How odd. I'm getting a very different result.

First, we're looking at $ volume, right? Otherwise we would have to pretend that trading 1 btc for 200$ is equivalent to trading 1 btc for 500, 600$.

So let's add up $ volume on mtgox, bitstamp and btcchina in the 4 full weeks before the April peak (including the week of the peak). That adds up to 376M $.

Now adding up volume for the same exchanges, for the past 4 full weeks (up to now), and we get 761M $.

Volume never recovered?


Wait, let me guess: "btcchina has zero fees, their volume is all fake!"

See, there's one thing I (grudgingly) have to pay respect for to the US: not matter what fascist foreign policy acting out, dysfunctional electorate system based upon, puppet-president led Koch-Brothers' dick sucking political elite led clown show they put up all year, when push comes to shove, they do know when not to miss out on a great business opportunity. Someone's gotta pay for all those burgers and burger-related heart surgery, after all.

Nice try bitstamp. Already up 50$ again

"[...] Bernanke said in a Sept. 6 letter to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs released on Monday."

But you're right of course, I'm sure it's already priced in. /s

Oh come on, Bernie, at least pretend to put up a fight.

Quick question @hazek:

Generally satisfied customer here. I have one request though:

Could you please consider implementing stop-market & stop-limit orders?

The way I see it, it shouldn't require a major overhaul of your interface or trading engine, and with respect to server resources it should actually be *net positive* (the trader who set a stop order is less likely to log in in a panic during a flash crash).

I am aware that I could get stop functionality through trading bots, but I trust your guys security quite a bit so I'd prefer to place stop orders *directly* through your page.

Any chance?

And there we go. Uncharted territory :D It'll be a fun ride, I'm sure.


EDIT: interestingly enough, looks like bitstamp refuses to play along.

Who says you can't short? That possibility exists, for example on bitfinex, but you will notice it isn't used much, or rather: there's not much weight behind it. Which is kind of understandable if one considers that, except for (relatively) short periods of time, the only direction of $/btc is up uP UP.

Slightly higher by my count, ~530 (mtgox), but that's negligible.

We're right below that line at the moment.

The way I see it, we either break through, then we've officially broken even the most optimistic estimations that were circulated so far, or we bounce off of it. Personally, I expect the latter.

Eh. I give you credit for originality, but I doubt you're really onto something there. Just tried it myself, to see with which parameters you got your results, and a) you need to tweak the parameters to make it work both in April and now (as in: short and long daily EMA aren't the same), b) it doesn't fit at all the 2011 run-up. So it looks to me more like the result of curve fitting rather than actually having much predictive power.

Huh? I just logged in, and bitcoinwisdom also shows executed orders within the last 20min.

You are mostly right. Except for the point where you say complaining about it on here doesn't help.

In reality, that's exactly what we should be doing, and luckily, we are. Evidence: this and many similar threads :D

I'm completely serious by the way. You are of course right, the protocol won't change. But how the protocol will be *used* in the future is still to be determined. And we need to convince as many people as possible that distinguishing (in whatever form, be it blacklisting, redlisting, or validating) between "good, legal coins" and "bad, illegal coins" will probably be the death sentence to Bitcoin.



You got cause and effect the wrong way round. I coughed up the money and became a member precisely *because* we need the BF on our side with this one. Don't sign up if you don't want to, but on the other hand, don't complain if an organization that you can join (and influence, to a degree) doesn't do what you want it to do. (well, actually, complain away. I just mean it's more fun to do so when you're actually part of it :P)

If a sufficient number of people adopt that attitude, the Mike Hearns of BF are going to have their way. Luckily, not everyone's as indifferent or lazy.

Yeah. I'm not easily startled, but I consider this the first "real" threat  to Bitcoin I know of since I joined this little club.

I'm in a discussion with Mike Hearn right now on the btcfoundation forum. I get the impression he genuinely believes that a) it's a good idea to implement this, and b) won't do much damage to Bitcoin. I disagree with a), and vehemently disagree with b).

Head over there yourself (if you are a member already. otherwise: pay up and join :D). Otherwise, arguments I can bring forward in the thread are very much welcome.

@D&T

Had you actually read my (very handwavy, very speculative) argument why a price drop could be the result of the way humans compute value, you would see that your  Canadian dollar example is still compatible with my (handwavy, speculative) hypothesis.

As I wrote in a comment above (which was torn to pieces immediately), since the value of a traded item (like btc) is determined by an (often irrational) market, it is not the end of the argument to say that increasing divisibility formally doesn't change the value of the base unit.

Here's an (abbreviated) version of my argument for why increasing divisibility could potentially drive down price. (Note: I'm saying "could", not "necessarily will").

