mt gox rewards high volume trading. fee drops from .6% to .55% once your trade volume reaches 100btc in a month (this seems to be relatively new). so im pretty sure they wont be banning bots anytime soon....why would they? high volume trading means higher profits on their end...
this whining about bots is asinine..... my bot puts in trades within a trading range that adjusts to price (somewhat like a trailing stop-loss in forex or stocks) exactly the same as i would (and did before i got the bot) , only now i dont have to monitor my account 24/7 or bother with the math....i can keep it running and do something more productive than staring at charts all day.
no one is at an unfair advantage either, free and open source trade bots are freely available to anyone with 2 minutes and access to the search bar on this forum. in fact, heres a link to the one i use; dnnbitcoin.aricie.com its open source, its free, and you can customize it however you see fit.
isnt bots driving the price down. its traders. bots arent swayed by psychology...they dont panic sell like people do.
you dont see the forex market falling apart because of EA's (forex tradebots) do you?
Topic: ATTN: MtGox (Read 5994 times)
Ouch.
Can't say I didn't warn ya.
Can't say I didn't warn ya.
Any news from the Mt. Gox ppl? I think some kind of bot counter-measure would be beneficial.
Ouch.
Can't say I didn't warn ya.
Can't say I didn't warn ya.
Criticisms about GxB's approach aside, I think my point still applies. As I support the two views which you criticized. (Aggressive, involved feedback, and restricting bot abuse viability)
Whining like a child that isn't getting his way is hardly feedback. In the adult world, feedback is not the same as just saying "I don't like this, you need to change" over and over again.
And I've said nothing on "restricting bot abuse viability". I'm actually all for it. I think the exchanges certainly have the right to stop any abusive bots they find. We are at odds because you are defining "abuse" to mean "that which I don't approve of" instead of "that which the rightful policy maker doesn't approve of".
In the real world you have 30 year old men screaming in your face about how you're trying to rip them off and how you're a highway robber and should be ashamed of yourself. In the real world little old ladies pretend like they are sweet as sugar while every other sentence out of their mouths is some kind of acidic criticism with implications that they should get something for free for having been treated so miserably.
When people are upset, they aren't always the nicest. If you've ever had any experience dealing with customer service, even minimally, you'd be aware of that. GxB and the bitcoin community aren't employees or coworkers with bitcoin, who need to be careful how they criticize. They are customers. Customers who feel like they are being ripped off turn into angry, self-righteous babies.
Is it the best way to communicate disappointment? Not usually. Sometimes though, it is the only way to get your point across.
And sometimes the next guy in line needs to say what the proprietor cannot.
By the way, I've done plenty of customer service. Still do, in a way, and usually in circumstances where there is no hope of rescue. When I'm in that role, I have patience and politeness that you wouldn't believe. But today I'm the next guy in line, telling the angry baby to put a sock in it and move on.
Criticisms about GxB's approach aside, I think my point still applies. As I support the two views which you criticized. (Aggressive, involved feedback, and restricting bot abuse viability)
Whining like a child that isn't getting his way is hardly feedback. In the adult world, feedback is not the same as just saying "I don't like this, you need to change" over and over again.
And I've said nothing on "restricting bot abuse viability". I'm actually all for it. I think the exchanges certainly have the right to stop any abusive bots they find. We are at odds because you are defining "abuse" to mean "that which I don't approve of" instead of "that which the rightful policy maker doesn't approve of".
In the real world you have 30 year old men screaming in your face about how you're trying to rip them off and how you're a highway robber and should be ashamed of yourself. In the real world little old ladies pretend like they are sweet as sugar while every other sentence out of their mouths is some kind of acidic criticism with implications that they should get something for free for having been treated so miserably.
When people are upset, they aren't always the nicest. If you've ever had any experience dealing with customer service, even minimally, you'd be aware of that. GxB and the bitcoin community aren't employees or coworkers with bitcoin, who need to be careful how they criticize. They are customers. Customers who feel like they are being ripped off turn into angry, self-righteous babies.
