Debugging the DLL? In MT4 and MT5 - page 10
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Is it reasonable to repeatedly suggest doing something that has already been rejected? And on the basis of past experience.
I also offered to satisfy your desire to make it possible to protect your code that you want to sell. What is it that you don't like? Explain. Preferably in detail and in detail.
Second time I tell you, read the unfolded version again pages earlier - I'm fine with it, for now.
You, on the other hand, are admonishing me for some reason.
For the second time, read the unfolded version again pages earlier - I'm fine with it, for now. And I am against lowering the level of protection.
Why are you attacking me then (page 6)? I asked for increased protection. You do not even know what an EDS is, but you are the most active :-))) You criticize everyone, know everything better than anyone else, and can decide everything for others and draw conclusions for them...
Good for you, he's talking about suckers ))
Why are you attacking me then (page 6)? I asked for increased protection. You do not even know what an EDS is, but you are the most active :-))) You criticize everyone, know everything better than anyone else, and can decide everything for others and draw conclusions for them...
Good for you. he's talking about suckers))
Well, you're not suggesting that the protection should be strengthened. You are proposing to put the legal problems on the shoulders of the software developers. This is quite different and has nothing to do with protection. ....
I have been and still am suggesting stronger protection, but not from hacking, but from the trader's protection... here i wrote...maybe this will help...
Legislation has nothing to do with it, take 2 terminals and just think about it, one allows to edit quotes history - the other doesn't, one allows to modify trades history (as soon as trader decided to withdraw money, oh my god, the deals disappeared), and the other terminal does not have this feature, I can go on and on there are many delicious things for brokerage companies ...
I may continue there may be many delicious things, and I understand developers, they need to earn their bread and bring it home to their families, and they bring it by selling terminals, so there are things that are in big demand for brokerage companies (they are buyers, ostensibly...) and they program these functions, at the same time, they understand that there are brokerage companies that are serious and long-term customers and want to work honestly, and some are lousy sheep ...
I'm not saying it by hearsay, I started to trade when MT didn't have yet, when it appeared, I thought this is the right thing, and I am grateful to developers, I understood a lot, learned a lot, but there is one thing I can't get through to them, a trader is the main in food chain, no traders, nobody will buy terminal, nobody needs it and developers won't bring home a piece of bread... it's simple mathematics. I left 5 quid on my real account back in 2007 to use MT, a lot done here is cool and convenient, but here's the trouble, I analyze here and open trades, real trades open in another trading platform. On one commission, which I paid for this year, I could already open a couple of brokerage companies.... and there is only one reason.
I am protected there, I am not protected here and it has been going on for years, it is profitable for brokerage companies, which is unacceptable for me as a trader.
S.U. 5 bucks - ruble, I know and understand it, but the money will run out soon, what will you do? Remember the FOREX exhibition EXPO c what a pomp they used to have, lots of people, and now? people less and less, many DTs have simply stopped exhibiting, no point ...
The maths is simple.
There is a company that makes terminals for brokerage companies and sells them - and has a profit ...
There is a company that makes terminals for traders and lives from traders' commission ...
My experience shows that the second firm is much more profitable ... and it does what traders need (demanded), not "leeches" ...
The maths is simple.
There is a firm that makes terminals for DCs and sells them - and has income...
There is a firm that makes terminals for traders and lives off the traders' commission...
My experience shows that the second firm is much more profitable ... and it does what is needed (demanded) by traders, not by "leeches"...
By the way - YES! In the battle for clients only brokerage companies that have the possibility to trade on a terminal they trust more will win. And that one is more convenient for traders. Of course not to the detriment of the brokerage company.
But strangely enough what is convenient for trader is known in MQ better than in MQ. Or at least that's what it looks like in MQ.
Yes, Prival, you are very logical. Let's say there are 100 brokerage companies that have system X in all of them. When time T comes and one brokerage company switches to the system Y that traders like most ( not programmers and traders) the number of clients ( all other conditions being equal ) of this brokerage company increases. Other brokerage companies see that and have to use this system to make a profit. Maybe, against their will. Those brokerage companies that cannot do it, for example because they are fully geared up for cheating clients, will stay with the old system and gradually disappear.
Now we have to convince the non-cooperative MQ in this logic. But they still believe that they know best what is best for the trader. Well let's hope there is some form of discussion.
By the way - YES! In the fight for the client that brokerage company will win that one, which has the possibility to trade through a terminal that is more trusted. And the one that is more convenient for the trader. Of course not to the detriment of the brokerage company.
But strangely enough what is convenient for trader is known in MQ better than in MQ. Or at least that's what it looks like in MQ.
Yes, Prival, you are very logical. I admit that the logic is as follows: Let's say there are 100 brokerage companies that have system X in all of them. When time T comes and one brokerage company switches to the system Y that traders like most ( not programmers and traders) the number of clients ( all other conditions being equal ) of this brokerage company increases. Other brokerage companies see that and have to use this system to make a profit. Maybe, against their will. Those brokerage companies that cannot do it, for example because they are fully geared up to cheat clients, will stay with the old system and gradually disappear.
Now we have to convince the non-cooperative MQ in this logic. But they still believe that they know best what is best for the trader. If you do not know what to do with the market, you will not get an IMF certificate.
The main thing is that the software is ready to change (correct) the quotes history.
They are geared to SHAME because the legislation in this area is practically ANYTHING - I'll believe it more.
PS
Switch or not to a new platform (even on Z with 128 bit + built-in AI to automate any actions of a trader) if DA "cheats" their clients they will continue to do so...
Switch or not to a new platform (even on Z with 128 bit + built-in AI to automate all trader's actions) if DA "cheats" their clients they will continue to do so...