All posts made by PirateHatForTea in Bitcointalk.org's Wall Observer thread



1. Post 3634638 (copy this link) (by PirateHatForTea) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_11.25h):

Quote from: bito on November 19, 2013, 05:26:18 AM
Does anyone know if it takes just as long to get goxbux out of gox/AUD?

is it only Us dollars which are the problem? or does that extend to Australian goxbucks too?



I have a friend who initiated his withdrawal about 7 weeks ago, AUD in his account to an Australian bank.

I told him to just buy back in 2 weeks ago but he really needs the cash.

Does anyone have any knowledge of how long swift transfers take from stamp to AU?

And in case anyone is thinking, my friend is not me, I am 100% in BTC.

This is the wrong thread for this but I wanted to answer.

If your friend paid the 5% service fee for 'manual withdrawal method', it will take a few weeks (it was 1-2 weeks when they first initiated this alternate method, it took 3 weeks for my AUD withdrawal w 5% fee about 2 months ago, and by now it may be over a month - and this is for the 'expedited' method with 5% fee.)

If your friend isn't paying 5% for the manual method, his withdrawal will have gone into the swift queue. Last I heard they were up to withdrawals from about July. They do 10 Swift withdrawals a day and I imagine they prioritise the largest ones if this is the case. So standard swift withdrawals without 5% fee are unlikely to be processed in under 6 months to a year, using reasonable assumptions about queue length. I believe this problem will only be fixed if and when Gox gets licensed as a banking entity, a process it has begun, but that could take 6-18 months. For this reason I don't use Gox anymore (FWIW I do believe they are solvent).

Please forgive the OT post.



2. Post 3876991 (copy this link) (by PirateHatForTea) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_11.34h):

China's behaviour has been relatively bullish I would say - I watched Bitstamp crash from about 720 to ~670 and the whole time Bitstamp was flailing around in the 600s, BTCChina kept trying to push upwards through 6700 - and eventually broke through. Both Gox and Bitstamp completely ignored China's reluctance to panic sell along with them.

Given the correction was triggered by an announcement in China (that has been very bearishly interpreted by the non-Chinese-speaking Bitcoiners, save a few perma-bulls) and based on BTC demand in China evaporating, its severity seems unjustified by the Chinese response to the news, at least. And surely they're the ones that should know?

The other side of this of course, is that this is a correction that was long overdue after we went parabolic, and that the news was just a useful catalyst for 'the crash we had to have'.



3. Post 3877059 (copy this link) (by PirateHatForTea) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_11.34h):

Ah yes, 4700. Freudian wishful-thinking slip.

This was the drop that happened last night, when Bitstamp touched 651. Do people agree that Bitstamp has been acting was more jumpy and bearish than Gox even, or is that just my biases coming through? It certainly seemed that way last night - Stmap wanted to crash but every other exchange was much more reluctant.



4. Post 3877224 (copy this link) (by PirateHatForTea) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_11.34h):

There were some (actually achievable - ie not requiring moving fiat around) arbitrage opportunities available during the last few weeks based on the crazy spreads between exchanges. The combination of the following three phenomenon was the most interesting. These have all ended or lessened.


When we were above 1100, there were moves of >100 bucks on Gox that seemed to reek of manipulation, and I think Bitstampers got sick of responding to them, hence the 'smoothing' of these up-one-minute-down-the-next jumps.

All this made an arb strategy possible where:


Maybe someone implemented a bot to do this, and it is helping to reduce the spreads?

Also, there were incredible arb opportunities for a while based on the BTCChina premium, but this assumed you can get the CNY out of the country!



5. Post 3877251 (copy this link) (by PirateHatForTea) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_11.34h):

Quote from: DaSheep on December 08, 2013, 01:58:47 PM
I stick to arbitrage by someone with extreme deep pockets on all exchanges (wallstreet/second market?)

Rptiela specifically mentioned in another thread that he was using a strategy that sounded similar to what I described to arb spreads between exchanges. And he's a pretty big player.



6. Post 3877799 (copy this link) (by PirateHatForTea) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_11.34h):

Quote from: Vigil on December 08, 2013, 02:12:23 PM
There is no effective means of arbitrage at this time. The reason we have seen a consolidation of price is due to the levels of support at varying prices on different exchanges. Some exchanges had enough volume to push the price higher than others. Once the price comes down, the percentage difference diminishes the observable nominal price differences. And there was also a large manipulator on Gox, I don't know about the other exchanges.

