How exactly does one lend money to a bank in China? (I'm in the US)
Start your favourite stock exchange software, type to invest in a virtual company whose code is 204004, the money will be back in your account in 4 days. This money, is lent to any bank who offers the rate of that time, but you are not told which bank has this money. 204028 lends the money for 28 days. There are half a dozen such 'virtual companies'. There is no advertisement or explanation on neither stock exchange agent's website nor in the software, only if you know the code, you can lend the money, anyone who can buy stock option can do so. A lot are doing this. |
|
|
|
This post is fascinating, thank you. What can we do, if anything, to help encourage China to allow Bitcoin?
Good question! Due to culture gap advocation from the west won't work at the moment. I have an easy idea. I wasn't bold enough to say that until asked. But that idea require a technical mind to implement: Invent a software solution so that people can trade bitcoin in p2p style. One buys bitcoin by sending real cash to another who owns it. In short make everybody (or a lot of people) to be gateways, and remove centralized trading platform like BTCChina, thus keep bitcoin community active during the hard time to come. This involve challanges, like how to verify the transaction outside of bitcoin network, but since there are people so smart to invent bitcoin itself, why not further? I heard ripple is doing this, but 1) they haven't finish this feature yet (am I outdated?) and we need it now; 2) they are not doing it with anti-scrutiny in mind. China outlawed gambling, and southern Chinese love gambling, we already have online underground gambling network working for years with large amount of small players in it, and these networks are 'left to live'. China has not outlawed trading bitcoin yet (only docile mediums decided to stay away) thus p2p trading isn't even outlaw by now. Even when they do, you cannot capture and fine everyone with a small offense like selling a coin. China is expected to have hard time in the long run, perhaps starting with real estate bubble burst: at best it became a country of slow growth like U.S., and at worst, huge devaluation of CNY, hopefully without large job-lose, because that may trigger a war with Jap (devaluation of CNY and a war with Jap is also related). If anyone holding bitcoin asset kept its value, like anyone who own a house do in China now, others think why don't they do the same. When a lot of people are holding bitcoin, exchanging to fiat cash just for purchase, people then start to think "why don't I buy with bitcoin if most of my asset is already bitcoin", and then bitcoin can function as a currency. This conclusion (only when a lot of your asset is bitcoin then you want to mainly spend without exchange) is also true in other parts of the world, but you must keep the trading active to reach there. |
|
|
|
What will the government do to bitcoin?Short answer: it will not declare a war against bitcoin but cripple bitcoin operations in China. The recent 31st Jan ban is resulted in a typical Chinese way, a funny way to many of you. As reported in Chinese (source forgotten), the central bank organized a meeting with online financial service providers, and say: "we (and the government - central bank belongs to the government here) are concerned, please tell us what you are going to do to make sure our bosses are not worried' and the result is the 31th Jan ban. It is like a result of a negotiation, but unlike business negotions where people reach agreement through compromise, this one is a competition of obiedience, of willingly doing something without having to be ordered so, of good understanding of the government's intention. And what is government's intention? The government representatives perhaps had no intention from their bosses at all, except that they should see players docile (and they did). They want players evaluate the situation and do the right thing, despite they lack the knowledge of what is the right thing to do. Taobao's ban of 'anything related to bitcoin' was not required - Central Bank's opinion hasn't changed from considering bitcoin a tradable commodity yet - but a powerful man like Ma Yun wouldn't run away from this little docility contest, knowing the government reward most-docile players with a listening ear and free hand. So no itention of our government is revealed through the meeting, only the intention of online e-commerce players are revealed: they intend to follow the no-ideaness of the government. Although we do not know the government's intenion at the moment, it is more or less predictable in the future. Our government is not skillful at deliverying the right message to financial market. Its messasge towards bitcoin is now mis-interprated as "strong opression", like it was mis-interprated before. The market follows and shifted away from bitcoin. This has the effect of driving away the good money (bitcoin) and introducing the bad money (Chinese imitation coins, see my last post). Following the crash of a few bad moneies, the government identify crypto-currency as weed ('weed' is used in my other post, read it for culture background), and strongly oppress it. But, gov't won't declear a total war against Bitcoin - by listing