TradeHill Cock Block

[the joint]

Anybody else notice something funny about TradeHill trading activity the last few days?

The other day I saw someone dump 8000-9000 BTC on TradeHill.  Now, during the past 15-20 hours as the Gox price increased from 2.20-2.40 with a spike at 2.50, there are large sell orders set between 2.20 and 2.30 on TradeHill keeping the price lower.  It kept me from buying at 2.2.  Someone with large sums of cash may be playing both exchanges now.

[1715159705]

1715159705

[1715159705]

1715159705

[1715159705]

1715159705

[Manko]

Yeah, a good time to make money if you've got the money and the balls. Problem for me is, I haven't got either, lol.

[the joint]

Anybody else notice something funny about TradeHill trading activity the last few days?

The other day I saw someone dump 8000-9000 BTC on TradeHill.  Now, during the past 15-20 hours as the Gox price increased from 2.20-2.40 with a spike at 2.50, there are large sell orders set between 2.20 and 2.30 on TradeHill keeping the price lower.  It kept me from buying at 2.2.  Someone with large sums of cash may be playing both exchanges now.

No one is leveraging Gox against TH. There isn't enough volume on TH to do that. Just one of those things.

Eh, TradeHill's volumes have been up lately.  What was it at the other day, like 40,000 or something?  Also, one could also use the same logic to say that the low volume would make it easy to do.  The big players, I assume, naturally congregate at Gox and the low-mid range players stick with TradeHill. 

Besides, there are little pump-n-dump patterns that emerge on TradeHill from what I've noticed.  The time that it takes for someone to dump on TradeHill seems to increase when the price increases rapidly in congruence with the price at Gox.  But, if there is a delay in the time it takes for the TradeHill price to match Gox, the dumps seems to come sooner but less frequently.  In other words, I am outlining 2 general scenarios:

Scenario 1:  Price on Gox increases but price on TradeHill remains relatively stable.  When enough buy pressure leads to a price match, there is typically a quicker dump on TradeHill, but NOT as quick of a buy-back.   After all, it took forever for the price to catch up...what's the certainty that someone will be there to buy my coins back, even at market value?

Scenario 2:  Price on Gox increases and price on TradeHill increases congruently.  In this case, people are aware of the buying going on and seem more reluctant to sell.  But, when that sell comes, people buy again and dump again as more buy orders are placed.

I think it's quite plausible that someone could be blocking the price increase because they want to be the first to dump.  I'd do it if I had the cash.  I would also place large bid walls and sell into them to create the illusion of volatility which sort of reminds me of something else that's been going on...

[tvbcof]

Anybody else notice something funny about TradeHill trading activity the last few days?

The other day I saw someone dump 8000-9000 BTC on TradeHill.  Now, during the past 15-20 hours as the Gox price increased from 2.20-2.40 with a spike at 2.50, there are large sell orders set between 2.20 and 2.30 on TradeHill keeping the price lower.  It kept me from buying at 2.2.  Someone with large sums of cash may be playing both exchanges now.

No one is leveraging Gox against TH. There isn't enough volume on TH to do that. Just one of those things.

I think that someone has a bunch of purportedly stolen coins on Tradehill which Mt. Gox won't touch (or more accurately, won't give back if they do touch them.)

I think that perhaps Tradehill became unwilling to be cooperative either because they found out the nature of the stash, or because Mt. Gox shamed them.  Or possibly because there is official law enforcement involved.

I think that some of the shuffling (e.g., the 6000 coin flash buy which is gigantic for Tradehill) is the operator's attempt to wash and liquidate in conjunction with another party.  The operator is willing to take a significant loss to get rid of coins.  I picked up a few bucks taking advantage of the periodic dips which have come and gone over the last week.

Oh ya...I agree with BTX that the volume on Tradehill is simply not sufficient for anyone who is well capitalized to bother with trying to set up anything big at this time.

[tvbcof]

The bad news for Tradehill is that they are based out of San Francisco. Being based out of the USA is a huge liability that no serious investor is willing to take. If the US Government decides they want to freeze Tradehill, it is as simple as phone call and quick orders from the court to the bank.

I choose Tradehill in part because they were, I thought, based primarily in Chile and specifically not in the US.  Looking at their info now, I see no sign of Chile so who knows what the status is.  I figured that no matter where they operated they could be forced out of business by the various financial institutions, but in certain regions they may be a little more isolated from political pressure and less likely to cough up whatever personalized information about me might be requested.

One of the reasons that I am not completely panicking about Bitcoin seeming for all intents and purposes to be in it's death rattle is that it is less likely to be attracting the attentions of it's potential competition.  This gives it more time to strengthen and develop the necessary support infrastructure.  I do hope that the time is being used wisely.

[tetra4c]

When Bitinstant is on the arb isn't as high.

[Adam S (TradeHill)]

The bad news for Tradehill is that they are based out of San Francisco. Being based out of the USA is a huge liability that no serious investor is willing to take. If the US Government decides they want to freeze Tradehill, it is as simple as phone call and quick orders from the court to the bank.

Hi Guys,

We were started and are currently based out of both Chile and San Francisco. Think mostly development in SF and the rest in Chile.

Regards,

[tvbcof]

We were started and are currently based out of both Chile and San Francisco. Think mostly development in SF and the rest in Chile.

