|
Partial refund received.
For what its worth.... thank you!
|
|
|
|
So looks like he'll gladly add it, but we need to be on an exchange and have an api available.
This would be great for exposure as most people in the crypto space use coinmarketcap.
IMHO the built-in distributed exchange already counts as a public one - anyone can join it and trade. Guess we only need the price ticker, which blockscan alreay does, and just needs to expose the API for it. API has already been added. this is the json api for BTC/XCP http://blockscan.com/api2.aspx?module=price&asset1=BTC&asset2=XCP+1 I have also added an API for XCP money supply at http://blockscan.com/api2.aspx?module=supply&asset=XCPSo now you should have sufficient information for a listing on coinmarketcap. This should be the first functional DEX .. ever.. |
|
|
|
So looks like he'll gladly add it, but we need to be on an exchange and have an api available.
This would be great for exposure as most people in the crypto space use coinmarketcap.
IMHO the built-in distributed exchange already counts as a public one - anyone can join it and trade. Guess we only need the price ticker, which blockscan alreay does, and just needs to expose the API for it. API has already been added. this is the json api for BTC/XCP http://blockscan.com/api2.aspx?module=price&asset1=BTC&asset2=XCP |
|
|
|
I didn't see an answer, so I'll ask again....
What happens to the 5 XCM fee you pay when you issue an asset?
I believe they are burnt Question - why burn them, rather then pay miners for supporting the XCP (rather then blocking it in their transactions)? The miners on the bitcoin network can only be paid with btc. But the fee for asset issuance is in XCP (5) |
|
|
|
I didn't see an answer, so I'll ask again....
What happens to the 5 XCM fee you pay when you issue an asset?
I believe they are burnt |
|
|
|
I didn't see an answer, so I'll ask again....
What happens to the 5 XCM fee you pay when you issue an asset?
Hi PhantomPhreak Just a quick question. Is the asset fee correctly calculated. I see the fee listed under issuances.fee_paid as "5" for valid entries. However, since the value is divisible shouldn't this be listed as (500000000) XCP instead of 5? cheers |
|
|
|
In regards to having xcp added to coinmarketcap. I PM'ed Gliss to ask about the criteria and this was his response: Criteria for a coin to be added: Must be a cryptocurrency Must be traded on a public exchange that is older than 30 days and with an API available. Must have a public URL that displays the total supply (total mined so far). Request form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1IZf5cBivam_93zENT_arFFuvWDidHGjWxoTMVmFSoWg/viewformSomeone has already submitted XCP to be added, but hasn't included a public exchange yet. Do you know of any? So looks like he'll gladly add it, but we need to be on an exchange and have an api available. This would be great for exposure as most people in the crypto space use coinmarketcap. GOOD The exchange is the distributed exchange - order book on www.blockscan.com. We probably need to put in a request for blockscan to include an API. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=406408.0Yes.Only need provide API now. I am somewhat hesitant to put up one as I am not entirely sure how the official client will calculate the last dex price. Whether this will be based on the BTCPAY transaction date, based on the order_match or order placed. I am currently using the BTCPay transaction date for last matched and paid. I am not entirely sure if this will help the cause but here you go. New API added at http://blockscan.com/api.aspx . Please take note this is beta and there could be errors For the total supply, at the moment the MAX amount of coins available is FIXED at the burn rate (2648755.9218 XCP) which is a fixed value. However, over time the number of coins will diminish as they are used for fees (i.e Asset Issuance fees at the moment). But the fees amount at moment this is negligible |
|
|
|
Getting another error now with v 0.4
I am pretty sure it does not exceed 8 decimals
buy 0.12 btc for 20 XCP
---
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 515, in <module>
fee_provided = util.devise(db, args.fee_provided, 'BTC', 'input')
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\util.py", line 552, in devise
raise exceptions.QuantityError('Divisible assets have only eight decimal places of precision.')
lib.exceptions.QuantityError: Divisible assets have only eight decimal places of precision.
