So the diagram states that the price today is not as far off from it's long term average as it was back then? We only saw a 500% increase instead of 3500% given the same time constants?
Yes, its a little hard to understand but compare the top diagram blue line from April-July 2011 and compare that to Jan 2013 onwards. April-July 2011 shows a much steeper rise. |
|
|
|
|
>>> btcstats.volumeBetween(db,10*btcstats.Minutes,0)
2013-03-19 11:02:23 to 2013-03-19 11:12:23: Avg price: 58.566 (56.200 to 62.000) Total volume: 8586.48399, Cumulative cost: 511324.00000 Buy volume: 7933.77667 (473468.31 USD), Sell volume: 652.70731 (37856.53 USD) Ratio: 12.15518 ( 12.51)
Yes that was a half million USD spent in 10 minutes!
|
|
|
|
You may now commence your panic buys...  013-03-19 10:32:14.667683: 3735 bids of 49859911 btc (8002029.00) above 0. 273 bids of 10729 btc (551568.00) above 50. 199 asks of 14200 btc (824433.00) below 60. 519 asks of 45354 btc (3226925.00) below 100.  |
|
|
|
Me thinks somebody should get working on a decentralised exchange if its even technically feasible.
I've been considering how to do it. I'll need to obtain legal advice, though - there's one piece of it that will probably require a lawyer's advice (especially in the light of the guidance memo's mention of "e-precious metals"). /Facepalm Why would you set up a decentralised exchange that could be hosted on multiple computers in multiple jurisdictions if you were going to comply with all their endless rules & regs?, especially if you are in multiple countries it will be infeasible to comply. What would be the point of the decentralisation? look at bitcoinx. Imagine a bunch of different xxxcoin currencies, all trading on the same blockchain. Most of them are backed by someone for something (like USD). Now, you pay the backer 50 BTC (say) and he gives you 250 usdCoins. First trap... are you "printing" (counterfeiting) USD b/c your usdCoins are not really USD? Ok this may be avoidable by issuing DUScoins (some other name). But you have the reputation paradox -- anyone with a good enough reputation and $ to back DUScoins doesn't want to risk going to jail. And cannot be anonymous. But let's say it happens. Someday someone wants to return DUScoins to the backer and get real physical bills (or a wire transfer) of USD. I'd imagine that that would be the moment when you as the backer need to comply with AML and insist on ID. BTW, IANAL. |
|
|
|
I don't believe his story.
The market reacted because it's Monday and it's been waiting to react as the bids piled up.
Yeah, even if the story is true (he really posted to reddit, there really is a NYT reporter) he's doing a mind job on that reporter more then on the bitcoin market. The Monday bull run is extremely consistent. It just can't be traded like the weekend dip used to be b/c it often does not come back down! |
|
|
|
|
Use a blockchain to issue shares by removing the mining subsidy, only one PK can sign a genesis tx, new block maybe every 6 hrs, company has a cheap fpga miner...
|
|
|
|
|
Key question is what do they export? Cause I doubt many here want pesos!
|
|
|
|
Uhh I don't know about the rest of the bears, but I want it to go lower so I can buy more.
I'm the same right now. Of course once I make a purchase I'll want it to go up as high as possible. Separate in your head what you want from what you actually think will happen. You may become a better trader. And you are a bull/bear based on your projections not your desires... you both sound like bulls to me. Bulls who are hoping for a little downward knife cut. |
|
|
|
Ok I'll bite. Its too big to imagine a trader just fired and forgot. So its purpose is to communicate to the sellers... it is saying at a minimum "look, there's a whale on the buy side". What's the purpose of that? Well, if it was located at around 40 or above, I would imagine that its purpose would be to threaten any fake sell-side walls: "If you are not careful, I might just snap up your sell wall!" But so far off the money, at 30, I'm thinking it is trying to pull a serious whale seller lower... it is saying "I am here to buy your ask, just not at today's price". |
|
|
|
|
great final quote: "Money is a confidence game; people are starting to gain confidence in bitcoins"
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Im looking into Clarkmoody order book, and i see there are only 400 btc for sell from 52 till 365.50
someone more looking this? anyone could confirm?
