Bitstamp warning | Bitcointalksearch.org

MPOE-PR

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 522

Quote from: oda.krell on April 27, 2013, 04:08:14 PM

How come your ignore button is dark orange? I really enjoy your posts. Bit dickish at times, but always entertaining. [/offtopic]

The lifecycle of your average scammer is making some sort of scam, getting called out by me, getting pissed off, making some sockpuppets to argue the point, getting eviscerated in public while pushing their postcount up, getting pissy, ignoring me, and disappearing.

redwraith

full member

Activity: 188

Merit: 102

Quote from: oda.krell on April 27, 2013, 04:08:14 PM

Quote from: MPOE-PR on April 27, 2013, 03:48:16 AM

Quote from: TimJBenham on April 26, 2013, 10:22:22 PM

I get the impression that the existing exchanges aren't re-investing. When was the last user-visible functional change to MtGox? Apart from adding and subtracting some payment methods it's hardly changed since it opened.

More RAM.

How come your ignore button is dark orange? I really enjoy your posts. Bit dickish at times, but always entertaining. [/offtopic]

It means a lot of people have her on ignore.

oda.krell

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1007

Quote from: MPOE-PR on April 27, 2013, 03:48:16 AM

Quote from: TimJBenham on April 26, 2013, 10:22:22 PM

I get the impression that the existing exchanges aren't re-investing. When was the last user-visible functional change to MtGox? Apart from adding and subtracting some payment methods it's hardly changed since it opened.

More RAM.

How come your ignore button is dark orange? I really enjoy your posts. Bit dickish at times, but always entertaining. [/offtopic]

MPOE-PR

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 522

Quote from: TimJBenham on April 26, 2013, 10:22:22 PM

I get the impression that the existing exchanges aren't re-investing. When was the last user-visible functional change to MtGox? Apart from adding and subtracting some payment methods it's hardly changed since it opened.

More RAM.

TimJBenham

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Quote from: crazy_rabbit on April 26, 2013, 01:46:38 AM

Quote from: TimJBenham on April 25, 2013, 11:22:40 PM

Quote from: repentance on April 25, 2013, 10:18:33 PM

I thought they matched to the highest price which could be executed downwards. Yours was probably the best available price being offered. I'm confused about why you thought it wouldn't execute at the price you offered.

That indicates you don't know how exchanges work. If the bid/ask on IBM is 100/101 when you put in order with a limit at $120 then you get matched at $101, not $120. That is also how Bitstamp works at least 95% of the time.

There could have always been someone who entered an order opposite you at just the same time, it never had a chance to appear in the order book because you bought it so fast.

That doesn't make sense. New orders are supposed to get matched at best price against the existing orderbook and if they can't be matched they get added to the orderbook.

Quote from: oda.krell on April 26, 2013, 05:07:20 PM

Whatever the exact reason, it's the one thing I really don't like that much about bitstamp. I'm a happy customer, but their trade interface is lacking, their updates not frequent enough, and apparently, unsatisfying orders like that of OP can happen and there's nothing you can do about it.

I opened another thread in this forum asking hazek from bitstamp if they're aware of the issues, but got no reply yet.

I get the impression that the existing exchanges aren't re-investing. When was the last user-visible functional change to MtGox? Apart from adding and subtracting some payment methods it's hardly changed since it opened. Searching here and looking at old versions on the wayback machine I see all sorts of new features being promised (eg margin trading, "dark pools") that never materialized. Some problematic features which encourage orderbook spamming (such as the 0.01 minimum and taking orders priced in millicents) haven't gone away either despite their frequent inability to deal with the load. I wonder if they ever really got on top of the code they bought.

oda.krell

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1007

Whatever the exact reason, it's the one thing I really don't like that much about bitstamp. I'm a happy customer, but their trade interface is lacking, their updates not frequent enough, and apparently, unsatisfying orders like that of OP can happen and there's nothing you can do about it.

I opened another thread in this forum asking hazek from bitstamp if they're aware of the issues, but got no reply yet.

crazy_rabbit

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME

Quote from: oda.krell on April 26, 2013, 09:38:54 AM

Quote from: crazy_rabbit on April 26, 2013, 01:46:38 AM

There could have always been someone who entered an order opposite you at just the same time, it never had a chance to appear in the order book because you bought it so fast.

Good point. That seems the most likely explanation to me at the moment.

The bitstamp trading interface is a bit limited. You place an order somewhat blind because you can't really see a live version of their order book in the buy/sell screen.

One caveat: If the scenario played out as described by crazy_rabbit, then that can only mean that bitstamp matches orders "internally" before putting them in the order book.

In detail, it had to work something like this:

(1) order book contains, and shows, 152/153 (bid/ask).

(2) OP places "buy" limit order at 170, but the order isn't put into the order book yet, but kept in a "temporary storage".

(3) Within very short time after (2), someone places new "sell" order. Bitstamp matches OP's limit buy with the new (market or limit) sell, at 170, since OP's order was "on the market" before. The actual bids never appear in the order book, only the executed order will be listed afterwards.

