|
BTC-E has become the largest non-Chinese exchange, which is if you think about it quite telling.
Not because they are so awesome, but because they are still left relatively un-scorched.
|
|
|
|
GBTC data from OTCQX page at end of day:
Date day's price range day's volume
---------------+----------------------+-------------
2015-05-04 37.98 -- 42.00 765
2015-05-05 55.00 -- 94.86 435
43.5 BTCDid somebody call it a turd yet? Ah, right... it was me. |
|
|
|
Yes it can be explained with Unwarranted Self-Importance or in short USI. [NSFW] Yeah I did that on purpose. |
|
|
|
OMFG! It has been online 1 whole day, what a failure.
If Silbert and co have put so much time and money into this thing without some inkling of interest or necessity, then the market will spit them out.
Zooming out to a distance, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Ridiculous to proclaim it a turd after 24 hrs.
Lets see how it is in a week.. Any random altcoin generates more of everything just in the first hours, just saying. Who knows maybe it'll catch up, but the notion that retail investors will be storming into this has been pretty much debunked now. |
|
|
|
280% bid/ask spread. Oh crap, what a turd! PS: A whopping 76 BTC worth of volume!!!111oneelven |
|
|
|
I don't know metatrader4. Assuming it's an app using btc-e api? I don't want to get rid of stops, I just want to remove the exchanges knowledge about it.
Margin call levels are harder. I have no viable idea on how to hide that info from the exchange. Lender/trader would have to manage stuff themselves, but I know of no trustless way to do that.
What are stop-outs?
That's a problem because MT4 doesn't use btc-e api. It's a separate trading platform which uses btc-e as a liquidity provider. It's mostly used for leveraged trading, so stops and margin calls are essential. Stop-out is when your position is automatically liquidated after you fail to provide additional collateral while being margin called. IIRC margin call level for BTC-e/MT4 is 30% while stop out is 15%. So that monster spike we saw on the normal exchange was a short squeeze in the btc-e MT4 engine? |
|
|
|
Examples given include (but are not limited to):
- social institutions like marriage
- religious institutions
- political institutions
- business institutions like corporations.
you seem to be so deeply entrenched in the far left side of what you believe to be a right-left spectrum of political thought, that you are starting to bend the meaning of words to better conform with your particular world-view.
Except mtgox was a 1 manchild ("CEO" plus everything else) and a few tech support workers type of startup. Even calling it a company is a stretch. That's not a cooperation, which has the prefix co- in it, implying several participants. |
|
|
|
^Until that day, they remain an unforgivable embarrassment
Yes, an unforgettable reminder that if you don't control your keys, you don't own shit! Same goes for many markets... I'm anticipating the day when some other markets start to unwind and people begin to realize that they are only holding promises, well, I only hope they are as calm. There is something called regulatory oversight, yes it sometimes does not work but it prevents things from going as bad as it went with gox. Deal with it wingnut. LOL! Just like it prevented Lehman Bros.? Or maybe going from less than 1 trillion to more than 18 trillion in debt during the reign of Obama was a good thing? You can take your "regulation" and shove it, my friend. *edit* mtgox was a corrupt, failing institution, but at least it was allowed to fail. Some people lost money in that fiasco , but at least the losses were absorbed by the parties involved, not spread upon the general public like what happened in 2008. I have no faith in a regulatory system that exits only to prevent competition and does nothing to prevent corruption. Yeah 2008 was bad, and it was partly caused by lack of regulatory oversight, which in term was caused by wingnut lobbying groups in politics. Interesting that you call mtgox an "institution", last time I checked that was a company. You are so deeply entrenched in the language of far out right wing politics (sometimes called libertarianism) that how you express things stops making sense to regular people.  |
|
|
|
^Until that day, they remain an unforgivable embarrassment
Yes, an unforgettable reminder that if you don't control your keys, you don't own shit! Same goes for many markets... I'm anticipating the day when some other markets start to unwind and people begin to realize that they are only holding promises, well, I only hope they are as calm. There is something called regulatory oversight, yes it sometimes does not work but it prevents things from going as bad as it went with gox. Deal with it wingnut. |
|
|
|
And since when a ponzi (is this even certified?) scheme is bad to take BTCs for its "service"?
Holy shit. |
|
|
|
|
I'm skeptical of that claim of 16nm considering most consumer devices aren't even at that scale. But if it even has a remote merit I can't see how 21inc could compete.
|
|
|
|
This looks interesting! More info on this?
