Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[humanitee]

Well, 8.5k coins were sold in the same minute. That was either:

a) one single trader going full retard
b) one huge account got hacked
c) multiple accounts were hacked and were liquidated simultaneously

The fact remains that some bastards got HUNDREDS of coins at $102. I guess the risk of having fiat on BTC-E paid off big time.

EDIT: THOUSANDS of coins in the $100-$200 range

The seller/s lost MILLIONS to those who had the low bids.

If it was a forced liquidation it could still all happen within the same minute. Computers are pretty fast. I think that's what happened.

[ChartBuddy]

Done with Gox
Explanation

[adamstgBit]

This is just pure speculation....
But could it be possible that the sell out down to 105 on BTCe could possibly be a mind game with the intent to remind all the speculative traders to put more orders in to buy coins? The net effect being that there will be a lot more buy orders on the books because of this, thus increasing confidence on the buy side of the order book and potentially creating price pressure to make the price go up?

For example, personally I trade very little, I keep my coin off the exchanges unless I am doing a bit of buying here and there,  but I haven't ever really put in a bunch of wishful thinking low buy orders, now I am considering it! Would a lot more buy orders on the order book even at lower / ridiculous levels raise the price of bitcoins?

it was probably a trader that stayed up all night to read the gox update, when it finally came in, he thought this is it the protocol is broken, and sold in a panic thinking the price would not bounce back because "this is the end of bitcoin"

and yes traders should have low ball orders for panic sells like this

probably wouldn't do much for the price, but it will mean cashing in on retarted panic sells

[KFR]

core tech? adam, I know you're just up, but seeing as this is your thread I feel the need to make sure you properly get this (assuming my understand is correct):

gox has blamed a bug in the btc protocol. It is actually not a bug, it's just how btc works at the moment. and work it does. what gox has done is used the wrong data to perform a task, when there is data that is reliably usable. Other exchanges have not made this mistake.

Saying this is the fault of bitcoin is inaccurate.

However, if you are calling gox's code "core tech" that is actually semi-reasonable given that it is responsible for so much movement of btc.

Indeed.  The most egregious thing about their statement was the heavy implication that Bitcoin as a whole was flawed and that other exchanges were vulnerable.

Utterly irresponsible. 

[humanitee]

This is just pure speculation....
But could it be possible that the sell out down to 105 on BTCe could possibly be a mind game with the intent to remind all the speculative traders to put more orders in to buy coins? The net effect being that there will be a lot more buy orders on the books because of this, thus increasing confidence on the buy side of the order book and potentially creating price pressure to make the price go up?

For example, personally I trade very little, I keep my coin off the exchanges unless I am doing a bit of buying here and there,  but I haven't ever really put in a bunch of wishful thinking low buy orders, now I am considering it! Would a lot more buy orders on the order book even at lower / ridiculous levels raise the price of bitcoins?

it was probably a trader that stayed up all night to read the gox update, when it finally came in, he thought this is it the protocol is broken, and sold in a panic thinking the price would not bounce back because "this is the end of bitcoin"

and yes traders should have low ball orders for panic sells like this

probably wouldn't do much for the price, but it will mean cashing in on retarted panic sells

IDK, a simple google would have prevented all that. If I'm holding 8k bitcoin, I'm gonna google before I believe anything Mark says.

[elasticband]

fake market depth. the seller probably thought there was more, so just put in $100 in an attempt to beat the panic selling. Bots will have placed small "alert" bids, that when they are hit, their larger bids are pulled, this left a weak market with a large sell order crashing through it.

[adamstgBit]

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=418

the dev team will not approve mt.gox's proposals, gox is going to have to solve there problem another way. this is gana take weeks....

[humanitee]

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=418

the dev team will not approve mt.gox's proposals, gox is going to have to solve there problem another way. this is gana take weeks....

It's cool, they are most likely insolvent anyway.

[stompix]

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=418

the dev team will not approve mt.gox's proposals, gox is going to have to solve there problem another way. this is gana take weeks....

It's cool, they are most likely insolvent anyway.

I wonder how much money did they make on this crash. I doubt they haven't foreseen it and "helped" it a little.

[mah87]

[EuroTrash]

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=418

the dev team will not approve mt.gox's proposals, gox is going to have to solve there problem another way. this is gana take weeks....

Let me guess: two weeks

[adamstgBit]

core tech? adam, I know you're just up, but seeing as this is your thread I feel the need to make sure you properly get this (assuming my understand is correct):

gox has blamed a bug in the btc protocol. It is actually not a bug, it's just how btc works at the moment. and work it does. what gox has done is used the wrong data to perform a task, when there is data that is reliably usable. Other exchanges have not made this mistake.

Saying this is the fault of bitcoin is inaccurate.

However, if you are calling gox's code "core tech" that is actually semi-reasonable given that it is responsible for so much movement of btc.

Indeed.  The most egregious thing about their statement was the heavy implication that Bitcoin as a whole was flawed and that other exchanges were vulnerable.

