|
Managed to put some bids along the way in the supper laggy exchange, waiting for the second round of dumping.
|
|
|
|
Of course coins are coins, but when the men in black show up at your door and start asking you about tx between you and other addresses as they try to id people, then you shall realize why not all coins are equal :p That is why the real solution to fungibility is making all coins dirty. They do not have time to question millions of people. That is how assymetric warfare works boys :p Use mix service for that purpose. Rely on everyone changing address every time is always risky and will only give you false sense of safety. |
|
|
|
There are some major differences now vs april. The most important one:
- Volume is spread in different exchanges
I highly doubt that we well see same kind of superpaniccrash that took place in %80 volume leading shitgox. Base in stronger. There were maybe 20k sold now and it didn't make a big dent and thats over 10 000 000 USD...
Sure, but the increase/day was so damn high last time. We didnt see this yet, so no reason to crash anyway. But if we see that increase again, it won't matter if you have 5 exchangers or 1. People will panic the fuck out of it, for human reasons, not for shitgox-lags. ...but the panic/crash is not nearly as big, that's the thing, all is relative. How do you know ? the crash has not started yet.... Another difference is the average cost of the coin. It is much higher now than April. Many current holders bought at above $100 - $150, therefore, it will be really reluctant for them to sell below that price. So I believe bids under $150 don't have a good chance to be filled in all cases. $600 to $150 crash seems huge enough to me. |
|
|
|
Just half an hour ago, the whole ask orders are around 1000 BTC in BTCChina, but now there're 1600BTC up to 3990 CNY now. It seems a quick small correction attracts quit a lot sellers.
Just wait to see what happens when 60k coins are rapidly dumped as it happened on April, 10th. Considering the current bid depth and daily volume, dumping 60k coins at once may drop the price to almost 0, but meanwhile you could dump it carefully for couple of days without affecting the price much. For someone has 60k coins (that's more than $30M now), I doubt he will choose to dump at once and lose half of his wealth. Guess you're new here  Last weekends dip was about 60k dumped and it crashed the price to... where it was 3 days before. No one knows where the hell this is going but in terms of volume on the exchanges and panic buying we're at about $120 on the April rise. I mean sell it to the wall immediately, as the most extreme case, but yes I admit no one will do something like that. Large scale dumping tends to happen in stages. For example someone dumps about 4000 BTC like we just saw. The price will then quickly recover on low volume and everyone runs around congratulating themselves and patting each other on the back because they were strong and for 'holding' their coins instead of selling. The wealthy guy just made a shit load of money off the back of those who didn't sell. As soon as the bids fill in it happens again. This is if one person is dumping. If another whale is watching (and they will be) it will be a race to see who holds out the longest before dumping. As far as I'm concerned this is how a mass dumping event happens. All it takes is one or two to play the dumping game at the same time then others join in. Before you know it there's a free for all and everyone who's actively trading dumps their coins, exchanges get overloaded and the price bounces around like a ball bouncing down a stairway. Yes, exactly. So why daily volume is important here to evaluate the effect of a dump. With the current daily volume around 50K in average, dump 60K does not seem so scary at all. For example, today's volume is already more than 86K in BTCChina. |
|
|
|
Just half an hour ago, the whole ask orders are around 1000 BTC in BTCChina, but now there're 1600BTC up to 3990 CNY now. It seems a quick small correction attracts quit a lot sellers.
Just wait to see what happens when 60k coins are rapidly dumped as it happened on April, 10th. Considering the current bid depth and daily volume, dumping 60k coins at once may drop the price to almost 0, but meanwhile you could dump it carefully for couple of days without affecting the price much. For someone has 60k coins (that's more than $30M now), I doubt he will choose to dump at once and lose half of his wealth. Guess you're new here Last weekends dip was about 60k dumped and it crashed the price to... where it was 3 days before. No one knows where the hell this is going but in terms of volume on the exchanges and panic buying we're at about $120 on the April rise. I mean sell it to the wall immediately (the order book of BTCChina is not so thick anyway), as the most extreme case, but yes I admit no one will do something like that. |
|
|
|
|
Mining will get ROI in fiat, yes. Mining will get ROI in BTC, no. Just that simple. People have different definitions of ROI.
|
|
|
|
Just half an hour ago, the whole ask orders are around 1000 BTC in BTCChina, but now there're 1600BTC up to 3990 CNY now. It seems a quick small correction attracts quit a lot sellers.
Just wait to see what happens when 60k coins are rapidly dumped as it happened on April, 10th. Considering the current bid depth and daily volume, dumping 60k coins at once may drop the price to almost 0, but meanwhile you could dump it carefully for couple of days without affecting the price much. For someone has 60k coins (that's more than $30M now), I doubt he will choose to dump at once and lose half of his wealth. |
|
|
|
|
Just half an hour ago, the whole ask orders are around 1000 BTC in BTCChina, but now there're 1600BTC up to 3990 CNY now. It seems a quick small correction attracts quit a lot sellers.
|
|
|
|
This is why decentralised mining is so important. When I finish GBT, pools won't have nearly as much influence as they do now.
Thanks, Luke. I will read BIP 22 and BIP 23 carefully. Currently I am curious how you find a balance between giving back block creation right to the miners and avoiding selfish miners to hide the blocks they find for themselves. I am sure I can find answers in 2 BIPs written by you. The miners still send the pool a proof-of-work including proof the pool is being paid for the reward. I mean if the miner gets enough data and happens to find a block himself, he may choose to publish it himself instead sending back to the pool. Maybe a silly question since I have not read the BIPs carefully yet. |
|
|
|
Funny... bitstamp and gox climbing, but btcchina is going down ...
