|
A curiosity:
After beta period, Is the code/protocol for JoinMarket (I didn't review it) gonna be ready for scalability and adoption/mixing of ('most liquid') altcoins like Litecoin?
|
|
|
|
"Democracy" as its best, huh?  |
|
|
|
|
All this could be avoided if anonymity were top priority within bitcoin development, so that we could have an implementation inside the main client...
I guess we'll have to wait for some sidechain miracle (if it arrives)...
Meanwhile JoinMarket is still too Alpha for general use...
|
|
|
|
|
When launch time comes, which cryptocoins will be available for trading?
My personal "hint" for the first 7 candidates: Bitcoin (obviously); BlockShares (obviously); Litecoin (the second mkt cap and liquidity); Nubits (Nu echosystem); Nushares (Nu echosystem); Peercoin (¿Nu system's dividends?); Dash (or Monero, whichever has higher mkt cap and liquidity - for anonymity concerns).
|
|
|
|
I use your service to convert my altcoins to bitcoins but I am not happy with your high exchange fees
There are no fees, only spread... ...or am I wrong? You're correct, it is a matter of spread, not fees. Users get exactly the exchange rate shown on the site. To get better rates, you should always put in a "Specific Amount". Since many of these coin markets are thin/illiquid, there is friction in converting between them, and some people incorrectly believe it is a ShapeShift "fee." We've struggled with how to communicate this effectively to users. If written words are not working, maybe infographics should help...  BTW people should think about liquidity concerns before asking for altcoin 'XYZ' to be added... P.s. Through observation, I guess only Bitcoin can be traded with large volumes (various max vol. limit exchanges repeated times) without moving the spread too much on ShapeShift. |
|
|
|
Strategy 1:You're always playing 9900x using a martingale sequence, i.e. your wager for each round is ceiling((2 - PLAYER_BR)/9899,1e-8) you run out of funds after 6861 bets. You lose all of them with a probability of 0.9999^6861 = 0.5035187605260536 or put differently you have a 49.64812% chance of winning. Strategy 2:You're constantly playing 20203 satoshi but increase the payout each round by exactly 1x starting at 4951x which will leave you with 1.00004850 BTC profit. You run out of funds after 4949 games and your last payout will be 9899x. You lose all of them with a probability of prod(1-0.99/i, i=4949..9899) = 0.5035283796177312 leading to a 49.64716% chance of winning. I Hope the math is correct  How about this: bet 0.01088928 BTC @ 1.0664% if you win, your profit is ((99 / 1.0664) - 1) * 0.01088928 = 1.00002474 BTC if not, martingale at the same chance of winning, to keep the same net profit you can afford 64 bets chance of winning = 100 * (1 - ((100 - 1.0664) / 100) ** 64) = 49.649475445976265% Edit: here are the 64 bets: chance multiplier
1.0664% 92.83570893x
bet # stake total lost profit
----- ---------- ----------- ----------
1 0.01088902 1.00000087
2 0.01100759 0.01088902 1.00000081
3 0.01112745 0.02189661 1.00000065
4 0.01124861 0.03302406 1.00000001
5 0.01137110 0.04427267 1.00000036
6 0.01149492 0.05564377 1.00000036
7 0.01162009 0.06713869 1.00000051
8 0.01174662 0.07875878 1.00000040
9 0.01187453 0.09050540 1.00000048
10 0.01200383 0.10237993 1.00000031
11 0.01213454 0.11438376 1.00000032
12 0.01226667 0.12651830 1.00000004
13 0.01240025 0.13878497 1.00000078
14 0.01253527 0.15118522 1.00000019
15 0.01267177 0.16372049 1.00000049
16 0.01280975 0.17639226 1.00000021
17 0.01294924 0.18920201 1.00000063
18 0.01309024 0.20215125 1.00000022
19 0.01323278 0.21524149 1.00000024
20 0.01337687 0.22847427 1.00000007
21 0.01352254 0.24185114 1.00000091
