Any traders who are also Bitcoin Maxis? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

100 sats \ 8 comments \ @ek 18 Oct 2022 bitcoin

I just noticed how my limit order at 19750€ got filled in real-time. I never thought about that it doesn't get filled immediately but has to wait for other orders which were created before me to get filled (?).

Then I realized that I most likely still don't know a lot about trading. I only buy low using limit orders and sell never so I wouldn't consider myself to be a trader.

I further asked myself: Are there any traders here who also consider themselves to be Bitcoin Maxis? Or is this mutually exclusive?

I think trading bitcoin but still to be a Bitcoin Maxi doesn't make much sense. Why trade bitcoin when you are sure it will succeed in the end? Isn't it more risky trying to beat the market via trading when you already know that you beat the market long-term by buying bitcoin at current prices?

But I am open to discussion about this. So... What do you think?

view all related items

25 sats \ 0 replies \ @timechain 18 Oct 2022

It depends on how you define it. It was a term Vitalik made to make fun of us that got reclaimed. Some people may define it differently. Can you be a maxi and like... STX? RGB? RSK? Counterparty? Liquid? TARO? OMNI? USDT? Fedimint?Swan Bitcoin? Guns N Bitcoin Conference? Strike? Everything listed there has a degree of straying from the purists.

People usually go through a phase of "Bitcoin is the only one that will succeed, but I can end up with more Bitcoin in the long run if I do x, y, and z, in the short run." Some people that only held BTC got Celsius-d from this behavior. Trading generally causes people to lose money. But I feel that Maxis are against it for a different reason; they see it as immoral. It's as if Bitcoin Maximalism not only relies on a set of expectations about Bitcoin's future, but a set of rules and behaviors. If these moral guidelines were not a part of the definition, people that make their own scammy crypto projects could be considered closet maxis, they just have found out a really effective way to stack a lot of Bitcoin with.

25 sats \ 1 reply \ @dtonon 18 Oct 2022

In the meantime I'm thinking what to answer :)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek OP 18 Oct 2022

I don't agree with the critic that Anthony Pompliano removed his laser eyes:

As Anthony Pompliano wrote in a recent issue of “The Pomp Letter”:

“The truth is that it is really hard to be an independent person who thinks critically if your identity is tied to a financial asset. How can you seriously evaluate an asset if you have it in your bio? Are you really willing to change your mind if you receive new information if your entire identity is tied to something? Maybe. But it definitely makes it harder. As I told a friend months ago, it is hard to see with laser eyes on.”

The whole point of Bitcoin Maximalism is you do not change your mind because you recognize Bitcoin as a zero-to-one invention. Toxic Bitcoin Maximalists wear their laser eyes because they know there is no way to further decentralization by any means other than proof-of-work bitcoin. While it can be worthwhile to learn how proof-of-stake ether and other tokens form consensus, it can’t be ignored that they are fatally flawed compared to bitcoin. There won’t be another bootstrapped, decentralized blockchain that can serve as a money for the world, ever! Pomp said it is “hard to see with laser eyes on,” but it seems like he may see greater value pushing mattresses onto his followers instead of promoting Bitcoin!

This is what makes us all look like a cult; being so convinced about something you can't see anything else anymore. Overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer. One could argue that this does not help to spread Bitcoin since it makes many people unnecessary skeptical if we don't sound like we are open for discussion since we already made up our minds. Which is indeed the case (we indeed made up our minds already) but it's important to still be open for discussion; how paradoxically this may sound.

But I guess not being open about discussion is also part of the definition of being a (toxic) Bitcoin Maxi. So in that sense, the critic is reasonable. And I can also understand that it's hard not too be "overconfident" on Bitcoin.

But I think it is also good to take a break sometimes from it and think about other things and come back refreshed and even "more convinced" (if that's possible).

Interesting topic nonetheless. I don't know if I would consider myself to be a Bitcoin Maxi. A toxic one definitely not. Guess I don't care enough about my fellow people so much that I would be toxic af to them if they dabble in shitcoins, lol.

My take on that is: Everyone needs to learn their lessons on their own.

25 sats \ 3 replies \ @kilianbuhn 18 Oct 2022

I never thought about that it doesn't get filled immediately but has to wait for other orders which were created before me to get filled (?).

Stock market matches bids & asks all the time until an order is filled. If somebody sells, it continues and continues to fill buy orders until the order is deleted, even when the next bid is lower - which is exactly what makes the price move.

There are also "market makers" which are entities/institutions that get payed by the stock market for the service of owning lots of all stocks and being always ready to buy &sell - which increases liquidity and makes movements from buys/sells weaker.

For things like Apple Stock or Bitcoin these normally don't ever get used because there are always buyers & sellers. Just thing about all these high frequency trading bots - they alway buy the dip or sell the bump. No way you won't find a match when buying.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek OP 18 Oct 2022

Stock market matches bids & asks all the time until an order is filled. If somebody sells, it continues and continues to fill buy orders until the order is deleted, even when the next bid is lower - which is exactly what makes the price move.

If I want to sell X bitcoin where Y is the amount of price per bitcoin, it will only consider buys of bitcoin for Y, until the X bitcoin were sold for Y, right? So multiple buy orders can fill the same sell order, yes (and vice versa).

So how would it move the price in this example if the buy and sells need to be the same price? Are you describing OTC trades where the price is not predetermined afaik? But I thought OTC trades are used to not move the market. So I am still confused.

Also, I thought if I sell for Z and someone buys for Z, then the market price moves to Z since now there is a new market price. This also makes sense in your example, since the price of the latest order match is used.

Just thing about all these high frequency trading bots - they alway buy the dip or sell the bump. No way you won't find a match when buying.

Well, I was looking at my screen for 30 seconds and was wondering why my order was not getting filled even though the price is already a little below 19750€. So in my mind, I did not find a buyer for this amount of time. I imagine that the cause was that previous orders were filled until my order was considered, sorted by creation date. How would you explain that?

I think you mean that if I sell for a price below the current market price or buy at a price higher than the current market price, I will always find a buyer or seller. This makes sense of course. But I think this misses my point about in which order orders are filled.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kilianbuhn 18 Oct 2022

If I want to sell one bitcoin for X, it will only consider buys of one bitcoin for X, right?

Depends on your order type. In "market orders" no, then you're fcked, it could be whatever.

In real limit-orders you buy for that price or cheaper. In bullshit brokerages the limit-orders are fake since they only trigger at a certain prices but then place market orders.

If you place limit-order buy above current price, it fills all sells one after the other until the price has risen up to your order, then it stops filling.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek OP 18 Oct 2022

Depends on your order type. In "market orders" no, then you're fcked, it could be whatever.

Ah, yes. Makes sense for market orders. I was thinking about limit orders

In real limit-orders you buy for that price or cheaper. In bullshit brokerages the limit-orders are fake since they only trigger at a certain prices but then place market orders.

Ah right, I didn't think about sells below my price for limit buys.

Fake limit-orders would be easy to tell if my buy limit order (for example) ever executes at a price which is not the same or lower as the price I put in, no?

If you place limit-order buy above current price, it fills all sells one after the other until the price has risen up to your order, then it stops filling.

Yes, makes sense. But in which order are the orders considered? Based on when they were created? First come, first serve?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @02174b3c39_lntxbot 5 Nov 2022

If you accept a Bid, you're not selling, you're dumping.

If you set a price, an Ask, you're raising the price.