[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 119.

Zedster

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: burnside on March 03, 2013, 04:35:27 AM

Quote from: Zedster on March 03, 2013, 04:30:57 AM

Quote from: burnside on March 03, 2013, 04:19:12 AM

Quote from: Zedster on March 03, 2013, 04:01:54 AM

Any chance you will ever offer Cognitive as a pass thru on LTC-Global burnie?

burnie. lol. Wink

There's no point to me doing one. Garr has an official one up already at https://www.litecoinglobal.com/security/COGNITIVE-PT Wink

Cheers.

so i am blind...sorry sir.. ahh i remember now....it was still outta my price that's why I forgot

But how about a ASICMiner then you gonna set that up I guess?

No problem.

On the ASICMINER, it's definitely a possibility. We'll see how the BTCTC one does.

Cheers.

Waiting in line for BTCTC.

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

Quote from: Zedster on March 03, 2013, 04:30:57 AM

Quote from: burnside on March 03, 2013, 04:19:12 AM

Quote from: Zedster on March 03, 2013, 04:01:54 AM

Any chance you will ever offer Cognitive as a pass thru on LTC-Global burnie?

burnie. lol. Wink

There's no point to me doing one. Garr has an official one up already at https://www.litecoinglobal.com/security/COGNITIVE-PT Wink

Cheers.

so i am blind...sorry sir.. ahh i remember now....it was still outta my price that's why I forgot

But how about a ASICMiner then you gonna set that up I guess?

No problem.

On the ASICMINER, it's definitely a possibility. We'll see how the BTCTC one does.

Cheers.

Zedster

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: burnside on March 03, 2013, 04:19:12 AM

Quote from: Zedster on March 03, 2013, 04:01:54 AM

Any chance you will ever offer Cognitive as a pass thru on LTC-Global burnie?

burnie. lol. Wink

There's no point to me doing one. Garr has an official one up already at https://www.litecoinglobal.com/security/COGNITIVE-PT Wink

Cheers.

so i am blind...sorry sir.. ahh i remember now....it was still outta my price that's why I forgot

But how about a ASICMiner then you gonna set that up I guess?

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

Quote from: Zedster on March 03, 2013, 04:01:54 AM

Any chance you will ever offer Cognitive as a pass thru on LTC-Global burnie?

burnie. lol. Wink

There's no point to me doing one. Garr has an official one up already at https://www.litecoinglobal.com/security/COGNITIVE-PT Wink

Cheers.

Zedster

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Any chance you will ever offer Cognitive as a pass thru on LTC-Global burnie?

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4522

Merit: 3426

Quote from: burnside on March 01, 2013, 12:19:01 PM

Quote from: matthewh3 on March 01, 2013, 09:12:47 AM

Also have you ever thought of dropping all fees for listing orders and have the people who buy into orders pay all the fee instead. I think this would encourage traders to put up more listings and improve fluidity. It's also what the GLBSE did IIRC.

That's a good question. I have thought about it. GLBSE when I first started using it did it this way, then it seems like later on it was silently changed to both sides paying. I remember being pretty pissed when I realized this because I'd stupidly been placing orders that I could have executed right away for just a few satoshi's difference.

It doesn't necessarily have to be all or nothing. It could be 0.1% to place an order on the book and 0.3% to execute for instance. That might be a more balanced approach and still encourage more use of the order book.

What does everyone else think? Would it really have the intended effect of better liquidity?

I am for it.

1. It will bring bid and ask prices closer and improve liquidity.
2. When you make a bid or ask, you are incurring an extra hidden cost because you are giving anyone the option to fill your order at any time, and that option is worth something. Removing the fee for making a bid or ask mitigates that loss.

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

I've setup an ASICMINER passthru.

https://btct.co/security/ASICMINER-PT

Please vote if you are able. Wink

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

The OAuth API now supports internal coin transfers.

Cheers.

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

Quote from: maunderingcabal on March 02, 2013, 12:20:58 AM

This is messed up. Now I have nothing to do.

doh, it's Friday night man!

Wink

The HDD filled up on the backend server. I had to purge some backups to make some room. If you sent a deposit, it should come in shortly as the daemon catches up with the chain.

Cheers.

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: Deprived on March 02, 2013, 01:31:47 AM

It's back up now.

cron script might have run every on every :30 ?

Deprived

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

It's back up now.

maunderingcabal

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Don't dwell in the past, don't dream of the future

This is messed up. Now I have nothing to do.

Deprived

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Yeah LTC-Global is down too. Seems like the problem is accessing his backend server to check balances - you can view and navigate the site fine if you aren't logged in (try it in a different browser and you'll see) but soon as you login it fails.

ThickAsThieves

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: endlesscustoms on March 01, 2013, 11:47:37 PM

hey something is up i try to log in i get

Error:

Xcoind backend failure in getbalance at 774

Same here.

endlesscustoms

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

hey something is up i try to log in i get

Error:

Xcoind backend failure in getbalance at 774

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

Quote from: btharper on March 01, 2013, 04:17:09 PM

Quote from: burnside on March 01, 2013, 12:19:01 PM

Quote from: matthewh3 on March 01, 2013, 09:12:47 AM

Also have you ever thought of dropping all fees for listing orders and have the people who buy into orders pay all the fee instead. I think this would encourage traders to put up more listings and improve fluidity. It's also what the GLBSE did IIRC.