something as enemy and not being able to crash it, goverment risk losing authority, and our government isn't sure about this "enimy" yet - when they do, they find it difficult to kill an idea. Anything that makes it insignificant, e.g. crippling the trade or forcing it into black market, would be their choice of action. Bobby Lee of BTC China is trying two things. First is to stablize the market to buy some time for the government to make their decision (when the government is probably not least concerned with that!), and second is to do everything appear docile, hopefully more docile than online e-commerce companies, by self-regulating without regulation rules: "we are not bad seeds, let us grow, we will show that we are not weed". He for example introduced liquidity rebate for both purposes. He won't be successful on the first goal, because Huobi and dozens of Chinese-imitation-coins are doing the opposite, using the opportunity to take turf and keep it burning high (huobi means "fire coin"). He probably will achieve the second goal, and he hopes huobi's odorous marketing becames its bane, bad enough to make huobi insignificant but not that bad to beget a procrustean rule that cuts himself too. So when will the government make a new decision? It probably is made. Recent news towards bitcoin are hasherer and hasher, as 5th Dec ban interpreated each time stricter than before. This often happen when a higher leader makes a different decision. I am not sure if it is easy to understand for western audience, so I will go through the trouble this time and explain with an mini drama I just improvised: Improvised mini-drama
Officer: You can take the poverty data for your study, once you have a result, let us know, we want to have such academic output to our knowledge.
Poverty Researcher: Yes.
Another day;
Researcher: The data was missing for the last a few years. Can I get it?
Officer: I cannot give you any more data, because as I said, you can have limited data for your study.
Researcher: But yesterday you said I can take the poverty data.
Offier: Yes, I said you can take 'THE' proverty data, which is what I gave you already.
Another day;
Officer: I must explain that you are not allowed to publish your finding.
Researcher: Why?
Officer: The data is within the poverty management office, so is the result. I explained this in the very first time you asked for it, that we want the result. We will decide if we publish it. I informed your research institution that this project is strictly within our office and they replied they will follow whatever rules and regulation that we improvise.
Another day;
Officer: I am sorry to let you know, the data is fake.
Researcher: What???
Officcer: You heard it right. It was collected by an officer who is no longer on the post. His method have faults and we ordered the survey to be redone in the same years. What you have is the first batch of data, and we cannot offer you the correct data. As I well-explained the first time you asked for the data, I am not authorized to release any data I am managing. I cannot do anything more and this project ceases.
What really happened is each time a higher level offier came and rewrite the decision, but that higher level officier decided not to meet you in person. You may think it is a joke if it is put on TV news, but I was having fun for lots of years watching ths drama from TV News channel. For a news reader with good memory, news reading is rather entertaining. So is the same thing happening? Is the current news brooding a new decision that overwrites the previous one? I am speculating by saying yes, but even if it is not, it merely put more time between now and a disappointing new government action.
|
|
|
|
Answer to “Who are trading bitcoin in China” and “What will Chinese government do” China probably got more attention than it deserves. Jan 7th's crash has nothing to do with China when many eyes are looking at China. I came to get used to some of the impatient audience here. For them I prepared a one line short answer right after each question. Who are trading bitcoin in China?Short answer: no one, i.e. zero percent of population. (It's China.) I was online for a few days on my 3 subscribed bitcoin-QQ groups and there are very few discussion about bitcoins, except messages from vendors and platforms. Noisy as before, but topic changed. Everyone are talking about alternative crypto-currencies, dozens of them, much of these Chinese imitations without an English website on their own. This article provided honest information and no apparent mis-interpretation - considering the culture gap it is an unusal quality for English articles: What’s really going on in the Chinese Bitcoin communityThis article answered well about the diversity of the traders. For the majority, the article says they are "opportunistic investors who have no ideological ties to Bitcoin and whose technical understanding of the currency is fuzzy at best". It is easy to understand why the Chinese imitations look no different to the eyes of these traders: they have neither the ideologe tie nor the technical understanding of the difference. And since the government is opressing bitcoin, the imitations are more attractive now. Many created the same myth like bitcoin created the early days, but are just pyramid