them invisibly and are accused of rigging the market. Nobody is accusing anyone of rigging the market and nobody is talking about large visible orders, please do not conflate the issues. This is about preferential treatment of large traders ... if you allow invisible orders, well fine but then allow it for everybody regardless whether they deposit $10,000 or $100 ... what's the logic or justification to give some people advantage depending on how much they pay? Will more paying traders get faster access than all the others next to facilitate HFT for them? This isn't right ... everybody should be equal, if you allow advantages being given for money then you end up with market where the big guys just more often than not screw over the little guy. And the "little guy" is our target group because it includes merchants which are vital to Bitcoin success, stability and growth - why give them any more reasons to avoid Bitcoin economy? The market is what people are willing to pay, that's it. Letting people control what information they reveal is perfectly reasonable. Anyone anywhere any time can make trades without you even knowing about them. There is no good reason for MtGox to give up customers who want that. And even if he stops it, it doesn't help you. They just do it elsewhere or set up an automated service to add to their bid as needed.
That they just do it elsewhere or in other way is very weak argument - do you go rock climbing without a rope because you could die in a car wreak or in some other way anyway? No, that it could be done elsewhere is no excuse to let it happen here at Mt.Gox where most people trade, if somebody else makes such a market ... well, I'll just make sure I avoid it But considering Mt.Gox has pretty much a monopoly right now it is sensible to contact them about it and let them know that its user base does not appreciate preferential treatment of large traders over small ones and that if they do want to keep good reputation they should remedy it. It think that is very sensible approach ... and it seems so far that people do support it. Heck, almost half of people weren't even aware this was possible ... just as I wasn't until yesterday. |
|
|
|
Furthermore, if you're concerned about the questionable ethics of this hybrid dark pool... then what else do you think they're doing? Do you really want to trade on an exchange where your broker that's probably trading against you is also your data feed provider? Come on man. People need to open up their eyes and start demanding more transparency where it matters.
Precisely! For that reason I started a poll and if the results are favorable to get this changed, we're going to ask Mt'Gox to make the dark pool separate as it is in the interest of their community of traders. If people do not support that then I'll probably leave Mt.Gox as you say I should ... and if they refuse to change it even in the case of user base desiring that change then I would advice others to leave too as it says something about the owners ethics as you say - if they refuse to change even in the face of community wanting that change then what else would they be capable of doing? It's an issue of trust ... allowing preferential treatment for more money to be able to screw over the little guy doesn't seem to reinforce that trust too much The Poll: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16622.0 |
|
|
|
Hi guys, I do not know if you noticed but quite recently there was/is an invisible "dark pool" order in the $20 range that prevented regular orders as listed in the public depth table to proceed as listed and sucked up around 1,000BTC into a black hole. I made trading decisions based on the public depth table and this kind of behavior (that I wasn't even aware of until now) has thrown a wrench into it. I believe that invisible orders available only for the big players (more than $10,000 needed to place one) gives some people unfair advantage and misleads regular traders that causes them to make bad decisions based on intentionally incomplete information. I think that truly free market needs transparency and as accurate information as possible for the traders so they can make good market decisions - this behavior of the "dark pool" seem to go against that so I started this poll to see whether others agree that this in not an ideal situation and should be remedied by Mt.Gox if their user base thinks it should be remedied. My proposed solution is to allow invisible orders only inside the dark pool as it is commonly understood and practiced and keep them separate from the public market - not to let them "spill over" to the public market and distort publicly available trading information and mislead traders as it is now. If you think better solution exists please leave a comment Thanks a lot ... |
|
|
|
Honestly man, there are a half-million reasons to stay away from Mt.Gox and all these completely unregulated "exchanges". Of all those reasons, this one would be low on my list. Why worry about dark liquidity if you can't even first guarantee that your orders are being filled honestly or that your data feed is true?
