Yes.   Because it uses forum gold instead of actual money, it makes it harder to switch to another site due to the network effect.

I am someone who has actually bought and sold items in Diablo II.


First, I want to say that the numbers I am about to give are approximate and can vary wildly based upon realm, ladder vs non-ladder, and classic vs expack.


-SC is significantly more popular than HC (about 5:1).

-The quantity of posts about SC trading is significantly larger than for HC (about 5:1).

-Useful but easy to get items are worthless in SC, but can sell for some pocket change in HC.  While the items are easy to get, they are destroyed when a character dies in HC.  In SC, the supply of these items will keep rising until demand is exceeded, but in HC some of these items remain valuable because people die faster than the items can be replaced.


-Items that are very hard to find are significantly more valuable in HC than in SC (about 5:1) since the supply of them is so low.


-Items that are absurdly hard to find are more valued similarly SC and HC.  This is because most people are not willing to spend 100 USD  (or more) on a single item.   In SC, the number of players is greater and so the number of these kind of people is also greater.  In addition, SC players get to keep the item forever, while HC players risk loosing the item.


-Both SC and HC have PvP communities.   People who like to PvP are more likey to buy gear.  HC PvP isn't as common, but HC PvPers have to rebuild their character when they die so they will spend a lot more time and money in total than SC players.


-HC seems to have more "traders" than SC.  What I mean by this is that in SC, there are a lot of people who will buy items for money, but never sell items for money.  This is because finding items that are worth money is harder in SC than in HC.  In HC, seems to have larger number of people who both buy and sell items.  This is because when you spend a long time without dying you will gain a lot of items that are valuable, and when you die you will suddenly have an increased need for items.




IMO, having low transaction fees (such as with BTC) would really be a good thing for D2/D3 HC.  Unfortunately, I don't see why BTC would take off for D3 when D2JSP has such a monopoly on D2 trading.  It seems that people would need a very good reason to switch a way from D2JSP when D3 comes out.

We jumped from 4.8 to 5.1 in a  few minutes.  Almost there. 

That wouldn't be enough.


Maybe they have 1 quadrillion (10^15) dollars  and 1 billion billion billion billion billion billion trillion (10^66) : 1 leverage.

If you are going to allow fake orders, why even have this?

The $2 walls were a much larger portion of the market.  MtGoxLive's graph showed 50K BTC on the bid wall and 25K BTC in other bids... this time it's 45K BTC on the bid wall and 115K BTC in other bids.

Here is a situation in which you would want to choose your leverage:



1) With 10:1 leverage, your account can short or long up to 100 BTC. (For the sake of simplicity, let's say this stays true throughout this example).
2) You have a long position of 50 BTC.
3) You think that having a long position of 100 BTC is too risky, but a long position of 50 BTC is good.
4) You set an ask order for 50 BTC, but don't set any bid orders (too risky).

Now here is where setting the leverage comes in.

5) You set your leverage to 5:1.  The maximum you can short/long is now 50BTC.
6) In addition to setting the ask order for 50 BTC, you also set a bid order for 50 BTC.



-If the market goes down then up, your bid order is canceled (not enough leverage), then your ask order is executed.  This is is the same as steps 1-4.
-If the market goes up then down, you made money without taking unacceptable risks!



Being able to set your leverage has limited use since it is global for all trades.  If you could set it for each trade it would be a lot more useful.

LOL, it would be hilarious to see the BTC price graphs after an event like that.  On most graphs, 0.01 USD/BTC and 32USD/BTC would appear to be the same height compared to a 1,000,000,000,000 BTC/USD spike (which could be achieved by selling 1 Satoshi for 10,000 USD).

There is always risk.

-If BTC goes down to 0$, it is likely due to something catastrophic.  If something catastrophic happens to BTC, it will likely never recover, meaning that you will be forced to

-In addition to market risk, there are other risks.   A critical flaw could be found in the private key cryptography BTC uses, allowing everyone to spend everyone else's money.  If this happens, you would not be able to get back your investment.

-If you ONLY trade when there is "no risk" (you can  buy all BTC), then it is likely that your orders will never be executed (since BTC isn't likey to drop to 0.01$ in normal circumstances).  The only way your orders would be executed is if something catastrophic happened, and if something catastrophic happens then you likely just bought something that is worthless.

This is awesome.  It's basically a clone of D2JSP.org, but it uses BTC. D2JSP's "forum gold" is the worst thing about it... you can buy it but you can't (legally) sell it.  This creates inflation that only benefits the site's owner.


Now we need a new game that is like Diablo 2 so the site can be take off like D2JSP did.

Normally, when a wall is placed, people put bids/asks near it so people will buy/sell to them before buying/selling into the wall.


Having a small order and a large order right next to each other like this makes it appear vertical.

No.  MtGoxLive draws lines, not bars.  There are no orders between the "left side of the slope" and the "right side of the slope".  On the "left side of the slope", there is a small order (not large enough to be seen on the graph).   On the "right side of the slope", there is a 17k bidwall.  MtGoxLive just drew a line between those two points.

Supply will not change matter how many people mine.

Oh yea, good point.  I forgot that there could be TWO manipulators.

At the time of this post, there are two large (over 100,000 USD) walls right next to each other at 5.20 and 5.21.

What is the manipulator trying to do?



It doesn't seem like he could make money on MtGox or Bitcoinica because the spread/commision are too high for how far apart the walls are.



Any ideas?

Long positions are only available until someone takes them.  Once a few more people go long, the "*" will be  back.

I don't want external information to be used.


To clarify, I didn't mean to use a coefficient or constant.  I meant that exponents would be used.  In the "1 million difficulty" example, I meant that 1,000,000:10 would be the ratio for the exponents (a difficulty change of 1 million fold would change the reward by 10 fold).


We don't need exact information about the energy/computers.  Some inflation or deflation is just fine.  This would just reduce the deflation.



A technological breakthrough is something that I didn't consider.


However, if it is using something like the 1,000,000:10 ratio,  then it would need to be a MAJOR technological breakthrough to destroy the currency.


In the 1,000:000:10 example, a 64 fold increase in mining rate would double the rate of coin production.

One thing that (in my opinion) is limiting BTC's growth is that only 50 BTC are produced per block (for now) no matter how many people decide to use it.  This means that if everyone wants some at the same time, the price can climb extremely quickly.  This limits the rate at which new people start using it.


My idea is to have the amount of coin produced be higher when the difficulty is higher.  To give an extreme example, lets say that when that when the difficulty is doubled, the block reward is also doubled.  If this new coin gets popular, the price will go up.  When the price goes up it will be profitable for people to buy mining hardware (or turn on the hardware they already have) so more people will mine.   Since more people are mining, the difficulty will go up.  Since the difficulty goes up, the block reward will go up.  With more coins being created, the price will begin to go back down.  With the price going back down, the difficulty will follow.


Doubling the reward when the difficulty doubles is rather extreme.  I'm not sure if that would work or not.  It could be much less extreme.  For example, 50 coins could be created per block at 1 difficulty, but 500 coins per block at 1 million difficulty.  This would decrease the deflation caused by increased usage, but it wouldn't eliminate it.




Any thoughts about this idea?

There goes the wall!