thanks
This is only on the open books. There are also dark books & trading bots that make those numbers mostly meaningless. Could u tell me more? who owns the dark books? Hmmm... MtGox used to have dark "pools" (not books), but stopped around mid 2011. I agree that the numbers a meaningless, since there are probably tens of thousands more BTC sitting in MtGox accounts, just not on the order book. But if the comment is about dark pools, they're no longer there. Then, why somebody want hide his intentions of selling? i can understand fake walls, but not this in any way To avoid bots bidding .001 more than you. |
|
|
|
Just checked. There more than 6.3 million dollar on the bid side.  A large minority of this $ probably came from panic sellers during the 2 dips last week and this week. So this stat might not be bullish in the short term (a week or so) since these bids are unlikely to move above their sell price easily. But other stats indicate a lot of new $ is still pouring in. When this causes the market to regain momentum, all these sellers will have to hop back on board or be left behind. So my prediction is when the market shows a good uptrend (52-55), its gonna really pop! |
|
|
|
In the coming years their will be more and more block spam on the Net work the way you fix it is to impose fees not lower them. A % based fee is better at any level then a flat rate of FREE. Right now we are moving towards a Free system to send money. I don't understand why they (SD) can't bring all gambling in house the way MtGox dose with trading.
Because Satoshi Dice is doing it the right way, and Mt Gox is doing it the wrong way. You should consider that requiring users to register is a dangerous centralization that inevitably leads to corruption. Bitcoin is a new phenomenon that requires new thinking, using the old paradigm doesn't make sense when the main point of bitcoin is to obsolete the old paradigm. Your point is the equivalent of "I don't understand why bitcoin can't require named accounts the way Federal Reserve based banks do it." One of the worst Straw man arguments ever. That or your trolling. So you're saying you don't have a real response? Thought so. You imply I want SD dice to use verified accounts I never said that. I said we need to help them bring their gambling system in house or pressure them to rise minim bets You don't have to use verified account to do that. You should be more concerned with the centralization of the mining community and the vulnerability that rises from that. Extortion, bribery and collusion. You are not considering all kinds of legal ramifications. Today, does SD hold your $? No. Is there any physical machine or location where the gambling occurs? Not really, its just a transfer on the distributed blockchain. And is there any way SD can determine the source of an incoming bet? No. Once something like a centralized web site is implemented its very easy to pressure the system into denying all USA based IP addresses (for example), or even require verified accounts. Note, I have no financial interest in SD and in fact dislike gambling beyond a couple of friends playing for nickels. But that does not mean I think the blockchain (or anything) should enforce my personal views. Also, I think that Bitcoin is too small right now to drive successful services to an alt-coin. And there is plenty of mining hash power right now. And its rising. The market has spoken. Let's see the hash rate actually descend dramatically before we start imagining that miners are getting a bad deal, and need txn space competition to increase txn fees. |
|
|
|
Over 6 mil now. Looks like bids are rising exponentially.  Pretty amazing. I wonder how much of the "new" bids are people who tried to play in on the mini-crash and are now just hoping to buy back in at the price they sold. Remember people, always hold your coinage! Bids are at the highest I've ever seen them at 6.2 million. At the same time there is a lot of available BTC below 50 -- very low slippage for the first time in months. I wonder if we'll see a whale snap up these coins... 2013-03-13 09:50:28.617562: 3248 bids of 37725920 btc (6270525.00) above 0. 525 bids of 37404 btc (1554725.00) above 40. 358 asks of 44513 btc (2160203.00) below 50. 743 asks of 64823 btc (3256849.00) below 60. |
|
|
|
|
I already bought some (admittedly not much) but I haven't bought since around 10..
|
|
|
|
|
OP
I am spending my time writing this not because I care anything about you but because I am offended at your graceless attitude towards our current devs who are working hard and doing a great job. And they should know that "we the people" are merely amused by people like you.
On intelligence:
You seem to have no contextual social awareness. So if you are smart it is only in narrow subdomains.
And you seem to have actually taken an IQ test and are boasting your scores; 2 behaviors rarely exhibited by the group in which you claim membership.
Domain knowledge (hamiltonian cycle etc) is no measure of intelligence as it is easily acquired but you seem unaware of this.
You seem to be unaware of the massive gaps in your own proposals.
