Mtgox hit $2.99

[DamienBlack]

The random pops are a glitch that have been coming up since the reopening. I'm not sure whether trades are really being executed, or whether it is just noise in the history.

[1714110274]

1714110274

[mizerydearia]

The random pops are a glitch that have been coming up since the reopening. I'm not sure whether trades are really being executed, or whether it is just noise in the history.

As I posted just prior to you, MagicalTux acknowledged that they were executed.

[Frank White]

im switching all over to trade hill.. lets get some money in that exchange!! Put some volume there and get the wheels moving!

Im tired of this buggy trade matching, shitty excuses, and security issues...

mtgox has been moving like a snail due to their Ask/Bid prices being cluster-F**** all the time...

Tradehills trade engine has been great and solid.. their layout sucks but whatever, it will come in due time

[bitfon]

Looks like most of the entire order book got wiped.  Here's what it looked like at 1309577584 (2011-07-02 03:33:04 GMT).

No asks at all, and max bid was $4.93.

bid    1       24225.55191
bid    1.001   1105.16283716
bid    1.003   60
bid    1.01    1115.57255445
bid    1.0101  0.0096624
bid    1.011   10020
bid    1.0111  13.38
bid    1.01111 495.01043408
bid    1.01234 100
bid    1.0124  1.24887396
bid    1.013   200
bid    1.017   55
bid    1.02001 100
bid    1.021   702.93730656
bid    1.03    10
bid    1.05    200
bid    1.06    99.26725471
bid    1.071   50
bid    1.1     1295.4373
bid    1.102   47.03119782
bid    1.11    208.9
bid    1.112   68.01303956
bid    1.12    869.9703125
bid    1.15152 1
bid    1.17    100
bid    1.18    40
bid    1.193   3
bid    1.2     164.01
bid    1.22    0.37213114
bid    1.2222  8356.36
bid    1.23    395
bid    1.23457 50
bid    1.2401  30.95
bid    1.25    100
bid    1.271   19.45003933
bid    1.3     152.08
bid    1.32    150
bid    1.345   8000
bid    1.36    10
bid    1.37051 10
bid    1.42    210.66
bid    1.5     45.13684666
bid    1.50198 72.99697732
bid    1.51    1000
bid    1.55    40
bid    1.58001 3
bid    1.6     30.475
bid    1.62    2
bid    1.7     437.77953529
bid    1.70001 0.00411762
bid    1.701   0.31788947
bid    1.74    28.85
bid    1.78    1.25
bid    1.8     62.51
bid    1.9     0.88680526
bid    1.9999  100
bid    2       530.068715
bid    2.01    483.07860696
bid    2.02    56
bid    2.05    7
bid    2.1     128.761
bid    2.11    7
bid    2.1122  40
bid    2.15152 1
bid    2.24    10
bid    2.3     123
bid    2.32    90
bid    2.33    50
bid    2.3447  4691.51
bid    2.39    134
bid    2.4     0.1
bid    2.42    50
bid    2.5     355
bid    2.51    5.75697211
bid    2.55    34
bid    2.571   20
bid    2.6     18.0769
bid    2.602   29.89
bid    2.73    11.83
bid    2.87    1
bid    2.91    25
bid    2.99    702.67103008
bid    3       853.31725998
bid    3.0001  211
bid    3.01    84.64
bid    3.011   5
bid    3.03    34.05
bid    3.05    10
bid    3.09    0.26960194
bid    3.1     25.1613
bid    3.11    100.66
bid    3.15152 1
bid    3.2     61
bid    3.24    8.7
bid    3.27    8000
bid    3.32    60
bid    3.33    11.82
bid    3.3999  24
bid    3.418   23
bid    3.5     185
bid    3.55    30
bid    3.6     17.4756
bid    3.7     1000
bid    3.71    8.82
bid    3.89    55.7110694
bid    4       1114.6007125
bid    4.01    20
bid    4.04    13.07
bid    4.09    20
bid    4.1     28.75583902
bid    4.1401  12
bid    4.15152 1
bid    4.32    50
bid    4.4354  1578.21
bid    4.44    1
bid    4.5     10
bid    4.51    10
bid    4.54    5300
bid    4.55    20
bid    4.6     10.2174
bid    4.61    18.44
bid    4.8     1000
bid    4.801   10.01
bid    4.9     6
bid    4.93    21

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

Yes, for those who wonder - a proper order book fills at the best bid/offer. "Stub" bids and offers way off the market price don't get priority if there is something resting higher or lower. I sincerely doubt there was nothing between 15.50 and 3.00. Has to be some kind of problem we don't know the details about yet.

We don't need this, honestly.

Hi TraderTimm,

Yep!

Here is an example of how most exchanges work:

When you enter a limit order, we will attempt to settle you with the most aggressive outstanding order on the other side. If that order is not sufficient to fill your order, we will look at the next most aggressive order. The price you settle at will be the price of the already outstanding order.

Here's a simple example.

