That's not a "nice rebuttal", that's some bullet points spat back. Whereas the original linked article in this discussion provides some context and explanation, the bullet points in your second link are meaningless to the layperson (e.g, me).
...the original linked article in this discussion...
Do you mean the Chris Stucchio piece? Because, despite it being an apology, it doesn't justify how HFT is socially beneficial. This piece makes hand-wavy claims about liquidity, and says that it will better justify HFT in a coming blog post.
As for the Bloomberg piece defending HFT, it fails to address a few issues that the SEC and critics have with HFT. These issues are enumerated in the Ritholtz blog post. Pointing out certain facts that an argument ignores is a valid rebuttal.
Jiminy! Chris Stucchio is 'yummyfajitas, one of the oldest contributors on HN. He was a dev for an actual HFT firm for a bunch of years before doing a totally unrelated startup.
Could he just maybe write a post and spark a discussion about how his field actually works so we can learn something about it?
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND this HN mentality that equates "learning more about X" with "joining the death cult of X". And it comes up all the time: no, we can't discuss how SEO works, because that would make us morally black hat SEOs; no, we can't discuss how HFT works, because that would make us morally Goldman Sachs executives; no, we can't discuss how a law is written, but that would mean we want to give the Internet to the MPAA.
The particular mode of argument in your comment and many like it on this thread is directly counter to the whole idea behind this site and every other worthwhile message board on the Internet. Yes, we get it, you don't know who G.H. Hardy is or didn't pick up on the joke in the title --- but it's obvious from the rest of the post that it's trying to explain how things work, not make a case for why it works that way.
I see you're at the end of your rope too. The "must not know" and "more important to be right than correct" mentalities are really starting to kill it.
This piece makes hand-wavy claims about liquidity...
The word "liquidity" doesn't appear in my blog post.
All I made were very concrete claims about how a matching engine works (all of which you can verify from the sources I listed) and some explanation of how why being faster helps HFT's to make money.
I'm sorry, I didn't intend to put words in your mouth. I read your piece thinking it was going to present some justification for HFT. In your first paragraph you state that the point of this post is "merely an intellectual justification of a field which is often misunderstood." But then you don't directly justify HFT in the post, instead explaining the mechanics of HFT and market making. This is great; you explain it well.
However, I was still looking for the justification promised in the opening sentences. So I look for the subtext in your technical explanation that would justify this oft misunderstood field. I clearly misunderstood your justification for HFT. What is your justification for HFT?
From paragraph 2: "In future blog posts, I’ll attempt to justify the social value of HFT (under some circumstances), and describe other circumstances under which it is not very useful."
From paragraph -1: "In future posts, I’ll discuss it’s societal utility and costs."
