[OFFICIAL]Bitfinex.com first Bitcoin P2P lending platform for leverage trading

[urwhatuknow]

You can read all my past comments here, always supportive of bitfinex.

But confirming higher rates after they are charged does not pass confidence or trust to you clients.

The rates are not higher, they are the same they have always been.
It's just another way to account them for.

I hope this helps

Giancarlo
Bitfinex Team

[1715018562]

1715018562

[1715018562]

1715018562

[1715018562]

1715018562

[CambioBTC]

The Exchange Wallet has the

"Buy All"
and
"Sell All"

Buttons under "Order Type",
but the Trading Wallet does not,

Can this feature not be implemented
on the Trading Wallet also ?,

Would make taking a position so much easier,
as it stands one has to actually use a calculator
to determine how large or small an order to make,
especially if going all in.

[nmersulypnem]

The size of my short position is higher than the total swaps I have borrowed.  How is this possible?  There is no BTC in my account.  Also, the swap rate seems to be going up too fast for the borrowed rate.  Can this logic be verified?

Are you guys auditing your trading history?  If so, how often do you see commission/fee errors?

[bitcoinlord]

I sent 2 LTCs to one of the developer here. Bitfinex fails to register it.

I complained about it to support:
=================================
Hi,

I sent 2 LTCs to my developer as part of ongoing contribution.

Bitfinex took 2 LTCs from my Bitfinex account, but it was not confirmed.

See here (my LTC address, showing that my LTCs are still there)
http://block-explorer.com/address/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

2 LTCs that is supposed to go to:

LTC: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

http://block-explorer.com/tx/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Please respond - as it's the 3rd time.
=================================

Has anyone experiencing the similar situation as mine?

[Ente]

Edit:
All buy walls on all exchanges are mostly fake. BTC isn´t worth more than 200 bucks.

I'll bite: I even offer you a 50% markup to the price you state. Please let me know how many Bitcoins I can buy from you for 300 bucks each.

Of course you can manipulate the market. You put up a huge fake wall [...]

Problem with that is, that we have regular price fluctuations and BitStamp order integration. Your fake, inflated offer would be taken pretty quick, by someone wh didn't even look into the orderbook. Your fake wall doesn't show up in the BitStamp orderbook to begin with..
Maybe you could manipulate the BitFinex book a bit, but not to any amount that it's far away from the BitStamp rate.

And, in general: I stopped bothering being clever with the orderbook. The market moves quicker than my strategies work out, so I make better trades when more-or-less dropping it all to the orderbook.

Ente

[CambioBTC]

The size of my short position is higher than the total swaps I have borrowed.  How is this possible?  There is no BTC in my account.  Also, the swap rate seems to be going up too fast for the borrowed rate.  Can this logic be verified?

Are you guys auditing your trading history?  If so, how often do you see commission/fee errors?

I've also noticed that the swap interest
really accrues incredibly fast,
but was told that it's worth it to try and
reserve your loans ahead of time at:

https://www.bitfinex.com/credit

[cw92]

I understand the logic behind the policy change to prevent fake walls coming from small balances, but I think it's a serious problem that traders are now unable to place orders to close out positions if the orders theoretically exceed the balance available.  To clarify, say I'm short 20 btc and my margin balance is low, I can no longer place a 20 btc buy order at a lower price due to the balance requirements; this makes no sense because the entire point of the order is the cover my short and replenish the balance.  It can't be that traders cannot preemptively place orders to close out their existing positions.  Thoughts? 

[nmersulypnem]

I understand the logic behind the policy change to prevent fake walls coming from small balances, but I think it's a serious problem that traders are now unable to place orders to close out positions if the orders theoretically exceed the balance available.  To clarify, say I'm short 20 btc and my margin balance is low, I can no longer place a 20 btc buy order at a lower price due to the balance requirements; this makes no sense because the entire point of the order is the cover my short and replenish the balance.  It can't be that traders cannot preemptively place orders to close out their existing positions.  Thoughts? 

If we are short then we should at minimum be able to place buy orders for *2x* the amount we are short. Say I'm short 20 BTC: I would then like to be able to cover my short and turn long, i.e buy 40 BTC. This is specially useful in volatile times.

Now, being able to buy back what you're short and go long is obviously different from being able to place 100 x 20 BTC orders and put up a "fake" 2000 BTC buywall - which I believe is what the latest change is meant to prevent. Perhaps some minor adjustment is required.

Of course, we should keep in mind that the reason for this change was that some traders did abuse the freedom BFX previously gave us and that is why we are now more restricted. However.. there is a slight difference between shaving and cutting your head off.