There are already the following limit orders in the system:
BUY 1 BTC @ 17 USD
BUY 2 BTC @ 18 USD
BUY 1 BTC @ 19 USD
SELL 1 BTC @ 20 USD
SELL 2 BTC @ 21 USD
SELL 1 BTC @ 22 USD

You submit a limit order to BUY 3.5 BTC @ 22.5 USD.

Here is what happens:
1) You buy 1 BTC at 20 USD each
2) You buy 2 BTC at 21 USD each
3) You buy 0.5 BTC at 22 USD each
4) Your order is now completely filled.

What if, instead, you'd submitted a limit order to SELL 3.5 BTC @ 16.5...?

Here is what would have happened:
1) You sell 1 BTC at 19 USD each
2) You sell 2 BTC at 18 USD each
3) You sell 0.5 BTC at 17 each
4) Your order is now completely filled

Under a different method ( potentially what happened here ), users who'd submitted orders earlier received a slightly higher priority in the matching process. Unfortunately under some circumstances this would result in non-optimal prices being chosen for new incoming orders. Such things as filling an order way below the market price simply because this bid is entered.

[d.james]

They better not roll'em back this time...

[J.]

Yes, for those who wonder - a proper order book fills at the best bid/offer. "Stub" bids and offers way off the market price don't get priority if there is something resting higher or lower. I sincerely doubt there was nothing between 15.50 and 3.00. Has to be some kind of problem we don't know the details about yet.

We don't need this, honestly.

I had a order for 8$ and dit not get 1 BTC?

[toddbethell]

I am greatful that Mark Karpeles erased the trade errors from his charts so quickly and that Nils Schneider at Bitcoin Charts (also a bitcoin developer) did the same.

[Raoul Duke]

No way, after the hack Mt. Gox is 100% secure and no bugs.

I won't take your word for it, sorry!

[BubbleBoy]

Is it possible MtGox pleases the seller's price?

[...]

Somehow, somewhere, there has to be a fixed decision made on who's price is taken when prices overlap.

IMHO the algorithm that makes sense, outlined by Jered should be this:
1. If the newest order has overlapping offers in the book, than those should be matched, best first
2. If not, it's added to the order book
(the book, by definition, has no overlap; if it somehow shows overlap, orders should be matched at the single price that eliminates overlap)

So the decision should always favor the newest order, on the principle that the current order book is a fair representation of the market state; whoever is bidding against the market is either making a mistake or acting on erroneous information, so he should be protected against his folly.

A bellow-market order means 'give me the best price, now' and the exchange should interpret it in this manner since it's generating volume and business (standing orders don't). Also, a match close to the 'real' market value maximizes the fee earned from both the seller and the buyer.

[gigabytecoin]

Thats enough for me lol

I think I will open an exchange for Canadian dollars.
I will look into what kind of accounts will be necessary to facilitate deposit/withdrawl in Canada and maybe make an exchange site.

If I were to take the time to setup a secure exchange, how many people would be interested in trading BTC with Canadian dollars??

I would like to see a Canadian exchange, volume is a huge factor though.

Not to be rude, but I am a network security specialist. I am well aware of what would be required in setting up a secure exchange both technically and legally.

Really depends.  CaVirtEx is in beta for quite some time; I guess it would have to depend on what you can offer compared to them

Build it guys. Canada needs it.

Canada already has a GREAT secure, working, cheap (you can withdraw cash to almost any bank with your email address in just 7 hours for $6.50, or $3 directly to a bank account).

They just re-opened their doors today after finalizing all the legal stuff there was to take care of.

I just deposited a bunch a few BTC and everything is going great.

I do still encourage XRcode to build his own exchange however. We can always use another!

[BitcoinPorn]

The people at reddit have been on this http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/ieqli/mtgoxed_again_captcha_behaxq/

09:41 <MagicalTux> both sides were balanced
09:41 <iamboxxy\yousee> so why the $2.99 value?
09:42 <MagicalTux> because someone sold at 2.99
09:42 <MagicalTux> the matching system did a mistake however, and didn't process at the right price
09:42 <__doc__> MagicalTux: can you confirm that my understanding of the bug is correct? I understand that somebody entered a sell order selling 0.47btc@2.99$, and then the wrong bid was picked to fill that (the lowest one) first.
09:42 <MagicalTux> this was fixed now
09:42 <MagicalTux> __doc__: exact

09:51 <bittwist> __doc__: so if it continued for every trade, it would of been all over then eh
09:52 <MagicalTux> bittwist: except in this case it's an edge case, that happened because of a specific user's specific trades
09:52 <MagicalTux> and it's a specific case which is now handled & fixed

The issue is the following: A sell order for 0.47btc@2.99$ should have executed high, not low. This is because the standing buy orders close below 15$ should have caught it long before a buy order @ 2.99$ would've been executed.
That being said, we're going to panic now about 0.47btc. Really? Some matchmaking bug caused two orders to meet where they should not have, and you're all panic wombats again.

Why can't mtgox detect sudden drop and suspend trades temporary?

While you can detect specific types of anomalies, you can't really detect all such behavior. You have to take into account the accuracy of the detection, and the scale at which it needs to operate, and how much delay there will be before it is noticed.