Is it the best way to communicate disappointment? Not usually. Sometimes though, it is the only way to get your point across.
Criticisms about GxB's approach aside, I think my point still applies. As I support the two views which you criticized. (Aggressive, involved feedback, and restricting bot abuse viability)
Whining like a child that isn't getting his way is hardly feedback. In the adult world, feedback is not the same as just saying "I don't like this, you need to change" over and over again.
And I've said nothing on "restricting bot abuse viability". I'm actually all for it. I think the exchanges certainly have the right to stop any abusive bots they find. We are at odds because you are defining "abuse" to mean "that which I don't approve of" instead of "that which the rightful policy maker doesn't approve of".
You should keep your Insults to a minimum or make them non-existent.
He has very valid points. #1 being the charts are completely useless with rampant bots abusing volumes.
Criticisms about GxB's approach aside, I think my point still applies. As I support the two views which you criticized. (Aggressive, involved feedback, and restricting bot abuse viability)
Whining like a child that isn't getting his way is hardly feedback. In the adult world, feedback is not the same as just saying "I don't like this, you need to change" over and over again.
And I've said nothing on "restricting bot abuse viability". I'm actually all for it. I think the exchanges certainly have the right to stop any abusive bots they find. We are at odds because you are defining "abuse" to mean "that which I don't approve of" instead of "that which the rightful policy maker doesn't approve of".
Bitcoin is terminal running along this direction.
No serious investor would get caught in this scheme.
No serious investor would get caught in this scheme.
Criticisms about GxB's approach aside, I think my point still applies. As I support the two views which you criticized. (Aggressive, involved feedback, and restricting bot abuse viability)
...
I guess I should have made it clear that I was talking to the tool that started the thread and thinks that his opinion should be binding on everyone else, not whichever random person posted just before me.
Can you just shut the fuck up already?
They created the exchange, they own it, they operate it, they get to make the decisions for it, not you. If you don't like that, you can go make your own exchange and set whatever policies you want for it. If you are right that bots are bad, people will flock to your botless exchange.
They created the exchange, they own it, they operate it, they get to make the decisions for it, not you. If you don't like that, you can go make your own exchange and set whatever policies you want for it. If you are right that bots are bad, people will flock to your botless exchange.
Somebody that advocates minding their own business to that point of absurdity should probably take their own advice.
Since Magical Tux usually appears to be very active in responding to feedback, I don't see why you are so hostile to everyone. Aside from his mysterious silence, which is hardly telling of MtGox's position, there is no reason to believe that they have reached any decision regarding this matter. (Though I will continue to speculate on the possibilities. I find the situation interesting.)
As for making my own exchange, and then expecting people to flock to it, hardly indicates that I should shut up. In fact, such an action would require increased advocacy for my system's strengths compared to the competition. I think you in particular would find me quite a bit more annoying in my increased presence on this forum.
Luckily for you I already prescribe to another trading service. For the time being I have faith in them and you can rest assured that I entertain no such notion of creating an online trading service in the near future.
Can you just shut the fuck up already?
They created the exchange, they own it, they operate it, they get to make the decisions for it, not you. If you don't like that, you can go make your own exchange and set whatever policies you want for it. If you are right that bots are bad, people will flock to your botless exchange.
They created the exchange, they own it, they operate it, they get to make the decisions for it, not you. If you don't like that, you can go make your own exchange and set whatever policies you want for it. If you are right that bots are bad, people will flock to your botless exchange.
Bots have a distinct advantage over humans in trading. Mainly speed and the lack of human error and time.
Humans are simply not fast enough to type in an order before the market changes.
Humans with their slow reactions and irrational feelings sounds like a much bigger problem for the market than fast and precise bots.Humans are simply not fast enough to type in an order before the market changes.
I have no problem with bots as a means to do legitimate business. Technology is not a bane to the bitcoin community. The clear issue is that either bot technology is being used intentionally maliciously (and in this case, where the bot user is most likely aware of the problems he's causing by now, it can't be ruled out,) or irresponsibly (this is clearly doing damage to the bitcoin market.)
