📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012) - page 199.

cytokine

donator

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Normally I do not comment publicly with my opinion on various securities, but somehow I feel compelled

NASTY is undervalued relative to other comparable mining securities. In fact, the pricing of NASTY is precisely what led me to completely shed my GIGAMINING position and move into NASTY shares - a decision which turned out to be correct, as GIGAMINIG fell drastically in value afterwards (I got out at around 1.15/share). NASTY is one of my favorite assets, right up there with COGNITIVE in terms of being one of the few reliable, trustworthy, and value-producing mining offers (that's right, NASTY has produced a strong positive return over and above the rate of simply holding coins, which is quite rare among mining offers.)

That said, it was *slightly* better before when it used GPUMax, but I wholeheartedly agree with the managers decision to not support a business run by a suspected criminal.

Carnth

hero member

Activity: 634

Merit: 500

Quote from: Deprived on September 18, 2012, 12:32:18 AM

Best value to use (if it's available through the API) would be 5-day average in my opinion.

The best thing to do is just pick 5 day average, or "last price" and just make sure it's named correctly.

It's true that stocks don't have a "current price" because they sell for whatever people value it at. Bid and Ask price are never the actual value because they can be changed easily and may never be executed.
The "last price" simply shows what a buyer and a seller valued the stock to be worth at the time it was sold. This is the price displayed when you look at stock tickers.

In all cases, I think everyone meant to say "last price." So let's use that.
Or use the 5 day average of "last prices."

Deprived

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: bitfair on September 18, 2012, 12:22:44 AM

Quote from: kuzetsa on September 18, 2012, 12:02:49 AM

"spot price", and the "bid-ask spread" are real values. I do not understand / why would that be misleading?

I quite agree. "Spot price" is often considered to be the price at which the last trade was executed. Although this can cause trouble in markets with little liquidity and infrequent activity, as you rightly have observed, since that price may no longer be available for anyone to trade at.

Using the average of highest bid and lowest ask as the "current price" can be misleading in cases when they are far apart. Imagine if the highest bid is at 5 and the lowest ask at 15, and the current price was quoted as 10 ((5+15)/2) - a price which really isn't available for anyone to trade at anyway.

So pick your poison! Cheesy

(However, confusion could be easily avoided in the first place if OgNasty changed the text in OP from "Price per share" to something like "Latest traded price". That would be unambiguous enough, right?)

Yeah - average of bid/ask can be horribly off. It's not unusual to see a share where there's no bids other than at 0.000001 : where some panic seller has sold to every reasonable bid.

Spot is guaranteed to be wrong - as it always represents one end or the other of the active trading range: and that range can be pretty wide.

Best value to use (if it's available through the API) would be 5-day average in my opinion.

bitfair

sr. member

Activity: 362

Merit: 250

Quote from: kuzetsa on September 18, 2012, 12:02:49 AM

"spot price", and the "bid-ask spread" are real values. I do not understand / why would that be misleading?

I quite agree. "Spot price" is often considered to be the price at which the last trade was executed. Although this can cause trouble in markets with little liquidity and infrequent activity, as you rightly have observed, since that price may no longer be available for anyone to trade at.

Using the average of highest bid and lowest ask as the "current price" can be misleading in cases when they are far apart. Imagine if the highest bid is at 5 and the lowest ask at 15, and the current price was quoted as 10 ((5+15)/2) - a price which really isn't available for anyone to trade at anyway.

So pick your poison! Cheesy

(However, confusion could be easily avoided in the first place if OgNasty changed the text in OP from "Price per share" to something like "Latest traded price". That would be unambiguous enough, right?)

Bees Brothers

sr. member

Activity: 457

Merit: 291

Quote from: kuzetsa on September 18, 2012, 12:02:49 AM

the "bid-ask spread" are real values. I do not understand / why would that be misleading?

The bid and ask prices are just someone's wishes. They aren't real because they have never been realized. If someone was to purchase or sell at one of those "wishful" prices, then it would be realized and become real....the "current price" or the "latest price".

Just like if I was buying a house. The appraiser values the house 200K you haggle with the seller and buy it at 170K. Then you get hit with a tax bill on your house with the 200K appraisal. The first thing you do is call the city and tell them that the house sold for 170K... the real market value and they usually correct it without any problem and you don't get as ripped off on taxes as you might have gotten. Because 170K is the real value. The house never sold for 200K. The only true market price is the price I paid for the house.

