Is there any limit to exposure to a single market sector?
For instance, if your algorithm chooses to invest in 10 different pirate bonds you will have less than 20% in any given security but still 100% exposure to Pirates's default.

You can create a bond on GLBSE with a face value of 700 BTC. You will pay the nominal amount if and when Bitcoinica release your funds. You can auction the bond so that you will get whatever the market thinks the debt is worth.

This would be very interesting, since the price of the bond should approximate whatever the market thinks is the probability of Bitcoinica refunding their customers. Prediction market on GLBSE!

All outstanding orders were wiped out yesterday at about 22:30 UTC, so your warning is a bit late.

I have started a thread on GLBSE about handling bond repayment.

Actually I don't know anything about this particular scanner.

Mine was just an educated guess, considering that (1) most scanners and copiers refuse to copy cash containing EURion or some other security feature and (2) the scanner was able to scan $1 bills (that don't have the EURion pattern) but not $5 bills (that have it).

Yeah, you know, with all those three-letter ticker symbols it's handy to have a place with all the info about each company, without having to search the forum.

This is great news!

This was the biggest missing feature in GLBSE.

I hope the company owners will fill in their details ASAP.

The way fees are applied seems to confuse a lot of people.
They are also a bit high.


You pay:
0.65% of the BTC amount when you buy
0.65% of the USD amount when you sell


These are the actual trades that occurred, they do not include fees.
In the first trade you sell 10 BTC for 18.89, so you get 188.9 USD before fees. You pay 0.65% of the amount you get (1.227 USD) and keep the rest (187.673 USD).
In the second trade you buy 5 BTC for 18.511, so you get... 5 BTC before fees. You pay 0.65% of the amount you get (0.032 BTC) and keep the rest (4.968 BTC).


Okay, this IS confusing, anyway if you look at the third and fourth column, it's the same as in my calculations above.
For the first trade, you give 10 BTC (third column) and get 187.673 USD (fourth column), which is 188.9 USD minus 1.227 USD fee.
For the second trade you get 4.968 BTC (third column), which is 5 BTC minus 0.032 BTC fee, and you give 92.555 USD (fourth column), which is 5 BTC times 18.511 (the original rate).

Anyway, you can just forget this last confusing part, since after the relaunch the history page was redone, and now shows trades and fees separately.

Answering there.

One month.

You don't. The fee is applied once to each side.

Example:
Alice buys 100 BTC from Bob for 10,000 USD.
MtGox applies the standard fee (0.65%) to both parties.
Alice gets 99.35 BTC. Bob gets 9935 USD.

So if you make a single trade, you pay the fee once, as advertised.
If you make a double trade (such as buy and sell higher, or sell and buy lower) you have to pay the fee twice (of course), so to break even you have to gain 1.3%.

Short answer is: don't.

Not only it is very unsafe if you're selling because of chargebacks, as the other answers pointed out.
PayPal has a history of freezing accounts related to BitCoin exchange sites and the like.
And it seems that trading currencies is against their TOS.
Not sure if they would go after a private trader, but you never know.

All websockets based feeds are broken ATM.

On the plus side, I am using this order book as a non-real-time service, manually reloading the page... it's a lot faster than MtGox own non-real-time order book.
Yay!

Still broken.

Also, all trading sites I tried show wrong bid/ask, so the API is broken too.

EDIT: probably the ticker on the trade page is based on the API too.

Is it just me or the Dark Pool option is gone from the trade page?
Does anybody know if this is a temporary change to help the market get started or a long term change?

Currently, MtGox shows this on the left:
Before the crash, during high load, orders were commonly refused with a message saying something like "another trade is in progress".
Maybe they are queuing trades now instead of refusing them?
If this is the case, it seems a lot better.

Yes, I understand that.

I was arguing that transferring the coins from the new block to a new address (provided by the buyer) and then using them for whatever shady goal one may have in mind is just as anonymous as using them from the unspent block. They would show one more transaction in their history, but as long as they are not mixed with any other coin there would still be no one to interrogate.

Of course the "not mixing" part may require some attention, and possibly a patched client, but it will still be easier and safer than sharing private keys for the block.

So, I would say that if anonymity is what you are interested in, simply transferring the newly mint coins to a buyer's address is equivalent to actually transferring the block. Or am I missing something?

How is this different from transferring the coins from an unspent block to a brand new address?

Assuming the anonymity provided by a mined block has some value to the buyer, the miner could just transfer 50 BTC from the unspent block to the buyer's address and receive 60 "dirty" BTC from the buyer.
They just have to be careful that the coins don't get mixed.

I almost only use Linux nowadays.

But even as I love to see Linux dominate the poll, I can't help but thinking that it says a lot about how representative this community is of the computer using world.

This is very good news.
I think a stock market is something that is very much needed to bootstrap the bitcoin economy.

One more question: how much capital are you planning to raise and how much equity is being given to managers and developers? Or, to put it another way, how big a share is 1 BTC buying?



PM sent.