Topic: Test for free our new futures exchange, and get paid bitcoin! - page 3. (Read 1080 times)

I can confirm that @LoyceV problem also occurred to me. But a couple of hours later, at the time, I was able to normally log on.

---

I'm retesting the site now and seems a couple of things already being worked on, that seem promising.

Anyway, I noticed there is a reset layout button on the settings icon at the navbar. I wonder what does its functionality? Does it mean you plan to add more trade layout views?

I think we indeed have a bug related to half light and half dark themes, we'll investigate. Thanks!

And yes, we are working right now on making it simpler. We'll do a tutorial eventually, but for now we just want to make it easier and more intuitive.


I think we can use the scripting language to achieve the same effect without having one person holding multiple keys. So funds might be moved with the following combinations:

P1 + P2
P1 + P3 + P4
P2 + P3 + P4

Also P3 and P4 can have encrypted key backups so that funds are not lost in case P1+P3 or P2+P4 die at the same time. It seems really unlikely that P1 and P2 will die simultaneously, and it also seems really unlikely that the backups for both P3 and P4 are compromised simultaneously, and even so one of P1 and P2 would need to sign such a transaction.


Thanks for the candid feedback. Just to make things clear, we would never publish personal information (emails, etc). What we would do is use email + some random salt to generate a hash for each user and then, for each incoming deposit or withdraw, we would publish this hash. So no personal data involved! (and no GDPR violation for sure)

That would be somewhat equivalent to you geting your withdraws from the same address you used to deposit. Maybe you are right and this is really a bad idea, but I don't really understand why someone would be scared by that.

One reason I thought this was OK is because in the long-term I want to make our exchange work with decentralized custody. Fully decentralized exchanges have a lot of problems with latency, front-running and large fees (or spreads) that are really hard to solve. So I think we can get the best out of both worlds with centralized order matching + decentralized custody and setlement.

In this model, traders would make deposits and receive withdraws from smart contracts, and everybody would be able to easily link deposits and withdraws, so that I why I thought this lack of privacy would not be a big issue for most users.

After this explanation, do you still feel that this is a bad idea? If so, can you elaborate on what exactly do you think is bad or will scare users away?


We would publish that daily (and maybe even save the hash in the blockchain) so we would have no power to change history.

Also, we if wanted to publish daily balances we could have a full proof of funds! Everyone would be able to check that we have as much funds as the sum of all balances because everyone would be to see the their own balance associated with their own user hash in a public ledger, and they would be able to see that our cold storage address contains at least the sum of all balances listed there.

But again, there are privacy considerations here, so this may turn out to be a very bad idea. We'll not do that if the overall feedback from the community is negative, and of course we would be very transparent regarding what privacy we can offer.


Are you sure you didn't forgot your password? We only store a hash of your password, so we have a limited ability to debug that. We are being able to access our own accounts just fine.

Can you try the "Forgot password? Reset" link and see if it works? This should send you a link in your email to set a new password.

There aren't many people I'd truely trust with a large amount of money. I mean, how well can you really know someone? Finding someone who wouldn't save you is the easy part

I wanted to test it, but I now get this:
Login Error: We cannot find a valid account with this credentials

I also noticed that when I log in after some time my dark them is all messed up and it is half light and half dark.
Like I said before, many people don't have a clue what they are doing with futures trading so making good tutorial and instructions is must have feature for your website.

I understand that and I don't expect total privacy and private transactions on public blockchain like Bitcoin, but I don't think that publishing all withdraw and deposit transactions will help you with US regulators.
They want strict regulations connected with identity of the person and their documentation, so even some dex exchanges have issues with them.

You are right, we should show a warning whenever your request is below the minimum, just like happens when you put 0. We'll investigate what is going wrong with the withdraw confirmation link, thanks for letting us know!


Oh no our exchange went down from 8:40 to 13:55 UTC. Even worse, our monitor bot that should have waked us up in this scenario didn't.

It is up and running again, and we fixed the monitor, so we hope we won't have such downtimes again. We'll also fix the "Contact us" link.


Margin trading is known to be confusing for many people and I'm sure that many other people would have a similar experience. It is really important for us to figure out a way to make margin trading easier and more intuitive.

What happens is that whenever you open an order, some of your balance is frozen as margin for that order, depending on how much leverage you select. For example, if you use 5x leverage to open an order with size 10 mBTC, we'll freeze 2 mBTC from your balance. That's the most you can lose by opening this order.



If you instead use 100x leverage, we'll only freeze 0.1 mBTC for the same order. This is the margin associated with this order.



