GLBSE 2.0 open for testing

[stochastic]

what's your broker's approach here?
remind you that glbse is not offering lines of credit nor margins and no leverage as bitcoinica is doing.
please educate me and refine your wish to behavior of buy orders in case they would start executing.
we're messing here with market depth and rules should be well described, understood and implemented.

forgot to reply to this, noticed you mention something in another thread about it.  I think the way my current broker handles it is real simple though I am not sure exactly how they handle it as I haven't actually looked at the actual rules.  This is how it acts however:  Your order is checked at order time to make sure you have the balance / margin / credit available.  If this first check passes, the order is posted.  Kind of like a "soft" check / pre-approval.  At execution time, the order is checked for margin again and then executed.  The "hard" check.  Now the way my broker works, is they give you a certain # called "buying power" which takes into account other holdings and things too.  I think for GLBSE purposes, this could just be based on cash on hand.  IE: if I have 100 BTC on hand, I should be able to place 100BTC orders, as many as I want, whatever price I want, and these should all pass the soft check.  At execution time, if the order fails a hard check, it is removed from the order book / cancelled.  Something like that anyway. 

I agree this would be more desirable than 2.0's current BTC reserved rules, especially since the volume of GLBSE is so low.  We have no idea when my orders are going to be placed, so now I have place orders of those I think has a higher chance of being processed and not place orders that would take longer to execute.  As can be seen on GLBSE 2.0 now, there are many more sell orders than buy orders which is a direct result of these new rules.

[2weiX]

what's your broker's approach here?
remind you that glbse is not offering lines of credit nor margins and no leverage as bitcoinica is doing.
please educate me and refine your wish to behavior of buy orders in case they would start executing.
we're messing here with market depth and rules should be well described, understood and implemented.

forgot to reply to this, noticed you mention something in another thread about it.  I think the way my current broker handles it is real simple though I am not sure exactly how they handle it as I haven't actually looked at the actual rules.  This is how it acts however:  Your order is checked at order time to make sure you have the balance / margin / credit available.  If this first check passes, the order is posted.  Kind of like a "soft" check / pre-approval.  At execution time, the order is checked for margin again and then executed.  The "hard" check.  Now the way my broker works, is they give you a certain # called "buying power" which takes into account other holdings and things too.  I think for GLBSE purposes, this could just be based on cash on hand.  IE: if I have 100 BTC on hand, I should be able to place 100BTC orders, as many as I want, whatever price I want, and these should all pass the soft check.  At execution time, if the order fails a hard check, it is removed from the order book / cancelled.  Something like that anyway. 

I agree this would be more desirable than 2.0's current BTC reserved rules, especially since the volume of GLBSE is so low.  We have no idea when my orders are going to be placed, so now I have place orders of those I think has a higher chance of being processed and not place orders that would take longer to execute.  As can be seen on GLBSE 2.0 now, there are many more sell orders than buy orders which is a direct result of these new rules.

You should not be able to place an order unless you have cash on hand to execute THAT EXACT order.

Reason for this:
Someone with, say, 500 BTC could place 50000000 orders for 500 BTC each and never fail a soft check, thus completeley destroying any credibility into the market.

If now one order gets partly filled for 100BTC , which of the other orders do you delete/modify?
If all orders would stand "as is", you'd have the same situation as in the old GLBSE, where "fake" orders (or simply those that didnt have funds allotted to them) would fill up the BID side without ever being traded!


There is ONE order type that takes care of that which is called "OCO" (one cancels other) that allows one to place two orders of 500BTC each and as soon as one is filled, the other order gets cancelled automatically.