I have a few ridiculous low ball offers for shares on GLBSE all the time, but they are just fantasy. But every once in a while fantasy becomes reality. Cheesy

However, the bid and asks do have useful and relevant info and are important to pay attention to.

kuzetsa

sr. member

Activity: 369

Merit: 250

Code:

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

spot price, noun: the price of goods, currencies, or securities that are offered for immediate delivery and payment.

Quote from: bitfair on September 17, 2012, 11:21:20 PM

((...snip...)) And using the average of the bid and the ask as a "current price" would be much more misleading, by the way

"spot price", and the "bid-ask spread" are real values. I do not understand / why would that be misleading?

kuzetsa

sr. member

Activity: 369

Merit: 250

(( edited to remove excessive quotations))

I just sold a share as a test, and the API updated:

Code:

{"btc_vol_total":420911534562,"t24hvol":925290000,"t5dvol":6329540000,"max":51000000,"min":51990000,"t24havg":51009000,"t5davg":50545555,"t7davg":51268840,"latest_trade":51000000,"quantity":1,"bid":51000000,"ask":51990000}

And then bought it back at a slightly worse price (lost a bitcent to test)

Code:

{"btc_vol_total":420911534562,"t24hvol":925290000,"t5dvol":6329540000,"max":51000000,"min":51990000,"t24havg":51009000,"t5davg":50545555,"t7davg":51268840,"latest_trade":51990000,"quantity":1,"bid":51000000,"ask":51990000}

Just as easily I could have done this in reverse by buying, then selling.

most recent trade would have been 0.51 instead of 0.5199 like it is now. Just that easily I have manipulated the value of "last trade" and it only cost me aprox 1 bitcent to do it.

EDITED TO ADD screenshot from at or around 0340 GMT, Tuesday September 17th 2012

bitfair

sr. member

Activity: 362

Merit: 250

Quote from: kuzetsa on September 17, 2012, 11:01:23 PM

Apparently, there is a value in the API that matches what you're caching:

"latest_trade": 44650001

You uhm... you do realize that is NOT the current market price in any way shape or form, that is just whatever arbitrary value someone happened to trade at. if someone was bold enough to actually sell to one of the 0.00001 BTC bids, I'm pretty sure suddenly the value for latest_trade would be that, and would stay there until someone bought or sold (traded) at any other random arbitrary value.

Kuzetsa, I believe you are the only one so far in the history of this operation who seems to have misunderstood this.

And AFAIK, GLBSE matches trades against the best price available - meaning that if you try to sell a share at 0.00001 BTC, the order will actually execute at the highest bid instead. So the "latest_trade" field is normally at what was either the lowest ask or highest bid at the moment when the last trade went through.

Nothing random or arbitrary about that at all!

(And using the average of the bid and the ask as a "current price" would be much more misleading, by the way...)

kuzetsa

sr. member

Activity: 369

Merit: 250

Quote from: OgNasty on September 17, 2012, 08:44:06 PM

((...snip...)) The amount also updates every 10 minutes and if the GLBSE API goes down for some reason, it uses the last price that was taken from the API. This is an automated script. I am not sure why kuzetsa thinks it is some kind of conspiracy.

Fine, you just don't know how to parse the API correctly:

Code:

GLBSE depth API:

HTTP GET URL /api/asset/NASTY

raw:

{"buys":[[1,51000000],[4,51000000],[10,45000000],[1,44650000],[13,44600000],[1,44500000],[10,44000000],[100,27000000],[1000,10000]],"sells":[[24,749999000],[40,524800000],[12,500000000],[23,500000000],[21,500000000],[10,110000000],[1,100000000],[345,80000000],[100,79900000],[30,77800000],[30,77800000],[8,75000000],[11,69800000],[20,65700000],[13,63999000],[15,62000000],[10,62000000],[9,61500000],[4,60000000],[3,60000000],[19,60000000],[5,58000000],[73,55530000],[1,55000000],[20,52000000],[1,51989999]]}

cooked (extracted) values in satoshi:

51989999 (best ask)
51000000 (best bid)

GLBSE market data API:
HTTP GET URL /api/asset/NASTY

raw:

