If you're interested, check out the NANEX folks. They do some interesting plots of issues that have had the same distressing behavior as the indexes when the flash-crash occurred in May. What is alarming is it seems to point the blame at some "alpha testing in the wild" by High Frequency Algorithms, as the patterns produced by sub-pennying bids and offers become apparent.

I've worked on automated trading software, but not like these guys - I actually just want to emulate good trading decisions, not spam an exchange with 1,000 orders a second.

Good luck on your efforts.

Hey, you. Over there. Yeah, the one who talks big and doesn't know jack.

Guess what the exchanges do every day they have a mini-flash-crash? That's right, there are plenty of smaller stocks that trade say at $12 that get smacked down to 30 cents. The HFT guys are the usual culprit, but all the trades get busted within a certain percentage. Mt. Gox is just following best practices here.

Sorry you don't get it - but you would if you really did 'work on a real exchange'.

Take my trading cards clerk, and get me a hoagie while you run that crap to the back office. Clerk Failpile.

Thanks for the real info, instead of all these paranoia/troll threads.

There's your explanation, people.

Protip: When there's a bazillion threads already about the same subject, maybe you are being redundant. Just sayin'.

If you don't mind, I'm going to put up what I saw on bitcoinmonitor.com here, since it is a screen shot thread...

First Pic:



Second Pic:



Upon further reflection, seems an order this large could absorb all intervening bids/offers - but you should see those taken out in the trade history, not just crossing at 0.01. So, something is obviously messed up here. Waiting for an official comment from MagicalTux.

As you can already see in some of the threads, an exchange has no incentive to do this, because trust in the exchange would be damaged beyond repair. No trust in an exchange means no trading there - so no fees, and they are done. I'm not sure what happened other than large size - but I'd like to know where that came from.

Perhaps the exchange owners will post, who knows...

For what it is worth - here's what the size looked on two of the big 'cash out' orders. Sure made no sense to me, since normal markets match best bid/offer instead of crossing at arbitrary prices.

First Pic:



Second Pic:



So, anyone know what the heck is going on with Mt.Gox?

Yeah, someone debunked that earlier, but I know in your drama-queen mode about your alleged 'lost' bitcoins you can't let it go. No one cares, sherlock.

I'm aware of the blockchain.

You are trying to 'solve' something that turns a system that acts like cash into something that doesn't.

Let us know when the big brother client gets rolling, so I can avoid it

I don't have specific suggestions, as the wiki and other things are probably enough material.

What I am curious about is what comes out of the conference, as this group would be one of the best 'acid tests' for any obvious problems. Keep us informed, please.

It is if you aren't trading them in for barbie dreamhouse tokens. I'm sorry if this is an issue for you. They may appreciate one day

I called this idiot out on his stupid infomercial post, looks like (again) I was right.

You sir, don't understand 'forking' and the difficulty inherent to the process of establishing forged blocks. The resources are out there, even if you refuse to use them.

You sir, are a simpering idiot.

Please phone oprah, she may have use for a drama queen on her new network.

While I encourage the idea of more exchanges (while they are necessary, but that is another topic), I'd reconsider starting one based in the U.S.A. I think all of us can agree that the large banks based in the US will be the first to push back on this idea once it gains enough traction. If you are in the bitcoin business, you better believe that all available pressure/tactics will be used to interfere.

I'd feel better if the principle servers and incorporation occurred outside immediate US jurisdiction. While no-one is perfectly isolated, it would provide some kind of buffer so you could react to legal/governmental demands.

Yeah, I see how you went for that whole logical not != thing, but it fails.

Trading applies to anything you can chart. Therefore, any trading experience applies to any tradeable market. While each market has its own 'personality' of sorts, humans are adaptable and able to conform to other environments such as bitcoin trading.

Executive summary:

You're wrong. Completely.

"I lost a lot of bitcoins guys, for real, no... comon, really - I have no proof, but damn, I do love drama."

Only a crowd of idiots would gather around a good system and insist it be the exact opposite.

Traceable coins? Banned keys?

What the hell is wrong with you guys? And I do mean that collectively. Talk about design-by-committee. What an utter pile of fail.

Given your insightful and elaborate reply, I've considered every point you presented, down to the helpful and illustrative image supplied. After running through a fourier-transform, checking for stenography and hidden ciphers - I can only come to one conclusion.

You sir, are an unimaginative asshole.

Hope that helps

This would be a prime example of emotion versus rational logic, since no real explanation is offered beyond the keywords 'crash'. Honestly, have any of you traded anything besides bitcoin before? I truly have to wonder...