That's a good question. I have thought about it. GLBSE when I first started using it did it this way, then it seems like later on it was silently changed to both sides paying. I remember being pretty pissed when I realized this because I'd stupidly been placing orders that I could have executed right away for just a few satoshi's difference.

It doesn't necessarily have to be all or nothing. It could be 0.1% to place an order on the book and 0.3% to execute for instance. That might be a more balanced approach and still encourage more use of the order book.

What does everyone else think? Would it really have the intended effect of better liquidity?

As a quick note, how would this impact DRIP purchases when they can't be immediately fulfilled? I'd assume placed on the orderbook for someone else to pay the higher fee on?

The DRIP behavior right now is that it continues to build up until it sees an order fitting the existing DRIP criteria, in which case the trade gets executed. When it was first setup I had considered having it place orders, rather than just waiting, but I wasn't sure that was a good idea. It would have to place the order at the max you specify you're willing to pay and when there's not a lot of volume you would potentially end up overpaying.

Thinking about it though, it's probably better to have the DRIP place orders, because then someone might fill them, you never know. Plus then the currency would be on reserve and you wouldn't be quite as likely to forget that the DRIP is in place and doing it's thing.

btharper

sr. member

Activity: 389

Merit: 250

Quote from: burnside on March 01, 2013, 12:19:01 PM

Quote from: matthewh3 on March 01, 2013, 09:12:47 AM

Also have you ever thought of dropping all fees for listing orders and have the people who buy into orders pay all the fee instead. I think this would encourage traders to put up more listings and improve fluidity. It's also what the GLBSE did IIRC.

That's a good question. I have thought about it. GLBSE when I first started using it did it this way, then it seems like later on it was silently changed to both sides paying. I remember being pretty pissed when I realized this because I'd stupidly been placing orders that I could have executed right away for just a few satoshi's difference.

It doesn't necessarily have to be all or nothing. It could be 0.1% to place an order on the book and 0.3% to execute for instance. That might be a more balanced approach and still encourage more use of the order book.

What does everyone else think? Would it really have the intended effect of better liquidity?

As a quick note, how would this impact DRIP purchases when they can't be immediately fulfilled? I'd assume placed on the orderbook for someone else to pay the higher fee on?

usagi

vip

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

13

Quote from: burnside on March 01, 2013, 12:19:01 PM

Quote from: matthewh3 on March 01, 2013, 09:12:47 AM

Also have you ever thought of dropping all fees for listing orders and have the people who buy into orders pay all the fee instead. I think this would encourage traders to put up more listings and improve fluidity. It's also what the GLBSE did IIRC.

That's a good question. I have thought about it. GLBSE when I first started using it did it this way, then it seems like later on it was silently changed to both sides paying. I remember being pretty pissed when I realized this because I'd stupidly been placing orders that I could have executed right away for just a few satoshi's difference.

It doesn't necessarily have to be all or nothing. It could be 0.1% to place an order on the book and 0.3% to execute for instance. That might be a more balanced approach and still encourage more use of the order book.

What does everyone else think? Would it really have the intended effect of better liquidity?

It should be maker/taker (adding liquidity, i.e. limit orders = no fees)

right?

burnside

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1006

Lead Blockchain Developer

Quote from: matthewh3 on March 01, 2013, 09:12:47 AM

Also have you ever thought of dropping all fees for listing orders and have the people who buy into orders pay all the fee instead. I think this would encourage traders to put up more listings and improve fluidity. It's also what the GLBSE did IIRC.

That's a good question. I have thought about it. GLBSE when I first started using it did it this way, then it seems like later on it was silently changed to both sides paying. I remember being pretty pissed when I realized this because I'd stupidly been placing orders that I could have executed right away for just a few satoshi's difference.

It doesn't necessarily have to be all or nothing. It could be 0.1% to place an order on the book and 0.3% to execute for instance. That might be a more balanced approach and still encourage more use of the order book.

What does everyone else think? Would it really have the intended effect of better liquidity?

matthewh3

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1003

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on February 28, 2013, 06:24:59 PM

Quote from: burnside on February 28, 2013, 03:06:22 PM

Quote from: poly on February 28, 2013, 08:02:30 AM

You don't have a dedicated bitcoind server with a quite few gigs of space?

Of course. My point is that if the wallet.dat hits even a GB life is really going to suck when I'm trying to keep backups every X minutes and queries to the wallet db take forever.

The wallet is just a BerkleyDB file and unlike most other databases, there's no caching layer on it and as far as I can tell, no safe way to clean out old junk in a bitcoin wallet.

I'll keep looking into it, but it's clear to me that with the stock bitcoind it isn't going to be prudent to roll out fresh addresses per transaction.

Cheers.

Yeah, it's not really a good idea to have a massive wallet.dat file. You can always use a coin mixer if you want that much privacy.

Other exchanges can do it and for privacy reasons users would prefer not to have wallet addresses tied to their account.

Also have you ever thought of dropping all fees for listing orders and have the people who buy into orders pay all the fee instead. I think this would encourage traders to put up more listings and improve fluidity. It's also what the GLBSE did IIRC.

Topic: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 119. (Read 316669 times)