schemes with new names. This majority group used to be the vocal one on QQ and they likely influnced the world for a month or two. Without them China is not not be the most influnential market. They are leaving. I didn't do any data research to verify if the trade volume reduction match the change of topic forum/QQ topic, but in case these group are still holding, perhaps because they bought at 1000USD, then you want to have some description of this group. Here are some beyond the rich detail offered in above-mentioned TechInAsia article. They are youngsters of working class (age<35) with grudge against society (but no anger, just sad miserable powerless grudge, unlike the combination of anger and grudge that is often seen in news reports about the western world). The popular idea: a living is made by hard working, and a fate by opportunity. The generation before them, could simply buy a house witfh loan, and profit 10 times than the loan itself, as real estate price rises (some call it bubble); the generation even before them, was living in communism hence has no wealth to worry about. This generation got nothing. The reality is that you don't have a hope of buying a local house if you are a Beijing working class (purchase-rent-rate is 1000 times in many corners). Individual is powerless when they face the society. They are in denial stage, believing their time would come, if they are bold enough to capture the opportunity that was RIGHTFULLY theirs - bitcoin fills in, but other schemes can do too. That's not a picture of all Chinese: certainly there are Chinese who believe in honest money but they didn't buy bitcoin. They are also emotional. Let me improvise a typical paragraph that may come from a trader: "Mom is worried, 'cos the news says bad things. I told her not to. We will see the good days; we will by a flat in Beijing like the rich guys do. My father will be able to rest in peace knowing we are not in poverty. When we visit dad's tomb next year he will be so proud, because by that time (the price of a coin) will be 10000. It will. It has to, because I firmly believe." If you think Chinese won the world stupitility competition, then you haven't read "Money Game" (Smith Adam) and "Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds". All ethic groups are doing fine in the competition. (I personally think this question is not as important as the next one, of how the government would act.) |
|
|
|
You are a very smart man but I mostly admire your patience in waiting for a dip. I tried to wait but I can't stop buying.
It (can't stopy buying) perhaps is not unwise. We will see. At the moment panic sell risks higher than panic buy. "Buy in panic, sell in peace" may still be a good strategy. |
|
|
|
I have been bearish since the last crash rationalising my coldness on Bitcoin with this China thing still needing to be played out but events have proven that my attitude has forced me to miss out on almost 100% profits to date (I did actually have heavy buy-ins triggered at ~$540). I have traded the rise here and there, turning a small slice of profit as things have went, give or take the odd stint if idiotic profit raping panic selling. The thing that is knawing at me, is do I buy in now all the same in the hope that the whole China thing will somehow be gleaned over, and that Bitcoin can look forward to its otherwise admittedly bright looking future, or do I do the thing that common sense seems to be yelling at me and stay the fuck out until China is done and dusted.
I am not so sure. I feel that in China the gloomy outlook has been built in the current price and those who would quit has done so. As I do scrapping, I always keep half of my hand in coins and half in cash, thus if it really go down I would still leverage the opportunity. |
|
|
|
Interesting stuff, keep up informing us. You guys certainly encouraged me by acknowledging the information is useful and fills the gap, and by tipping me. However the last sleepless night has costed my health, weakened me, and I was in fever the days following. Can't expect frequent posts from me. One thing I find fascinating is the idea that the govt has the best interests of China as a whole in mind. He is speaking of loyalty to China's leadership. Nagle is correct. Living in China and never been to an English speaking country, I thought by saying loyalty everyone already knows what it means. This word Loyalty was turning into a negative word in China (meaning: defend position in a coterie by hurting everyone outside, think of Mafia for example) and I (mistakenly) took it that the rest of the world think so too. A lesson for me to watch for culture shock. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain some fairly complex structures of Chinese market. This is an interesting view which helps me fill in a lot of details. I'm also interested in what kind of people are currently interested in Bitcoin, like T.Stuart was asking?
I will answer that in a separate post. It is a topic of its own, and a bit lengthy. But I may fail it, for I am no longer rich in my time. |
|
|
|
I think much is lost in translation here and the author would struggle to find fitting terms in English regardless of his ability in the language...
....I guess dignity, respectful for tradition, honourably, etc etc.