When your order gets executed, the margin associated with the order becomes associated with the position instead:



This is the size of your position, and how much margin is associated with it:





The same value that appears on the "Total Margin" above remains frozen in your balance, until you close the position. When you close the position, you will get more than what was frozen if you made a profit on your trade, or less than what was frozen otherwise. Again, you'll never lose more money than what was frozen: the worst that can happen is you get liquidated and the amount frozen is lost.

The "Entry Price" tells you what is the reference price. So if you have a long position, you need to sell higher than this price to make a profit, and if you have a short position, you need to buy back lower than this price to make a profit. If price moves against and reaches the "Liquidation Price" you may get liquidated and lose the amount frozen.



Do you this explanation helps? Please let me know whether there is anything else that is still confusing to you, as anything confusing you is likely to confuse to many other people too!


Paradoxically, the less the other key holders care about my own personal well-being, the more secure I am, as long as everybody knows about it (for any high-level criminals reading this old post from the future, be warned that you won't be able to get away with anything unless you can pull off a simultaneous operation in multiple countries!).


Yes, I meant decryption keys. Let us define P3 to be the person trusted by P1 who holds the encrypted copy of key A, and P4 to be the person trusted by P2 who holds the encrypted copy of key B.

You are absolutely right about the plausible deniability problem. If P3 teams up with P2, that is indistinguishable from P1 teaming up with P2.
Being P1, I don't worry much about this scenario. At least in my perspective, I have people that I can trust very much, and the problem is finding someone I can trust that won't be giving the funds as ransom to save me from danger. But if this arrangement makes people feel unconfortable to deposit their funds, we can find another solution.

One possibility might be to have a 4-out-of-6 multisig with P1 and P2 holding 2 keys each, and P3 and P4 holding 1 key each. What do you think of this idea? No four keys are in a single continent, and we can know for sure who signed a transaction.


That would be great to know, but I can't find enough information about it.


You can find all information about the position here:




Yes, agreed, we'll work on that!


We'll be giving a lot more information about our future TICK tokens whenever we start preparations for our ICO. But we can tall you now that we'll be using some percentage of the net revenue to buy back tokens, traders will be incentivized to hold tokens in proportion to the volume they make to get fee discounts, and holding tokens will also be needed to get maximum referral bonuses.

Hopefully we'll be able to give investors confidence in our project and in the team to make it attractive as an investment. We plan on competing heads-on against major exchanges like FTX and Binance, so raising money will help us grow in future.

I must say however that growth and fundraising is not top priority right now. Rather, the most important thing is getting our product to work well, making it easy and intuitive for users, achieving product-market fit, validating market hypothesis, etc. We'll move to full-speed growth mode once we are sure that users really like our product and once we can establish that the expected value of new users is consistently higher than the acquisition costs.


Nice! Multiple addresses is in our to-do list, as is LN and other channels. In the future we'll also try to establish channels with other exchanges so that margin can be transfered immediately in between exchanges. This would help arbitrators quite a lot, because they hedge positions in different exchanges, and today they are often overcollateralized. They fear getting liquidated in one exchange even while making profits at another. But it remains to be seen how open big exchanges are to this idea.

In the long-term we also want to move to a hybrid model in which we allow decentralized custody in smart contracts while maintaining centralized orderbook and matching. We think this may provide most of the benefits of decentralized exchanges while allowing much more liquidity.

This may also allow US citizens to trade with us without legal problems on our side, as according to US legal interpretation we only have to be regulated as futures exchange if we are holding the users' margin as guarantee for trading.

I'm afraid we may let you down with our privacy commitments, though. While ideologically we are totally in favor of private transactions, for several reasons we don't want people to use our exchange to mix bitcoins. We may actually do the very opposite and publish all transaction data allowing anyone to link withdraw and deposit transactions, so that in some sense your account is just like a set of public addresses in the blockchain. By doing so we can counter the argument used by governments that exchanges either have to require KYC identification from all users or else they are complicit in money laundering.

Of course, users will be able to mix their incoming and outgoing transactions if they want! I see some exchanges (like Binance) harassing their users for depositing from or withdrawing to a mixer. That is totally unacceptable in my opinion.


Fixing that is top priority right now. It may take a few days but I'll let you all know once it is done.


You can see Profit and Loss in the "My Trades" tab. Users selecting their liquidation price (and therefore leverage being chose automatically) seems like a very good idea. We are designing a new interface to let users define more easily how much money they want to risk, at what price they want to close their positions and take profits, and so on. This may take quite a while, though. We have a very small team right now.


Also on the to-do list! We'll get that one done before we launch with real bitcoin.


