|
lay785
|
 |
May 07, 2015, 02:11:38 PM |
|
so as the price goes back up more shorts open up.
Does that mean that the BTC supply is artificial and if not for shorters the value of BTC would be much higher?
If that is so then bulls should be thanking bears for keeping BTC prices at such affordable levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make sure you back up your wallet regularly! Unlike a bank account, nobody can help you if you lose access to your BTC.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chainsaw
|
|
May 07, 2015, 02:13:33 PM |
|
I just scanned the reddit threads. Interested to me that most of the complaints are from people with low volume accounts. (5-6 BTC) I guess it makes sense that the big players would not be posting on Reddit.
They would be more prone to going bankrupt from the error than a larger holder. It appears that the BTC and USD streams crossed. If I hold 5,000 BTC, my position will be affected less if my 0.23 BTC buy for $234.99 changes to a 234.99 BTC buy at $0.23. The large stakeholders would not be bankrupted, but would serve as 'go fully long/short at current prices'. They'd know an issue occurred, and be able to have it cleaned up without it totally stopping their trading in the interim. Small stakeholders may have gone from a 0.4 BTC account, to owing $17,000. Their wheel will squeak more. Crossed streams?!?! That sounds like the first thing you make sure never happens. These exchanges are like sausages. The more you know about them, the less you like them. Ok, I think I'm done ranting. They should have done better testing. This is purely speculating based on my time as a Software Engineer, and the kinds of problems that typically happen in these scenarios. We know they have been integrating behind the scenes with the more scalable alphapoint engine. They have communicated in the past that they were going to use both streams for awhile as an audit of sorts, and then cross over to the new platform. Along with scalability, another listed reason was the robustness, quality of the replaced code. But you still need to port a legacy system to a new one. That requires new, translation code. I am guessing an easily-overlooked copy error occurred, nested within a conditional statement only triggered by whatever obscure market event initiated it. Or, they had just completed an incomplete set of tests, threw new code to live, and chaos immediately ensued because their test set did not include the case that the market data had. Most of the time in retrospective (when it IS this kind of error), the culprit is one of two things: -Failing to plan for an impossible event that is very, very possible. -Penny-wise-pound-foolish lazy variable naming in 'temporary' or 'boilerplate' code. i.e. you need to copy btc (a) and usd (b) values from stream1 to stream2. So someone writes the 'temporary' code s1.a = s2.a s1.b = s2.b and above they assigned A and B correctly (but poorly named) for one stream, and the opposite for the other, not caught by our first little conscious filter, because with names like A and B the cognitive dissonance never occurs when writing the assignment. TL;DR - I'm hopeful this is an unfortunate but necessary risk that is occasionally realized when migrating legacy systems to new and improved systems. Improved validation and testing practices will hopefully be applied and communicated outwardly as a result of this error. |
|
|
|
|
Fatman3001
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1013
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
|
|
May 07, 2015, 02:28:45 PM |
|
I just scanned the reddit threads. Interested to me that most of the complaints are from people with low volume accounts. (5-6 BTC) I guess it makes sense that the big players would not be posting on Reddit.
