1012100+ entries in 0.85s
Diablo-D3: you dont even need
to store
the archived
tx in
the db, just dump
them
to a
text list for perm storage
Diablo-D3: mircea_popescu: well, Ive written shit like
this, its
trivial, but sometimes fucktards do fucktarded
things
Diablo-D3: I wonder if glbse _doesnt_ keep a list of
tx forever
Diablo-D3: like
thats
the
thing, remember how he didnt do an audit on me?
guruvan: last
time he
tried
to get pirate
to lock goat's account
there
Diablo-D3: unless he isnt logging all
transactions, which makes him a scammer
Diablo-D3: EskimoBob: it would
take him 5 seconds with a perl script
to find out
guruvan: it's not
the first
time nefario has pulled
this shit with goat
Diablo-D3: I wonder if nefario stole all
the money
mircea_popescu: people keep asking me what i have against glbse. WELL
THIS. why not just fucking make sense.
Diablo-D3: I dont know what
the hell happened
Diablo-D3: not only would nefario get a scammer
tag, all glbse links get scammer
tagged
too
Diablo-D3: nefario refuses
to send goat his btc
that have nothing
to do with
tygrr assets
Diablo-D3: maged is giving him one more chance
to pull his head out of his ass
Diablo-D3: nefario really is going
to get a scammer
tag
BTC-Mining: It's almost a miracle I maaged
to grow while
the market was shrinking, without shorting.
BTC-Mining: Except for a lower share of
the dividends.
BTC-Mining: But
there's no actuall loss for
them if it's mismanaged.
BTC-Mining: I have much bigger incentives
than regular funds.
BTC-Mining: Aye, but in BTC-BOND's case, I'd better manage
the portfolio well.
mircea_popescu: and apparently even
that is a bridge
too far for most ppl
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining cvovered in
the meanwhile. but yes, shorted 8-9 covered at 02 lol
mircea_popescu: what i'm curious about is, how
the hell is usagi planning
to unwind
the MIDDLE of what was supposedly a cdo
mircea_popescu: Has anybody else noticed
the contracts os assets on MPEx are much better
than
the ones on GLBSE? I don't want
to get into a debate about exchanges, but having a decent and detailed contract is a good sign for an asset.
BTC-Mining: Looking for stocks
to buy. Over 200 BTC available.
knotwork: mostly
trying
to figure out how much of what such a contract would have
to
take into its internal variables as collateral
to be sure it can pay out come payout
time
knotwork: like hey I will pay one AAPL for an option
to sell 100 IBM for 50 CISCO
knotwork: with any price you pay
to buy
the option being payable in any asset at all probably
knotwork: ok good. as what I am
trying
to figure out is generic code for asset A and asset B calls and puts for any A and B
knotwork: just switch
the X and Y
to switch between call and put
knotwork: it seems like my code for how
to handle/resolve a call of X priced in Y should be identical
to my code for how
to handle a put of Y priced in X
knotwork: but you could pay
the fee in bubblegum or francs or anything, how much you pay for
the option does not change
the option itself
knotwork: possibly
the asset in which you pay
the fee
mircea_popescu: if you buy a sell
that means you make money if price goes over strike
mircea_popescu: yes. but if i buy a put
that means i make money if price goes under strike
knotwork: you buying from me IS me selling
to you surely?
mircea_popescu: knotwork no
they're not identical,
they're opposite really.
Bugpowder: Since
the SEC has no balls, glad Schneiderman does
BTC-Mining: so it can cover a 0.35 sale. Guess
that's enough for almost anything
mod6: you still might have
to cover a
trade fee
Bugpowder: but
that should still be enough
to pay for it
knotwork: I am actually surprised
that just
the lack of percentage fees in Open
Transactions isnt causing customers
to be pressing hard for development of
the clients
to make it easier for
them
to
take advantage of
the lack of percentage fees on all
trades
knotwork: also of course
they like
the fee
to be in local currency maybe not some
tiny bit of A and/or B neither of which
they may be particularly fond of
knotwork: since
the house
takes a fee on each
trade,
they prefer you sell A for local currency paying a fee
then buy B paying a fee instead of just
trading A for B
knotwork: I suspect a big reason for intruding local currency between all assets is simply
to double
the fees
BTC-Mining: Which is confusing me because
that's now how I understood options but anyway.