Both are welcome 'thinks' to me.

What I would be looking for in a Bitcoin exchange (who had some of my money and some of my BTC) would be one who's org structure is such that pressure applied to certain of it's principals is unlikely to be effective at damaging the functionality of it's operations.  At least for an extended period of time.  This in addition to the more obvious and typical hopes that the principals have good integrity and all that.

No response is expected particularly.  I'm just sayin.

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

We were started and are currently based out of both Chile and San Francisco. Think mostly development in SF and the rest in Chile.

Both are welcome 'thinks' to me.

What I would be looking for in a Bitcoin exchange (who had some of my money and some of my BTC) would be one who's org structure is such that pressure applied to certain of it's principals is unlikely to be effective at damaging the functionality of it's operations.  At least for an extended period of time.  This in addition to the more obvious and typical hopes that the principals have good integrity and all that.

No response is expected particularly.  I'm just sayin.

I'm located in San Francisco and if anyone wants to meet let me know. I think it's reassuring to shake hands and put a face to a name.

The big issue is for an exchange to function you need both funds (BTC and fiat) and the tech side.
The most likely negative response (from govt) would be on the funds and not the tech imo.
It's costly and not the early adopters idea of freedom but complying with regulations should allow exchanges to continue operating.
Exchanges will either start to act more like traditional financial institutions or become a target. While I don't like or agree with most of the rules personally I'm assuming most of the users would prefer we play by the rules than shut down.

[tvbcof]

I'm located in San Francisco and if anyone wants to meet let me know. I think it's reassuring to shake hands and put a face to a name.

The big issue is for an exchange to function you need both funds (BTC and fiat) and the tech side.
The most likely negative response (from govt) would be on the funds and not the tech imo.
It's costly and not the early adopters idea of freedom but complying with regulations should allow exchanges to continue operating.
Exchanges will either start to act more like traditional financial institutions or become a target. While I don't like or agree with most of the rules personally I'm assuming most of the users would prefer we play by the rules than shut down.

It seems pretty clear to me that Tradehill has the technical side down well enough.  I concluded that prior to and early in my deciding to be a customer.

I have nothing much against most of the rules that I am aware of at this time.  And, as a customer of Tradehill, I am happy that you do follow them even when it inconveniences me.  My goals are better served by your doing so.

My main concern is what happens if the rules become "Don't do anything which has anything to do with Bitcoin.  Period."  I would consider this to be not a reasonable set of rules and would hope that they would be worked around.  It's a big world and I have every expectation that the service could be transformed and remain serviceable if there were both a will, and some forethought put into how it could be achieved.

---

Your team's various appearances on Bruce's show went a long way toward my choosing Tradehill, and it is exactly the 'face to a name' principle that made it so for me.  I happen to be in the South Bay very often these days.  It would be cool to catch up with you sometime.

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

I'm located in San Francisco and if anyone wants to meet let me know. I think it's reassuring to shake hands and put a face to a name.

The big issue is for an exchange to function you need both funds (BTC and fiat) and the tech side.
The most likely negative response (from govt) would be on the funds and not the tech imo.
It's costly and not the early adopters idea of freedom but complying with regulations should allow exchanges to continue operating.
Exchanges will either start to act more like traditional financial institutions or become a target. While I don't like or agree with most of the rules personally I'm assuming most of the users would prefer we play by the rules than shut down.

It seems pretty clear to me that Tradehill has the technical side down well enough.  I concluded that prior to and early in my deciding to be a customer.

I have nothing much against most of the rules that I am aware of at this time.  And, as a customer of Tradehill, I am happy that you do follow them even when it inconveniences me.  My goals are better served by your doing so.

My main concern is what happens if the rules become "Don't do anything which has anything to do with Bitcoin.  Period."  I would consider this to be not a reasonable set of rules and would hope that they would be worked around.  It's a big world and I have every expectation that the service could be transformed and remain serviceable if there were both a will, and some forethought put into how it could be achieved.

---

Your team's various appearances on Bruce's show went a long way toward my choosing Tradehill, and it is exactly the 'face to a name' principle that made it so for me.  I happen to be in the South Bay very often these days.  It would be cool to catch up with you sometime.

I'm normally right downtown and spend a lot of time in SOMA. Let me know when you're around.

I really don't anticipate the government saying "don't do anything with Bitcoin" if it gets way out of hand then maybe banks would but it's hard to say. It could become like Western Union or MO's where people say if someone asks for it then it's probably a scam. But seriously why would you take cash / WU / MO / BTC from someone that there is no accounting for. If someone is selling an ipod from nigeria don't send them any of those methods. That's the one time I suggest you use Paypal 

Really I don't see a reason that it would become more regulated than cash or WU / MO. It's essentially all the benefits of  those evolved.
I speak with the banks a lot and I get a lot of different opinions on where it's going. More than that I get blank stares. It's really anyone's guess but I personally don't expect it to be more regulated than cash in regards to money transmission for e-wallets / escrow / exchanges etc. It may be a while before everyone can agree on exactly what it is and how to fit it in there. It's going to become easier to classify as it's used more and more by 'normal' people.

My outlook on the regulation and acceptance of Bitcoin has actually improved recently. Still it's important to not underestimate the stupidity of the people who make the rules we all need to follow.