Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 27876. (Read 26706700 times)
May 02, 2014, 03:55:02 PM
May 02, 2014, 03:38:21 PM
c´mon Bitcoin do something 
*plummets to zero instantly*
such OPTIMISM
much HOPE
good stuff
much HOPE
good stuff
so poll
very representation of the overall bitcoin community
May 02, 2014, 03:35:16 PM
c´mon Bitcoin do something
May 02, 2014, 03:31:22 PM
such OPTIMISM
much HOPE
good stuff
much HOPE
good stuff
But no euphoria yet. I guess we have to wait for that still.
May 02, 2014, 03:30:32 PM
such OPTIMISM
much HOPE
good stuff
much HOPE
good stuff
May 02, 2014, 03:12:19 PM
I actually like the poll going on right now...some of the terms are so fitting for the differences in attitudes rolling through this forum on a daily basis
Even if you assume that people would correctly asses their own state - it would be still rather useless when we don't know if they are long or short.
May 02, 2014, 03:00:50 PM
May 02, 2014, 02:56:05 PM
The poll's a bit extreme in either direction, no? I would go for - so be it.
May 02, 2014, 02:46:31 PM
I actually like the poll going on right now...some of the terms are so fitting for the differences in attitudes rolling through this forum on a daily basis
May 02, 2014, 02:23:37 PM
Chuck Norris 
Darude - Sandstorm Satoshi
May 02, 2014, 02:17:43 PM
Perhaps today's drop was due to the FXBTC closure news. The announcement on their site is dated May 02, 06:40:57 UTC (2:40 pm local time), and the drop started suddenly around 04:05 UTC (12:05 pm local). Could be insider info?
Coindesk article
Google translation at Bitcoinregime.com
Announcement on FXBTC site (in Chinese)
Thread discussing the news
EDIT: that would explain why the price did not rebound, as would be expected after a mere freak dump.
Coindesk article
Google translation at Bitcoinregime.com
Announcement on FXBTC site (in Chinese)
Thread discussing the news
EDIT: that would explain why the price did not rebound, as would be expected after a mere freak dump.
May 02, 2014, 02:00:51 PM
May 02, 2014, 01:31:31 PM
I imagine that arbitrage should be particularly lucrative for exchange owners, especially if they collude.
I have always assumed that BFX and stamp are arbing the book before it opens. This is standard practice in U.S. equity markets: Orders are first matched in-house, only then on exchange. Most HFT is just the attempt to approximate this at the exchange tier, in a competitive, rather than a cooperative environment. HFT arbs are present on all computerized markets that I am aware of.
I think that what you have outlined is a safe assumption. And, it confirms my biases perfectly.
That assumption, coupled with my very strong suspicion that the exchanges are trading for their own profit with users assets, and my belief that the exchange operators employ those pesky automated trade bots that keep posting fractional asks and offers simply to keep up the appearance of trading activity, are the reasons I closed my trading account on Feb 17 @ 547.
The six months of trading left me with more BTC than I began with, so it's OK. My perception of the dangers of continued trading was not OK. I'll just wait.
May 02, 2014, 01:13:37 PM
My prediction:
A. Market goes back up to 2780-2800 range over next day or two and then collapses back near 2555 or lower on some new "news."
or
B. Market rallys back to 2900-2925 range within the next week and then collapses back near 2555 or lower on some new "news."
A. Market goes back up to 2780-2800 range over next day or two and then collapses back near 2555 or lower on some new "news."
or
B. Market rallys back to 2900-2925 range within the next week and then collapses back near 2555 or lower on some new "news."
May 02, 2014, 01:00:49 PM
May 02, 2014, 12:56:52 PM
An arbitrage trader follows the same "buy low, sell high" strategy of an ordinary speculator, except that he doesn't have to guess the future -- he can do both trades at the same time.
I imagine that arbitrage should be particularly lucrative for exchange owners, especially if they collude.
Suppose that owners Alice and Bob of exchanges A and B agree to show each other the first few entries of their order books in real time, while delaying that information to the public by a few seconds. Whenever Alice sees a sell order in her exchange A that has a lower price than the highest bid in B, she immediately buys into that order, counting that Bob will immediately sell the same amount into that bid. And vice-versa.
If this scenario is possible, the partnership Alice&Bob obviously would make a profit on every such occasion. Alice and Bob could equalize their expenses and profits, at any later time, just by exchanging bitcoins. Thus, even if A is in Bulgaria and trades only with dollars, while B is in China and trades only with CNY, they would never need to exchange dollars to/from CNY. The dollars that Alice would take home would have come from the dollars that her clients deposited in A, while the CNY that Bob would withdraw from B would come from the CNY that others deposited into B.
(Trading fees, bank fees, and currency exchange rates complicate the details, but do not seem to invalidate the idea.)
I imagine that arbitrage should be particularly lucrative for exchange owners, especially if they collude.
Suppose that owners Alice and Bob of exchanges A and B agree to show each other the first few entries of their order books in real time, while delaying that information to the public by a few seconds. Whenever Alice sees a sell order in her exchange A that has a lower price than the highest bid in B, she immediately buys into that order, counting that Bob will immediately sell the same amount into that bid. And vice-versa.
If this scenario is possible, the partnership Alice&Bob obviously would make a profit on every such occasion. Alice and Bob could equalize their expenses and profits, at any later time, just by exchanging bitcoins. Thus, even if A is in Bulgaria and trades only with dollars, while B is in China and trades only with CNY, they would never need to exchange dollars to/from CNY. The dollars that Alice would take home would have come from the dollars that her clients deposited in A, while the CNY that Bob would withdraw from B would come from the CNY that others deposited into B.
(Trading fees, bank fees, and currency exchange rates complicate the details, but do not seem to invalidate the idea.)
mmm, so now we know why MtGog is being saved, and the Japanese government is lobbying for uniform international regulayion on Bitcoin. Arbitrage on a large scale where there the laws are not homogenous would be more difficult or risky.
May 02, 2014, 12:38:41 PM
Chuck Norris
Darude - Sandstorm May 02, 2014, 12:33:45 PM
Chuck Norris
May 02, 2014, 12:29:56 PM
however, don´t forget,
most ppl only get to do part 1 before death
May 02, 2014, 12:22:43 PM
I imagine that arbitrage should be particularly lucrative for exchange owners, especially if they collude.
I have always assumed that BFX and stamp are arbing the book before it opens. This is standard practice in U.S. equity markets: Orders are first matched in-house, only then on exchange. Most HFT is just the attempt to approximate this at the exchange tier, in a competitive, rather than a cooperative environment. HFT arbs are present on all computerized markets that I am aware of.
Jump to: