The charting software dilema

[jprad]

Quote from Sharp2be:

Guys, just so we stay on the thread here... Agree that MC calls home but all the others such as QT and Ninja also do...

Just so we're clear, we are referring to software you purchased a lifetime license for.

Any software that needs to get external "permission" each time you try to use it is something I refuse to buy a license for.

It indicates that the vendor has trust issues with their customer base, and it's a good bet they've got other issues as well.

 

[jprad]

Quote from PlusMinus:

This isn't about misinformation, it's about prudence.

No, it's about common sense keeping paranoia in check. The idea that there are people out there eavesdropping on the retail crowd is nonsense.

If there are instances, it's short-lived because of the near impossible task of separating the wheat from the chaff.

Besides, there's much more money to be made on commissions and that's infinitely easier.

Front-running is a different issue. There's simply no good reason to not use a direct access broker that let's you explicitly route your orders.

 

[PlusMinus]

Quote from jprad:

No, it's about common sense keeping paranoia in check. The idea that there are people out there eavesdropping on the retail crowd is nonsense.

If there are instances, it's short-lived because of the near impossible task of separating the wheat from the chaff.

Besides, there's much more money to be made on commissions and that's infinitely easier.

Front-running is a different issue. There's simply no good reason to not use a direct access broker that let's you explicitly route your orders.

Oops, you forgot the issue of vendor licensing server uptime. This isn't just about frontrunning.

 

[jprad]

Quote from PlusMinus:

Oops, you forgot the issue of vendor licensing server uptime. This isn't just about frontrunning.

Eavesdropping and draconian DRM are separate issues.

The former is nonsense while the later is bad business.

 

[PlusMinus]

Quote from jprad:

Eavesdropping and draconian DRM are separate issues.

The former is nonsense while the later is bad business.

sort of. Any time you introduce security risk, no matter how slim, you need to manage it, like any other kind of risk. If you are a CTA or manage other people's money, you open yourself up to lawsuits. It doesn't have to be frontrunning, it can simply be the compromising of your systems and networks. Do I think most vendors or any care about the average joe's silly strategies? No, but you can never rule out the possibility of systems that have actual live account data and can infer true success from failures. There's just no reason to take this risk on.

 

[jprad]

Quote from PlusMinus:

Any time you introduce security risk, no matter how slim, you need to manage it, like any other kind of risk. If you are a CTA or manage other people's money, you open yourself up to lawsuits.

Unfortunately, the system is stacked against the retail trader.

At the top are the regulatory bodies that say that a firm has to have prudent risk management procedures in place and they follow them diligently.

But, there are no hard definitions for either and the threshold for proving due diligence is absurdly low.

What puts the firm on even safer ground is for risk that may remain be contained by requiring you to agree to release them from all liability before they will let you trade with them.

you can never rule out the possibility of systems that have actual live account data and can infer true success from failures. There's just no reason to take this risk on.

No use talking about front-running. Although it's a slimy practice it's not considered illegal. The only defense you have against that is to not do business with firms that are known to front-run their customers.

As for someone eavesdropping that is not a risk, it's fraud. No firm can ever protect themselves against intentionally defrauding their customers.

About the only defense you have against that is sticking with larger firms that have been in business for a while.

 

[WaveStrider]

Quote from jprad:

Just so we're clear, we are referring to software you purchased a lifetime license for.

Any software that needs to get external "permission" each time you try to use it is something I refuse to buy a license for.

It indicates that the vendor has trust issues with their customer base, and it's a good bet they've got other issues as well.

The proper word for that is "rental", not "purchase". You don't own anything if their authentication mechanism is down or goes away. In that case, purchasing means you pay a one time fee for renting the software.

 

[jprad]

Quote from WaveStrider:

The proper word for that is "rental", not "purchase". You don't own anything if their authentication mechanism is down or goes away. In that case, purchasing means you pay a one time fee for renting the software.

Not at all.

There are two predominant software licensing models vendors use. In both cases you certainly do "own" something; the right to use the software you've licensed.

One, the subscription model, is as you described; a license that expires after an agreed upon period of time that has to be renewed to continue using it.

The other is the exact opposite of the subscription model. You purchase a non-expiring license to use the software for a one-time fee.

If the later is encumbered by any mechanism that could threaten or alter the terms of the non-expiring license that you purchased then it was misrepresented when it was sold to you.

 

[unretired]

Quote from jprad:

What I was referring to was the idea that someone would eavesdrop on your trading.

That's what I figured. My comment was that when I trade and use systems ... the eavesdropping which is very real ... would mess up my systems ... offering additional trades along the lines of how they work.

All this is theoretical ... true eaves dropping happens but at real levels of big money with consistent win patterns that are predictable. Many a great system is developed on the "Big Shark" parasite method. (E.G. - the parasite swims next to the "Big Shark" picking up scraps.)

The Buffet sized shark however makes news and says one thing while one or more of his hedge funds do the other.

Yes ... disinformation is an important tool ... I agree and have used it when I had to. (Tiny fish that I was)


<b>Back to The thread</b>

I also would like solid input on quality charting ... I am finding that the currencies market has far superior and cheaper charting packages.

 

[WaveStrider]

Quote from jprad:

Not at all.

There are two predominant software licensing models vendors use. In both cases you certainly do "own" something; the right to use the software you've licensed.

One, the subscription model, is as you described; a license that expires after an agreed upon period of time that has to be renewed to continue using it.

The other is the exact opposite of the subscription model. You purchase a non-expiring license to use the software for a one-time fee.

If the later is encumbered by any mechanism that could threaten or alter the terms of the non-expiring license that you purchased then it was misrepresented when it was sold to you.

Ok, I was being sarcastic.

What I described is a situation where the pricing is "ownership" but the usage is "rental".

Maybe there can be a new term coined for rental/purchase, like "Rentchase".