The difference is, this we actually CAN change ... it's configurable and Mt.Gox can change it whenever they see that that's what its user base desires as opposed to the other things that you mention. So the only relevant thing is the will of the user base, does anybody actually believe having a dark liquidity is a good idea? I do not think so ... in true free market transparency and good information that stems from it is paramount so facilitate good decisions by traders. If you're in the dark, you're going to get burned sooner or later ... |
|
|
|
and theres nothing 'wrong' with it, its how they want to do buisness. As there is no regulation here, its perfectly valid. If you dont like it, take your bitcoins elsewhere :p
That's irrelevant ... I'm not judging whether it should be regulated or something, of course not - it's Bitcoin, duh! I'm judging whether it is right or wrong thing to do ... if they are unregulated and decide to just pack up and take all the money, would you similarly just wave your hands and say that they're not regulated and that's how they choose to do their business so it' ok? I think not ... The issue is that this is most likely a bad thing for Bitcoin market, it's adoption and reputation and if that's the case we should persuade Mt.Gox to change their darkpool service to remedy that, no? It's screwing up the market when you see an order for 10BTC, you buy 100BTC and it gets sucked up by an invisible black hole instead of fulfilling the orders as listed in the depth table ... what good is such a depth table then? This is because Mt.Gox is falsely advertising dark liquidity as a dark pool. A dark pool is an exchange separate from the public market where participants can trade without revealing trade size or identify. What Mt.Gox is actually doing is allowing dark liquidity, that is hidden orders traded through the public exchange. So, yes, this makes the market depth absolutely worthless and actually harmful if you're trading by it.
Exactly! So shouldn't we ask Mt.Gox as users to fix this? It gives unfair advantage to big traders - I hope that's not what Mt.Gox want to happen or to be known to facilitate ... otherwise small traders shouldn't be surprised when they get screwed over, it really is too risky to trade when there are such a hidden orders. |
|
|
|
as far as i'm aware, there is darkpool->darkpool trading, darkpool->public trading, and public->public trading
So darkpool orders get fulfilled through public orders then, right? Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? The depth table is totally useless in that case, you can never know where are invisible "walls" ... the darkpool is such a bad idea, good thing TradeHill doesn't have it, nobody else is bothered by this or do you think it's cool this way? I think it really screwes over a little guy and gives advantage to the big boys ... this is very bad for trading IMO |
|
|
|
So, the public depth table lists very few trade orders in the $20 range but I've seen transactions reported through websocket ( http://mtgoxlive.com/orders) that are in hundreds of bitcoins and the market doesn't get moved. So I'm asking, what the hell!? Are there "phantom" orders possible in the public trading section? Could it be drawn from dark pool even that the trade is placed in public market or do just dark pool trades reported through websockets? It's really confusing and if "phantom" orders are possible then also just wrong IMO, any experience with this kind of thing? |
|
|
|
|
This technique could be used right now to push the price from $21 to $23 just for around 700BTC ... you buy along the way, then wait a little at the $23 threshold and then sell, I think it's a pretty good way to make a decent profit. People are not selling under $23 now, so there is good chance they wouldn't after it rises to $23 ... if I would have the money on hand I would most likely do it, damn it!
|
|
|
|
I had no problems so far ... there are delays but it doesn't bother me yet  I'm trying other exchanges too, it's never a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket |
|
|
|
It's probably best to have a little bit in each exchange, you never know when the opportunity presents itself to take advantage of that |
|
|
|
|
I think we need more quality exchanges, Mt.Gox is good and well but no monopoly is a good thing ... there are enormous money in exchanges obviously, why nobody else creates kickass exchange I can not understand ... I'm trying the TradeHill, we'll see if it lives up to the challenge. In the meantime it's better to diversify ...
|
|
|
|
it's probably because not a lot of folks are there and no euro transfer so far, first adopters always enjoy some advantages |
|
|
|
I've seen people doing this ... if you've got a lot of cash you can move the price quite a bit and cash in on it, in one instance I saw someone buy for at least $40,000 which moved the price $5 upward, in current situation it could be moved to $25 this way - but it requires quite some cash which not a lot of people have, to be able do this kind of magic |
|
|
|
that happens to me too occasionally ... I find that logging out and in helps (edit: or maybe not  ) |
|
|
|
It's a security feature so all those transactions can not be traced and connected ... it's not a bug, it's a feature but you're right that there should be an option to disable or configure that behavior. |
|
|
|
yeah, I'm kind of surprised that people are not buying like crazy for these prices ... I'm ALL IN and rocking maybe they just don't have deposited funds like you say ... poor guys  |
|
|
|
If the market could be so easily manipulated, what's stopping say... the US Govt, or any other institution or organization that feels threatened by Bitcoin to undercut it's credibility with a relatively small campaign of market manipulation?
Well, this could be done ... but I think they would ultimaelly ended up loosing a shitload of money - pumping it into Bitcoin economy and the market would eventually overcome it. But they could wreak havoc short term in similar way the big guys are doing right now |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
