As far as I can tell there have been three allegations
1. That Bruce had something to do with mortgage fraud. He has explained that this was a misunderstanding.
2. That Bruce is involved with sex tourism. He has also said that this is not true.
3. That Bruce is involved with the mybitcoin.com hacking. He has also explained this, they were his SPONSORS and he lost money too.
I am a very good judge of character. Listening to Bruce it is clear he is honest, INNOCENT and pure of heart. These allegations are despicable, and it all seems very co-ordinated. I bet all you are secretly swapping advice on the best way to continue this horrible, unethical three-edged assault on a poor innocent man of undefiled character.
Is this Ed or Manny? +1 Heh, am I the only one who noticed the striking resemblance to the infamous three-pronged attack? Thanks for the troll clue, I chuckled  |
|
|
|
Is your argument then that the search for alpha
No. I'm saying that there's no such thing as "alpha" in FA fund managent or TA scams. Do you agree? Your own list of "alpha" examples brought up insider trading, uncovering dirt not known to the larger market etc. Btw, when you talk to someone who studies actual research papers using terminology from get-rich-quick books doesn't infer a lot of confidence in your argument And, as you admitted, arbitrage opportunities. "Alpha" is a very commonly used, and precisely defined quantity. That you haven't heard it before doesn't infer a lot of confidence in your argument. I'm sorry, but this is getting retarded. I'm out. |
|
|
|
A lot of trading I have done arbitrages between currencies and exchanges, and on occasion there have been opportunities to take USD1 per BTC out of the market. Not much to do with chance there - more to do with people, their beliefs and insecurities.
I already pointed out the example of arbitrageurs, but dexfor seems to think what they do is "cheating". Not exactly sure why. Can everyone make money on arbitrage? Is there a guaranteed window of opportunity where you can lock down the trades? Now go back to the earlier posts I did in this thread and ask yourself why I already back then suggested doing colocated HFT as one way you indeed can make money on a market. It's not however part of what the FA fund managers and TA scam artists claim that a successful trader does when outperforming the market The so-called "skill" that never turns up in any documented research. Oh, I missed that other rule you've laid out. Is your argument then that the search for alpha is just so hyper-competitive that only the wealthiest, well-equipped of fund managers will ever get to it first? If so, I'd still argue differently in the case of markets with capitalizations so small that big-time funds can't play them. |
|
|
|
Successful trading lesson 1:
1) The markets do not operate by chance.
I was prompted a few days ago to have a look at my trading history on TH from when I started a few months ago (purely out of interest). Over three months and 300+ trades my buy price is 10% lower than my sell price, and that's been pretty consistent, and not on trivial volumes. A lot of trading I have done arbitrages between currencies and exchanges, and on occasion there have been opportunities to take USD1 per BTC out of the market. Not much to do with chance there - more to do with people, their beliefs and insecurities. I already pointed out the example of arbitrageurs, but dexfor seems to think what they do is "cheating". Not exactly sure why. |
|
|
|
Our US lawyers have confirmed that at this point it is not legal for an organization to accept donations in bitcoins.
They have hope this situation can be resolved, but in the meantime, in the USA, accepting bitcoin donations puts the organization at risk.
Citation please. What he said. |
|
|
|
I don't think this is feasible since payment processors would have to tie up bitcoins in so called BRSs with every single one of their clients, and because the same coins can't be used for multiple BRSs.
No, the payers would have money in escrow to pay the payment processor and not the reverse. The payment processors would need an account in escrow for every other payment processor they want to use to pay through. The merchant must trust their payment processor (green addresses?), the payment processor won't have an escrow for each of his merchants. But, yes, the same coins can't be used for multiple BRSs. Ah, I didn't realize you were wanting to use BRSs one-way. Note that the trust needed for this could be spread out using OP_CHECKMULTISIG. |
|
|
|
So to avoid this problem, I think libertarians should simply use the word in the more general sense. Which is the one I used. No, not the general sense I'm referring to. Illustrative examples: - the heart regulates blood flow
- the Bitcoin network is self-regulating
- the cognitive radio regulates its own transmission frequency and intensity
- the polycentric legal order regulates social interactions
See, the non-government notion of "regulation" is useful for libertarians. |
|
|
|
I said there is no point in discussing semantics. Everybody understand the context.
And I disagreed. It's just not clear to me why some rules the government enforces should get the special privilege of avoiding being called regulations, and others don't. How do you make this distinction? And how is it not arbitrary? So to avoid this problem, I think libertarians should simply use the word in the more general sense. Plus it'll help with your PR effort, since most people support and understand the need for market regulation. |
|
|
|
This could be used for decentralized instant POS payments too !!
These escrow accounts could be used to form a web of trust like ripple uses lines of credit.
Imagine A has an account to pay B and B to pay C.
A can pay C instantly through B. But you need to make the payment from A to B, and the one from B to C to occur atomically.
Can this be combined with the technique used to exchange currencies of a different chain to attain atomicity?
I still have to think how.
If so, the instant payment could have multiple hops. Payer -> Intermediary 1 -> ... -> Intermediary n -> Recipient.
This would increase the liquidity of a given payer and the number of payers a merchant can trust.
Maybe even payment processors can be avoided if there's a "trust path" between the payer and the recipient.