Someone correct me please if I got something wrong here, but that's how it makes most sense to me.

I think the web interface isn't always 'up to date' with the backend. I definitely have seen orders on either side of the orderbook that far overlapped the other side of the book. It might be by design that the web frontend updates when it can, rather then constantly so as to not bottleneck the core trade engine. It would be interesting to see if by API access there is the same lag.

oda.krell

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1007

Quote from: crazy_rabbit on April 26, 2013, 01:46:38 AM

There could have always been someone who entered an order opposite you at just the same time, it never had a chance to appear in the order book because you bought it so fast.

Good point. That seems the most likely explanation to me at the moment.

The bitstamp trading interface is a bit limited. You place an order somewhat blind because you can't really see a live version of their order book in the buy/sell screen.

One caveat: If the scenario played out as described by crazy_rabbit, then that can only mean that bitstamp matches orders "internally" before putting them in the order book.

In detail, it had to work something like this:

(1) order book contains, and shows, 152/153 (bid/ask).

(2) OP places "buy" limit order at 170, but the order isn't put into the order book yet, but kept in a "temporary storage".

(3) Within very short time after (2), someone places new "sell" order. Bitstamp matches OP's limit buy with the new (market or limit) sell, at 170, since OP's order was "on the market" before. The actual bids never appear in the order book, only the executed order will be listed afterwards.

Someone correct me please if I got something wrong here, but that's how it makes most sense to me.

crazy_rabbit

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME

Quote from: TimJBenham on April 25, 2013, 11:22:40 PM

Quote from: repentance on April 25, 2013, 10:18:33 PM

I thought they matched to the highest price which could be executed downwards. Yours was probably the best available price being offered. I'm confused about why you thought it wouldn't execute at the price you offered.

That indicates you don't know how exchanges work. If the bid/ask on IBM is 100/101 when you put in order with a limit at $120 then you get matched at $101, not $120. That is also how Bitstamp works at least 95% of the time.

There could have always been someone who entered an order opposite you at just the same time, it never had a chance to appear in the order book because you bought it so fast.

TimJBenham

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Quote from: repentance on April 25, 2013, 10:18:33 PM

I thought they matched to the highest price which could be executed downwards. Yours was probably the best available price being offered. I'm confused about why you thought it wouldn't execute at the price you offered.

That indicates you don't know how exchanges work. If the bid/ask on IBM is 100/101 when you put in order with a limit at $120 then you get matched at $101, not $120. That is also how Bitstamp works at least 95% of the time.

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

I thought they matched to the highest price which could be executed downwards. Yours was probably the best available price being offered. I'm confused about why you thought it wouldn't execute at the price you offered.

TimJBenham

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

Quote from: oda.krell on April 25, 2013, 04:32:54 PM

Strange. You should be able to check under "history" at what price your order was placed, and under "transactions" at what price it was executed. I guess ideally you would also need a way to look up the order book at the time of execution to prove that something went wrong.

Yes, it isn't easy to prove but I think the balance of probabilities is one-sided. Transactions show

Buy April 25, 2013, 3:02 p.m. 1.00000000 BTC -$170.28 $170.28 $0.65

History shows

April 25, 2013, 3:02 p.m. 124.171.69.22 Opened limit buy order (amount: 1 BTC, price: $170.28)

So the order was filled at the limit, which was set at 10% about the last traded price when it was entered. This was attempting to simulate a "market" order. Whatever the limit an order should be filled at the best available price.

Oddly bitcoinity doesn't show any trade over $161 for that period. It shows up in the trade data from bitcoincharts though:

1366902132,153.000000000000,0.852534330000
1366902132,152.100000000000,0.147465670000
1366902127,170.280000000000,1.000000000000 ***
1366902124,152.100000000000,0.500000000000
1366902124,152.100000000000,0.500000000000
1366902124,152.900000000000,0.827534330000

Maybe the heavens parted in those 3 seconds between 1366902124 and 1366902127 and dozens of traders all pulled the asks. It doesn't seem likely, though.

oda.krell

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1007

Strange. You should be able to check under "history" at what price your order was placed, and under "transactions" at what price it was executed. I guess ideally you would also need a way to look up the order book at the time of execution to prove that something went wrong.

TimJBenham

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

I received the total non-reply quoted below. I doubt the guy who wrote it even knows what a bad fill is.

Quote

Dear Tim, Bitstamp provides a service for exchanging bitcoins and cannot not guarantee for their value. Value of bitcoins is set on the market(s) and not by Bitstamp. We therefore cannot be be responsible for the value. Bitstamp only takes all necessary precautions so that your amount of bitcoins is safe. If you should have any further questions, please feel free to contact us again. Best regards, Benedikt Potisek

TimJBenham

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

I think I just got a bad fill. They don't have market orders so I placed a buy at 10% above the current market. It filled at that price instead of the lower ask prices in the order book. I have complained and well report how they respond.

Topic: Bitstamp warning (Read 3158 times)