[stochastic]

what's your broker's approach here?
remind you that glbse is not offering lines of credit nor margins and no leverage as bitcoinica is doing.
please educate me and refine your wish to behavior of buy orders in case they would start executing.
we're messing here with market depth and rules should be well described, understood and implemented.

forgot to reply to this, noticed you mention something in another thread about it.  I think the way my current broker handles it is real simple though I am not sure exactly how they handle it as I haven't actually looked at the actual rules.  This is how it acts however:  Your order is checked at order time to make sure you have the balance / margin / credit available.  If this first check passes, the order is posted.  Kind of like a "soft" check / pre-approval.  At execution time, the order is checked for margin again and then executed.  The "hard" check.  Now the way my broker works, is they give you a certain # called "buying power" which takes into account other holdings and things too.  I think for GLBSE purposes, this could just be based on cash on hand.  IE: if I have 100 BTC on hand, I should be able to place 100BTC orders, as many as I want, whatever price I want, and these should all pass the soft check.  At execution time, if the order fails a hard check, it is removed from the order book / cancelled.  Something like that anyway.  

I agree this would be more desirable than 2.0's current BTC reserved rules, especially since the volume of GLBSE is so low.  We have no idea when my orders are going to be placed, so now I have place orders of those I think has a higher chance of being processed and not place orders that would take longer to execute.  As can be seen on GLBSE 2.0 now, there are many more sell orders than buy orders which is a direct result of these new rules.

You should not be able to place an order unless you have cash on hand to execute THAT EXACT order.

Reason for this:
Someone with, say, 500 BTC could place 50000000 orders for 500 BTC each and never fail a soft check, thus completeley destroying any credibility into the market.

I thought this thread was about feature requests, not debate other people's requests. (Edit:  I thought I was in the request thread.)

You do realize you are talking about a market with less than 15 actively traded contracts.

If now one order gets partly filled for 100BTC , which of the other orders do you delete/modify?
If all orders would stand "as is", you'd have the same situation as in the old GLBSE, where "fake" orders (or simply those that didnt have funds allotted to them) would fill up the BID side without ever being traded!

Easy, if 100BTC of a 500BTC order is filled and there are other orders for 500BTC then reduce all other orders equally by 100BTC.  This allows for the buyer to place multiple bids.  As long as a bidder has the money and the intention of purchasing then I don't see any problem with them placing a bid.  If they then don't have the funds anymore the system can remove any outstanding bids.  In a market this thin a buyer will now be more likely to place bids on contracts that are more likely to get filled and he or she loses the ability to say "I want contract x for y BTC.

There is ONE order type that takes care of that which is called "OCO" (one cancels other) that allows one to place two orders of 500BTC each and as soon as one is filled, the other order gets cancelled automatically.

Then the OCO order type should be implemented or the bid side of GLBSE will be too thin.

[2weiX]

what's your broker's approach here?
remind you that glbse is not offering lines of credit nor margins and no leverage as bitcoinica is doing.
please educate me and refine your wish to behavior of buy orders in case they would start executing.
we're messing here with market depth and rules should be well described, understood and implemented.

forgot to reply to this, noticed you mention something in another thread about it.  I think the way my current broker handles it is real simple though I am not sure exactly how they handle it as I haven't actually looked at the actual rules.  This is how it acts however:  Your order is checked at order time to make sure you have the balance / margin / credit available.  If this first check passes, the order is posted.  Kind of like a "soft" check / pre-approval.  At execution time, the order is checked for margin again and then executed.  The "hard" check.  Now the way my broker works, is they give you a certain # called "buying power" which takes into account other holdings and things too.  I think for GLBSE purposes, this could just be based on cash on hand.  IE: if I have 100 BTC on hand, I should be able to place 100BTC orders, as many as I want, whatever price I want, and these should all pass the soft check.  At execution time, if the order fails a hard check, it is removed from the order book / cancelled.  Something like that anyway.  

I agree this would be more desirable than 2.0's current BTC reserved rules, especially since the volume of GLBSE is so low.  We have no idea when my orders are going to be placed, so now I have place orders of those I think has a higher chance of being processed and not place orders that would take longer to execute.  As can be seen on GLBSE 2.0 now, there are many more sell orders than buy orders which is a direct result of these new rules.

