|
mcorlett
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
|
|
April 02, 2012, 01:21:00 AM |
|
Ah! I was just thinking about this.
You did well, Bruno.
|
|
|
|
Phinnaeus Gage (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
|
|
April 02, 2012, 01:31:16 AM |
|
Ah! I was just thinking about this.
You did well, Bruno.
I can't believe she mentioned Atlas and Matthew. Still reading.
|
|
|
|
Seal
Donator
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 848
Merit: 1078
|
|
April 02, 2012, 01:36:20 AM |
|
Great article...
Two questions:
1. Whos Naomi O'Leary? 2. "Zhou Tong, who is professionally advised by a forex trader and the head of a Singapore-based algorithmic trading firm, now lends his name to international slang."
Who is this head of Singapore-based algo trading firm or what is the firm?
|
|
|
|
rjk
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
|
|
April 02, 2012, 01:36:42 AM |
|
Ah! I was just thinking about this.
You did well, Bruno.
I can't believe she mentioned Atlas and Matthew. Still reading. I saw a mention of what appears to be Bigpiggy01 in there. Very interesting article.
|
|
|
|
Eveofwar
|
|
April 02, 2012, 01:37:51 AM |
|
Ah! I was just thinking about this.
You did well, Bruno.
I can't believe she mentioned Atlas and Matthew. Still reading. I saw a mention of what appears to be Bigpiggy01 in there. Very interesting article. Awesome read ! They made time for a gigavps section ?! Was a nice closure.
|
|
|
|
Phinnaeus Gage (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
|
|
April 02, 2012, 01:46:03 AM |
|
Great article...
Two questions:
1. Whos Naomi O'Leary? 2. "Zhou Tong, who is professionally advised by a forex trader and the head of a Singapore-based algorithmic trading firm, now lends his name to international slang."
Who is this head of Singapore-based algo trading firm or what is the firm?
This will answer your question on who is Naomi O'Leary: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65827.0
|
|
|
|
gusti
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1099
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 02, 2012, 01:59:11 AM |
|
"Users can leverage their bets up to a ratio of 10:1 on Bitcoinica, meaning they can lose more than their initial investment." Please someone explain her the leverage concept, nice article anyway.
|
If you don't own the private keys, you don't own the coins.
|
|
|
guruvan
|
|
April 02, 2012, 02:05:36 AM |
|
Great article...
Two questions:
1. Whos Naomi O'Leary? 2. "Zhou Tong, who is professionally advised by a forex trader and the head of a Singapore-based algorithmic trading firm, now lends his name to international slang."
Who is this head of Singapore-based algo trading firm or what is the firm?
lulz - he's the lead dev @ Bitcoinica. Forced Liquidation on BTC/USD positions are now referred to as being "zhoutonged" he's used the word himself. i.e. Forced Liquidation Price is "zhoutonging price" mwahahaha!
|
|
|
|
rjk
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
|
|
April 02, 2012, 02:08:48 AM |
|
Great article...
Two questions:
1. Whos Naomi O'Leary? 2. "Zhou Tong, who is professionally advised by a forex trader and the head of a Singapore-based algorithmic trading firm, now lends his name to international slang."
Who is this head of Singapore-based algo trading firm or what is the firm?
lulz - he's the lead dev @ Bitcoinica. Forced Liquidation on BTC/USD positions are now referred to as being "zhoutonged" he's used the word himself. i.e. Forced Liquidation Price is "zhoutonging price" mwahahaha! Re read the quote - it says that Zhou Tong is advised by someone, and that that someone is a forex trader and head of the singaporian trading firm. Unless it was a typo on her part.
|
|
|
|
grue
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1434
|
|
April 02, 2012, 02:13:10 AM |
|
APRIL FOOLS?
|
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
April 02, 2012, 02:18:53 AM |
|
A good read. Facts are fuzzy about a lot of things these days, but overall it seems to be a fair assessment.
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
cunicula
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 02, 2012, 02:19:30 AM |
|
"Users can leverage their bets up to a ratio of 10:1 on Bitcoinica, meaning they can lose more than their initial investment." Please someone explain her the leverage concept, nice article anyway. She is correct. Your English grammar is wrong, however. The position is auto-liquidated when it reaches the Zhoutonging price. However, if there is insufficient liquidity to perform liquidation at the Zhoutonging price, then the liquidation price will need to go beyond this boundary. Now, when liquidation occurs, the speculator will be left with a negative balance in their account. They will owe Zhoutong money and will have lost more money than their initial investment. This is impossible without leverage.
|
|
|
|
gusti
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1099
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 02, 2012, 02:28:35 AM |
|
"Users can leverage their bets up to a ratio of 10:1 on Bitcoinica, meaning they can lose more than their initial investment." Please someone explain her the leverage concept, nice article anyway. She is correct. Your English grammar is wrong, however. The position is auto-liquidated when it reaches the Zhoutonging price. However, if there is insufficient liquidity to perform liquidation at the Zhoutonging price, then the liquidation price will need to go beyond this boundary. Now, when liquidation occurs, the speculator will be left with a negative balance in their account. They will owe Zhoutong money and will have lost more money than their initial investment. This is impossible without leverage. I never said my english was perfect, but surely my spanish is *far* better than yours, you grammar nazi. negative balance has nothing to do with leverage, if liquidity is inexistant at liquidation time, you also can go negative with 1:1, 1:100 or whatever.
|
If you don't own the private keys, you don't own the coins.
|
|
|
bc
Member
Offline
Activity: 72
Merit: 10
|
|
April 02, 2012, 02:34:19 AM |
|
That may be the best outsider article I've ever read about Bitcoin. She really seems to have done her homework.