You guessed it right. I meant Loyalty and I misspelled it Royalty. Many Chinese pronounce R and L rather alike and they write it alike. I corrected my post with a search and replace. And Loyalty is "loyalty to the party" (sometimes colorfully reworded as "royalty to the people" - that expression used to be "formality red", now is "rehorical pink" color). I have added an Edit Note in the text. |
|
|
|
|
In the previous posts I correctly predicted China government's attitude towards Bitcoin, and the month-long spike of Chinese bitcoin price. I also warned against China-lead crash. I haven't posted anything for about 2 months since, for my hands are full.
I will first list a few outlandish view points of Chinese market popular on this forum.
Myth: Money moves power in China. In the end money decides.
Reality: Power moves money. If you are responsible for something big, there are times you have to make a choice, to choose between profit and loyalty. In the end loyalty is the bright choice, profit is the gloomy choice that begins your downward career. If you make the wrong choice, not only you have to acknowledge failures, but you need to acknowledge it willingly and faithfully, because that behaviour is loyal. I often wonder why many westenrs are readily willing to accept a theory if that theory involves money powered political decisions - which does happen but are not mainstream here. In the bitcoin game, the financial institutes, even the ones not owned by our government, will face the choice and their decision is predictable. If some financial insitutes allows bitcoin to live (like huobi's case), it is because their time of choice hasn't come, not because they chose differently.
Myth: Chinese citizens won't be able to withdraw cash from bitcoin platforms.
Reality: Time and time again I see westerns and western-educated Chinese trying to read the sense out of paper notificcations. The correct method is to understand the ruler's intention, not the ruler's order. Doing what the order says only garantee you are not punished for disobeying that particular order. One of the intention of the ban is to prevent social unrest, the less noisy the better. Banning withdraw is going to create unwanted outcry which defeats the purpose of the 5th Dec ban, further more it unnecessarily creates a confrontation between government and traders (before was trader<-> platforms). Once you see the intenion, you know withdraw will be allowed, if not enforced. Most likely withdraw will be through the banks for better records.
A short culture background info on loyalty vs regulation:
Regulation = if you go aginst the rule, you will be punished. Undersand the intention of the rule. You are rewarded by wining the game following the rule.
Loyalty = I can punsih you any time, from a database of regulations, or without any regulation (like how Apple is punished). Understand the intention of the ruler. I will reward you.
(Edit: In China that I is the party.)
Myth: Motivation is for Chinese government to prevent outflow of CNY.
Reality: If you think along that line, you may misjudge and predict that regulation will replace the ban. Bitcoin creates 3 problems: 1) an example of ignorance of central power; 2) a possibility of social unrest at the market crash; 3) outflow and money lundry. Of these three the last is the least important (it is still important but least) and a more sounding reason. Our government wishes by sheer authority the market can cool down. I think if it is cooled down, it will be allowed to exist, otherwise it will be harshly killed.
Myth: Like Hong Kong, Shanghai Free Trade Zone respects rules
Reality: Hong Kong maintained its system because people defend it as a bottom line: it is not rules that worked, it is people that worked (to defend rules). Our government never liked that HK culture but cannot simply chop it. There is no similiar culture background in Shanghai. Shanghai Free Trade Zone is where various new things are allowed to live longer so that the government can see what kind of fruit it begets, which one benifits, which one isn't, and select what they want; chop off unwanted - like Special Economic Zone we had before. Hong Kong is a free trade zone, Shanghai Free Trade Zone is a controlled experiment. Like all experiment, you the bad seed are allowed to live longer because you are more closely watched. When they feels certain that your bad seed is weed, they won't let it grow.
Now the current situation:
The sentiment after 89' is that if government want to destory an enemy inside China, it will be done (unless it is too abstract to kill, like, an idea). Not everyone agrees, but that's the general sentiment. Since 5th Dec, believing in the power of the government, the market attention dramaticallly moved to alternatives like LiteCoin. Not only they have more potential of growth (so thinks the Chinese investors), but also they are small enough to live longer under the radar. I didn't even look at the data but I believe BTC trade volume shrinked a lot, sentiment cooled down, exactly as government's wish. China crash influnced global market once. However the global market won't always follow. The rest of the world is going to promote and increase value of bitcoin, and traders in China won't sit and watch. Two things may happen in 2014:
1. Firmly believing that the government have control, China maintains low price and become a bitccoin export country, and receive moderate media coverage. Bitcoin is thus allowed to live.
