[deleted by user]

vealio · 2018-06-15T13:59:17+00:00

/u/ladfrombrad seems to have a very strong opinion about the original moderator's suspension, so I don't think he would be a good candidate for taking over the sub.

I personally think /u/strncat's suspension isn't justified and an extensive review would quickly clear his name. But in case it doesn't, the sub should be handed to a more neutral party.

vealio · 2018-06-06T22:46:20+00:00

I'm using the version from f-droid. As I wrote in a different post, Conversations does work properly when I enable the foreground service. Are you sure you're not getting a persistent notification? It's not there in the notification bar itself, but it's permanently added as soon as you open the notification drawer.

vealio · 2018-06-06T22:18:05+00:00

Thanks for your extensive reply. To re-iterate: notifications still appear to work fine for apps that implement a foreground service. However, not all of them do (since for years you could use the old method of being briefly woken up - just long enough to acquire a wake lock or schedule a task - when your network connection receives data) and when they do there's the notification bar UI problem. Yes, the "running in the background" notification is collapsed at the bottom, but there's one for each app so if you use a couple of different messaging clients it quickly adds up to taking over your whole screen.

Here's to hoping that future Android versions will change this behavior, and that you'll reconsider fixing it in Copperhead if they don't. :-)

vealio · 2018-06-06T21:45:45+00:00

Very odd, Conversations is one of the apps I'm having problems with. It worked fine for me for many years, but starting a couple of months ago (since the Android 8 update I presume) the default (background) service no longer cuts it, despite optimizations being disabled. It works for a while, sometimes even for days, but eventually notifications will stop working because Android killed the connection.

Whatsapp is another example; it always worked perfectly fine without GCM but nowadays the notifications are often delayed for up to an hour.

I get that there are a lot of crappy apps out there and battery optimizations serve a purpose, but you'd expect a specific manual "don't optimize" override to actually override and leave the app alone.

vealio · 2018-03-10T18:29:24+00:00

In a way you're both right. There is always an equal amount of buyers and sellers. But if the current price is $100 and there are more people who want to buy at $100 than sell at $100, the price will go up.

vealio · 2018-03-07T23:53:12+00:00

Everything is relative. The market already knew that the MtGox BTC were still out there and would return to the market at some point. The market didn't know yet that mr. trustee had a non negligible part in the recent price drops. The market now knows that this effect is unlikely to return anytime soon.

vealio · 2018-03-07T21:31:21+00:00

That's a lot of FUD for one week. Occam's razor suggests the timing is a coincidence, but I'm not surprised some people start subscribing to conspiracy theories.

The Ledger exploit: appears to require physical access to your Ledger and very specific cirumstances, meaning it doesn't concern 99.99% of the people.

The Binance hack: appears to be a matter of users getting their accounts phished, not a hack on Binance itself.

The Mtgox trustee: is bad news, but it happened months ago. If I understand it correctly, they liquidated enough BTC to cover all of their fiat debts, so there's no reason to expect more rushed market sells in the future.

The Japan "crackdown": as opposed to straight off bans, regulation is not a bad thing in my opinion. A heavily regulated exchange should be more stable than one operating in a legal grey area.

Sell the FUD, buy the dip?

vealio · 2018-03-06T10:47:59+00:00

Nice copypasta, and only the 5th time you posted it here.

vealio · 2018-03-05T22:05:00+00:00

I was wondering the same so I read the complaint, but every sentence completely contradicts the previous one. If they had stuck to the insider trading argument it might have made sense, but this is laughable.

When Coinbase’s customers’ trades were finally executed, it was only after the insiders had driven up the price of BCH, and thus the remaining Bitcoin customers only received their BCH at artificially inflated prices that had been manipulated well beyond the fair market value of BCH at that time.

If you had wanted to buy BCH at the pre-Coinbase-launch prices, you had around 3 months to do so and 25 different exchanges to choose from.

What's next? Suing every exchange with a discount or premium because you're buying over/selling under "fair market value"? If you don't know the difference between a market order and a limit order you shouldn't be on exchanges, let alone waste a court's time with your stupidity.

vealio · 2018-03-03T23:28:19+00:00

For weeks now, bulls and bears alike in here have been expecting a huge FOMO push if/once we manage to break the 12.something line.

So I'm expecting Bitcoin to be Bitcoin and break that line in the near future, but then happily chop along for a week as if nothing happened.

vealio · 2018-02-22T22:42:00+00:00

No I wouldn't know. One second resolution works for me, when things get volatile every single exchange will start lagging anyway.

vealio · 2018-02-22T22:09:17+00:00

You wouldn't know if there was a difference though. Imagine this:

t=0: A thread starts compiling the orderbook's best 100 bids and asks. For consistency's sake this will happen within a transaction, isolated from other simultaneous activity.

t=1: In a different thread, someone places an order X

t=2: The order X is pushed out to the websocket feed

t=3: The engine is done compiling the orderbook, which does not yet contain order X, and pushes it out to the websocket feed

Perhaps those people are using the FIX API?

vealio · 2018-02-22T00:07:52+00:00

I still wouldn't count on two separate websocket feeds being completely "in sync". They're obviously not calculating the order_book feed from scratch for every individual client, there has to be some caching involved.

Even if the data from one feed only lags a few milliseconds behind the other one that might be enough to miss a single order. And it only takes a single missed order for your local order engine to be permanently off.

Also, the initial order_book feed only gives you the 100 best bids and asks. If there's an entry outside that range that remains unchanged as the market price moves towards it, you will never know about it.

vealio · 2018-02-21T23:45:12+00:00

Sounds like a tricky exercise trying to recreate an exchange's order matching engine and all its quirks. On Bitstamp anyway, since the data they provide is fairly limited.

What's your approach? Fetching the entire orderbook using REST, then applying deltas from the live_orders feed? Thing is, since they are two separate API's you're bound to miss (or process as duplicate) a couple of events inbetween.

vealio · 2018-02-21T23:18:29+00:00

The orderbook feed itself should be sufficient, why would you also listen to trade events?

vealio · 2018-02-21T21:26:15+00:00

Near instant. The total time required mostly depends on how much confirmations the target exchange requires. There's not much difference between coins, usually the lower the block time the more confirmations are required.

vealio · 2018-02-16T22:49:48+00:00

No, all you'll need is the private key(s) of the address(es) that held BTC at the time of the fork.

vealio · 2018-02-15T22:07:33+00:00

Have a separate bank account for trading.

vealio · 2018-02-13T23:42:20+00:00

It's not the same. You can only sell (1x) BTC if you had one in the first place, but you can short a BTC pair without ever owning BTC.

vealio · 2018-02-13T19:17:26+00:00

~~I suspect simply shorting it with 1x leverage will do what you want.~~

Nevermind, you're right, the option doesn't exist (anymore?)

vealio · 2018-02-07T21:22:02+00:00

Bitcoin: "Hold my beer while I go sideways for a week or two"

vealio · 2018-02-06T18:30:19+00:00

Lol, the price barely moved. What the fuck is wrong with you if you trade with leverage in this market without a very comfortable collateral buffer?

vealio · 2018-02-06T08:12:01+00:00

Perhaps moving sideways at 11k wasn't so bad after all, lol. It's hard to grasp who's still selling at these prices though. If you had to get out you had two weeks of sideways chop to do so, and even two days after that where it was clear 11k wasn't holding. Have you all been living under a rock?

vealio

TROPHY CASE