I agree with you - though if you had been using my strategy to trade the spread previously, right now (all exchanges at same price) is a great opportunity to re-normalize your positions across exchanges by buying/selling BTC and transferring BTC between exchanges. And although there is 'noe ffective means of arbitrage' NOW, I expect the spreads to widen again as soon as we hit some new volatility.

I would also expect Gox to typically maintain at a minimum 5% premium to other exchanges, because this is how much it costs to withdraw fiat via wire transfer (unless you pay for the 5% expedited withdraw method you never see your money come out of Gox). So the ucrrent zero spread is quite strange, and probably reflects a lack of selling pressure (noone is in a big hurry to get their miney out of Gox, so they're less inclined to pay the extra to buy BTC and transfer them out).


Niothor - not sure what you were trying to show by quoting that as it wasn't rpietila talking. I agree with the Rampion's takedown of his trading/pricing recommendations though - I'm with Dasheep and Rampion that he sucks at trading.

The quote that is relevant to what I was saying was:

Quote from: rpietila on December 07, 2013, 10:36:25 AM

My trading strategy is currently such that there are major fluctuations in relative prices in BTC China and Bitstamp. I chart them and analyze them and have both fiat and bitcoins in both exchanges. I sell in China (buy back BS) when it goes like 10% ahead. When it goes back to 0%, I reverse.




7. Post 5172671 (copy this link) (by PirateHatForTea) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_12.10h):

What is really bizarre in all this is that holders of GoxBTC can currently exchange them for realBTC at 0.78 at bitconbuilder.com, yet they are selling them at < .5 of stamp price. They could sell their goxbtc for realbtc, sell those on a reliable exchange, and get more $ than selling one gox, and not have to worry about insolbvency or waiting months for withdrawals.



8. Post 6989977 (copy this link) (by PirateHatForTea) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_12.48h):

Great I go away for a little while and come back to this? This thread has gone to shit! It's the wall observer thread people. I'm not sure what this Stolfi character has to do with the current movement of bitcoin price (Hint: it's nothing), nor why we don;t ban an account whos eonly input to this thread has been the same post repeated every hour or so, claiming a mythical pump and dump.



9. Post 7498396 (copy this link) (by PirateHatForTea) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_12.54h):

Quote from: Blitz­ on June 24, 2014, 11:27:19 PM
The next few hours/days will show us which way the market is headed, but there must be a lot of leveraged longs on Bitfinex (providing that their data isn't just a big pile of fake shit) who must be feeling the strain of a flat/downtrending market combined with the usurious daily compound interest rates they are paying for their positions.
Given that Bitfinex has decided to insure the entirety of its lenders (going so far as to rather make traders pay by canceling their trades in extreme situations), shouldn't it be the case that interest rates ought to have decreased? It seems to me that that's one big risk factor gone for everybody. Maybe it was indeed? I haven't been watching.

Edit: It just occured to me that this is easy to pin down. On their announcement page, the date is 16th March, and we can look at http://www.bfxdata.com/ to track interest rates over time. I don't see any discernible effect attributable to it since then.

Given that lending rates barely registered a difference after that announcement, don't you think, rather, that this demonstrates the lack of credibility to BFX's claim that they will insure all loans? They obviously (and they stated that they) don't have the capital to insure the entire outstanding amount of loans, so the risk calculations don;t really change that much despite their announcements. OK so some lenders think that magic wind-back will save them, but that's clearly not an assumption everyone, or even most lenders, are willing to make given the continuing high rates.



10. Post 7631802 (copy this link) (by PirateHatForTea) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_12.57h):

Quote from: aminorex on July 02, 2014, 03:19:27 AM
Inflation and hyperinflation are a big inconvenience, waste a lot of time, make things inefficient and stressful; but people can finda ways to adapt and survive, and the country continues to function without becoming a Mad Max world.

I suspect deflation will predominate for some time.  Presently the bankers and administration seek to undermine the dollar to boost exports and inflate risk assets, but collapsing productivity and debt expansion in Europe and Japan are making the U.S. look healthy in contrast, which is likely to push the dollar back up relative to other majors. These are not
mutually exclusive because all the majors are inflating their currencies massively, in tandem:  They all have far more debt than ithey can service, so money has to get cheaper and cheaper (within the domestic market no less than it needs to do the same) in Europe and Japan.  Thus bankers can carry incredible sums on their balance sheets, to bid up risk assets through a series of proxies.  Each rentier skimming from this chain drains off another fraction of the debt, which the public is obligated in theory to pay off one day.  The result is a class system in which 0.1% of the population gains the bulk of the benefit of economic productivity gains and public spending, A shrinking middle class carries a rapidly increasing tax burden and debt load, and a rapidly growing underclass is kept placid with government benefits. 