We are still in the pre-announce stage but the design and location are taking shape.  We are shooting for a cost of around $5 million offering 50,000 shares of $100 each. The initial businesses on the platform will be part of the company and boat slips will be paid to the company with the profits going to the shareholders. Oh my, this gonna be a good laugh. Can't wait for Galt's Gulch to take shape! Created a wiki yet? |
|
|
|
I hear you, but we are not talking about anything this powerful... Built-in IC could hash at 1GH and consume less than 0.5W, and with new tech around the corner to be even faster and more efficient. Now, multiply this by millions of smart devices around the world and you have one powerful decentralized network. IBM, CISCO, WHIRLPOOL, etc can now create their own mining pools those devices will hash to and get extra stream of revenue, perhaps sharing some with their customers. I just do not see anything technologically unreachable here I guess.
That only works out if 21inc can ensure providing the most efficient Bitcoin ASIC in the long run, if at any point the competition catches up it's over for them. I don't even think it would work in the short run because as I recall the competition is already pretty close to the latest production node at 28nm. Thinking that they surpass the competition by a significant margin is unrealistic imho. So what's left is a level playing field where electricity costs make up more then half of the value of mined Bitcoins in the latest design. I already posted about the economics of scale, meaning that in principle a dedicated larger Bitcoin miner will always be more efficient than a small hybrid design. But lets say they pull a rabbit out of their hat and arrive at >2gh/w wall plug efficacy. How long do you think would it take the competition to catch up and even surpass them? How can they hope to remain providing the most efficient design considering the economics of scale? Keep in mind that, right now the break even point for new mining hardware is close to 8 years. (If price and difficulty stays the same) |
|
|
|
That's really... awful? I'm finding it hard to believe that article. Toasters are probably a bit of a stretch but I do see micro miners / Bitcoin nodes being built-in on some home smart devices that already have CPUs and wi-fi controllers. Why not? Cuz it has to be a dedicated ASIC on the SOC which would compete with silicon area of the rest of the device. That makes this thing especially uneconomical in comparison to dedicated devices. The problem is the whole hybrid design aspect which doesn't live up to the promise of more than the sum of it's parts. Take hybrid laptop/tablet PCs for instance. They are both heavier than real tablet PCs, have less performance than laptops and are less durable than both. A set top box mining bitcoin would have less Gigahash/Watt while having for instance a slower GPU than a standard box. Worse, if that set top box should have any chance of ever recouping the hardware costs it should have active cooling and a larger power supply to enable at least some reasonable hash rate both which are superfluous for a regular set top box consuming <10W |
|
|
|
Stop over thinking it, just because it wasn't smart doesn't mean some sinister purpose. It could just have been that... not smart.
So you're saying occam's razor? essentially yes |
|
|
|
|
Stop over thinking it, just because it wasn't smart doesn't mean some sinister purpose. It could just have been that... not smart.
|
|
|
|
|
yeah.
To say what this thread really is supposed be about: How overextend is the short/long side in comparison?
In context of the previous ATH that is 81.8% of the ATH for longs and 95.5% for shorts.
The other thing is the ratio between shorts/longs that is more of a indicator of "how dangerous is a short squeeze" if you look right now that's at 21.1%
|
|
|
|
 yet another ATH in BTC swaps. I'm still flabbergasted by the amount of USD swaps, though. It's still roughly 4-5 times higher than the BTC ones. Are you guys purposefully ignorant? There is a chart intended to compare the value of swaps on this very site. Oh of course the amount of Bitcoins required for a certain amount of value in swap lingo went up when prices went down. If you want to judge the sediment you guys are using the wrong chart. https://bfxdata.com/sentiment/longshortTotal Active Long Swaps vs Short Swaps vs BTCUSD price (shorts expressed in USD equivalent): displays the total sum of all active swaps on bitfinex. the green area is the total sum of USD swaps over time (i.e swaps used for long positions, margin traders use USD swaps in long positions). The 2 red areas represent the total sum of BTC and LTC Swaps (i.e swaps used for short positions, margin traders use BTC / LTC swaps in short positions). To make the values better comparable I represented the sum of BTC and LTC swaps in USD worth. otherwise you would be comparing apples and oranges  I hate quoting myself but it's on page 2 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
