 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »
|
there are currently 3 times more bids than asks in the orderbook; in these conditions a drop is very unlikely.
Not that unlikely. There was a giant sell-off not too long ago and the order book looked similar. In fact, several times over the past 6 months there have been large sell-offs when the money in bids was significantly greater than the asks. if i do a sell order of say 20,000coins at $1 each... (i wish i had 20,000 coins  ) wont i sell to all the bids all at once, so they don't have time to take off their bid? That really depends on the exchange. In mtgox at least transactions are processed sequentially, so bots have enough time to shift phantom bid walls. If you don't believe me just try it yourself. If you sell a large order of coins at market price you won't see the USD balance in your account reach the final value instantaneously. You'll see it jumping up in increments. This all happens in less than 2 seconds, but that's plenty of time for a bot to react. |
|
|
|
A rollercoaster building its own tracks? That's...that's just like the blockchain! |
|
|
|
Depth charts would be an interesting information to have, but I think that people give too much importance to walls and standing orders. Anyone can make an order. I can easily write a bot to put random orders up there and I won't lose a cent. Market depth by itself is not an accurate measure of the buy/sell strength.
You would, of course, have to have funds deposited in the exchange though, correct? That in itself is interesting information to have, although I wouldn't give it too much importance either. standing orders can be bought/sold into... that makes a difference Key word there being "can". Bot-controlled walls can disappear or shift in terms of milliseconds, so they are extremely misleading. Especially when you consider that you're relying on misinformation that someone is purposely feeding you. |
|
|
|
I've been watching the price since Wednesday and its barely moved. Could we be about to go through a uber-boring period where there a more coins being mined so inflation is increasing but the actual price remains solid?
I guess we may find out by the time this weekend is up.
I don't think it's right to say that inflation is increasing but prices remain the same. Inflation is when prices don't remain the same - they go up. If the price remain the same then it's inflating at the same rate as USD. It's not a pretty rate, if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Stable price is not good, it means no more people adopt bitcoin.
A such low price, means that few ppl use it.
Funny, I think the exact opposite. Why would a merchant want to adopt bitcoins if the price was volatile? Too risky. Think about it... If you buy $30 sunglasses with 10 bitcoins today, and then bitcoin lost $1 in value the next day, merchant only has $20 nopw and lost all his profit. If bitcoin will be adopted by more people, it's price WILL increase, because more people will buy btc for their needs So that stability is only temporary When people say "volatility is bad for merchants", they actually mean "price drops are bad for merchants". Volatility can be managed by hedging, so it's not detrimental to merchants. |
|
|
|
|
Good idea but the depths don't mean much IMHO. We've all seen walls vanish into thin air when it's being approached.
It costs money to put up a bid wall (time value of USD), but it costs nothing to put up an ask wall since there are no Bitcoin banks right now. Of course keeping your coins on mtgox is more dangerous than keeping them in your wallet, but the difference in risk is negligible. The devaluation of your Bitcoins is almost the same whether they got stolen on mtgox or other people's bitcoins got stolen while yours sat in your wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the stupid question, but why can't you buy it on any of the exchanges?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still saddened by the fact that I will never hear President Cain quoting pokemon to the Emperor of Japan.
|
|
|
|
|
There's also the interesting case of USAA, where every customer is essentially a shareholder. The profits are either retained for future growth or returned to the customers.
|
|
|
|
Hi. I'm Rob Sama, the guy behind BitPak and Ominous Megacorp. The 'Ominous' name is a bit of a joke, as the company is basically just me and some developers. I hope the name isn't too much of a put off. We just submitted to the app store yesterday. So it will take some time before they approve or I fight with apple over it. I felt it was important to have a native iPhone client, so I went ahead and designed the app and recruited some developers to build it. As built, the app certainly isn't perfect. It takes forever to download the blocks, though it's speedy once they're downloaded. We're workiing on using an online database instead of downloading blocks for version 2. I'm surprised this was discovered so quickly. Hopefully people will appreciate what went into making this. In the meantime, please visit my other website, www.bitcoindecals.com and get yourself a bitcoin bumper sticker ;-) Thanks, -Rob Best of luck on getting it approved. Apple and their walled garden has been pretty hard on the bitcoin crowd. A bitcoin client on the Apple app store would be huge. |
|
|
|
I have a better idea.