BTC-Mining: Example, if I buy a call option struck at 1 USD/BTC and
the price is currently 12 USD/BTC when redeemed,
the redeem value is (12 - 1)/12 = 0.91666667 BTC
knotwork: no forcing people
to do
two
trades, one from asset A into local currency asset
then another
to buy asset B with
that local currency
knotwork: but if you are agnostic about assets, as Open
Transactions is, any asset can be used
to buy any other asset
knotwork: since most places have one asset
they
think of as "money" and all other assets are "commodities" or "foreign currencies"
to buy and sell with prices expressed in
the "local favourite"
knotwork: I suspect favourite/local currency preference is only reason it does not work
that way most places
knotwork: it seems
to me at a glance
that a put
to sell X for a price in Y is identical
to a call
to buy Y at a price in X
knotwork: no
this is generically for code
to handle puts and calls of any X priced in
terms of any Y
knotwork: or if you but a put entitling you
to sell me 12 dollars for 1 bitcoin on a certain date, isnt
that identical
to buying a call entitling you
to buy 1 bitcoin from me for 12 dollars on
that date?
knotwork: BTC-Mining well for eample if you buy from me a put entitling you
to put 10 IBM for 1 AAPL on certain date, isnt
that
the same as buying a call entitling you
to buy 1 AAPL for 10 IBM at
that same date?
knotwork: well if you obligate me
to buy X at a cetrain price as denominated in Y, isnt
that
the same as obligating me
to sell Y
to you at a certain price denominated in X ?
BTC-Mining: with calls,
the lower under
the stock price it goes,
the better, opposite for puts.
knotwork: I am windering because if so, coding need not code
two separate strategies one
to offer puts one
to offer calls, instead just reversing
the pair
the exact same code could be used
BTC-Mining: [17:29] <usagi> lolz dub, people who don't understand accrual or cost basis accounting should be banned from
the forums
knotwork_: Are puts and calls both actually
the exact same
thing with
the pair reversed? So e.g. a USD/BTC put is equally referrable
to as a BTC/USD call?
BTC-Mining: So how is
that relevent? Other
than deposit
takes, plenty are not defaulting.
BTC-Mining: Erhm, you're not a deposit
taker as far as I know?
Obsi: it was closed out and delisted, can't be
traded from what I know
PsychoticBoy: ok so
then I dont get
the problem you closing due
to move.to
PsychoticBoy: ok, isnt it an option
to get rid of move.to and add another asset
to its portfolio?
Bugpowder: what is
the point of
the SEC if you aren't going
to lock
the real fuckers up
Bugpowder: This fine represents a small fraction of Mozilo's estimated net worth of $600 million. Countrywide will pay $20 million of
the $67.5 million penalty because of an indemnification agreement
that was part of Mozillo's employment contract.
Bugpowder: On Friday October 15, 2010, Mozilo reached a settlement with Securities and Exchange Commission, over securities fraud and insider
trading charges. Mozilo agreed
to pay $67.5 million in fines
agath: Angelo Mozilo seems
the name of an italian made browser
rg: what's more likely is someone who's mad gave
them all
the info
novusordo: so considering
that
the SEC used #bitcoin-otc
to get emails for BTCST, it's very likely
that
they're in
this channel right now
Bugpowder: wait, isn't pyramining a ponzi scheme
though?
Bugpowder: if you are getting in line for BFL now, I
think you are
totally fucked
Bugpowder: agath, sometimes
the only way
to win is not
to play
rdponticelli: Anyway, you bought
the stock with a BTC which was worth half what is worth now
agath: the win is in long
term