|
No, the lag is on the order of a week or so. The chart above only has a 1-month resolution
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I looked and it seems that they are highly correlated, but the forum activity definitely lags the price changes. Still, it shows that the price is going to be mostly affected by hype and the number of people involved.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for clarifying Meni.
I understand that complaining leads nowhere--my point was just that there is still work to be done here!
|
|
|
|
Thanks! Made this:  |
|
|
|
|
But has pruning been implemented?
This is a problem that is dismissed far too quickly by the same old arguments. There is no way that people are going to use bitcoin in the intended way if they need to download 4gb (and then another couple 100 every week) just in order to make payments.
It is counterproductive to simply dismiss this problem as solved, because it isn't actually solved yet
|
|
|
|
|
Is this possible?
It would be awesome to see the traffic vs. time on the speculation board, or the rate of new topics in the marketplace boards.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to enable 2-factor auth, but having trouble. In the settings menu, I'll scan the barcode and enter the 6-digit number, but it still always gives a wrong auth code error. Is there anything you need to do besides scanning the barcode with the google auth app?
|
|
|
|
|
The weekly yield has gone up to pirate-style levels... seems like quite an overcorrection
|
|
|
|
|
Mining hardware is bought with fiat. Therefore the value of a MH/s is denominated in fiat. If the value of BTC goes up vs. fiat, the value of mining assets on GLBSE will decrease, because the divs will be expected to decrease at a faster rate, as a result of increasing difficulty (which follows BTC/fiat trend).
Mining is profitable (in terms of fiat) if the value of BTC goes up.
Mining assets are profitable (in terms of fiat) if the value of BTC stays the same or decreases.
Mining is unprofitable in terms of BTC if the value of BTC goes up. This is why it does not make sense to buy mining assets if you think the BTC/fiat is going up.
Thoughts on this logic?
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe the depth part (order book) is fine... but the "asset" data is still delayed. It's not the "wrong place" because highest bid and lowest ask are in the JSON variable at that location--just delayed.
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone noticed that the bid/ask values posted by the API are about 5 min delayed from what it shows on the website?
I'm trying to write a MM algo and it is always late
|
|
|
|
|
Smells like some numbers are about to get seriously crunched!
|
|
|
|
Well, gigavps dumped 20000 new bonds onto the market at 1btc/share, without offering previous investors any kind of compensation or gain. (making around $50000 in cash)
Whether he realizes this or not, it demonstrates carelessness and lack of concern for current investors in order to please potential future investors, and to get money up front, mere weeks after selling the initial shares.
I could completely understand why someone would never want to do business with him again, and investors are cutting their losses and exiting what now seems like a pretty questionable business.
Thank you for continuing to be ignorant. Giga did not dump 20,000 onto the market - he made a private placement and employed several people to assist with selling the bonds - that is quite normal, as it takes quite a lot of work. If you want to see what happens when you simply place it on market, read the howls of anguish over in the YABMC thread. Second, the price was not 1.0 and depending on how/who you purchased from, it was higher than that. I am unsure of the eventual weighted price as I didn't buy any, but it was probably in the 1.2 to 1.3 range. Giga has a sensible business and plan to make things work on a scale most people couldn't conceive of. If someone wants to panic after thinking they could make a quick buck off these bonds, they were misguided - markets have a way of leveling these things out. As it is, they are a good buy (@ 1.0 which they are currently) and I look forward to a nice yield. (and I got some yesterday at 1.38). This. Giga has not ripped off anyone......he has stated the terms of the bond, is living up to those terms, and it makes NO DIFFERENCE how many total bonds are outstanding as long as he continues to meet the obligations to each bondholder. That is all. I agree that giga hasn't broken any of his obligations, just that the supply of available bonds has greatly increased, while demand has remained roughly constant in the near term. For this reason, People who bought in over 1 btc have taken a large loss on their investment. What if the total supply of bonds went up to 80000 or 160000? The demand can't keep up with the supply, and the price will tank, since there is only so much capital that can flow into the GLBSE at any given time. Say Chevron issues 100000 bonds and you buy one at a fixed coupon. If they then issue 400000 bonds 2 weeks later with the same coupon, your original bond will probably drop (in this case maybe only slightly) in value due to the increased supply of those bonds. In any case, I agree that 5MH/s for 1 btc is a good deal--I thought it was a good deal at 1.5btc too. I think people just need to be careful not to flood the market with mining bonds. |
|
|
|
|
Well, gigavps dumped 20000 new bonds onto the market at 1btc/share, without offering previous investors any kind of compensation or gain. (making around $50000 in cash)
Whether he realizes this or not, it demonstrates carelessness and lack of concern for current investors in order to please potential future investors, and to get money up front, mere weeks after selling the initial shares.
I could completely understand why someone would never want to do business with him again, and investors are cutting their losses and exiting what now seems like a pretty questionable business.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