{"btc_vol_total":420548544563,"t24hvol":562300001,"t5dvol":5966550001,"max":51000000,"min":51989999,"t24havg":50728571,"t5davg":50443939,"t7davg":51239975,"latest_trade":44650001,"quantity":1,"bid":51000000,"ask":51989999}

cooked (extracted) values in satoshi:

Highest / Best bid price aka "max": 51000000
Lowest / Best ask price aka "min": 51989999
Average for past 24 hours aka "t24havg": 50728571
Average for past 5 days aka "t5davg": 50443939
Average for past 5 days aka "t7davg": 51239975

and lastly, the best:

"bid": 51000000
"ask": 51989999

Apparently, there is a value in the API that matches what you're caching:

"latest_trade": 44650001

You uhm... you do realize that is NOT the current market price in any way shape or form, that is just whatever arbitrary value someone happened to trade at. if someone was bold enough to actually sell to one of the 0.00001 BTC bids, I'm pretty sure suddenly the value for latest_trade would be that, and would stay there until someone bought or sold (traded) at any other random arbitrary value.

OgNasty

donator

Activity: 4718

Merit: 4218

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: plasticAiredale on September 16, 2012, 07:14:47 PM

Quote from: OgNasty on September 15, 2012, 06:54:23 PM

Someone complained about my link to GPUMAX, BTCST & even accused me of being pirateat40 himself. For that reason I severed all ties with pirateat40, including the pirate in my avatar. I will make sure to mention future avatar changes in this thread and my reasoning behind them.

I assume you are referring to my comment on the previous page. I just want to make it clear that I was not seriously accusing you of being pirate, nor was I complaining. If my humor failed to register, I am sorry, I included the smiley face animation as a way to indicate my lack of seriousness, but that doesn't always work I realize.

I fully believe you to be your own person, and in no way a sock puppet/alter-ego of pirate.

No worries. Your post generated a few additional private messages on the subject, so I felt it should be addressed since other shareholders were concerned enough to ask about it.

Quote from: Bees Brothers on September 17, 2012, 08:15:35 PM

OP's "Current Price" = GLBSE's "Latest Price".

Looks accurate to me.

Exactly. The amount also updates every 10 minutes and if the GLBSE API goes down for some reason, it uses the last price that was taken from the API. This is an automated script. I am not sure why kuzetsa thinks it is some kind of conspiracy.

kuzetsa

sr. member

Activity: 369

Merit: 250

Quote from: Bees Brothers on September 17, 2012, 08:15:35 PM

Quote from: kuzetsa on September 17, 2012, 07:21:30 PM

...
current highest bid: 0.51
current highest ask: 0.51989999
...

OP's "Current Price" = GLBSE's "Latest Price".

Looks accurate to me.

The CURRENT spot price is somewhere between 0.51 and 0.52 right now. So it's actually not accurate. I just looked AGAIN and it's still:

0.51 best bid / 0.51989999 best ask

What are you talking about?

What "common sense" reasons are there to use some number that is neither of those, nor an average of the two.

Bees Brothers

sr. member

Activity: 457

Merit: 291

Quote from: kuzetsa on September 17, 2012, 07:21:30 PM

Quote from: OgNasty on August 30, 2012, 07:46:32 PM

The statistics are updated every 10 minutes and cached on my server to keep from flooding the GLBSE with requests. This should allow for the statistics to appear more quickly and even when the GLBSE website has gone down. Grin

You're still doing it wrong -- Once again, the "current price" in the edited original post is WRONG!!!

current highest bid: 0.51
current highest ask: 0.51989999

What sort of deal are you running where the "current price" is a price I've never been able to get, including RIGHT NOW (it is not the current price) Here is what I've been paying for my shares:

OP's "Current Price" = GLBSE's "Latest Price".

Looks accurate to me.

kuzetsa

sr. member

Activity: 369

Merit: 250

Quote from: OgNasty on August 30, 2012, 07:46:32 PM

The statistics are updated every 10 minutes and cached on my server to keep from flooding the GLBSE with requests. This should allow for the statistics to appear more quickly and even when the GLBSE website has gone down. Grin

You're still doing it wrong -- Once again, the "current price" in the edited original post is WRONG!!!

current highest bid: 0.51
current highest ask: 0.51989999

What sort of deal are you running where the "current price" is a price I've never been able to get, including RIGHT NOW (it is not the current price) Here is what I've been paying for my shares:

NASTY x1 @0.64 at or around 2012-08-27 21:45:10
NASTY x1 @0.5449 at or around 2012-08-14 00:04:47
NASTY x1 @0.73999 at or around 2012-08-04 04:48:54
NASTY x4 @0.509 at or around 2012-07-31 16:39:38
NASTY x3 @0.55 at or around 2012-07-27 04:05:45
NASTY x1 @0.54 at or around 2012-07-27 04:02:31

out of all eleven (11) shares I've bought to date, none have ever been for the price you typically have listed for "current" price.