22 0.01366978 0.25537368 1.00000026
23 0.01381863 0.26904346 1.00000022
24 0.01396910 0.28286209 1.00000011
25 0.01412121 0.29683119 1.00000014
26 0.01427498 0.31095240 1.00000051
27 0.01443042 0.32522738 1.00000047
28 0.01458755 0.33965780 1.00000020
29 0.01474640 0.35424535 1.00000075
30 0.01490697 0.36899175 1.00000041
31 0.01506929 0.38389872 1.00000021
32 0.01523338 0.39896801 1.00000024
33 0.01539926 0.41420139 1.00000057
34 0.01556694 0.42960065 1.00000032
35 0.01573645 0.44516759 1.00000045
36 0.01590780 0.46090404 1.00000005
37 0.01608102 0.47681184 1.00000003
38 0.01625613 0.49289286 1.00000036
39 0.01643314 0.50914899 1.00000007
40 0.01661208 0.52558213 1.00000001
41 0.01679297 0.54219421 1.00000009
42 0.01697583 0.55898718 1.00000020
43 0.01716068 0.57596301 1.00000020
44 0.01734755 0.59312369 1.00000086
45 0.01753644 0.61047124 1.00000016
46 0.01772740 0.62800768 1.00000067
47 0.01792043 0.64573508 1.00000031
48 0.01811557 0.66365551 1.00000070
49 0.01831283 0.68177108 1.00000065
50 0.01851224 0.70008391 1.00000077
51 0.01871382 0.71859615 1.00000078
52 0.01891759 0.73730997 1.00000032
53 0.01912359 0.75622756 1.00000088
54 0.01933182 0.77535115 1.00000024
55 0.01954233 0.79468297 1.00000076
56 0.01975512 0.81422530 1.00000015
57 0.01997024 0.83398042 1.00000073
58 0.02018769 0.85395066 1.00000016
59 0.02040752 0.87413835 1.00000072
60 0.02062973 0.89454587 1.00000001
61 0.02085437 0.91517560 1.00000025
62 0.02108146 0.93602997 1.00000085
63 0.02131101 0.95711143 1.00000028
64 0.02154307 0.97842244 1.00000067
0.99996551 Edit: and the calculations showing that it works for the first 5 bets: >>> 0.01088902 * (99/1.0664 - 1)
1.0000008712228057
>>> 0.01100759 * (99/1.0664 - 1) - 0.01088902
1.0000008112303074
>>> 0.01112745 * (99/1.0664 - 1) - 0.01088902 - 0.01100759
1.0000006493023257
>>> 0.01124861 * (99/1.0664 - 1) - 0.01088902 - 0.01100759 - 0.01112745
1.0000000137959488
>>> 0.01137110 * (99/1.0664 - 1) - 0.01088902 - 0.01100759 - 0.01112745 - 0.01124861
1.0000003597824456Edit2: I can make ever increasing longer sequences which do slightly better, but it appears never to beat 49.65222222222% chance of doubling. I wonder if: Anyone tried/tested that already? Any testimony of good/bad luck (success/failure)? |
|
|
|
I use your service to convert my altcoins to bitcoins but I am not happy with your high exchange fees
There are no fees, only spread... ...or am I wrong? |
|
|
|
Does your web wallet support "import private key" feature (especially for ether)? How many addresses can my account have?
Currently we allow to create only 1 address per currency. BTW that's too bad for privacy... It goes (even) against the early Bitcoin white paper concept wrote by our Jedi Master Satoshi Nakamoto: [...] As an additional firewall, a new key pair should be used for each transaction to keep them
from being linked to a common owner. [...] Source: "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". Page 6. |
|
|
|
[...] @Financisto We have thought about this and it is definitely a feature that we would like to add. As a walk around you could use this tool in an offline computer to generate the private keys from your recovery phrase. An old smartphone with an offline signer app would be more user friendly. Nice to hear that's already been considered before. It'll get even better when we have that "online watch-only wallet" working together with an "offline tx-signer wallet" for (available soon, I hope) desktop (Linux, Win, OS X) versions of coinomi. A promising platform, for sure... |
|
|
|
|
Is Coinomi able to Sign transactions from a device that is always offline and Broadcast them from
a machine that does not have your keys?
