The point I was making is that your permabull greed has cost you about 300% since last december:


If you even bought in before the bubble, and STILL didn't want to sell at extremely elevated prices, I don't know if I can find a better example of greed in this entire forum.

My point being that being perma-anything blinded by greed is a really bad trait and will cost you most, of which you are a perfect example.

IIRC, you bought heavily throughout and after the bubble at prices well over double what it's currently at.


Take all offense you want, that simply is what it's called. Are you not trying to make buttloads of money?

Rather, with high risk comes the high probability of losing most of your investment (as this is practically the definition of 'high risk'), and merely a small chance at great rewards.

Else your investment would've been low risk, obviously..

I remember you pouring everything you had into BTC when it was $1200. Gonna find that topic now and bump it for the education of others. Being perma-anything is a bad thing, and greed has obscured both your visions. The descision of never selling anything as BTC was reaching ATH's was clearly a bad one.

BitChick, maybe a bit off-topic, but I'm wondering - about a little over a year ago, you and your husband were pouring your monthly savings all into Bitcoin. Are you still a permabull at this stage, and are you two still pouring every penny leftover each month straight into BTC?

Fixed that for you.

Fixed that for you..

Selling to prevent additional losses if you are certain the price will drop lower, has never in the history of mankind been a bad idea. New traders should not buy into this bullshit of "don't sell if you bought higher!". It doesn't matter where you bought, low or high. If you feel it's going lower and you can't afford or don't want to take any more losses than the price you're at now, then you should sell. Plain and simple.

Telling people to hold and go for broke is borderline scamming.

How about the guy making bold claims puts the numbers where his mouth is instead?

Also


Just LOL. Let me take a look into my crystal ball for you

Strange though, during the multiple month long bull-run last year, I remember seeing an exact same pattern, though inverted (exponential ask-wall pedestal, slowly trailing linear bid-pedestal).

How peculiar.

And what, other than pure speculation (just like when you buy a lottery ticket), do you base that expectation on? By the few souls who said "BTC will be $100.000 one day"? At this moment there is no reason to expect a positive return on your investment. The long term upward trend that included the 3 bubbles at $32, $266 and $1200 has already been very convincingly breached downwards.

Shit, so, better put my savings in lottery tickets from now on, for one day they might buy you 20 stores.

/logic

I'd just like to note that Coinbase is not an exchange.

Coinbase does all it's trades completely and solely on Bitstamp. Just compare their 1 minute graphs on bitcoinwisdom, it's a 1:1 copy.

Let's bet for whatever amount you do have then.

This is your chance to double your money!!!!11!!11!1

Zolace, I'll bet you 50 BTC that it won't reach 650 anywhere in the next 48 hours. If it does I'll cleanly give you 50, if not you pay up 50 BTC.

We can use any reputable escrow on this forum.

You seem so sure of your claim so let's go.

Either you've lost your glasses or you're looking at a different chart.

It's called a bulltrap, fellas.

For now I am happy with the fix as it solves the exploit I mentioned in the OP, however, better rounding precision would be preferred as it is still possible to pay double.

Effectively and through proper planning it is now only possible to have people with 0.2% trading fee pay 0.4% if an order is completely bought by a streak of $5.01 orders.
This is a direct result of their trading fee policy which is mentioned in their ToS. I still do think this needs to be fixed, but we need a lot more community effort to get this done as this is mentioned in their ToS and we agreed to that by trading there.

The main issue I wanted to raise here is that their minimum order limit was not in agreement with their own minimum trading fee. This allowed for a disproportionate rounding error at the customer's expense, and was a (hopefully unintended) exploit to their fee rounding policy. I am happy to see that this particular exploit will be fixed and that their minimum order size has now been attuned to the lower end of their minimum trading fee.

- The exploit was illegitimate and bordering on illegal, which is why it was imperative that it had to be fixed.
- The trading fee rounding is mentioned in their ToS.

This is the main difference I want to stress.

I do however believe that a fair trading fee rounding would be much preferred

See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597647.msg6590228#msg6590228

I have received a response from Bitstamp. I request that you all re-read my starting post, as I changed it to better reflect the situation as it is.

Bitstamp did reply to my inquiry about their transaction fee calculation.


They further explain their rounding policy, which is fine, but did not explain (yet) why the order limit is then not $5 so that the exploit as mentioned in this post cannot happen. The fact remains that an order limit of $1 in combination with the rounding off to $0.01 causes any order of $1 or smaller to be charged five times the fee.

Whether or not the low $1 order limit is intentional in order to harvest these fees or not, I will leave upon you (the community) to decide. The willingness of Bitstamp to change the order limit will show us as a community if it is intentional or not.

I had a 20 BTC sell order there. Someone (maybe even Bitstamp splitting up orders) bought into that with tiny orders, causing me to pay 6x the fee I am supposed to pay. I had no choice in that matter. When hitting the sell button I agreed to sell at 432.01 at a fee of 0.2% over 20BTC, not 1.16%.