Great idea, we'll be sending withdraw address in the confirmation email. Logging in again is indeed not necessary.

Your balance should be frozen for the withdraw. I'll see what the problem is!

Edit 1:
We found the withdraw problem, and we are working on it.

Edit 2:
Our market making bot is currently having an issue. You may not see the prices updating as you would expect. I'm trying to get it fixed.

When withdrawing, can you add the withdrawal address to the confirmation email? That's always a good check.
After clicking the confirmation link, I'm asked to login again (I don't think that step is necessary). My withdrawal is Pending now, so it seems to work. But the Pending amount isn't added to the Frozen amount (I think it should!).

When I open "Trading rules" on the bottom of the page in a new window, I'm again asked to login.

On what exchanges are you planning to list your token?
I guess if this token would have some real utility on your website than it would be ok, but most of the tokens we see in market are totally useless so I am always a bit skeptical about them, but thanks for sending some btc

I just deposited around 13.7 testnet mBTC in my account, and my suggestion is to add optional generating of new addresses each time I am sending new deposit.
It is much better for privacy, instead of reusing same address but I am not sure how complicated implementation of this feature is going to be for you.
Think about adding Lightning Network or other options when fees are high on Bitcoin mainnet.

It's working fine now, but I also had automatic logging-off from website like other members reported earielr.
Before placing BUY or SELL order we should be able to manually enter liquidation price, and order should stay in open orders until it's closed, and I would also add Profit and Loss section in left side.
One more suggestion I have is to add 2FA to improve account security.

I'm still not sure what I'm doing, for people new to this it's not very obvious what "buy" and "sell" does in relation with the margin and current price.

While trying, I got an error:

When I click "Contact us", it shortly shows a contact form, then jumps back to the error page. I don't think that's supposed to happen.

Hence my question about the encrypted backups: is that really safer?

So which one do you prefer: losing funds in a $5 wrench attack, or losing your life? Both options aren't desirable.
Bitcointalk uses this 3-of-5 multisig setup to hold (substantial) forum funds.

I've never found the perfect solution for my own keys, there's always the trade-off between the risk of losing access by myself, and someone else gaining access.

Did you mean "decryption keys" instead of "encryption keys"? If so: it looks to me like the opposite is true: P1 and the person holding backup key B together have all the information to decrypt the backup key, which gives them all they need to steal the funds.

Allow me to edit this statement: If P1 doesn't die, the person trusted by P1 can approach P2 and ask for the encryption key. If P2 agrees, they split the money. And you wouldn't even know if it was P1 or his "trusted" person who made the deal with P2, they'd both have plausible deniability! At least with a 2-of-4 multisig where the person trusted by P1 holds a different (encrypted) key, you'd know for sure who signed the transaction stealing funds.



Maybe it's worth looking into how exchanges handle this. They've lost many Bitcoins in the past, but seem to have improved their setups nowadays.

Shouldn't those open positions show up under Open Orders? If not: where can I find back the details to those open positions?

That would help

So that explains my confusion: if "positions" are different from "orders", they should show up in the list under "Open Orders".

Sure, you know where to find me.

Confirmed, thanks.

Yep, I tried the withdrawal feature. But doesn't seem it works. I did receive the withdrawal request confirmation, but when I click it, it just shows your login page. When I log on, the withdrawal status doesn't change.

At first, I thought you didn't activate the withdrawing feature on this test mode, checking out the network log, it shows me an API 500 Internal Server Error. Turns out I'm requesting below the minimum required amount(<1mBtc). Maybe you could show a warning to the user if they requested below the minimum amount, I notice if I put 0, the site gives an error the amount not accepted.

This is just placeholder account information for a page that is not yet ready. Sorry for that, we updated to remove this page while we get it working.


Thanks for the suggestion! Purchased it already, just waiting for the confirmation. Sorry for the two posts in a row, won't do that again.


That is an interesting discussion, I might open a new topic eventually to get more feedback on the relative merits of the two solutions. Yes, 2-out-of-3 is the standard solution, but we don't have three trusted people in three geographically different regions. For instance, I do have a co-founder who lives nearby, but we can't hold one key each because we see each other nearly every day, or else someone might track us down and kidnap both of us at once. Other trusted people living further away are close friends and would not commit to keeping the funds safe in case me or my family is in danger. So this is quite a complicated problem if you think about it. We know it will probably take quite some time before we are entrusted with significant assets, but we take the responsibility of holding other people's money very seriously.