Due to the lag, orders in BTCChina takes couple of minutes to be processed. |
|
|
|
Bitcoinity appears to be very, very broken. Btcchina is showing about 400 CNY higher than it actually is right now.
try bitcoinwisdom, much better. |
|
|
|
Kinda glad GOX doesn't have the market now, with China we might have a chance
BTCChina is very laggy now. So it takes time for it to adjust. |
|
|
|
|
BTC transaction is way too slow. I should've transferred 30 minutes earlier.
|
|
|
|
Why are the USD exchanges not following China? ^^
China exchange has a coin shortage. What happens if they run out? It's an exchange, not a store to buy BTC. So short of coin means no one want to sell at current price. Seems only around 1000 BTC in the ask side. I suppose if there were all buyers and no registered sellers on an exchange and the buyers placed all their coins in cold storage the exchange could run out of coins the same way bitstamp seems to have run short of fiat. Yes, I am just saying it's not exactly like a store out of stock, but an exchange out of sellers. Bitstamp short of fiat because the banks closing at weekend. But short of BTC only means no sellers (more precisely no one put ask orders) since BTC transactions are 24/7. No ask orders does not mean there are no selling pressure. Sellers could be hesitating at predicting the trend. They may keep watching the market and put the mouse over the 'market sell' botton now. Some sellers may also set the selling threshold on their trading bots. Therefore, crash may happens anytime. Just needs some one pull the trigger. |
|
|
|
|
Currently, BTC transaction takes much longer (it shows 2 hours in blockchain.info) than fiat transferring. Ironic.
EDIT: seems the prediction of blockchain.info is far from accurate.
|
|
|
|
Why are the USD exchanges not following China? ^^
China exchange has a coin shortage. What happens if they run out? It's an exchange, not a store to buy BTC. So short of coin means no one want to sell at current price. Seems only around 1000 BTC in the ask side. |
|
|
|
This is why decentralised mining is so important. When I finish GBT, pools won't have nearly as much influence as they do now.
Thanks, Luke. I will read BIP 22 and BIP 23 carefully. Currently I am curious how you find a balance between giving back block creation right to the miners and avoiding selfish miners to hide the blocks they find for themselves. I am sure I can find answers in 2 BIPs written by you. |
|
|
|
No. It isn't just tx which are psuedo anonymous, NODES are also pseudo anonymous. Generally in decentralized networks this brings up a problem called the sybill attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attackSay there are 50,000 nodes. What you don't know is that I personally control 49,900 of them. Not very decentralized huh. To the network all the nodes appear as equal peers but in reality a super majority are controlled by me. Given the low cost of running a node security can't rely on majority of nodes. It would be easy to circumvent. Bitcoin sidesteps this problem with the proof of work. A hash is a hash that is all that matters. 100 TH/s from a single node is no different than 1 TH/s from 100 nodes. If such silly measures were attempted pools would simply operate out of multiple nodes or split into multiple virtual pools (where miners are transferred from virtual pool to virtual pool automatically to load balance). Still topics like this make me wonder why so many people fear free markets. Luke has miners because he built a pool and people saw value in it. If in the future they don't see value in it the share of his pool will decline. Case in point take a look at DeepBit. At one time people feared DeepBit would 51% the network. Seems quaint now. I think you are too hasty to argue with others. Actually what you saying here exactly supports what I proposed. Sybil Attack is harmful because 'one person has too much influence on the p2p network', and that's exactly what a big pool operator can do. 'Prove by Work' avoids someone to create a large number of nodes, but cannot prevent someone from creating a pool and attracts a lot of other nodes to contribute hash rate and becomes essentially same as Sybil Attacker. One thing you said is correct. The current pool operator could create tens or hundreds of pools if there's some restriction on pool size. So restrictions on pool size does not eliminate big pools, but at least increases their difficulty. Monopoly is not free market. You may think miners can easily switch pools so it is still a free market even there're only 3 - 5 big pools. This, however, is not true. It's only true if every bitcoin user has equal power of hashing and miners are all bitcoin users care about the future of BTC. Now, however, hashing power belongs to some professional miners or miner companies, who do not care the bitcoin user's benefit at all. Therefore, no free market here. DeepBit is pulling down by DDoS attack, not because miners leave there voluntarily. BTCGuild does not excceed 40% because their own discipline, not because the miners leave them voluntarily. Most large scale miners now only care about profit, not the future of BTC, since they are not necessary BTC believers, but mostly profit hunters. |
|
|
|
The one word no one wants to hear "Regulation".
More decentralization means 'less regulation'. |
|
|
|
One of the main reasons why people love BTC is that they think BTC is democratic and nobody can damage it since it is protected by millions of users. Call me stupid if you want cause I feel quite unconformable now when I realized just 3 to 5 persons (the operators of BTCGuild, GHash, Eligius, BitMinter, and Slush. See https://blockchain.info/pools) can effectively damage the who ecosystem. One example is the current proposal of Luke Jr (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0). Yes, this time that patch may be not so harmful and you happen to side with Luke. But eventually you may disagree on other more serious issues but you have to put all your trust on that 3 to 5 operators. Could we do something in the protocol, so that no mining pool could exceeds 5% of the market share and bring back BTC to be real decentralized again? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
