Problem with MT4 Opening a Deal, then Closing it again straight away - page 3

New comment
 
Of course, one has no intention whatsoever of stealing the code. After all, one is only interested in proving how an EA should not cause any loses to whoever uses the frigging thing. Thanks for the clarification. I'm sure it will work in a court on a different planet. Proving how the code should not do damage, that is.
 


blogzr3, just in case you missed it: I am not talking about how the EA should not make losses or how profitable it should be, this is about how an EA should not intentionally sabotage the operation of another EA and start a fight with it by permanently closing all its trades.

The problem wont be proving that the EA does something (closing trades that don't belong to it). This is easy, it can be easily demonstrated.

The problem will be proving that an EA (or this particular EA or an EA of this kind) is not allowed to sabotage other EAs and that such behavior normally constitutes a defect if not explicitly mentioned, although this should be obvious for anybody after thinking about it for some minutes (or some years for the same-pair-hedging crowd).

 
Of course, the EA is not allowed to sabotage the operation of another EA. How silly of the EA to assume it has the whole blooming thing to itself. Of course the EA must be punished. Would you prefer stoning?
 
are you drunk or something? Better stop posting for a few hours.
 
No, I'm not. You would have to be not very wise to try and prove the "sabotage" concept in any court.
 
7bit:

Put each of the EAs into its own separate demo account ....

May well not trigger the bug or 'feature'...

-BB-

 
BarrowBoy:

May well not trigger the bug or 'feature'...

-BB-

If its a "feature" then certainly not. Then he would have to put a running F+p-Turb* as bait instead of a manual trade into each account. But I don't think this is the case. This would move the whole thing from simple negligence to criminal intent.


If it is the kind of stupid programming error that I mentioned earlier (which is very likely) then it should trigger reliably.

 
blogzr3:
No, I'm not. You would have to be not very wise to try and prove the "sabotage" concept in any court.
Whats a "sabotage concept"? Either it sabotages other trades or not. And either the sabotaging is normal (as you seem to assume) or it is a defect.
 
7bit:
Whats a "sabotage concept"? Either it sabotages other trades or not. And either the sabotaging is normal (as you seem to assume) or it is a defect.

Only if an EA coder is obliged to code (legally) as if there is a whole bunch of other EAs competing on the same installation.

I don't - I code as if I have the whole installation to myself.

If it upsets another EA that gets installed without my knowledge, I agree it is an (unintentional) defect. Good luck in proving my intentional sabotage.

 

blogzr3:

Good luck in proving my intentional sabotage.

its about a defect in the sold product, not about criminal intent. They sell a product and it suddenly starts damaging other things. If you buy a cell phone and it suddenly explodes you can sue them because cell phones are not supposed to explode, intent or not.

And now please stop dragging the subject of this thread away from the initial subject which is primarily of technical nature and about the causes of this effect and how to avoid it (for example by not using code written by people who would better not write any code).

123456
New comment