Kudos to everyone who helped her.
|
"Democracy is the original 51% attack." - Erik Voorhees
|
|
|
niko
|
|
April 02, 2012, 02:41:27 AM |
|
The Royal Canadian Mint, for example, is exploring how to issue digital currency in the future. Its chief financial officer Marc Brule said Bitcoin's biggest problem was that it is not backed by anything.
"The system we would bring in would be backed by a fund," he told Reuters.
I heard this argument before, but I don't get it. What does it mean if a currency is "backed by a fund"? A fund of what kind?
|
They're there, in their room. Your mining rig is on fire, yet you're very calm.
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
April 02, 2012, 02:51:32 AM |
|
The Royal Canadian Mint, for example, is exploring how to issue digital currency in the future. Its chief financial officer Marc Brule said Bitcoin's biggest problem was that it is not backed by anything.
"The system we would bring in would be backed by a fund," he told Reuters.
I heard this argument before, but I don't get it. What does it mean if a currency is "backed by a fund"? A fund of what kind? It probably means they will scan Canadian dollars and make lots of digital jpegs.
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
bitcool
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1441
Merit: 1000
Live and enjoy experiments
|
|
April 02, 2012, 03:03:54 AM |
|
The Royal Canadian Mint, for example, is exploring how to issue digital currency in the future. Its chief financial officer Marc Brule said Bitcoin's biggest problem was that it is not backed by anything.
"The system we would bring in would be backed by a fund," he told Reuters.
I heard this argument before, but I don't get it. What does it mean if a currency is "backed by a fund"? A fund of what kind? Unless its CEF , the gold silver fund of Canada, otherwise its no different from any types of bank credit.
|
|
|
|
cunicula
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 02, 2012, 03:05:25 AM Last edit: April 02, 2012, 03:15:30 AM by cunicula |
|
I never said my english was perfect, but surely my spanish is *far* better than yours, you grammar nazi. negative balance has nothing to do with leverage, if liquidity is inexistant at liquidation time, you also can go negative with 1:1, 1:100 or whatever. Naomi is completely correct that the opportunity to leverage investments on Bitcoinica makes it possible to lose more than your initial investment. When you borrow to buy assets, this is called leverage. If you take a short position you have leverage. You are borrowing the currency you are shorting and the value of your debt can grow to exceed the value of your holdings. This is when forced liquidation occurs. If you take a long position. You don't need to have leverage. You can buy the currency you are investing in. If you do this, you take on no debt and there is no way for forced liquidation to occur. Leverage is necessary for forced liquidation to occur. To end up with a negative balance, you need to take on leverage. If you are heavily leveraged up, then, fixing your initial investment and the degree of illiquidity when forced liquidation occurs, the size of your negative balance will be proportional to your leverage, i.e. if you leverage up 10:1 you will end up with a negative balance ten times as large.
|
|
|
|
gusti
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1099
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 02, 2012, 03:14:50 AM |
|
I never said my english was perfect, but surely my spanish is *far* better than yours, you grammar nazi. negative balance has nothing to do with leverage, if liquidity is inexistant at liquidation time, you also can go negative with 1:1, 1:100 or whatever. When you borrow to buy assets, this is called leverage. Sure, if you take a short position you have leverage. You are borrowing the currency you are shorting and the value of your debt can exceed your initial investment. If you take a long position. You don't need to have leverage. You can buy the currency you are investing in (or loan this currency to the market maker), you can take on no debt and then there is no way for forced liquidation to occur. Of course you can take on leverage if you want to and then it is possible for forced liquidation to occur. Leverage is necessary for you to end up with a negative balance because of illiquidity. If you are heavily leveraged up, then, fixing your initial investment and the degree of illiquidity when forced liquidation occurs, the size of your negative balance will be proportional to your leverage, i.e. if you leverage up 10:1 you will end up with a negative balance ten times as large. Naomi is completely correct that the opportunity to leverage your investment on Bitcoinica makes it possible to lose more than your initial investment. This is impossible with Mt.Gox, for example, where you are only allowed to buy and sell and not to borrow. I think you are still mistaken on what is the cause of going negative on bitcoinica. is not the leverage, it's the illiquidity when your position is forcible closed. but that is a bitcoinica issue, not a leverage issue. e.g. you can never ever go negative in a forex broker, even with a 400:1 leverage.
|
If you don't own the private keys, you don't own the coins.
|
|
|
|