Things go on until they can't.  Exponentially increasing debt in the presence of declining economic growth, ultimately, economic retraction, will end catastrophically, if it is not managed.  Absent a change in energy technology, increasing productivity is not a long-term option.  The only way to manage this landing is calculated, systematic debt destruction.

The money is debt.  It is made of debt.  It is a token of debt.  It is debt which can only be repaid by creating more debt.  The money itself is the very root of the problem.
Either the system implodes catastrophically, or it reforms itself.  In either case, debt-based money will cease to exist as it does today.

Quote
The reason is because money (or bitcoin, or gold) is not real wealth, it is only a token that society will accept and exchange for real wealth.  The exchange is so smooth and universal that, for personal or corporate finances, it is justifiable to treat money the same as wealth.  But when considering a whole nation, or the world, one must ignore the money and focus only on the real wealth.

Real wealth being goods and services, command of labor, materials and supplies, energy.  But you are ignoring the bulk of the wealth held by society.  Most of the value in society is in the interconnections between people, the transactions, transfers, obligations and acquitals which they make.  Human capital is not just a matter of skills, but of relationships.   Many of those relationships, often the most economically important ones, are mediated by money.  Ignoring money would cause you to ignore much of the value in society.

Quote
No matter how much  money the government creates of derstroys, confiscates or gives away, the real weath of the country will not change.  Fiddling with the finacial system, the currency, and the money supply can only change the distribution of wealth among the citizens

If the government destroyed all currency and all balances on account, I think half the people in the U.S. would be dead in a month.  Supply chains would collapse, and under modern just-in-time inventory management practices, mass starvation, epidemics, and gang warfare would be pervasive.

The distribution of wealth among the citizens is obviously of crucial importance to the function of society.  If instead, the U.S. confiscated the currency and balances on account, and handed them all to Dennis Rodman,  the result would be indistinguishable from destroying them.
 
Quote
in a crisis most people need to take money out of investment funds and savings in order to survive; so the value of bitcoin is likely to drop, due to diminished demand, rather than increase.  

You''re not doing that right.  Circulating currency is worth more than reserve currency.



This is the best post I have ever seen on BTCTalk. Quoting for posterirty. Aminorex, do you post in the economics sub-forum? I haven't spent much time there, but would like to have more discussions like the one above. Also do you recommend any reading sources (books or blogs)?



11. Post 8306369 (copy this link) (by PirateHatForTea) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.04h):

I coulda sworn I had falllling on ignore. Does he just keep registering more accounts with more l's in the name?



12. Post 8442486 (copy this link) (by PirateHatForTea) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.07h):

Quote from: bigasic on August 19, 2014, 09:05:16 PM
i wish someone could explain to me this in english, I understand that a short is betting that it will go down, long the opposite, but how does it work in detail? can someone give me an example? like they were explaining it to a 5 year old? lol. Grin Grin

Why does it matter that there are 7300 shorts? because thats a shit ton?

To short bitcoin you are selling coins you don't own. To do this, you have to borrow them.

So 7300 bitcoins shorted are 7300 bitcoins lent out, that at some point have to be returned. And how will those borrowers get the coin to repay the lenders?

You guessed it, they have to buy them.

So that is 7300 coins of future demand sitting there. An what's more, the positions will have liquidation prices or 'stop losses' setup that will initiate a buy above a certain price (to prevent too great a loss). A cascade of such automated liquidations is called a 'short squeeze'.

Now you can (and should) look at the leveraged longs the same way however - they are bought with borrowed USD, so that is $17 million USD in demand to buy USD with BTC, aka sell bitcoin. (That's about about 35,000 at current price if we unrealistically assume no slippage)



13. Post 8737903 (copy this link) (by PirateHatForTea) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.11h):

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on September 09, 2014, 01:06:35 AM
The fees in this example are completely ridiculous. It is clear Jorge never bought Bitcoin. $5 to buy a Bitcoin? Get real.

Sigh. The values don't matter.  Can't you really see that there are MORE bank transfers when going through bitcoin? 

Only if you make a bank transfer and buy bitcoin for every single bitcoin purchase you make. Which would be insane. Most people buy their BTC in bulk, then use them as currency or hold them with the idea of being a store of value.