You seem to have no real understanding of project longevity -- of how the evolution of the importance and criticality of a project creates problems. You are completely unwilling to contribute, but you seem to be unable to recognize that all projects and contributors juggle similar time constraints and so often the implemented solution is not optimal, simply expedient. And some shortcuts which are irrelevant when bitcoin is valued at .02 can become very important when it is 50 bucks.
Your ideas...
have already been considered and implemented in alt-coins as some have suggested. At least the ones that aren't totally stupid.
ignore the hard problems... like how to spontaneously derive a trust metric using an algorithm that cannot be defeated even if examined.
Also, adjusting the balance in everybody's account rather then the price of goods will fool absolutely nobody.
And FYI, Bitcoin transfer or txn volume has no causal correlation to the price of a bitcoin in USD and only a large-time statistical correlation. And the price of BTC/USD vs BTC/silver vs BTC/web hosting are also not correlated so your single adjustment cannot hold more then one commodity steady. And it cannot even do that, because you are suggesting a maximum adjustment of what was it, .5% but we are seeing 25% volatility on a daily basis.
You have made absolutely zero consideration of self-interested (i.e. antagonistic) agents. And miss completely obvious strategies like "calculate the same algorithm (its FOSS) just before the network does. If it is going to reduce your coins, sell to another currency/commodity, if it will increase them buy coins." You have obviously only coded in an environment where all the programs are essentially considered to be benignly working towards the same goal -- that is, a normal corporate project.
When you were asked what you have done, a reasonable response would have been to point to a large OSS project that you have contributed to instead of your silly code snippets that have no applicability.
In the end you present yourself as rude and stupid. Truly this is amateur hour -- you are presenting yourself as such. At the same time, thx for the laughs!
|
|
|
|
if the block size limit were raised to 1MB, then this free transaction capaticy will likely become 128KB, so that more transactions become free
The capacity will become whatever the miners are willing to set it at, no more. If they want more fees nobody is forcing them to accept free transactions. OK, time for a quick thought-experiment: What if the some people get their way and the limit is increased to say 100MB per block. If you're a miner, what would you do? Would you accept 1000s of free requests? Hell no! Compel users to put in proper bids. You need to earn a living too! However, what happens with all that spare capacity? Most miners will keep rejecting those "free bids"... until it's a 'rogue' miner's turn to discover a block. What do they do? They dip into the "infinite memory heap" where 80k transaction requests have accumulated, and they accept the lot! The people rejoice! Free transactions are back! All sorts of new services pop up, except that they have to rely on the 'slow' part of the economy because of course the rogue miner is pretty small and only discovers 1 block every 3 days on average. All is well and good in the Bitcoin world -- velocity (and by extension: the exchange rate) is sky-high because of all the cheap/free TX requests being accepted. But then disaster strikes: the rogue miner has disappeared! The cheap/free TX requests (aka: "zero-conf transactions") are piling up in the infinite memory heap and nobody's signing them. Some users eventually increase their bids (e.g.: from 0 Satoshis to 500k Satoshis) to speed up payments. However, many others say "screw that. Visa and Paypal have improved their services a lot lately. I think I'll use them." What happens then? Volatility. The moral: without the ability to treat individual kilobytes of new block space as a scarce resource (and auction it off accordingly), one small miner could destabilise the whole market. No. simple soln: one or more of those services starts a miner. After all it is in their interest. Otoh, competing for blockspace opens the door for an altchain to service the market that cant afford the space. Maybe someday, but btc is still so small we should not turn away svcs. |
|
|
|
people now understand the problem has been fixed and it is just a waiting game. i see us over $45 before or soon after the chains is no longer forked...
48 hours? lulz
Back to 42.5 already.... edit 43.8 lulz That's because the exchanges stop accepting bitcoin deposit. When they open again, coins in cold wallets will flood in. Tighten your seat belt. I wonder... these ppl are going to see another recovery to around 45. And a successful handling of a bug and fork after just a couple of blocks is actually a really good sign. The bitcoin network survived and there was very little effect. At that point the smart coins will just go right back into paper wallets. |
|
|
|
BREAKING:
MT.GOX KEEPING BITCOIN VALUE ARTIFICIALLY HIGH WITH OWN FUNDS
Something stinks like someone trying to induce panic to get more coins. Link please |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
