feelix

It detected the abuse perfectly, that was the point it was trying to make. They're not using it because they don't want to

I realize this isn’t something people want to think about, but that’s precisely why these people are doing what they do unchecked. The most surprising thing about this is that the people generally are living pretty normal lives and those close to them don’t know that they are running this industry

Another example of a corner being cut is that it was not tested on pregnant women

it does work though, because the sandwhichers will just take the delta between the accepted amount out, and the actual expected amount out, front run that, then back run the bulk of the trade with selling that delta on top of the bulk of the trade and benefiting from the price impact that the sandwhiched trade created

yes, I reluctantly do indeed

I'm curious about exploring this myself, would you mind explaining in more detail what is lacking after forking the main net with ganache?

Is it that you need a high powered server to fork it continuously, and that smart contracts tend to cost a lot to execute, or is there more to it than that? I don't understand what contracts and variables that you're targeting won't be included with the solution we're discussing

I'm far from an expert on this, you probably know better than I do, but wouldn't forking the blockchain at the block height you're interested in with Ganache and execute it there be enough? or is the issue the transaction queue?

I've had the opposite experience too. I have an Nvidia linux card and Wayland on Fedora has always worked very well for me. In comparison Xorg on Ubuntu was a nightmare on the same machine

it's not the same because many retailers do lose money because the short squeeze fails to execute. They dont just not make money, they buy shares for $300 and have to sell them for $100

it's not. Here's an example

Scenario 1: 1. Client buys share for $400 2. Hedge funds get short squeezed (because trading is not restricted by Robinhood) 3. Stock shoots up to $1000. Client made $600

Scenario 2: 1. Client buys share for $400 2. Robinhood restricts buying the shares (so the short squeeze doesn't happen) 3. Shares plunge to $50 because the short squeeze failed to happen (ie the hedge fund did not have to purchase the shares at higher prices, which is where the capital that the traders would share amongst themselves would come from) 4. Client lost $350

you completely missed the point. the fact that the squeeze fails means that it fails to squeeze the shorts of the hedge fund, which is the one that will be coughing up billions to pay all the retailers. So yes, the retailers that are buying shares at higher prices will indeed lose actual real money if the short squeeze fails. And it will be due to what is likely to be market manipulation (ie screwing over its clients) by Robinhood