In the 2-out-of-2 multisig proposal that we are considering, the backup keys can be cross-encrypted. So we have:

P1 holding key A + encryption keys for backup of key B
P2 holding key B + encryption keys for backup of key A

So the person holding the backup key A can't team up with the person holding backup key B to steal the funds. If P1 dies, the person trusted by P1 holding the backup for key A will approach P2 and ask for the encryption key, and vice versa. Moreover, kidnapping P1's loved ones is useless because, although P1 and P2 trust each other, neither P2 nor P2's backup holder have personal ties to P1. We can verify that the backup holders have not lost their keys by giving them several other files encrypted with several other keys and asking them regularly to provide proof that they can open them.

But yes, we agree this is a nonstandard solution, and we are going to ask the community for feedback on this approach before we make a decision.


Thanks for the feedback, this has happened to me as well, we are trying to investigate what is causing this issue. We'll let you know once it is fixed.


You are the second person to report being confused about the frozen funds, so that is something we definitively need to improve. What is happening here is that, while you do not have open orders, you do have open positions, and these freeze your balance as well! The amount frozen is the most you can lose if the price goes against you and you get liquidated. You can see that the amount frozen is exacly what is in the "Total Margin" field of the position. Still, given that everybody is getting confused about that, we need to find a way to make it more intuitive!

One idea I am considering is having a small information icon next to the frozen balance, so that when the user hovers the mouse over it, a popup baloon appears explaining the breakdown of what is causing the balance to be frozen (how much due to open orders, how much due to open position, how much due to other stuff like pending withdraws).

Another idea is adding a line for an open position next to the open orders, along with a button for the user to close it, just like Binance and other exchanges have. This may help making it more clear that you do have a position open. Any other ideas?


Our servers are running in AWS at the Tokyo region, so there may be some network ping for the orders to get there and ping back. Latency will get worse when using Tor, but the website should not get unresponsible because of that. May we reach up to you later to investigate this issue?

Thanks for the very helpful feedback. You also made the first tBTC deposit and several trades. You even made a big high-leverage position and got liquidated!

Just sent 0.6 mBTC, thanks!

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e7134e05efe43cb58142883bf5b5666833bfaf1e7fa12eb3dc8dcf7498c1b030



Thanks for the feedback, we'll be fixing all these issues! I feel we need to learn more about what is causing friction before we can create a good tutorial, though. Also, we saw several withdraw requests, was it you?

Thank you all!

Kelvin

Saw that too. Pretty sure it's just a placeholder.
I did notice the site slower when I opened it over Tor, when I don't the site is quite fast.

---

Gonna give a few inputs about the UI/UX.
I think it's better to match the order book tick size to the whole site theme. Displaying the default select box might look not too good. I also notice on the feedback page, the "Submit a Feedback" section, there is some text that overlaying the image on the smaller screen size.

Upon clicking the calculator(?) icon on the "Place Order" section, Did you intended to put the arrow left-facing? if the icon is intended to close the window, personally, it's better to make the arrow facing right, or maybe just change it to the exit icon. Also, it would be good if it is able to close the window when clicking outside the "Profit Calculator" window.

I also notice the dollar sign icon on the Position section alignment looks off compared to the others icon. The last thing is, I agree if you make a tutorial instruction on the Trade page.

Things I noticed:
When I click Account, I see this:
Does that mean I'm seeing someone else's email address (and even IP address) (censored to post it here)?

I tried to deposit tBTC, but get "transaction failed" in Coinomi. It used to work just fine, but that problem is on my end. I used a 2 faucets instead, deposits arrived as expected.

Related to the image links you posted: Did you know a Copper Membership (around $20) allows you to post embedded images as a Newbie (otherwise you'd have to be at least Jr. Member).
Also: please check the forum rules: you should edit your last post if you're the last one who posted in a topic instead of making 2 posts in a row.

This sounds risky: who gets access to the encrypted copies, and doesn't that negate the use of multisig?
Have you considered 2-out-of-3 multisig instead? One in Brazil, one in North America, and the last key wherever you're currently keeping the 2 encrypted copies?

I've tested 2 margin/forex trading sites before. I'm playing around on yours now. As before, I feel like I have no idea what I'm doing

What's annoying, is that I was logged out after a while, without warning. I wasn't even unactive, I had just closed some trades.

I can confim the Frozen funds:

It doesn't look right to have funds Frozen/Margin without open orders (but again: I feel like a total n00b in this). Or maybe it just takes a while to update the value?

Could it be the bots weren't on a bit earlier? Now the entire site gets quite unresponsive because of the quick movements everywhere. It might be because I'm using Tor (and my laptop is quite old), but it takes several seconds for a new order to be added.

Regarding your technical issue, I believe we were just updating the system the moment you tried. Can you try again and tell us if the problem persists?