Let's have IQ tests, then only let people with IQ better than 120 vote.
Why should all the stupid people dominate politics and government?
After all intelligence among humans follows a gaussian distribution, why let the dummies vote and control the flow of society?
Wouldn't society be better run by the smart, not the wealthy?
"In the Country of test takers, the test maker is King" -H. G. Wells |
|
|
|
Sometimes a summary can help. I stopped reading at the Python interpreter written in JavaScript that took gedit about 60 seconds 4 minutes of CPU time to prettify. (Edit: the module 'msg' starts at line 22588) Edit2: It appears to use the MD5 hash function which is no longer considered cryptographically secure. If you mean encoding short, human readable messages in the block-chain; I don't think that is what the OP was referring to. You can be a lot more subtle while proving you have access to a certain text with the block-chain. Simply take the SHA-2 hash, convert it into a public/private address pair, send a token amount to that address, then (optionally) spend the coins back to yourself. Excellent idea, but I'm not sure whether a cryptographic hash (instead of the full text) would stand up in court. Are there any precedents for this? |
|
|
|
https://www.cavirtex.com/faq#taxesAre you charging GST on your fees?
Yes. GST is being included in the transaction fee. It's clearly written that GST is included in their transaction fee.
|
|
|
|
SOPA mostly deal with online piracy, and pirates don't pay for the things they download. They didn't pay with fiat back then, and they are not going to start paying in bitcoins now.
Remember allofmp3.com? A Russian online store selling all kinds of music from all artists and all labels in various unprotected formats. The company never transferred any money to western copyright holders. Sorry I'm not following you. I made 2 points: 1. SOPA mostly deal with online piracy 2. pirates don't pay for the things they download It looks like you're trying to refute point #2, but your refutation fails because you gave an example of a paid website, which pirates don't use (by definition). So what are people who bought songs from allofmp3.com called if not pirates? Customers? allofmp3.com was a scam but I don't think you can call the people who fell for the scam "scammers". |
|
|
|
SOPA mostly deal with online piracy, and pirates don't pay for the things they download. They didn't pay with fiat back then, and they are not going to start paying in bitcoins now.
Remember allofmp3.com? A Russian online store selling all kinds of music from all artists and all labels in various unprotected formats. The company never transferred any money to western copyright holders. Sorry I'm not following you. I made 2 points: 1. SOPA mostly deal with online piracy 2. pirates don't pay for the things they download It looks like you're trying to refute point #2, but your refutation fails because you gave an example of a paid website, which pirates don't use (by definition). |
|
|
|
And who might those be? Who exactly would gain from having bitcoins hover around $3? I'm sorry but I just can't imagine someone benefiting from keeping the price stable. The doomsayers want bitcoin at $0, and the believers want bitcoin at $100, $1000, and even total M0 of the world /21 million. There's actually a project to rally people to make "benevolent stabilizer" trade bots. Lemme see if I can find the link. eh, well, no dice on the search. I should've bookmarked it @.@ Well it's obviously easy to profit if you use other people's money to stabilize the price at X. If the price is lower than X you buy and then make a thread saying "hey guys let's stabilize it to X" and profit. That's just Fraud 101. There's nothing special about the value of X and the stabilization thereof. I was saying there's no benefit whatsoever for using your own money to stabilize the price. A minor exception would be perhaps if the price is ever close to parity all the merchants could benefit from the simpler mental arithmetics. |
|
|
|
Its similar as a payment solution in that it allows you to buy without giving away your details and make it simple.
False. You still need to give your details to VISA. Visa just promises not to pass it to the merchant that's all. Visa is still the single point of failure here. |
|
|
|
After discovering Bitcoin: Any questions? I don't that was due to Bitcoin. I think that was due to you eating 5 human beings and a volley ball. |
|
|
|
What it means is that there is no way to move a lot of money out of Bitcoinica. I have lost more than a few chances now because I was unable to move either bitcoin or usd out of Bitcoinica rapidly.
I used to have that mentality too, until I realized that Bitcoinica is under no obligation to maintain any service standards for me. This pretty much applies to all retail services where you don't sign a contract with the other party to make the service commitments explicit. |
|
|
|
|
