I personally would love it if the 'Square' guys integrated bitcoin into their payment network. This unlikely however, due to their participation with the major credit card issuers. Heck, can anyone think of a system with reader/app that would work on a bitbill/smartcard kind of system?

For reference: https://squareup.com/

Parent poster: Nice try chicken little.

Feel free to sell yours, I could use more

1) The price could trade down to the 14 - 15 area and still be within the long-term trend. (Bitcoincharts.com mtgox/USD, log chart). This pattern was followed when price ran to 8 from 4.

2) High Frequency Trading wouldn't work with the 1-block-per-ten-minute throttle in place now. I'm very glad this is the case. Another win for bitcoin.

Fluctuations in a new market are not new nor do they forecast complete destruction. Give the market time to mature, it is really too early to say x% means we're on a ride to the bottom

For those wondering what the heck a head-and-shoulders formation is, here's a quick reference:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/head-shoulders.asp

You draw a line between the start of the first 'shoulder' and the other, using the peak value of the head to the line as a projection to where price might end up. So, like the example above, the distance between the peak and the 'neckline' is taken and overlaid from the neckline downward.

You can also have the inverse, where the projected price from the neckline would be higher. Only problem is that chart patterns are highly subjective. There's been a lot of research into this area, most notably done by Mr. Nison regarding candlestick charting - but the main point is even though you can 'see' a head-and-shoulders, doesn't mean that it will behave like one. This is also the main pitfall of Elliott Wave theory, but that is a whole other can-of-internet-worms.

Personally, given how the market is in its infancy - I don't really see major downward factors here unless the trendline expressed over at http://bitcoincharts/charts/ (mtgoxUSD) gets breached on the downside. It may be easier to see if you tick the checkbox 'Log Scale'.

Put on your seatbelt, you've seen nothing yet folks.

Interesting. I do know that this resource exists, I was thinking more of a ready-to-go front end that would interface with the otc market and could be hooked up to a willing exchange operator's bank account to process ACH transfers and the like. Perhaps I'm too ambitious, but it would help me breathe easier, (and a lot of other people, I'm sure) if the exchange process had a bit more resiliency in the face of potential censorship.

Appreciate the reply.

The best reference I know of to correct common misconceptions is here:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths

And, alternatively the original whitepaper on bitcoin here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34237903/Bit-Coin-Whitepaper

The fee is like a 'priority flag' that tells the nodes that are verifying transactions (miners) they should tend to them immediately, in exchange for the fee if they solve the current block. I do agree the fee should be correlated to a sliding window of average price, but that would require some kind of decentralized exchange that could communicate the price, not a single point-of-failure like Mt. Gox (or any other singular exchange).

Attention coders and crypto-geeks.

Given the onslaught of news articles and the highly probable crackdown on bitcoin by forces that will be undermined (no pun intended) by BTC's outward expansion, we need some way to secure a method of exchange that is as decentralized as bitcoin itself. You can certainly see the problem rushing towards us. Before bitcoin becomes a global currency in the sense that transfer into local currencies isn't even needed anymore, an exchange is necessary to promote further growth.

Any ideas floating out there in your minds on how to build such a function in a peer-to-peer system? I admit not being the best at that, so I will leave it to the more talented members of the community. Is such a thing possible? Are we resigned to watching nervously for Mt. Gox to be pressured by sovereign forces?

I believe in the future of bitcoin, completely. The only way an exchange can survive is either it is distributed, or some code poet whips up a 'exchange-in-a-box' distro that can be booted up and running in a short amount of time.

What do you think? If I'm off-base, or better alternatives have been discussed, please point me to the right areas.

Thanks.

I don't think you've ever traded anything in size, judging by your bias on the whole darkpool issue. And you know what? It ultimately doesn't matter what you think, because the market decides and the participants will do exactly what they want to do.

I tried to get through to you, but its okay - I don't have all the time in the world. I'm better paid looking after my bitcoin transactions

It also would be an enticement for another exchange to be created, given the profits that can be had being the facilitator of exchange. I think someone would put up on pretty fast, just to get a cut from the pie. Even if an exchange didn't exist, bitcoin still has value between participants. The real effort should go into getting merchants to accept bitcoin directly, honestly.