You should not be able to place an order unless you have cash on hand to execute THAT EXACT order.

Reason for this:
Someone with, say, 500 BTC could place 50000000 orders for 500 BTC each and never fail a soft check, thus completeley destroying any credibility into the market.

I thought this thread was about feature requests, not debate other people's requests.

You do realize you are talking about a market with less than 15 actively traded contracts.

If now one order gets partly filled for 100BTC , which of the other orders do you delete/modify?
If all orders would stand "as is", you'd have the same situation as in the old GLBSE, where "fake" orders (or simply those that didnt have funds allotted to them) would fill up the BID side without ever being traded!

Easy, if 100BTC of a 500BTC order is filled and there are other orders for 500BTC then reduce all other orders equally by 100BTC.  This allows for the buyer to place multiple bids.  As long as a bidder has the money and the intention of purchasing then I don't see any problem with them placing a bid.  If they then don't have the funds anymore the system can remove any outstanding bids.  In a market this thin a buyer will now be more likely to place bids on contracts that are more likely to get filled and he or she loses the ability to say "I want contract x for y BTC.

There is ONE order type that takes care of that which is called "OCO" (one cancels other) that allows one to place two orders of 500BTC each and as soon as one is filled, the other order gets cancelled automatically.

Then the OCO order type should be implemented or the bid side of GLBSE will be too thin.

all orders in the order book MUST represent REAL orders.
else, the whole idea of determining the price of an asset on demand and supply gets screwed.
if you want a stock, buy from the ASK instead of building fake BID walls in every other stock waiting for shit to drop into their lap.

selling my portfolio and discovering that 50% of the bid sides were fakes? nice!

didnt we love these fake bid and ask walls on MTGOX? well, at least there's REAL money behind those.

if you "intend" to buy a share, BUY IT.

[stochastic]

what's your broker's approach here?
remind you that glbse is not offering lines of credit nor margins and no leverage as bitcoinica is doing.
please educate me and refine your wish to behavior of buy orders in case they would start executing.
we're messing here with market depth and rules should be well described, understood and implemented.

forgot to reply to this, noticed you mention something in another thread about it.  I think the way my current broker handles it is real simple though I am not sure exactly how they handle it as I haven't actually looked at the actual rules.  This is how it acts however:  Your order is checked at order time to make sure you have the balance / margin / credit available.  If this first check passes, the order is posted.  Kind of like a "soft" check / pre-approval.  At execution time, the order is checked for margin again and then executed.  The "hard" check.  Now the way my broker works, is they give you a certain # called "buying power" which takes into account other holdings and things too.  I think for GLBSE purposes, this could just be based on cash on hand.  IE: if I have 100 BTC on hand, I should be able to place 100BTC orders, as many as I want, whatever price I want, and these should all pass the soft check.  At execution time, if the order fails a hard check, it is removed from the order book / cancelled.  Something like that anyway.  

I agree this would be more desirable than 2.0's current BTC reserved rules, especially since the volume of GLBSE is so low.  We have no idea when my orders are going to be placed, so now I have place orders of those I think has a higher chance of being processed and not place orders that would take longer to execute.  As can be seen on GLBSE 2.0 now, there are many more sell orders than buy orders which is a direct result of these new rules.

You should not be able to place an order unless you have cash on hand to execute THAT EXACT order.

Reason for this:
Someone with, say, 500 BTC could place 50000000 orders for 500 BTC each and never fail a soft check, thus completeley destroying any credibility into the market.

I thought this thread was about feature requests, not debate other people's requests.

You do realize you are talking about a market with less than 15 actively traded contracts.

If now one order gets partly filled for 100BTC , which of the other orders do you delete/modify?
If all orders would stand "as is", you'd have the same situation as in the old GLBSE, where "fake" orders (or simply those that didnt have funds allotted to them) would fill up the BID side without ever being traded!