They would be more prone to going bankrupt from the error than a larger holder. It appears that the BTC and USD streams crossed. If I hold 5,000 BTC, my position will be affected less if my 0.23 BTC buy for $234.99 changes to a 234.99 BTC buy at $0.23. The large stakeholders would not be bankrupted, but would serve as 'go fully long/short at current prices'. They'd know an issue occurred, and be able to have it cleaned up without it totally stopping their trading in the interim. Small stakeholders may have gone from a 0.4 BTC account, to owing $17,000. Their wheel will squeak more. Crossed streams?!?! That sounds like the first thing you make sure never happens. These exchanges are like sausages. The more you know about them, the less you like them. Ok, I think I'm done ranting. They should have done better testing. This is purely speculating based on my time as a Software Engineer, and the kinds of problems that typically happen in these scenarios. We know they have been integrating behind the scenes with the more scalable alphapoint engine. They have communicated in the past that they were going to use both streams for awhile as an audit of sorts, and then cross over to the new platform. Along with scalability, another listed reason was the robustness, quality of the replaced code. But you still need to port a legacy system to a new one. That requires new, translation code. I am guessing an easily-overlooked copy error occurred, nested within a conditional statement only triggered by whatever obscure market event initiated it. Or, they had just completed an incomplete set of tests, threw new code to live, and chaos immediately ensued because their test set did not include the case that the market data had. Most of the time in retrospective (when it IS this kind of error), the culprit is one of two things: -Failing to plan for an impossible event that is very, very possible. -Penny-wise-pound-foolish lazy variable naming in 'temporary' or 'boilerplate' code. i.e. you need to copy btc (a) and usd (b) values from stream1 to stream2. So someone writes the 'temporary' code s1.a = s2.a s1.b = s2.b and above they assigned A and B correctly (but poorly named) for one stream, and the opposite for the other, not caught by our first little conscious filter, because with names like A and B the cognitive dissonance never occurs when writing the assignment. TL;DR - I'm hopeful this is an unfortunate but necessary risk that is occasionally realized when migrating legacy systems to new and improved systems. Improved validation and testing practices will hopefully be applied and communicated outwardly as a result of this error. To be fair, this kind of stuff happens all the time in the regular banking system. But Bitcoin can ill afford it. |
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1745
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
 |
May 07, 2015, 02:57:59 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
LFC_Bitcoin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3514
Merit: 9500
#1 VIP Crypto Casino
|
|
May 07, 2015, 03:02:42 PM |
|
Look at the volume on Finex, Jeez. Slight bit of buying volume on Stamp too by the looks of it. Coinbase pretty flat as per usual. Anybody neutral want to predict what the next move will be, up or down? |
|
|
|
|
Sitarow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047
|
|
May 07, 2015, 03:08:43 PM |
|
Look at the volume on Finex, Jeez. Slight bit of buying volume on Stamp too by the looks of it. Coinbase pretty flat as per usual. Anybody neutral want to predict what the next move will be, up or down? We are reaching a tipping point one way or another. |
|
|
|
|
ssmc2
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2002
Merit: 1040
|
|
May 07, 2015, 03:12:37 PM |
|
Look at the volume on Finex, Jeez. Slight bit of buying volume on Stamp too by the looks of it. Coinbase pretty flat as per usual. Anybody neutral want to predict what the next move will be, up or down? We are reaching a tipping point one way or another. Seems like we'll just tip to the side for awhile. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
May 07, 2015, 03:36:44 PM |
|
if only... it is not flowing 'into' Bitcoin per say.. |
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1745
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
|
May 07, 2015, 03:57:55 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimboToronto
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3990
Merit: 4460
You're never too old to think young.
|
|
May 07, 2015, 04:13:25 PM |
|
Good morning Bitcoinland.
Slight dip on pretty big volume I see. I also see it's more than halfway back.
It doesn't appear to want to leave the $230s for long.
Pot on. Mmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
Chalkbot
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 896
Merit: 1001
|
|
May 07, 2015, 04:16:12 PM |
|
Good morning Bitcoinland.
Slight dip on pretty big volume I see. I also see it's more than halfway back.
It doesn't appear to want to leave the $230s for long.
Pot on. Mmmm...
There's some speculation that a big part of that dip may have been some erroneous code at bitfinex. I'm not totally up to speed on the situation, however. |
|
|
|
|
|
phoenix1
|
|
May 07, 2015, 04:17:55 PM |
|
30K dump moves price down ~$5?? Now I see shorts are up to 30K on BFX. Bears be runnin out of coinz to dump. At this point all they are doing is providing support when/if they cover. I don't know if All week hands have been shaken out, but certainly more have been than yesterday. Bear market running out of steam.