+1

2x sounds like a reasonable compromise. 

[nmersulypnem]

The size of my short position is higher than the total swaps I have borrowed.  How is this possible?  There is no BTC in my account.  Also, the swap rate seems to be going up too fast for the borrowed rate.  Can this logic be verified?

Are you guys auditing your trading history?  If so, how often do you see commission/fee errors?

I've also noticed that the swap interest
really accrues incredibly fast,
but was told that it's worth it to try and
reserve your loans ahead of time at:

https://www.bitfinex.com/credit

I'm aware of that option, but it doesn't really answer the question.  My swaps are at the flash rate anyway, so I don't see why 1) there would be a mismatch, and 2) it would accrue interest any different than if I reserved manually.

[johnny211]

I understand the logic behind the policy change to prevent fake walls coming from small balances, but I think it's a serious problem that traders are now unable to place orders to close out positions if the orders theoretically exceed the balance available.  To clarify, say I'm short 20 btc and my margin balance is low, I can no longer place a 20 btc buy order at a lower price due to the balance requirements; this makes no sense because the entire point of the order is the cover my short and replenish the balance.  It can't be that traders cannot preemptively place orders to close out their existing positions.  Thoughts? 

If we are short then we should at minimum be able to place buy orders for *2x* the amount we are short. Say I'm short 20 BTC: I would then like to be able to cover my short and turn long, i.e buy 40 BTC. This is specially useful in volatile times.

+1

2x sounds like a reasonable compromise. 

'+1. The engine should never deny placing and executing an order that would decrease the absolute size of the overall position. I've had my (admittedly lousy) bots fail to get out because im trying to turn a -10.8 position into a +0.2, having to make sure to first execute to something like -0.0001 and then adding longs if I wish. Combine this with the fact that the API call to place multiple orders will not process the rest of the orders when that happens it makes for increasingly complicated order placing logic.

It would be very nice if this area could be improved on, meanwhile I'll get back to actually putting some error processing into my scripts

[johnny211]

Does Bitfinex have a streaming API for market data?

I often notice bots placing orders next to mine pretty much immediately after i place mine, do they poll at a multihertz rate or is there some streaming api we don't know about?

Bumping my question, anyone know about this or BFX request rate / throttling policy?

[urwhatuknow]

I understand the logic behind the policy change to prevent fake walls coming from small balances, but I think it's a serious problem that traders are now unable to place orders to close out positions if the orders theoretically exceed the balance available.  To clarify, say I'm short 20 btc and my margin balance is low, I can no longer place a 20 btc buy order at a lower price due to the balance requirements; this makes no sense because the entire point of the order is the cover my short and replenish the balance.  It can't be that traders cannot preemptively place orders to close out their existing positions.  Thoughts? 

If we are short then we should at minimum be able to place buy orders for *2x* the amount we are short. Say I'm short 20 BTC: I would then like to be able to cover my short and turn long, i.e buy 40 BTC. This is specially useful in volatile times.

Now, being able to buy back what you're short and go long is obviously different from being able to place 100 x 20 BTC orders and put up a "fake" 2000 BTC buywall - which I believe is what the latest change is meant to prevent. Perhaps some minor adjustment is required.

Of course, we should keep in mind that the reason for this change was that some traders did abuse the freedom BFX previously gave us and that is why we are now more restricted. However.. there is a slight difference between shaving and cutting your head off.

Nice suggestion.
We will investigate the possibility of implementing it.

Thanks and have a good day

Giancarlo
Bitfinex Team

[Wassupia]

dafuq?

also, someone took all btc on the leningbook, guess he's making big money now

[cw92]

Is trading actually down right now....

[Ente]

Gox is dieing.
BTC withdrawal is halted indefinitely.
Gox tanks -> Stamp tanks
Cheap coins for us!

Ente

[aragalie]

....and the margin calls are just amplifying the move down...

[Ente]

Bitfinex has platformprobs:


This is BTC-USD, mind you..

Ente

[Wassupia]

Is trading actually down right now....

It seems like it, no trade seen from the BFX API for 12 minutes,  Gox 2.0 feeling atm

wild guess: someone dropped huge amount of BTC by a market sell order liquidations happened, and only excecuted only on BFX buy orders for some reason,  wiping the bfx orderbook. good luck reversing trades lol.

If lenders lose any money, bitfinex is responsible for this, as it shouldn't have happened, as liquidations didn't happen at bitstamp, which probably would be their fault.

[HairyMaclairy]

Flash crash on BFX to 100 plus trading halt.

[MAbtc]

Please fix......