The greater issue I have is that MtGox has several means to handle this issue at their disposal. Either impose the posting costs mentioned in other threads, or increase their capacity for traffic density. Their is not a blameless party between MtGox and the botter. In fact I have not ruled out Mt.Gox as the botter, as they may be trying to protect their profit margins.
Edit- Another possibility came to mind, from another thread I posted in
Quote
The other, on a lighter note, is that they are still working on security upgrades from the incident earlier this year, and have decided to include some way of staying the botters effect on the system. In any case where they are intending to effect the botters they may not be willing to announce it till they can implement it, as it could cause the botters to escalate their activity drastically to maximize their abuse before the problem is handled.
Bots have a distinct advantage over humans in trading. Mainly speed and the lack of human error and time.
Humans are simply not fast enough to type in an order before the market changes.
Humans with their slow reactions and irrational feelings sounds like a much bigger problem for the market than fast and precise bots.Humans are simply not fast enough to type in an order before the market changes.
Bots have a distinct advantage over humans in trading. Mainly speed and the lack of human error and time.
Humans are simply not fast enough to type in an order before the market changes.
Humans with their slow reactions and irrational feelings sounds like a much bigger problem for the market than fast and precise bots. Humans are simply not fast enough to type in an order before the market changes.
Heh ok. I think you give these bots way too much credit.
And what about all the human traders that are better than you should they have to pay extra fees?
And what about all the human traders that are better than you should they have to pay extra fees?
In case you haven't noticed, there are increasing amounts of complaints about Mt.Gox's website being inaccessible during the prime buying moments. Bots are affecting MtGox's viability as a trading forum and also making their charts inaccurate representations of the market.
It's not just bots placing fake orders which distorts the market depth. The other day someone complained that a buy order they'd placed at 7.00 almost executed because they had trouble logging on quickly to remove it when the price was in freefall.
Rather than just call you an idiot, I'll just admit, I have no frickin clue how this equates to using bots to overwhelm the system. Is placing an fake order capable of forcing people out of the market in a way I haven't heard of before?
Even with fake orders on the market, legitimate buyers and sellers should be able to buy and sell their real offers. Bots, on the other hand, maintain a monopoly on market manipulation by forcing all others off MtGox. Furthermore, it prevents assholes, like the one you mentioned, from realizing that if they post a fake bid/ask to manipulate the market and it gets filled, then they have no one to blame but themselves.
Heh ok. I think you give these bots way too much credit.
And what about all the human traders that are better than you should they have to pay extra fees?
And what about all the human traders that are better than you should they have to pay extra fees?
In case you haven't noticed, there are increasing amounts of complaints about Mt.Gox's website being inaccessible during the prime buying moments. Bots are affecting MtGox's viability as a trading forum and also making their charts inaccurate representations of the market.
It's not just bots placing fake orders which distorts the market depth. The other day someone complained that a buy order they'd placed at 7.00 almost executed because they had trouble logging on quickly to remove it when the price was in freefall.
There's a huge difference. HUGE. Use your head!!! PLEASE use your head.
Heh ok. I think you give these bots way too much credit.
And what about all the human traders that are better than you should they have to pay extra fees?
And what about all the human traders that are better than you should they have to pay extra fees?
In case you haven't noticed, there are increasing amounts of complaints about Mt.Gox's website being inaccessible during the prime buying moments. Bots are affecting MtGox's viability as a trading forum and also making their charts inaccurate representations of the market.
It's not just bots placing fake orders which distorts the market depth. The other day someone complained that a buy order they'd placed at 7.00 almost executed because they had trouble logging on quickly to remove it when the price was in freefall.
Heh ok. I think you give these bots way too much credit.
And what about all the human traders that are better than you should they have to pay extra fees?
And what about all the human traders that are better than you should they have to pay extra fees?
In case you haven't noticed, there are increasing amounts of complaints about Mt.Gox's website being inaccessible during the prime buying moments. Bots are affecting MtGox's viability as a trading forum and also making their charts inaccurate representations of the market.
Jump to: