[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 116.

parseval

member

Activity: 97

Merit: 10

Quote from: burnside on March 16, 2013, 06:27:41 PM

Quote from: parseval on March 16, 2013, 04:02:12 PM

How frequently would you consider it to be 'polite' for us to hit the API?

I am looking at building a portfolio/trade evaluation app for myself using the API, but I don't want to poll too frequently.

The lowest possible frequency that fits your needs? Grin

Most of the endpoints cache for a few minutes, so more frequent than once a minute probably won't do much for you. Eventually we'll start posting to twitter or something for the trades, at which point the people that want real-time trade info can connect into that.

Cheers.

Thanks!

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

Quote from: parseval on March 16, 2013, 04:02:12 PM

How frequently would you consider it to be 'polite' for us to hit the API?

I am looking at building a portfolio/trade evaluation app for myself using the API, but I don't want to poll too frequently.

The lowest possible frequency that fits your needs? Grin

Most of the endpoints cache for a few minutes, so more frequent than once a minute probably won't do much for you. Eventually we'll start posting to twitter or something for the trades, at which point the people that want real-time trade info can connect into that.

Cheers.

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

Quote from: creativex on March 14, 2013, 07:14:54 AM

Was that record volume on BTCT.CO the past 24hrs? You need a ticker to keep track.

I'm not sure... I think I've seen ~400 a couple times, but I haven't been keeping track. It'd be fun to graph for sure.

parseval

member

Activity: 97

Merit: 10

How frequently would you consider it to be 'polite' for us to hit the API?

I am looking at building a portfolio/trade evaluation app for myself using the API, but I don't want to poll too frequently.

creativex

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Was that record volume on BTCT.CO the past 24hrs? You need a ticker to keep track.

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

Quote from: poly on March 14, 2013, 01:24:57 AM

Quote from: burnside on March 13, 2013, 02:25:05 PM

Quote from: parseval on March 13, 2013, 02:19:47 PM

I really like the value analysis page with its trade memory. In the Portfolio, under My Value Analysis, is there a means of changing the 'Price paid' values listed for transfer-ins? It looks like they are treated as if purchased for 0BTC (at least in my case). This affects the "Approx Profit" value estimation.

I need to start defaulting the transfers to the 24hr averages or something. A lot of people don't fill it in, thinking it's for fees. But when you're transferring shares to someone and we ask the value, it's not for fees, it's for this analysis page.

The only way to fix it in the analysis page is to transfer yourself all your shares at whatever value you want them to be valued at. At some point I'll try to get in an edit ability, but that's a ways off right now.

Cheers.

.. why is that even a separate input?

Share of the same asset are equivalent to each other, doesn't matter if it was traded on the orderbook or if it was transferred.

The value input on internal transfer is there so that you can plug in the value you're executing the actual trade at if it's a private trade. Thus the recipient of the shares then can track it accurately in the analysis later on. I think the only real issue right now is that it needs to default to the 24h average rather than zero. Easier said than done because of how the form is setup. It's going to take some jquery magic.

And... it's done now... but it won't go out until the next big rollout. Probably tomorrow or Friday for litecoinglobal.com and early next week for btct.co.

Cheers.

EskimoBob

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank

Quote from: poly on March 14, 2013, 01:24:57 AM

Quote from: burnside on March 13, 2013, 02:25:05 PM

Quote from: parseval on March 13, 2013, 02:19:47 PM

I really like the value analysis page with its trade memory. In the Portfolio, under My Value Analysis, is there a means of changing the 'Price paid' values listed for transfer-ins? It looks like they are treated as if purchased for 0BTC (at least in my case). This affects the "Approx Profit" value estimation.

I need to start defaulting the transfers to the 24hr averages or something. A lot of people don't fill it in, thinking it's for fees. But when you're transferring shares to someone and we ask the value, it's not for fees, it's for this analysis page.

The only way to fix it in the analysis page is to transfer yourself all your shares at whatever value you want them to be valued at. At some point I'll try to get in an edit ability, but that's a ways off right now.

Cheers.

.. why is that even a separate input?

Share of the same asset are equivalent to each other, doesn't matter if it was traded on the orderbook or if it was transferred.

You still need to know the price paid per share for P/L statements.

poly

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Weighted companion cube

Quote from: burnside on March 13, 2013, 02:25:05 PM

Quote from: parseval on March 13, 2013, 02:19:47 PM

I really like the value analysis page with its trade memory. In the Portfolio, under My Value Analysis, is there a means of changing the 'Price paid' values listed for transfer-ins? It looks like they are treated as if purchased for 0BTC (at least in my case). This affects the "Approx Profit" value estimation.

I need to start defaulting the transfers to the 24hr averages or something. A lot of people don't fill it in, thinking it's for fees. But when you're transferring shares to someone and we ask the value, it's not for fees, it's for this analysis page.

The only way to fix it in the analysis page is to transfer yourself all your shares at whatever value you want them to be valued at. At some point I'll try to get in an edit ability, but that's a ways off right now.

Cheers.

.. why is that even a separate input?

Share of the same asset are equivalent to each other, doesn't matter if it was traded on the orderbook or if it was transferred.

parseval

member

Activity: 97

Merit: 10

Quote from: burnside on March 13, 2013, 02:25:05 PM

I need to start defaulting the transfers to the 24hr averages or something. A lot of people don't fill it in, thinking it's for fees. But when you're transferring shares to someone and we ask the value, it's not for fees, it's for this analysis page.