I mean: is it possible to create an offline wallet then create a watching-only version of that same wallet (using Master Public Key) like Electrum does?
Does BIP44 (as an "upgrade" from BIP32) allow creating unsigned transaction, signing it offline and then broadcasting tx like we do using BIP32?
If not supported yet, are there any plans to add that funcionality to Coinomi soon?
|
|
|
|
|
While reading the white paper a doubt emerged about market makers / liquidity providers:
(Inside B&C Exchange protocol/structure) Are ONLY core clients (that download the FULL blockchain) gonna be supported for liquidity providers?
OR
Are Simplified Payment Verification Clients (e.g. Electrum) gonna be supported too?
|
|
|
|
What does "significantly premined" constitute (e.g. what percentage?) and how is Ethereum not significantly premined when it had an ICO of most of the coin supply and another pure premine for developers of I think 12%?
The original intent was to to distinguish country coins that had a very huge premine (like Auroracoin's 50% premine). In Ethereum's case as long as the ICO coins are in the public's possession, I don't think the premine distinction is necessary. So significant/huge >12%? The developer premine coins aren't in public possession (unless they dumped them? but I'm not sure if the rules even allow that yet). Specification and Quantification of this term ("significantly premined") would be an interesting addition in order to compare cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
UPDATE #4 of year 2015. More GitHub's "metrics" added: number of watchers and # of forks. Dropped Gitlab out: nobody is gonna use that network anyway... Ranking calculation and lists have been updated. Edit:New generator added: Wallet.Peercointalk.orgUpdated website for ethaddress.org project: https://ryepdx.github.io/ethaddress.org
|
|
|
|
|
Nice to see LTC as an option for this great tool
I suggest that you change this topic's title to "Bitgen - bitcoin & litecoin tool for addresses, signatures and encryption"
|
|
|
|
|
I'm curious about something loosely based on this project:
Is Nubot gonna have an important role inside this project (B&C Exchange) the same way it does today as a support liquidity providing tool to Nubits (liquidity) pools?
Will there be any chance to profit from B&C Exchange the way people do running Nubot on top of those pools nowadays?
P.s. I'm (almost) sure that if B&C Exchange prevails Nubits will bump to top 10 market cap.
|
|
|
|
Suggestion: Add something like a (BTC) "Dominance Index" as its shown here: https://coincap.ioIMHO showing BTC's and altcoin's % share of market capitalization is a good way to instantly see (and realize) how strong Bitcoin is at the moment... |
|
|
|
|
You're welcome!
I hope new projects (for both BTC and altcoins with good daily trade volume - such as LTC, ETH etc.) will join the list soon...
|
|
|
|
We encourage you to give us your “return address” when you first enter the transaction. In case the transaction fails for any reason, we can auto-return the funds to you. If you didn’t provide a return address, then we wait for you to get in touch with us to resolve the issue. Tip # three: Input a return address
So we realize that inputing a return address does not ensure your order will succeed, but it will make the process of getting funds back in the case of a failure MUCH easier. This optional feature will save you time as you will not have to contact our support team and request a return. Your funds will automatically return to you in the case your order fails. Our support line is only open Monday-Friday from 11:30 AM EST-7 pm EST, so we are not always able to immediatly return your funds. IMHO you should set as mandatory the "Return address" option instead of optional. That will increase security, decrease your everyday refund requests (and your hard work solving that issues manually) and decrease people complaining about failed transactions considerably. That's my suggestion: think about it... I wish you guys success. Regards. |
|
|
|
|
UPDATE #3 of year 2015.
Brainwallets options/features from multigenerators (Paper wallet + Brainwallet) are now compared against each other and are separated/independent from the Paper wallet option/feature from the same source app: i.e. two lists for two features/options despite which is the main feature of the evaluated generator.
"Inclusive Web Design" (IWD) changes to "Graphical User Interface" (GUI).
Weight (for average purpose) is now 10x for security matters.
List updated and scores upgraded as well.
Keep up the good work everybody!
|
|
|
|
As mentioned at his website: P.s. I didn't test it on WIN though... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