Utterly irresponsible. 

its a problem...

sure mtgox could have checked the TX another way, and avoided this problem.

but the fact that TX can be "renamed" after being sent, is a problem....

its not a huge problem, doesn't break the system, but it does make for some confusion.

there must be other services that rely on the tx hash to say the same, but until the dev team solves this problem app. cannot rely on the TX hash to stay the same.

the market reacted like it should have, some poeple panicked as they didn't understand what this means, and then price bounced right back to where it was, because most poeple understand this isn't much of a problem.


this is another reason why alt cons suck balls, its bitcoin that is paving the way, will these alts really be put to the same kind of stress test as bitcoin? i think not. therefore the are way less valuable.

[spooderman]

core tech? adam, I know you're just up, but seeing as this is your thread I feel the need to make sure you properly get this (assuming my understand is correct):

gox has blamed a bug in the btc protocol. It is actually not a bug, it's just how btc works at the moment. and work it does. what gox has done is used the wrong data to perform a task, when there is data that is reliably usable. Other exchanges have not made this mistake.

Saying this is the fault of bitcoin is inaccurate.

However, if you are calling gox's code "core tech" that is actually semi-reasonable given that it is responsible for so much movement of btc.

Indeed.  The most egregious thing about their statement was the heavy implication that Bitcoin as a whole was flawed and that other exchanges were vulnerable.

Utterly irresponsible. 

its a problem...

sure mtgox could have checked the TX another way, and avoided this problem.

but the fact that TX can be "renamed" after being sent, is a problem....

its not a huge problem, doesn't break the system, but it does make for some confusion.

there must be other services that rely on the tx hash to say the same, but until the dev team solves this problem app. cannot rely on the TX hash to stay the same.

the market reacted like it should have, some poeple panicked as they didn't understand what this means, and then price bounced right back to where it was, because most poeple understand this isn't much of a problem.


this is another reason why alt cons suck balls, its bitcoin that is paving the way, will these alts really be put to the same kind of stress test as bitcoin? i think not. therefore the are way less valuable.

excellent point. also, the idea that the first mover has the disadvantage of having to pave the way, while the second mover gets none of the initial problems, but can alter itself slightly thus making itself far more useful doesn't apply to software in the way that it may do to other products/services. the beauty is that btc can change at the drop of a hat should we all want it to.

[magicmexican]

fake market depth. the seller probably thought there was more, so just put in $100 in an attempt to beat the panic selling. Bots will have placed small "alert" bids, that when they are hit, their larger bids are pulled, this left a weak market with a large sell order crashing through it.

I am pretty sure it was some wallet that was forced to market sell. None of the "it was on purpose" reasons really make any sense.

[gizmoh]

Well, 8.5k coins were sold in the same minute. That was either:

a) one single trader going full retard
b) one huge account got hacked
c) multiple accounts were hacked and were liquidated simultaneously

The fact remains that some bastards got HUNDREDS of coins at $102. I guess the risk of having fiat on BTC-E paid off big time.

EDIT: THOUSANDS of coins in the $100-$200 range

The seller/s lost MILLIONS to those who had the low bids.

If it was a forced liquidation it could still all happen within the same minute. Computers are pretty fast. I think that's what happened.

I think someone 'inadvertently' squeezed the btc-e traders on Mt4 by forcing price under certain threshold which triggered margin calls.
In which case BTC-E would suffer a big loss..? who is providing liquidity for 1:3 leverage on MT4 ?

[jatajuta]

and yes traders should have low ball orders for panic sells like this

probably wouldn't do much for the price, but it will mean cashing in on retarted panic sells

The problem is when you have an open order since friday and it doesn't get filled when it should.

I didn't get filled even when gox reached 500. Ridiculous. Open order my ass.

[Chainsaw]

and yes traders should have low ball orders for panic sells like this

probably wouldn't do much for the price, but it will mean cashing in on retarted panic sells

The problem is when you have an open order since friday and it doesn't get filled when it should.

I didn't get filled even when gox reached 500. Ridiculous. Open order my ass.

This happened to me as well.
I had a substantial buy set for months at 505 - it did not get filled when we touched 500.

[razibuzouzou]

Gox is willing to damage the reputation of the *entire* Bitcoin ecosystem, so *they* don't have to take the blame for implementing their wallet software properly.

+1
I am considering removing Gox from Coinorama...

I would definitely vouch for that

Done !

[JorgeStolfi]

how much volume HK got?

http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/anxhkUSD_trades.html

I like the style of bitcoincharts and highly appreciate their "raw data" feature.  However they simply ignore the two largest exchanges in the world -- Huobi and OKCoin -- which account for almost 3/4 of all bitcoin trade, and arguably are the main forces that determine the price of BTC worldwide.

I do not know whether the omission is for some ideological reason, or because those two sites do not provide the data in quite the way bitcoincharts requires.

Anyway, without those two exchanges, the market share data and piecharts provided by bitcoincharts are quite misleading.  By trade volume, BTC-China is still 1/10 of Huobi and 1/6 of OKCoin, for example.

[bitcoin.gi]

DFWB

http://www.coindesk.com/coindesk-removes-mt-gox-bitcoin-price-index-2/