The only way to fix it in the analysis page is to transfer yourself all your shares at whatever value you want them to be valued at. At some point I'll try to get in an edit ability, but that's a ways off right now.

Cheers.

Excellent, this worked perfectly for me.

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

Quote from: parseval on March 13, 2013, 02:19:47 PM

I really like the value analysis page with its trade memory. In the Portfolio, under My Value Analysis, is there a means of changing the 'Price paid' values listed for transfer-ins? It looks like they are treated as if purchased for 0BTC (at least in my case). This affects the "Approx Profit" value estimation.

I need to start defaulting the transfers to the 24hr averages or something. A lot of people don't fill it in, thinking it's for fees. But when you're transferring shares to someone and we ask the value, it's not for fees, it's for this analysis page.

The only way to fix it in the analysis page is to transfer yourself all your shares at whatever value you want them to be valued at. At some point I'll try to get in an edit ability, but that's a ways off right now.

Cheers.

parseval

member

Activity: 97

Merit: 10

I really like the value analysis page with its trade memory. In the Portfolio, under My Value Analysis, is there a means of changing the 'Price paid' values listed for transfer-ins? It looks like they are treated as if purchased for 0BTC (at least in my case). This affects the "Approx Profit" value estimation.

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 12, 2013, 02:14:10 AM

You could just change the amount of confirmations required to those before the fork?

That is a damn good idea. I'll definitely do that next time. Wink

Looking through the deposits, withdrawals, and account balances, I do not see anything out of order.

Trading is unlocked.

Cheers.

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

You could just change the amount of confirmations required to those before the fork?

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

Quote from: Deprived on March 12, 2013, 01:38:34 AM

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 12, 2013, 01:07:58 AM

Yeah, like BitFunder trading doesn't need to be frozen.

Well, in fairness situation could be different. From BitFunder's message I'd assume they received no deposits during the split - so have absolutely zero risk. if BTC.CO received a fair bunch of deposits then I guess halting all activity could be easier than manually disabling/rescinding deposits for all the recipients. Even messier if some of them already spent (or transferred) BTC that are now in the wrong fork and hence could be double-spent.

Deposits were definitely made in the timeframe. I'd also processed some withdrawals early in the timeframe unfortunately. My concern is that the site uses bitcoind as the authority on wallet balance. If someone made a double-spend deposit, it could have been used to trade. This would manifest itself as a negative wallet balance once the double-spend was fixed in the blockchain, and the site has to zero out negative balances from trade profits.

BitFunder is definitely in a different situation. The wallet/authority is on a separate service. For BitFunder itself, I'd guess that the authority for the balance is a db entry right alongside the share entries.

Deprived

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 12, 2013, 01:07:58 AM

Yeah, like BitFunder trading doesn't need to be frozen.

Well, in fairness situation could be different. From BitFunder's message I'd assume they received no deposits during the split - so have absolutely zero risk. if BTC.CO received a fair bunch of deposits then I guess halting all activity could be easier than manually disabling/rescinding deposits for all the recipients. Even messier if some of them already spent (or transferred) BTC that are now in the wrong fork and hence could be double-spent.

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Yeah, like BitFunder trading doesn't need to be frozen.

Deprived

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: burnside on March 12, 2013, 12:18:47 AM

I've been reading about the issue and I'm convinced that we should wait until the two forks of the blockchain have merged before we re-enable trading. I'm pretty sick today, (damn cold) so it's going to be hard, but I'll try to stay up until I can safely flip it back on. If I pass out I'll re-enable trading first thing in the morning. (PST)

Cheers.

Trading shouldn't be an issue. Only possible problem would be with any deposits made to the site that were processed since the split (as potentially, if on the wrong side of chain) they could be double-spent on the right side. Unless you received deposits in that hour or two everything should be fine (withdrawals are fine - unless YOU double-spend them).

Withdrawals/Deposits need to be disabled for now - but no reason for trading to be (if anyone DID receive a deposit then you could remove it from their account temporarily).

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

I've been reading about the issue and I'm convinced that we should wait until the two forks of the blockchain have merged before we re-enable trading. I'm pretty sick today, (damn cold) so it's going to be hard, but I'll try to stay up until I can safely flip it back on. If I pass out I'll re-enable trading first thing in the morning. (PST)

Cheers.

btharper

sr. member

Activity: 389

Merit: 250

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 11, 2013, 09:38:46 PM

Sounds like all the trading forks are causing the price drop. This isn't the end of bitcoin.

Nope, nothing is ending. The only problem is that there's a fork and someone trying to be malicious could attempt to spend on both networks and wait for the chain to resolve in their favor. Anyone behaving in good faith (most people) will end up on the right blockchain no matter which one they are currently on (as all valid tx's get pushed to each chain). Only malicious parties tx's will be a problem.

On the technical side this is caused by the database in 0.7 only accepting so many tx's in one block. The offending block had ~1700 tx's. The current Dev recommendation is that anyone depending on being on the "right" chain (merchants, miners, pools, etc). Anyone else can keep their version and will eventually end up on the right side of everything. The fork was not caused by an attack. The offending block is not invalid on either chain (except by an implicit database commit restriction). It will get over reported the wrong way and people will freak out and then everything will return to normal.

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Sounds like all the trading stops are causing the price drop (more than what would have happened if everything was calm). This isn't the end of bitcoin.

Topic: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 116. (Read 316534 times)