2. The spikes in global market calls again the passion in China. And when our spirite of gambling is lit up, anoher spike in China and warm media coverage in China will lead a harsher ban from the government, probably force bitcoin into black market.
It is possible 2 happens after 1.
P.S. This post is sent through a web proxy in U.S. The author is still living in China. And the telltale timestamp means I couldn't sleep well tonight, hence having time to write a post.
|
|
|
|
It's a daunting task, a test of valor. Little documentation had we, and BTC-E left us meditating for hours of their internal working mechanism. The most confusing question is the difference of TransHistory and TradesHistory API calls. I perhaps should document it elsewhere, in a wiki maybe, kindly reply to let me know where do I keep the following documents for easier access for others. I spend real money to execute real orders which I counter with opposite orders of same value (meaning I didn't speculate) and I used my time. Consider tipping me for sharing this info, address at the signature. Experiment One: I issued an order to sell 5BTC. Result: ------------------------------- TradeHistory: ---------------------------------
'18330625': {'amount': 5,
'is_your_order': 1,
'order_id': 77935084,
'pair': 'btc_usd',
'rate': 969,
'timestamp': 1386258897,
'type': 'sell'},
------------------------------- TransHistory: ---------------------------------
'185562562': {'amount': 5.0,
'currency': 'BTC',
'desc': 'In payment for a warrant :order:77935084:',
'status': 2,
'timestamp': 1386258893,
'type': 5},
'185562750': {'amount': 4835.31,
'currency': 'USD',
'desc': 'Bought 5 BTC from your order :order:77935084: by price 969 USD total 4845 USD (-0.2%)',
'status': 2,
'timestamp': 1386258897,
'type': 4},
The 'desc' field in TransHistory is mind boggin. I sold 5BTC, and the log reads 'Bought 5BTC', from the aspect of the other party I am trading with. BTC-E seems to be turning things up side down. In the API history, it assume the position of the market, when it should assume the position of the user; while in its price ticker, it quotes 'buy' and 'sell' price, from the aspect of you, the user, contrary to finanical professional term 'ask' and 'bid' from the aspect of the market. We also notice that TradeHistory have only one record for this order, while TransHistory have 2 records. TradeHistory records amount and rate, but not how you split revenue with BTC-E. TransHistory seems to detail that split. BTC-E charges 0.2% transaction fee. For a revenue of 4845USD, that means 9.690USD fee, and you get 4035.31USD to your own. This is exactly what is shown in the last record of TransHistory. TransHistory shows your account has 5USD removed for warrant before the trade happens. That is about half of the fee. But, there is no record showing the rest of the fee removed, and it just magically removed. Let's not worry about it as long as they don't over charge us. About the IDs: TradeHistory's ID '18330625' is 10 times apart from TradeHistory's IDs. We can guess that each TradeHistory maps to a lot TransHistories. But TradeHistory's ID is not referred in TransHistory records. The only way to link these records is the Order ID, given in TradeHistory and quoted in TransHistory. From timestamp you may notice transaction fee was taken a while before trade occures. Experiment Two: This time I sell at a price higher than current, and let the order gradually fill. I also made the amount bigger, 10BTC, twice the previous one, to make sure it filles gradually. It created 41 entries in the TradeHistory: '18333675': {'amount': 4.06175,
'is_your_order': 1,
'order_id': 77936808,
'pair': 'btc_usd',
'rate': 965.5,
'timestamp': 1386259479,
'type': 'sell'},
'18333680': {'amount': 0.0225107,
'is_your_order': 1,
'order_id': 77936808,
'pair': 'btc_usd',
'rate': 965.5,
'timestamp': 1386259483,
'type': 'sell'},
... (other 39 records omitted)
The sum of the volume, however, is 10.0000085. I'll forgive the float point inprecision. The TransHistory has 42 records, one more than the TradeHistory. As usuall, a warrant is charged before every other transaction, BTC-E really knows how to put customer interest before theirs:) '185566733': {'amount': 10.0,
'currency': 'BTC',
'desc': 'In payment for a warrant :order:77936808:',
'status': 2,
'timestamp': 1386259063,
'type': 5},
'185600769': {'amount': 3913.77176062,
'currency': 'USD',
'desc': 'Bought 4.0617452 BTC from your order :order:77936808: by price 965.5 USD total 3921.6149906 USD (-0.2%)',