Easy, if 100BTC of a 500BTC order is filled and there are other orders for 500BTC then reduce all other orders equally by 100BTC.  This allows for the buyer to place multiple bids.  As long as a bidder has the money and the intention of purchasing then I don't see any problem with them placing a bid.  If they then don't have the funds anymore the system can remove any outstanding bids.  In a market this thin a buyer will now be more likely to place bids on contracts that are more likely to get filled and he or she loses the ability to say "I want contract x for y BTC.

There is ONE order type that takes care of that which is called "OCO" (one cancels other) that allows one to place two orders of 500BTC each and as soon as one is filled, the other order gets cancelled automatically.

Then the OCO order type should be implemented or the bid side of GLBSE will be too thin.

all orders in the order book MUST represent REAL orders.
else, the whole idea of determining the price of an asset on demand and supply gets screwed.
if you want a stock, buy from the ASK instead of building fake BID walls in every other stock waiting for shit to drop into their lap.

selling my portfolio and discovering that 50% of the bid sides were fakes? nice!

didnt we love these fake bid and ask walls on MTGOX? well, at least there's REAL money behind those.

if you "intend" to buy a share, BUY IT.

Right now once someone buys a contract they can do two things with it.  Do nothing or put it on a sell order.  If I have a mining company AAA that pays 10% dividend each week I might as well put AAA on a sell at some value higher than I purchased that contract.  So there is no logical reason for anyone that has bought a share to not put it on the order book.  If it doesn't sell then I still get my 10%.  If it does sell then I get some capital gains.

With the current locking of bitcoins there is no reason to put in bids.  Like you said, might as well purchase at the ask price.  But the ask price is way too overpriced.  Now that it is pointless to put in bids, the demand looks soft so there is no clear bid-ask spread.  The ask will be overpriced.  Go through any of the contracts right now and you will see they almost all have about twice as much ask prices than bids.

[2weiX]

Right now once someone buys a contract they can do two things with it.  Do nothing or put it on a sell order.  If I have a mining company AAA that pays 10% dividend each week I might as well put AAA on a sell at some value higher than I purchased that contract.  So there is no logical reason for anyone that has bought a share to not put it on the order book.  If it doesn't sell then I still get my 10%.  If it does sell then I get some capital gains.

With the current locking of bitcoins there is no reason to put in bids.  Like you said, might as well purchase at the ask price.  But the ask price is being liberal with the asking price.  Now that it is pointless to put in bids, the demand looks soft so there is no clear bid-ask spread.  The ask will be overpriced.  Go through any of the contracts right now and you will see they almost all have about twice as much ask prices than bids.

while that may be so, this will not be solved by allowing users to create nonexistent BID sides.
If trading is slow, demand is slow, your business is not interesting. Or GLBSE isnt popular enough.

If people want to sell, they will lower their ASK.

I can understand your perspective, but the problem is inherent in the system.
stocks should split so they're more attractive visually.
not every other outhouse should go public.

[mila]

I thought this thread was about feature requests, not debate other people's requests. (Edit:  I thought I was in the request thread.)

even in the feature requests thread we are encouraged to discuss the shit out of each other.

we the users,
...

we should be able to request features, argue/discuss them, sort out the differences and if they can not be reconciled at least summarize the problem, know options and arguments pro/contra.

so yes, please, debate other people's requests or nefario starts to implement them in their raw form and will eventually end up reverting the changes. if he programs faster then we discuss we may and up with a glbse we don't want to.

so why should any virtual buying power be allowed? could it be charged with extra fees? and as it is spend the remaining buy orders should be either downsized or right away cancelled but how?
I think having fake bids is worse than having a slow exchange

[stochastic]

I thought this thread was about feature requests, not debate other people's requests. (Edit:  I thought I was in the request thread.)

even in the feature requests thread we are encouraged to discuss the shit out of each other.