I don't know if everyone noticed but the buy support was there before the dump yesterday. Now it is stronger now than I can remember in a long time. If it is real it could be a fun couple of days. What is unclear to me about the BFX situation this ... There was never really a high volume dump, it was an error on BFX's side that caused the volume spike . They appear to have rolled back trades caused by their errors (redditors saying their account balances back to normal), but shorts have climbed. Does this imply that some people were trading at this time and opened new shorts *thinking* the dump was real ?? And that these trades stand?? If the shorting stats are up over the period, then I think the answer is "yes" That would be a bit painful and might help explain the healthy bidside too I'd also be pretty pissed at BFX if they spoofed me into a short last night  |
|
|
|
|
|
Norway
|
|
May 07, 2015, 04:19:24 PM |
|
The volume on BGTC today just doubled! (From 1 to 2 shares, lol!)
|
|
|
|
|
Chalkbot
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 896
Merit: 1001
|
|
May 07, 2015, 04:19:52 PM |
|
The volume on BGTC today just doubled! (From 1 to 2 shares, lol!)
Moon incoming. |
|
|
|
|
|
Chainsaw
|
|
May 07, 2015, 04:27:24 PM |
|
30K dump moves price down ~$5?? Now I see shorts are up to 30K on BFX. Bears be runnin out of coinz to dump. At this point all they are doing is providing support when/if they cover. I don't know if All week hands have been shaken out, but certainly more have been than yesterday. Bear market running out of steam.
I don't know if everyone noticed but the buy support was there before the dump yesterday. Now it is stronger now than I can remember in a long time. If it is real it could be a fun couple of days. What is unclear to me about the BFX situation this ... There was never really a high volume dump, it was an error on BFX's side that caused the volume spike . They appear to have rolled back trades caused by their errors (redditors saying their account balances back to normal), but shorts have climbed. Does this imply that some people were trading at this time and opened new shorts *thinking* the dump was real ?? And that these trades stand?? If the shorting stats are up over the period, then I think the answer is "yes" That would be a bit painful and might help explain the healthy bidside too I'd also be pretty pissed at BFX if they spoofed me into a short last night If not directly affected by the error, I expect the trades will stand. There is no concept of a 'rollback' anymore. The markets are interconnected with bots employing multiple strategies. The instant the error occurred, fallout reverberated through the entire trading market. An implicit requirement of trading on any exchange is that one is vulnerable to all factors which may affect its price, whether real, imagined, localized, or systemic. This kind of bug is exactly why Bitfinex needed to be upgrading their system, in my opinion. It is unfortunate they didn't make it through the migration without causing a confidence-damaging event. Amidst that, it's encouraging that they have upped their public communication efforts and made things right, swiftly, to those investors directly affected. |
|
|
|
|
noobtrader
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000
|
|
May 07, 2015, 04:31:10 PM |
|
there are more important news in it, that ItBit Nets $25 Million, Launches NYDFS-Approved Bitcoin Exchangethis means mass adoption is near. |
|
|
|
|
|
phoenix1
|
|
May 07, 2015, 04:33:57 PM |
|
<BFX stuff>
If not directly affected by the error, I expect the trades will stand. Agree with everything you said. As confidence does not seem to have been dented particularly, that would imply we got some momentum traders bear trapped on a 'glitch' right now  |
|
|
|
|
billyjoeallen
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
|
|
May 07, 2015, 04:36:14 PM |
|
That would be a bit painful and might help explain the healthy bidside too I'd also be pretty pissed at BFX if they spoofed me into a short last night Shorting at this point it time seems excessively risky, like picking up nickles in front of a train. BFX is very influential and may even lead this market, but it doesn't control it. They had a glitch related to an UPGRADE. They are upgrading. |
|
|
|
|
|
Chainsaw
|
|
May 07, 2015, 04:43:30 PM |
|
there are more important news in it, that ItBit Nets $25 Million, Launches NYDFS-Approved Bitcoin Exchangethis means mass adoption is near. I expect the first NYDFS approval would not occur until their finalized path forward for BitLicense, whatever it may be, is clear. With a first exchange approved, subsequent ones should be less of an issue. I'd love to see COIN get its big announcement in the next few weeks. Coinbase will also have some 'splainin' to do if they are not able to get NYDFS approval in short order. |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