'status': 2,
'timestamp': 1386259479,
'type': 4},
'185601221': {'amount': 21.69061269,
'currency': 'USD',
'desc': 'Bought 0.0225107 BTC from your order :order:77936808: by price 965.5 USD total 21.73408085 USD (-0.2%)',
'status': 2,
'timestamp': 1386259483,
'type': 4},
... (other 39 records omitted)
So our brief conclusion is: 1. TransHistory is really of no interest unless we are specifically looking for how it internally works. It didn't cover all fees, and it doesn't have a order_id field where we can map our order with. 2. TradeHistory is the only API interesting. However it doesn't support looking up with order_id. If you wish to find out how much of your order is executed, you have to fetch a hundred or more records - as it is shown a 10BTC deal can be easily split to 41 records - and filter out unwanted records in your own code. Let's say their server is too burdened to index for order_id, and we just forgive them. 3. There will be unwanted items in TradeHistory! I have a record like this: '18335903': {'amount': 7.08416,
'is_your_order': 0,
'order_id': 77967359,
'pair': 'btc_usd',
'rate': 973,
'timestamp': 1386260055,
'type': 'sell'},
Whose record is this? I don't know. It somehow gets mixed into my TradeHistory. I feel sorry BTC-E couldn't make it more elegant. |
|
|
|
|
I was following QQ discussion when the price drop below 2000 around 12:00 (Beijing time) there wasn't any sign of capitulation. People are eager to buy. Many are speculating the next move of 庄家 ("big fish" in the above paragraph), even though without analysing the data I cannot tell for sure there 庄家 is manipulating price at all.
|
|
|
|
In my last post I said, on 22th Oct (1200CNY) it is definitely not solid, Chinese traders are not confident - you have to decide for your own if there will be a straight bull market as confidence gets confirmed and grow, or an early rush sell. I myself betted the former and am exposed to the risk of latter, because it is too risky to be prudent. So I was right. You may think I made money. No, that's another story, see end of this post*. Yesterday the price had topped 2680CNY and this morning (in China) at 2200CNY for the whole morning. My esitmation of the sentiment is, like before, that people (Chinese) don't hold positive outlook of the future of digital currency, but we play it. This is a Chinese thing; the fun is in the game. We played it in A-share stock market and name the game 搏傻. To summarize the culture background: When psycology is at work there isn't much debate of currency's future value. That means capitulation comes more complete than in the west. So as I observed. The price dived -200CNY or -300CNY a few times in the last 24h hour, there are players who are ready to quit the game. But the price was pushed back also as quickly. It is hard to believe this would happen if you just look at the order book - usually the sell queue is more dense than the buy queue, the space between sell order is usually 1 to 3 CNY and the space between buy orders, 10CNY. In this case, market should crash, but it didn't. Why? It means there are a lot of 'hidden' contract, whose master is defending certain lines, or using the crash opportunity to build profolio. The question is who are they. Are they the mod? I think this behaviour is not inline with the sentiment I observed. To me it means there are bigger fish in this small pond. I assume they talk less in QQ (I hang there for some time) and is using the same tactic they did with stock market. They are late in the party and need time to build profolio. I couldn't verify this with data models (as I do stat in GNU R from time to time) as I am travelling in Thailand and couldn't concentrate, yet there is no time for the prudence to post well verified theory here. They used hidden contracts a lot back in the days they manipulate Shanghai A-share, urben ledgent of such people was popular. (hidden contracts are market orders that is placed when the price reaches a threshold). The big fishes are not value-based investors - to build a lasting currency against government manipulation is simply out of the line of the Chinese zeitgeist I observe - the zeitgeist is to try to take advantage of government manipulation - you may notice there are rarely cursees and resentment towards government in bitcoin forums and qq in China like you would observe here, despite Chinese government being not any kinder. Fewer