That problem should be fixed in this commit. I am unable to test your latest commit, because the latest develop throws another new issue this time (and this is with NO fee specificied in the command line) File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 513, in <module> raise exceptions.FeeError('When buying BTC, do not specify a fee provided.') lib.exceptions.FeeError: When buying BTC, do not specify a fee provided. |
|
|
|
another small questions: how can i check which version of counterpartyd is currently installed? (i am not sure if am running the new V0.3) and why are the top buy and sell orders not matching immediately? http://www.blockscan.com/order_book.aspx-V for checking version I am running the latest develop git .. And I suspect there still might be pending issues due to the rounding/division bugs |
|
|
|
|
Getting another error now with v 0.4
I am pretty sure it does not exceed 8 decimals
buy 0.12 btc for 20 XCP
---
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\counterpartyd.py", line 515, in <module>
fee_provided = util.devise(db, args.fee_provided, 'BTC', 'input')
File "C:\counterpartyd_build\dist\counterpartyd\lib\util.py", line 552, in devise
raise exceptions.QuantityError('Divisible assets have only eight decimal places of precision.')
lib.exceptions.QuantityError: Divisible assets have only eight decimal places of precision.
|
|
|
|
I am seeing orders that are supposed to be matching but not matching?? For instance this order http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3444 (before it got cancelled) should been matched with http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3443 , but did not? another Example 3447 100 XCP 0.006000 BTC/XCP 0.6 BTC Should have matched with 3443 200 XCP 0.006 BTC/XCP 1.2 BTC But are not There was a rounding bug, whose fix will go into effect with block 286000 (which will be in around a week) in a completely backwards-compatible way. The new version is v0.4. Ok. That makes sense because I checked the DB directly and the figure should have matched |
|
|
|
I am seeing orders that are supposed to be matching but not matching?? For instance this order http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3444 (before it got cancelled) should been matched with http://blockscan.com/tx.aspx?q=3443 , but did not? another Example 3447 100 XCP 0.006000 BTC/XCP 0.6 BTC Should have matched with 3443 200 XCP 0.006 BTC/XCP 1.2 BTC But are not |
|
|
|
I have the counterpartyd running fine but now am lost.
When a bid is matched, for example I place a request to buy XCP with and it matches an order to sell XCP.
Is the transaction then completed automatically by counterpartyd or do I need to complete the transaction manually?
You would need to do a 'btcsend' to complete the transaction. Thank you. And would the seller also need to send the XCP to the buyer manually? Does the system prevent scammer from taking advantage of the exchange? If anything the buyers of XCP are the most protected as the seller's XCP coins are locked in (balance deducted) by the protocol and only released upon a matching BTCPAY or expiration |
|
|
|
issuance --source=YOUR_ADDRESS --asset=ASSETNAME --quantity=QUANTITY divisible if asset[0] == 'A': raise exceptions.AssetNameError('starts with ‘A’')
lib.exceptions.AssetNameError: starts with ‘A’ What is your version of countepartyd? You need to update to the latest version v0.3. 已经升级到最新版了 You can't have asset names that start with the letter A. Correct. Never put an 'A' in front of any asset! This is prohibited by Counterparty protocol. Got it. But why? this was explained somewhere back in the thread. It has to do with how the AssetId is calculated based on the asset names and there are certain requirements for this |
|
|
|
|
Selling XCP for 0.006BTC/XCP.
Up to 500 300 XCP available or while stocks last
sold
|
|
|
|
Yes, without escrow, anyone can eat all the sell orders without much cost. Therefore, I suggest
1) add proportional escrow fee in XCP for buy orders.
2) buy orders less than 10 XCP is free from escrow fee, so new users without XCP can still use the exchange.
All escrow fee goes to the seller if Btcpay is not sent in time. Otherwise, it goes back to the buyer.
I see one potential problem with the XCP escrow solution: what do we do about honest XCP buyers who want to place limit orders? Unless I am mistaken, under this system if I place a resting limit order to buy XCP and turn off my computer, I run the risk of an XCP seller hitting my bid and collecting the escrowed XCP, since I am not around to execute a BTCPay. This would really discourage XCP buyers from placing resting orders. Maybe this is not a bad thing though. Since XCP is not built for high-frequency trading there is nothing wrong with a 1-sided order book reflecting the asymmetry in XCP/BTC exchange. The XCP/BTC exchange would just resemble Ebay instead of the NYSE. I am not sure how the expire time of BTCPay is set. Is it always set by the XCP sellers? Could the buyer of limit order set it? If it is set by the buyer, then problem solved. How about who put the order first always determine the BTCPay expire time? I think attempting to solve all issues directly with the protocol would be challenging so early on. However using some of the suggestions stated earlier certain checks can be placed to prevent 'obvious' abuse / trolling issues like the buyer eating up all btc orders with little to no cost. As for the notification when a btcpay is due, some form of client side notification could be developed. Once the GUI clients are out and the information becomes more accessible issues like these become more manageable. There also can be perhaps a minimum allowance limit time limit to allow the buyer to make the payment before the escrow is forfeited in case the expiration period is too short Cheers |
|
|
|
Hi PhantomPreak I am also running into this issue. Managed to get it resolved once by sending coins in but consequently the same issue occurred. I've sent you a pm with the debug information |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