we the users,
...

we should be able to request features, argue/discuss them, sort out the differences and if they can not be reconciled at least summarize the problem, know options and arguments pro/contra.

so yes, please, debate other people's requests or nefario starts to implement them in their raw form and will eventually end up reverting the changes. if he programs faster then we discuss we may and up with a glbse we don't want to.

so why should any virtual buying power be allowed? could it be charged with extra fees? and as it is spend the remaining buy orders should be either downsized or right away cancelled but how?
I think having fake bids is worse than having a slow exchange

(I have a strange pathologically obsessive nature with staying on topic.)

I don't see how making multiple bid orders if I have the available money for any of those orders is not real.  I have the ability to make the purchase and I have the intention.  So once that order is filled my money is taken away and I own whatever contract that is.  Once I don't have any more money then I don't have the ability to make the other purchases so those other orders should be canceled.

With higher volume then yes I don't see a problem with making these reserve requirements, but in that theoretical world a bid would be executed fairly rapidly and there would be a narrow bid/ask spread.  In today's GLBSE world we can only see the demand for a contract as either being there or not, while normally demand would be seen in a continuous matter in the bid side.  People don't want to lock in their bitcoins and have it not working for them.  There will be outrageously low bids, as no one will bid a reasonable amount and lock in a significant amount of bitcoins in the small GLBSE market.

People talked about phantom bids before, now they really are a ghost as you can't see the demand at all anymore.

[2weiX]

I cannot argue with the WISH to have the ability to post "ghost bids" (I still call them "fake").
I can only say that in any serious environment, they only post problems.

Right now they fill two functions:

- have ppl place low BIDs everywhere and see which gets filled
- act as nonexistent but visuial "demand".


if both is desireable is questionable.
both are, however, NOT congruent with how a "real" stock exchange works.

[mila]

I don't see how making multiple bid orders if I have the available money for any of those orders is not real.  I have the ability to make the purchase and I have the intention.  So once that order is filled my money is taken away and I own whatever contract that is.  Once I don't have any more money then I don't have the ability to make the other purchases so those other orders should be canceled.

well because the exchange did not cancel 'those other orders' once buyer's bitcoins were gone and this is how the fake bids were accumulated. once auto-cancelling orders would work, then maybe it would make sense adding pseudo buying power.

how about a look from seller perspective? I have 1 share and I want to offer it for sale at 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 and 2.0
you see 6 shares for sale but it's still the same 1 share that I offer for sale at various prices. nonsense?

[stochastic]

I cannot argue with the WISH to have the ability to post "ghost bids" (I still call them "fake").
I can only say that in any serious environment, they only post problems.

Right now they fill two functions:

- have ppl place low BIDs everywhere and see which gets filled
- act as nonexistent but visuial "demand".


if both is desireable is questionable.
both are, however, NOT congruent with how a "real" stock exchange works.

Tell me what is the difference between someone with a lot of money coming placing lots of low bids (because they have the capital for the reserve) all over the place, then when an order is executed canceling all those other bids, with someone placing multiple orders and once an order is executed all other orders are automatically canceled or reduced to the amount of BTC in their account?

[2weiX]

I cannot argue with the WISH to have the ability to post "ghost bids" (I still call them "fake").
I can only say that in any serious environment, they only post problems.

Right now they fill two functions:

- have ppl place low BIDs everywhere and see which gets filled
- act as nonexistent but visuial "demand".


if both is desireable is questionable.
both are, however, NOT congruent with how a "real" stock exchange works.

Tell me what is the difference between someone with a lot of money coming placing lots of low bids (because they have the capital for the reserve) all over the place, then when an order is executed canceling all those other bids, with someone placing multiple orders and once an order is executed all other orders are automatically canceled or reduced to the amount of BTC in their account?

exactly that is the difference.
one is backed with REAL funding and in GLBSE1 they weren't cancelled.