believed it is a better world if BTC replaces fiat currency. We take government mainpulation as you take nature: use it, keep it, not to fight it. In China we do to the nature like you do to your goverment: criticize it, ask more from it, ask even more from it, and blame its failure. So are the big fishes satiated? I feel not. It takes a lot of effort to build data model to study this, by the time I can deliver a report it would be too late. But consider the size of China and lack of investment outlet for the rich, I feel the fishes are not satiated with the current 35billion CNY market size. The small players who mined hard and ready to leave the game is being replaced by the professionals - and professional gamblers too, who are also ready to quit the game at later stage. These big fishes are satiated when most small players give out their holding. That's my take. This could be very wrong, if the trade data is carefully studied. It is not backed by hard evidence and the hidden contracts has other explanations, like worried speculators. -- * So why I didn't make money even I betted the right horse? My homebrew tradebot caught unaware when BTCChina changed their API's behaviour (of accepting Null in an API call -> changed from string 'false' to digit 0 then to boolean False, and the change was without announcement, even the API document is not downloadable, had to fetch from search engine cache to see the change). It caused my pet trade bot to misbehave, reaping the flower before it boom (sold all before the hike). I am not going to take legal action or try getting money back from BTCChina, other Chinese on the forum knows it doesn't work. BTCChina offers such rudimentary API and change it as their wish, awaring of the disruptive nature at the current stage means speculators are to cover themselves. Even worse, right after my pet trade bot misbehaved, I engaged a tight-planed trip, and have no time to correct until today, and the price doubled since. That's why I really want to partner someone to work on bitccoin trading (in my signature I said I am open to partnership), so when I am really engaged in something others can cover me. And I am welll aware of BTCChina's problems, I even wrote an post: "World's biggest, China's safest" exchange BTCChina.com is far from professional, had to live with the world's biggest trading platform, I experimented with 6 trade platforms, ANY other markets have better API but ANY other markets' spread is too wide for a trade bot. |
|
|
|
Same chart, with red circles:  What in the circles are quite different. papaminer outlined it with the blue circle. In the April case, the price go straight up, and experienced a reversal when it crash down. In the current case, the trend is the opposite, the upward trend went through a reversal for a few days before it continues to the top - for some speculators, it is a Fibonacci retracement, which is a clear signal to position long and expect continues growth - I didn't buy the Fabonacci concept, but only to show that it is NOT the same. http://www.swing-trade-stocks.com/fibonacci-retracements.html |
|
|
|
交易API我们已经开发完成了，目前正在内测，您希望使用API来做什么呢，也可以联系我们来参加内测~
我想用API做两件事，一是快速止损，即发现跌速达到每分钟5元时，立即用market order止损。二是投机，即发现跌速达到每分钟5元时，如果这种情况持续十几分钟，用market order低点买进。 我做这两件事为的是，我预计到不明真相的人民群众太多，参与者没投资经验，总是会对价格趋势过度反应，往往一小时才会回调，所以可以利用过度反应投机。当然这样做是有风险的，遇到真的坏新闻，坏到广大群众应该过度反应的程度，那么我就玩火自焚了，但是小赌怡情嘛。要做这种事肯定不能天天守着，要写dæmon的。你可以许可我参与内测吗？ 我考虑过用外国市场，但是觉得还是中国市场守着电脑炒币又喜欢过度反应的用户比较多，针对这些人投机应该在国内做。 我考虑过用BTCChina，但是其API设计得令人吐血，你看一眼我下面的笔记就知道它有多令人吐血了（我编程时用英文思考，所以笔记是英语的，平常我还是用中文思考的）。这个笔记只是在说，发一个合同后，如何检查它是否已经执行（在我的计算中，要用其执行时间，决定是否再发一个更大的合同），没想到检查合同是否执行需要极复杂的逻辑，笔记里有详说。 How to find if an order is executed, on BTCChina
1. If an order is a market order, or it can be executed immediately like
a market order (e.g. buying at a price much beyond the market price), it
will be executed without producing an item in getOrders list. The order
is simply not there, non existance! This can be verified by just go to
order management in the browser and verify market orders ain't there.
You need to look up transactions to find its trace, but there is no way
to look up transactions in BTCChina's API. (Tried "getTransactions" in
the hope that it is there undocumented.) In this case, the order maps to
a single transaction, with an averaged price. I experimented with a
market order of as large as 60BTC, and it is marked a single transaction
. There is no way to find out how the price averaged up.