I don't think this is feasible since payment processors would have to tie up bitcoins in so called BRSs with every single one of their clients, and because the same coins can't be used for multiple BRSs. |
|
|
|
Nobody's against regulation, per se, not even libertarians. Any system of enforcement of a particular system of private property rights is a form of compulsory market regulation, for example. You are playing with semantics. Laws against theft and murder are not consider regulations. Nobody considers that the USA constitution is a set of regulations. Everybody understand by "regulations" the set of ever changing rules the governments use to manage the economy. And btw, there are lots of libertarians that are against regulations and believe that the law should be an emergent system from the tradition of society. See, I played again with the semantics of regulations, lets not do that. From dictionary.com reg·u·late [reg-yuh-leyt] Show IPA verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing. 1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses. 2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature. 3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch. 4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion. No mention of governments here. |
|
|
|
FFS, 3 out of the 4 examples I gave didn't involve cheating.
Alright, let's do this again: No trader has ever outperformed chance. If you have knowledge that is not available to the market, that is cheating, and isn't covered. We're talking about your regular FA fund manager or the TA scam-cooks. Not the CEO telling his friends the results of next week's laboratory testing. If you want to claim that traders outperform chance you're free to source that information. "I believe", "It's obvious", "This book here about successful traders" etc aren't valid sources - usually because they don't take chance into account. There are traders who beat the market 10 years straight. It doesn't say anything about year 11, and it doesn't mean you could've predicted who they would be. That's what chance means here. Please explain to me how exploiting arbitrage opportunities or uncovering fraud and market manipulation is cheating? They're certainly not illegal. Read the article kjj posted. I promise you it'll clear everything up. |
|
|
|
You honor me, even though you are unaware how to spell poseur and awful. Unfortunately, you are incorrect in your suspicions. I am not of the somethingawful gang, but as I said before, I am in awe of their hilarity and +10 trolling ability. You, on the other hand, are one of the aforementioned pussies, and as such, fail to entertain me.
I had a hunch you might have been Abeya Minora. Also, to be fair, from Wikipedia: Poseur (often misspelled as "poser") |
|
|
|
Who brought up Bruce? He hasn't been banned from here as far as I know. I was talking about this winner: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40477.0I could talk about how you've been consistently disingenuous almost to the point of absurdity throughout all of this mess, but I'm sure that's a fact you already know about yourself. Whoa, noagendamarket got banned? He's been around here since damn near the beginning. |
|
|
|
Are you talking about trading in the marketplace or cheating? You seem to seriously confuse the two.
You can reliably find 'alpha' by having an informational edge. I'm sorry. The rest of us weren't talking about cheating. FFS, 3 out of the 4 examples I gave didn't involve cheating. |
|
|
|
Do you really think that everyone wants to drink your overpriced sugar water, eat your shit sandwiches and be in debt for rest of their lives. (just rhetorical question, please, do not answer)
I don't personally care for the soft drinks at BK, but I do enjoy me a pair of junior whoppers for $2.99 from time to time. Edit: the foil wrapping is designed to trap heat, keeping the burger warm longer. |
|
|
|
If you support regulations you are a corporatist.
Nobody's against regulation, per se, not even libertarians. Any system of enforcement of a particular system of private property rights is a form of compulsory market regulation, for example. But it's absolutely justifiable to criticise the job governments do of regulating markets, and to propose alternative mechanisms. |
|
|
|
I guess my point then is that your data set is probably biased heavily in favour of traders that don't have informational edges.
I still don't understand what the point you're trying to make is. Are you talking about trading in the marketplace or cheating? You seem to seriously confuse the two. So I hope I've given pretty strong arguments that patterns exist, and that some people can use them to make money, even if you can't necessarily prove it using statistical means
"I guess" and "I believe" is considered to be quite poor data. Fact: No trader ever has outperformed chance. The hell? Of course they do! All the time! Some glaring examples: - arbitrageurs
- short sellers who uncover dirt on companies
- traders who uncover market manipulation
- those who trade on insider information
You can reliably find 'alpha' by having an informational edge. I strongly suggest you read the Tao of Alpha link posted above. |
|
|
|
I guess I haven't engaged in enough stock picking discussions, cause I've never read that. Really fun and informative read, highly recommended. Thanks. "Between them all, they will share the zero dollars of alpha available in the world." |
|
|
|
I didn't realize at first that what we were discussing wasn't interesting.  Oh it could probably be interesting, I just don't understand what point you're trying to make. If you're claiming that by using FA or TA (that is, no insider trading nor theft) it's possible for a trader to outperform chance then feel free to support that viewpoint with data. If you don't claim that, if your point is that the only way to beat the market is to cheat, then I fully agree with you. No, there are information propagation and price reaction delays in any market. I just gave an extreme example that I fear is much more common than we'd like to believe. I guess my point then is that your data set is probably biased heavily in favour of traders that don't have informational edges. |
|
|
|
Centralization can be the result of imposition or free choice. In any case, it brings with it a loss of resiliency in the event of failure.
Ok, let's accept that, by your definition, if a whole bunch of people choose to put their money in mtgox or mybitcoin of their own free choice, that's a type of "centralization." Are you suggesting that this type of centralization is bad and should be prevented somehow? I'm suggesting exactly what I said: "it brings with it a loss of resiliency in the event of failure". I've posted technical solutions here if you're interested: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33892.0. This seems like an obvious potential consequence of a free market to me.
It is. Am I supposed to be offended? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
