Chris: you need to identify yourself if you're going to push your viewpoint here. You're the only author of a controversial blog post that's pushing what I'll gently describe as an interesting theory - not a casual HN observer just bringing up some talking points. If I hadn't caught your CAP theorem quote ("solve the CAP theorem", wha?) and the Nanex reference, I would have missed this and not drilled down to your user details.
Next time, feel free to add a </disclaimer> of some sort.
I'm not an outsider unless you've got one intense No True Scotsmen definition of the word, and I'll leave it at that. Let's just agree to disagree, and I'll say that you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Thank God, it's a free country and a free market :) Good luck.
Really, are you that naive to how the markets work? Intenalizers - Citadel for example, give retail traders prices based off the SIP and buy/sell on direct. Whenever there's a pricing difference, it's instant risk-less profits. You can induce that pricing difference by quote stuffing.
The problem with every allegation of quote stuffing I have ever seen is that it always looks like this:
1) Blast quotes
2) ???
3) Profit
Same problem in this thread. It would be a much more convincing argument if you could spell out the actual trade.
It's not a programming language issue - it's a math issue that would happen in any programming language. Whether you use Python or Haskell, you'll run into problems if you call SOLVE(A,x) on an ill conditioned matrix A. So you cook up a special routine that works well for most of the inputs you expect to see and it screws up for the tiny fraction of cases where you get a bad matrix.
Throwing money and a team of devs won't get around this. Similarly, you can't put together a team of crack devs (each earning $500k/year) and ask them to solve the CAP Theorem in 6 months. All you can do is choose your tradeoffs and hope that most of the time your network puts you on the good side of those tradeoffs.