2. If an order can not be executed immediately, it will obtain an
order ID. This is different from the Transaction ID, because in this
case an order maps to multiple Transactions if needed. I experimented
with a purchase of 53BTC and it is splitted into
multiple transactions.
An order in the order book has an 'amount' and an 'amount_original'. The
latter being the amount of the order, the former means the remain
effective amount to be dealt with, which is the original amount minus
the amount dealt.
So how do you place a limit order and check its result?
1. Obtain a list of all orders (except those dealt like market orders).
2. Place an order.
3. Obtain a new list of all orders, and compare it with the old one.
The newly placed order is often listed a few seconds later, so you have
to try a few times to make sure it is really not there.
4. If the new order is in the new list of orders, find its ID and track
its progress until it either finish or times out.
5. If the new order is not in the new list of orders, keep trying until
it times out, and then assume it is fully dealt like a market order.
There is a risk: if an order is placed, neither listed nor executed for
so long time that the routine times out, then it would be mistakenly
considered as fully dealt. To prevent this:
6. If the new order is not in the new list of orders, and the routine
times out: Update the wallet once to see if the wallet change reflect
the contract being fully dealt. If not, this triggers an alarm and this
market no longer participate trading before human intervention.
But that introduces a new problem: if the wallet is updated 5 minutes
ago, and some others (human using browser for example) deals, before the
routin deals, then it would trigger a false alarm. So far there are no
good ways to deal with this situation. We will have to live with it.
|
|
|
|
联系客服就可以提高上限,我操作过  谢谢大家。联系客服不太容易，先是在浏览器窗口上等，后来又添加客户到好友，都没人理我。 最后明白这事可能跟QQ版本还有关系，因为有一台机器上，许可我换客服代表，换了不同的客服代表后，有人理我了。 已经办好上限调整。 |
|
|
|
|
既然btctrade老板在这里，就直接问了。交易API目前在你的待办事宜里优先级高吗？
|
|
|
|
这不会是最后一次，对于投资者，重要的是下一个出问题的是哪个平台。 目前已经经营很久的服务商，比如BTCChina及FxBTC，跑路的风险少，但是被黑的风险仍然有。Bitcoin发展历史上被黑关门的交易所不是没有过。我目前还没见到对网站安全性比较专业的评估，而且评价安全风险这个比猜骗子困难，需要专业水平。 我们国内急于发展的局面特别容易出倒楼翻火车这样的事。我想见到对下一个倒掉平台的有理有据的讨论。比如，我一直认为FxBTC比BTCChina安全，因为BTCChina用PHPBB做登录和 Session management，而PHPBB出过多次问题了，php本身就许可程序员犯很多错误。这就是我目前还承受着FXBTC交易费不搬家的原因，但是我不是搞安全的，只是有一般WEB编程经验，所以这个见解可能是片面的，比如可能FXBTC某个地方还有更大风险呢。另外，社会上大家对交易所不信任，这是社会大问题，我们不是连牛奶都不信任吗？这种不信任的局面下，交易所即使没有想跑路，出现挤兑时或消极信号时（比如国家严厉打击吸储），可能被逼入死角，道德水平要不是很高的话，逼成跑路也是可能的。 |
|
|
|
好，我看到你的文章了：
還有, 這網站雖然用繁體字, 但明顯是拼音輸入, 才會出現"提現"-->"體現"的錯誤. 香港大部份人都是用台灣的倉頡輸入法, 不會出現這錯誤.
你说的这是硬伤。我提出的仅仅是楼主所说没给出硬伤，所以阙疑。 |
|
|
|
They are not mentioend in the API document - I read every page of it. How did you find them? As I am writing, I searched 'ticker' again in my copy API docs and confirmed it wasn't there. Oh, and that public-accessible orderbook's json format is different that of market_depth (a private request in their API document). Need to rework my code again.... |
|
|
|
Thank you so far. The last price hike can not be explained with Gox and co. I really only see what is happening in China as the reason. What do you think?
For me this upcoming China markets are the purest black box. I am therefore grateful for any information I can get.
I suggest this post I made a week ago, if you haven't read it. It is in speculation forum for I think it fits there better. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=315380.0 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