I don't mind an exchange being there. Just thinking down the road where such exchanges may not need to exist.

Might as well update my chartology-outlook-eyeballin' forecast.

With the recent rise to nearly 18, the only historical reference I have is the breakout from the 4 are to 8 from mid-may. If we apply this to the breakout from 10, you *could* say that the eventual high may be 20, before consolidating around the 15 area. Guess we'll see. Certainly makes for an exciting weekend

Okay, let me back up here.

From your original post about darkpools, you seem to indicate that the withheld size is creating a two-tier market which Mt. Gox allows, and then the big 'players' use this to capture an arbitrage play off of their bid/offer compared to the open book.

So, the main question is - where did you get the idea that there is a two-tier bid/offer system, and two, why would you think Mt. Gox would allow that? (Please correct me if you didn't mean to imply this.)

Dark pools do exactly what they say - they cross trades on the public bid/offer without disclosing their size. I think you may be confusing the depth of the market (how it can absorb orders, which darkpools help do) with how the public bid/offer works.

Here's the details directly from Mt. Gox:

"There are 2 types of dark pool orders.
Dark pool and Normal - Can be filled either partially from the normal orders or the dark pool.
Dark pool Only - Can be filled only by other dark pool orders or a single normal order that is larger than the dark pool order. This means that if there is a single normal order that would fill the dark pool order both will be filled."

That indicates to me that not only are dark pools helping stability, it enables volumes to grow. Dark pool orders only cross on the public book if there is an order large enough to absorb it. That isn't manipulation. Its basic market-making. Dark pool orders are crossed with each other at size where their bid/offer match. The quote is then disseminated to the world without disclosing the size.

Seems straightforward to me.

Wow, just wow... You read what I posted, right?

Why would one person ruin all their work by trashing the reputation of their exchange? Its self-defeating and makes no logical sense. Unless you actually have something to back this up with, you're just defaming someone on a 'hunch'. This doesn't seem wrong to you?

Maybe, if he believes in bitcoins - he'd put it up on cydia and have the app charge a one time fee to be sent to an address he controls to validate the purchase. In bitcoins, of course

Well, in the spirit of open competitiveness, shouldn't the market decide? If you don't like it, trade somewhere else or start your own exchange. Trading in large volumes with partially open books or not doesn't make a market any less 'stable' or 'gamed'.

I don't know how you can squeak by on 'no offense' when you make a statement like "MagTux is the only one who has the complete view of all orders". So, what are you implying? He's 'working' the book now for his own benefit? I mean, dude, really? It makes no sense. Why would an operator of an exchange do that when the potential risk is lack of trust in his exchange? Nobody would take that kind of risk if they wanted to stay in business, period.

I'd be interested if I thought any other currency had a fighting chance against bitcoin, which they don't.

So, you might as well say - 'trade for colored buttons' because that is what they'll end up being after a while. Sorry, centrally-planned currencies just got their wake-up call, whether they last or not isn't really up for debate.

This is the game-changer. I'd be more interested if you were actually setting up a bitcoin market, but it looks like you're just integrating bitcoin in a bid to get some trading volume and make money off of the bid-offer spread like every other forex broker.

Nice try, I'll stick with bitcoins.

All I see is a parent poster who doesn't know how exchanges work, or trading.

How can you actually make a logical argument against increased volume? I hear things like 'gaming' and I have to laugh - the market depth may not be the same as a major index, sure, but overall supply/demand still rule here.

One other benefit of the blockchain and the 1-block-per-ten-minute throttle is that High Frequency Trading can't take hold in this market. Which relieves me immensely, since I consider their influence far more damaging in any market than a few darkpools of orders flitting about.

I'd be happy to rework that in the currency of your choosing. The bottom line is, we have to compare it to something. So, if that 'something' is Rubles, Marks, Kronor, Pounds, Euro... The same argument holds, you have to pick a yardstick somewhere before bitcoin takes over the entire world, which I think it will.

Completely agree, the rates will stabilize and have none of the wild swings foreign exchange currencies do, just by virtue of the supply limit. Exciting times.

It only fails if there ends up being one user left.

I don't see that happening, so I'm in until I am dead in the ground.