In GLBSE chances were that 50% of the BID orders could not be traded since they simply weren't there!

also, keeping track of which order is funded, which isn't and so on is not trivial.

I'd prefer an order type that lets you specify two (three?) different stocks and has all but one order cancelled upon the first execution.

[cablepair]

Hi

I was just curious if there is a problem with GLBSE atm..

Trying to import my 1.0 accounts and getting internal server error

btw great job Nefario , things are looking great

[Garr255]

I got that error but things still worked

[Nefario]

Hi

I was just curious if there is a problem with GLBSE atm..

Trying to import my 1.0 accounts and getting internal server error

btw great job Nefario , things are looking great

This is funny, I've tested the crap out of the account importing functionality and not been able to replicate the errors.

Can you pm me you're recovery code and and email address you use for logging in so I can investigate, it's really bugging me(probably isn't fun for you either).


Also just a note on GLBSE in general, since we've launched 2.0 the trade volume is over 5 times what it was compared to GLBSE 1.0 and deposits (which also means liquidity) is pouring in at a very impressive rate.

What this translates to is we're on the right track for GLBSE to become the market we had always hoped it would.

With improvements on the way (I'll be adding account to account transfers, even have redemption codes ala MtGox, and proper sorting of bids/asks and more) this are only going to get better.

I'll also sort assets on the asset page (which I'll change to /assets) by volume(I'll also display volume as well).

Other assets where I've verified the ID's I'll updated them.

Then the next big step will be to allow contract editing. You may all see that the contracts from assets imported from GLBSE1.0 are not the most readable.

Asset owners, what I want you to do is create a motion (set it's finish date for about a week into the future), and put in the text you want for your new contract. If the motion passes (say a majority of 50% or more) I'll manually update the contract.

Now we're sucking diesel!

[molecular]

Orders don't seem to be sorting correctly by per share amount.  Below is how MergedMining sales orders are currently displayed.

Sell orders
QUANTITY@PRICE
100@0.155
100@0.16
100@0.165
100@0.175
61@0.17
309@0.15125
78@0.154

I like the idea of merging 'Buy orders' with 'Sell orders' and display one table like this instead


image linked from 2.0 feature request thread

that would solve the sorting and make a nice market depth table

yes please. and most awesome would be to have one's own order integrated into that table somehow. That way, one can see all relevant data in one table.

[Nefario]

Orders don't seem to be sorting correctly by per share amount.  Below is how MergedMining sales orders are currently displayed.

Sell orders
QUANTITY@PRICE
100@0.155
100@0.16
100@0.165
100@0.175
61@0.17
309@0.15125
78@0.154

I like the idea of merging 'Buy orders' with 'Sell orders' and display one table like this instead


image linked from 2.0 feature request thread

that would solve the sorting and make a nice market depth table

yes please. and most awesome would be to have one's own order integrated into that table somehow. That way, one can see all relevant data in one table.

Yeah that looks good, bah it's going to be a pain to actually make it...no wait, it shouldn't be too difficult actually. Feature request accepted.

[mila]

image linked from 2.0 feature request thread

...
yes please. and most awesome would be to have one's own order integrated into that table somehow. That way, one can see all relevant data in one table.

your own orders are visible in the portfolio page (unique for you)

your request to include indicator which orders in that table are your impacts the asset view page (might be common for all users except the indicator of ones own orders)

makes sense, currently the asset view page where buy/sell orders are listed does not indicate which orders are yours and will be hopefully touched sonn (at least to sort out the sorting).

[teek]

@Nefario - sent you an e-mail regarding some problems with dividend payments.  Seems some shareholders received their dividends and some did not.. 

[Nefario]

@Nefario - sent you an e-mail regarding some problems with dividend payments.  Seems some shareholders received their dividends and some did not.. 

Got your mail, there was a bug in dividends that got fixed later on Sunday.
I'm working on how we can clear this up.