EDITED TO ADD screenshot from at or around 2323 GMT, Monday September 17th 2012

dyingdreams

full member

Activity: 175

Merit: 100

There is no required fee for BitMinter, but at a donation level of 1% they prepay block rewards before confirmation, so if the block ends up being orphaned then you still get paid. The reason I left is because the variance can easily leave you getting 60-70% of the PPS equivalent for days in a row, and while that would average out in the long term, it's less than ideal for a mining company that pays out weekly dividends.

Newar

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1000

https://gliph.me/hUF

My understanding is that Bitminter is the lowest fee overall, merged mining and they pay for the tx fees. As do Ozcoin but the fees are somewhat higher.

Carnth

hero member

Activity: 634

Merit: 500

Quote from: OgNasty on September 15, 2012, 07:10:25 PM

Perhaps we should stop using MtRed? Would shareholders like to weigh in on this?

HHTT A PPS pool run by fireduck (the main programmer behind SatoshiDICE).

You can mine PPS at close to 1% fee. It works by the difficulty of the share you choose to work on. The higher the difficulty you set, the less fee you pay.
Standard settings are difficulty 32 shares at a 2% fee.

flipperfish

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 251

Dolphie Selfie

I had relatively low mining returns from my personal equipment this week, too. Difficulty really did shoot up a lot recently, maybe someone is testing ASICs? As far as I know NASTY is mining at OzCoin, which had rather bad luck this week.

dyingdreams

full member

Activity: 175

Merit: 100

I'm a shareholder and I would definitely vote against MTRed; they've just had too much downtime recently. I've been using 50BTC for the past week and it's been great so far, and the site has lots of graphs and stats that shareholders such as myself would appreciate (as in a weekly screenshot or something). I had been using BitMinter for a while, but didn't like the amount of variance they were getting, although other than that there wasn't any problems. At this point I would vote for 50BTC, although admittedly I don't have much experience with them thus far, and some people are against such large pools, although this is less of an issue now than it used to be.

plasticAiredale

full member

Activity: 207

Merit: 120

Quote from: OgNasty on September 15, 2012, 06:54:23 PM

Quote from: URSAY on September 15, 2012, 06:10:23 PM

Interesting how the pirate disappeared in your avatar. Any further comment? Undecided

Someone complained about my link to GPUMAX, BTCST & even accused me of being pirateat40 himself. For that reason I severed all ties with pirateat40, including the pirate in my avatar. I will make sure to mention future avatar changes in this thread and my reasoning behind them.

I assume you are referring to my comment on the previous page. I just want to make it clear that I was not seriously accusing you of being pirate, nor was I complaining. I was simply replying to your request for comments about the move away from GPUMAX, which I was in favor of. I thought it would be humorous to mention the pirate stuff, as the forums were 24/7 pirate coverage at that time. If my humor failed to register, I am sorry, I included the smiley face animation as a way to indicate my lack of seriousness, but that doesn't always work I realize.

Just for the record, like my opinion even really matters, but in case it does, I fully believe you to be your own person, and in no way a sock puppet/alter-ego of pirate.

URSAY

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1000

Quote from: OgNasty on September 15, 2012, 10:49:33 PM

Quote from: kuzetsa on September 15, 2012, 08:15:47 PM

what?!

we're not using GPUMAX anymore?

No, we aren't. After BTCST defaulted, GPUMAX went several days without making payments for our mining. I also noticed that the shares being submitted weren't accurately being reflected in the GPUMAX statistics. That was a major concern, and I still can't understand why people are using GPUMAX after learning that the operator is a confirmed scammer that made off with nearly $5,000,000 worth of BTC. The announcement was made on this thread. Here is the link to that post: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1141383

Using GPUMAX after the pirate default? Baffles me as well.

Topic: 📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012) - page 199. (Read 957542 times)