Quote from: deisik on September 08, 2015, 03:53:13 PM

What do you mean by hitting close twice? Did you get your money back in the end?

This is what happened.
I had a quite profitable short and the ticker went to about 230 and I decided I wanted to close out, so I hit close. I refreshed and nothing happened as in no pending order was listed in the active orders section and the position remained unchanged. I don't really remember the details but I probably hit close about twice over a period of minutes waiting for something to happen but nothing did. This is when my cascade of crime started. I hit "close" again. Then I hit refresh and so on (I might have close on more time too, I just don't remember), and then I saw that I now had a long whereas before I had a short, and then I tried to close the short. I admit I had had a long day and was very tired so I didn't clue into what was happening until after the damage was done.

There are two reasons why I think the preponderance of the blame is on bfx:
1) Close and "close this position" can never be interpreted as meaning open.
2) Their server wasn't just lagged. It was feeding the users wrong data in real time. It was not saying anything about pending market orders and it was saying that my position was open *long after it had actually been closed*. It would be better for their server to simply time out than be responsive with wrong info.

So far they have given me nothing back (even the fees) and they have admitted no culpability. At first I had a 6k+ loss but they gave 2300 back because of trade engine screw ups. (They're giving nothing back that stems from my double closing).

Giancarlo Devasini's assertion that preventing closes from become open upon the issuance of a close request is somehow technologically insurmountable is complete horse manure. If he thinks it's some sort of technologically hard problem he shouldn't be working in technology in the first place.

Hrumph

Posts

Merits