Topic: 📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012) - page 201. (Read 959607 times)

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.

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

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

(( edited to remove excessive quotations))

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


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


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

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...)

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


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.

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.

---

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.

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.

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

Looks accurate to me.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 

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

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

 what?!

we're not using GPUMAX anymore?

Below is a list of coins mined during the last dividend period.  As you can see, there appears to have been some sort of outage on the 13th thru the 14th.  I cannot explain that outage definitively yet, but wanted to post the information I have available to try and calm the nerves of investors and add transparency to the operation.

0.22087813  -   2012-09-08 16:52:51
0.19576715  -   2012-09-08 21:22:29
0.17638939  -   2012-09-09 00:03:43
0.20572446  -   2012-09-09 05:28:03
0.22609714  -   2012-09-09 22:08:54
0.19140921  -   2012-09-09 23:01:49
0.34084132  -   2012-09-10 01:17:04
0.37728242  -   2012-09-10 06:13:58
0.30797424  -   2012-09-10 18:23:45
0.30090788  -   2012-09-10 20:11:39
0.24838751  -   2012-09-10 23:47:47
0.22139757  -   2012-09-11 00:14:32
0.22132877  -   2012-09-11 02:56:38
0.23202216  -   2012-09-11 06:33:21
0.27002168  -   2012-09-11 16:01:00
0.22036827  -   2012-09-11 17:48:25
0.56940189  -   2012-09-11 22:45:11
0.16881764  -   2012-09-12 01:54:01
0.23877819  -   2012-09-12 07:44:46
0.21422582  -   2012-09-12 08:39:05
0.92706078  -   2012-09-12 11:49:13
0.13869136  -   2012-09-12 18:07:11
0.03863047  -   2012-09-13 13:01:29
0.14333254  -   2012-09-14 18:16:04
0.14586867  -   2012-09-15 00:33:51
0.17909209  -   2012-09-15 01:01:20
0.16960782  -   2012-09-15 03:17:07
0.34632228  -   2012-09-15 06:27:01
0.13799592  -   2012-09-15 08:14:44
0.15677564  -   2012-09-15 08:42:11
0.21511832  -   2012-09-15 14:06:18
0.52967459  -   2012-09-15 15:53:32

Thank you for that bit of information.  Perhaps we should stop using MtRed?  Would shareholders like to weigh in on this?

---

Thank you.