It seems that the 7k change was not an error. For the change in NAV calculation, I guess it won't affect my estimation since the change in NAV will also proportionally affect the amount of Total Asset. Anyway, we can't confirm until they announce the actual BTC holding amount again. |
|
|
|
+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow
Thanks for the update. The +X, followed by -X position changes start to look like a pattern... could you explain what causes those errors? Something in the trust's presentation of the data, or something about your method to calculate their position that leads to it? The +X is probably just a typo, then the -X is just back to normal But it's on their side, right? I'm trying to wrap my head around this: a fund currently sitting on the equivalent of 37M USD is releasing the occasional brochure that contains a typo to the tune of a million or two? We are in the wild west of finance, aren't we?  I always double check when I see something strange. So it must be their problem |
|
|
|
+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow
Thanks for the update. The +X, followed by -X position changes start to look like a pattern... could you explain what causes those errors? Something in the trust's presentation of the data, or something about your method to calculate their position that leads to it? The +X is probably just a typo, then the -X is just back to normal |
|
|
|
|
Figures since May 2014 updated with latest actual holding figure
|
|
|
|
|
+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow
|
|
|
|
P2SH should not be made mandatory, although it might make sense to make P2SH the default script type in regular clients instead of P2PKH.
Script types that include public keys are useful for applications that want to use Diffie-Hellman derivations (stealth addresses).
P2SH should be able to do anything that normal scripting does (with the exception of limits on the scriptPubKey length). Putting a permanent limit on the format of scriptPubKey will likely lead to another hardfork in the future. For example, when we want to replace HASH160 with something stronger |
|
|
|
|
-2918 XBT yesterday. Seems a mistake, again?
|
|
|
|
|
2888XBT bought yesterday. Total holding at ATH. We should know whether this is a typo or not tomorrow
|
|
|
|
|
Use an 1-of-N multisig, with 1 real public key, and N-1 fake public keys encoding the message
|
|
|
|
|
This will increase, if not double, the time for first confirmation. At least it will increase the variance of confirmation time
|
|
|
|
币没有挖掘出来，这部分有很大一部分是目前币价跌的那么多的原因。每天都有900W的币产生，需要一部分的钱来接盘，不接的话，价格只有跌。那么这900W算不算多呢？据说目前一半以上的算力在中
国，就是说每天中国的抛售压力在450W左右，当然每天挖出来的币可能不是全部抛售的，当然也有原来屯的也开始抛售，算个均值，还是在国内每天抛售450W的比特币，就是要求国内接盘侠要每天往交
易所里存450W，目前三大交易所我估计100W新增资金都不一定有，这就造成了BTC价格最近的阴跌。这个也是件很无奈的事情。当然，一旦有什么风吹草动，每天450W的资金还真的不是个大数目。就好比.........................
你這個算法有問題: 1. Bitcoin 是一個國際市場, 沒有所謂只在中國抛售. 各國交易所之間的價格差異必會被套利 (即搬磚) 拉平 2. 雖然沒有實際數據, 但有一大部份的交易是場外交易. 场外交易不好算，但是每天挖出来的币国内约占一般，不管在哪里抛售，都是抛售啊 但你只計算中國的新資金投入, 就有問題. 現在中國市場和國際市場價格基本持平, 證明中國市場的資金出入管道仍正常運作. |
|
|
|
币没有挖掘出来，这部分有很大一部分是目前币价跌的那么多的原因。每天都有900W的币产生，需要一部分的钱来接盘，不接的话，价格只有跌。那么这900W算不算多呢？据说目前一半以上的算力在中
国，就是说每天中国的抛售压力在450W左右，当然每天挖出来的币可能不是全部抛售的，当然也有原来屯的也开始抛售，算个均值，还是在国内每天抛售450W的比特币，就是要求国内接盘侠要每天往交
易所里存450W，目前三大交易所我估计100W新增资金都不一定有，这就造成了BTC价格最近的阴跌。这个也是件很无奈的事情。当然，一旦有什么风吹草动，每天450W的资金还真的不是个大数目。就好比.........................
你這個算法有問題: 1. Bitcoin 是一個國際市場, 沒有所謂只在中國抛售. 各國交易所之間的價格差異必會被套利 (即搬磚) 拉平 2. 雖然沒有實際數據, 但有一大部份的交易是場外交易. |
|
|
|
|
Net holding reduced by 1425XBT on 14 Oct 2014.
The the "Net Assets" figures of 9th and 10th Oct 2014 were both 39.15 million USD. That was probably a mistake as they forgot to update the Net Assets of 10th Oct.
Therefore, the "1464XBT buy" on 10th Oct might not be true. Same for the "1425XBT sell" on 14th Oct
|
|
|
|
|
He should be punished for his stupidity
|
|
|
|
|
1464XBT bought last Friday. Bitcoin holding at ATH
|
|
|
|
So cheap coins are now or should I wait for even cheaper prices?
Why would these dumpers stop here? They will go on till Bitcoin is completely worthless. I don't have a problem with cheap coins. PS: The multi month downtrend isn't manipulated/manufactured, it's because there isn't enough buying to counteract the supply. How do you know Blitz? I can't prove it (how could you even rely on the phony exchange's data we have?), but it's my strong suspicion as someone who's seen it before in this asset. Bubble pops, money slowly leaves, miner profit margins (at record highs in winter due to the switch to ASIC tech) shrink compelling them to hoard less of the mined coins. It's natural bubble deflation. No manipulator can control the prices over such long peridos without incurring losses. If you think that, then you basically ascribe him a deity status. You guys are just looking for someone to blame. But it is nothing special. Yes, I believe the current situation is purely an imbalance of demand and supply, and is not something fundamental. This certainly hurts anyone with a long position but if you are not in leverage and have enough fiat to pay all your bills, you should have nothing to worry. |
|
|
|
|
Looks bad? Yes. But if we could go >1.5 at a bubble, going to -1.25 occasionally is very likely in long-term. Just an inverted bubble.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