[mizerydearia]

I am grateful that Mark Karpeles erased the trade errors from his charts so quickly and that Nils Schneider at Bitcoin Charts (also a bitcoin developer) did the same.

It was initially brought to tcatm's attention by Keefe with him stating "tcatm: would you consider removing the bad mtgox trades from the charts?"

I believe the general community consensus is to encourage and help MtGox (and all other affiliated data traces including popular bitcoincharts.com) cover such mistakes/bugs from being historically public from original data sources.

This is a common recurring trend that is for example heavily integrated into educational and informational (e.g. wikipedia) systems where many such educational and informational contents are manipulated or controlled/censored/restricted.

[TraderTimm]

This whole order-matching incident doesn't instill confidence in me, at all. It makes me question how the trade engine was validated, to begin with. Just off the top of my head, the one thing you don't want happening is your code not catching input problems. This is a basic concern for anything with any serious responsibilities.

I'm not a QA expert, but you'd better believe I would stress-test my algorithm by giving it a specially crafted 'junk' pile of inputs, to see if it could fail gracefully at worst, at best - ignore the false inputs and continue flawlessly. As I'm sure MagicalTux is aware, any continued problems will contribute to declining volume at his exchange.

Please get it right, for your sake and ours.

[mizerydearia]

Please get it right, for your sake and ours.

1) And if you don't get it right, some (or most) of us will continue to support and/or accept you until you do
2)
3) profit!

[Tril]

Just a few minutes ago, over $100k of asks were skipped for this trade:

Jul02 13:08:51 mtgox        1.5324 @    15.701      USD
Jul02 13:08:51 mtgox        1.4364 @    15.70099    USD
Jul02 13:08:51 mtgox        1.5235 @    15.70099    USD
Jul02 13:08:53 mtgox        1.4281 @    15.70099    USD
Jul02 13:08:53 mtgox        1.5146 @    15.70099    USD
Jul02 13:08:57 mtgox        1.4198 @    16.70       USD
Jul02 13:09:16 mtgox        5.0650 @    15.70099    USD
Jul02 13:09:16 mtgox        1.0000 @    15.71999    USD
Jul02 13:09:16 mtgox        0.5700 @    15.72       USD
Jul02 13:09:16 mtgox        3.1777 @    15.798      USD
Jul02 13:09:16 mtgox        0.2638 @    15.798      USD

The 16.7 appeared on mtgoxlive.com as a spike.  I pointed this out in #mtgox IRC, and MagicalTux happened to be there and a minute later the trade disappeared from the graph.  He is also working on fixing this bug right now.

I fixed a few bugs, and I'm close to get this one fixed too, for info it doesn't come from matching but from something else

[adamstgBit]

Canada already has a GREAT secure, working, cheap (you can withdraw cash to almost any bank with your email address in just 7 hours for $6.50, or $3 directly to a bank account).

They just re-opened their doors today after finalizing all the legal stuff there was to take care of.

I just deposited a bunch a few BTC and everything is going great.

I do still encourage XRcode to build his own exchange however. We can always use another!
[/quote]

whats it called?

[Nagle]

And if you don't get it right, some (or most) of us will continue to support and/or accept you until you do

Look at the market depth on Mt. Gox and Tradehill on the "bid" side. A few days ago, Mt. Gox had 6x the market depth of Tradehill. Today, it only has 3x. That number reflects how much real cash people have in the exchange. Buyers are bailing out of Mt. Gox. Sellers of Bitcoins, not so much.

Mt. Gox is more volatile than Tradehill, which, as I pointed out before, is backwards.  The bigger market should be less volatile. Some of the volatility on Mt. Gox may simply be because the exchange system is buggy and is mismatching orders.  Their "queuing delays" don't help, either. They're either inept or manipulating the market. Not sure which.

(I'm not recommending Tradehill; we still don't know if, long term, they can be trusted not to lose or steal deposits. But they seem to have the mechanics of their market working better.)

[Piper67]

Canada already has a GREAT secure, working, cheap (you can withdraw cash to almost any bank with your email address in just 7 hours for $6.50, or $3 directly to a bank account).

They just re-opened their doors today after finalizing all the legal stuff there was to take care of.

I just deposited a bunch a few BTC and everything is going great.

I do still encourage XRcode to build his own exchange however. We can always use another!

whats it called?
[/quote]

It's Virtex (www.cavirtex.com), and I can attest that to fund your account it usually takes under an hour. You just do an e-transfer from any Canadian bank account. Not sure how it works going the other way around, but as soon as I start to panic and sell my BTC I'll be sure to let you know 

[jalidi]

I can verify that cavirtex.com works exactly as reported by other forum users in the earlier http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=13668.0 thread regarding this exchange. I'm registered with TD Bank in Toronto and I had no issues depositing or withdrawing funds in CDN as they seem to be affiliated. It arrives in under an hour electronically. Transferring 50 BTC takes about an hour, as they required 6 verifications. The exchange is out of open beta, I believe there is now a 1% cost for selling/buying. Definitely sets the standard for a Bitcoin Exchange in Canada!