(1) Markets, including the btc market, act irrational all the time. Example 1: "round number" (10$, 100$, etc) are major points of resistance and support, for no deeper reason than that our little monkey brains seems to like such numbers. Example 2: Most of us don't feel like that, but I've seen several newcomers complain that "price per coin is too high now, to still enter the market". The answer by us is always: price per 1 btc is irrelevant, but on the other hand, many of us are willing to entertain the idea to "switch" to mBTC to make the entrance level appear lower.

(2) The above are just general examples of markets being "irrational". You could say they prove nothing yet about divsibility and btc evaluation. Obviously, I don't have any proof anyway, hence my cautiousness "it *could* conceivably drive price down". But here's one slightly more concrete argument for *why* it might actually affect the market's valuation of the base unit if divisibility increases. We need three assumptions (which you might or might not share, but they're at least conceivably true): (i) price is determined "bottom up", instead of "top down", i.e. each market participant runs some (unconscious, probably) calculation that determines the value of the base unit based on the sum of all sub-units. (ii) there is a "smallest possible value" our brains can conceive. (iii) an item is never valued at 0 (if it has any worth at all). With those three assumptions in place (REMINDER! I didn't say they're necessarily true. Just that they're not completely implausible to me!), the argument is: Let N be the total number of sub-units of a bitcoin. Assume that for some market participant, each subunit already is valued at the smallest possible value X he can conceive/assign to an item. Now increase the number of subunits by any factor > 1. From (iii) we know that each subunit needs to be assigned a value, and by (ii) we know that X is already the smallest item. So each new subunit is valued at X. So the value of the base unit, for this market participant, increased by the factor we increased divisibility with.

BIG FAT HONKING DISCLAIMER, because I'm getting tired of the respectless atmosphere in so many discussions in here:

I'm not saying "increasing divisibility drives down price to 0".

And I do actually think OP was trolling with his original claim, which is much bigger than what I'm saying.

And if you read my argument carefully, it doesn't say anywhere that I am sure that price would drop, just that I could clearly see the possibility that it happens, based on the intuitive understanding (and lack of formal understanding) of the average market participant.

IF, AFTER ALL OF THE ABOVE, you still feel the need to tell me that I'm an idiot for "not knowing that increasing divisibility doesn't change anything about the value of a coin", then... well, go fuck yourself :/

Is reading semi-carefully really that much effort?

How does


address the point I made here

Kann mich irren, aber für mich sieht es wie ein Rechenfehler in Zeile 3 aus.

>3.1.13 Verkauf 0,25Bitcoin a 400Euro/btc Bestand 250Euro(0,25btc +200Euro)

Müsste m.E. 0.25*100 (Wert einer btc zum Zeitpunkt des Rechnungsbeginns mal Anteil übriger btc) + 200 = 225, statt 250.

225-100 (Anfangsbestand) = 125 Gewinn, was der selbe Betrag wäre wie in deiner Rechnung.

First: OP is possibly trolling.

Second: I'm nonetheless surprised by the response in here, which universally seems to say that increasing divisibility cannot possibly alter the valuation of each "individual" bitcoin.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Time for a thought experiment.

Let's assume, instead of a fixed number of decimal places, i.e. a fixed degree of divisibility, divisibility is permanently growing, say: 1 additional decimal place per day; each day, the number of sub-units increases by factor 10.

Does this still not influence the valuation of the base unit?

From a formal point of view, it shouldn't make a difference, I suppose (although I suspect calculating future values of the base unit, which necessarily equals the sum of the subunits, might become more difficult). However, keep in mind that the valuation of any object is determined by the market, and I am not at all sure if the idea of the number of subunits tending towards infinity will not affect the valuation of the base unit.

Thought experiment over.

Nobody proposed that divisibility should increase constantly, of course. But I propose that, if the market had reason to believe that divisibility could be increased at will, it might after all have a similar reaction as in my 'infinite divisibility' scenario above.

Very interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Hehehe. Hatte mich schon zuerst über deine überirdische Ruhe gewundert nachdem du nichts weiter zu dem obigen geschrieben hast.... naja, soviel dazu.

Meinen Dank für diesen Thread hast du jedenfalls.

re: Unterschied zwischen deiner Rechnung und der von Chefin.

Korrigier mich wenn ich mich irre, aber der Unterschied zwischen euren beiden Rechnungen ist erst mal, dass Chefin keinerlei Unterscheidung in "Töpfe" macht (weiss nicht ob das der korrekte Begriff ist), was allerdings hier nötig sein wird um den Unterschied festzuhalten zwischen btc die <1 Jahr und >1 Jahr gehalten werden.