Well I didn't get your feedback when I first wondered about it:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=13014.msg179733#msg179733

Can you explain me how to read those numbers?

You need to have your account activated by email, and then you'll be able to connect to the test api urls only, with your email for both username and password.
Forgot the latter explained in your activation email.
Now I can get my balance and orders, but then the format is too different from mtgox for a simple String transform as with exchangebitoins.com + all numbers are Strings.
I guess 'm up for loading a JsonObject and doing the fitting in memory. Any other idea?

You should be aware that MtGox takes an additional .65% commission in btc on your bids. So that's really 2% for a return.
Also, quite a few of us have been granted a 0% commission for a transitory period (those who had buy orders canceled by the rolllback)
That probably partially explains the current price stability.

Cheers

I reckon https://www.exchangebitcoins.com deserves more attention.

Their API is close to MtGox:
I apply the 3 following filters on json before the same exact bot logic is run:

• There's a "[" missing in your open orders array iif it's empty
• There are "$" sign to trim in the prices
• Order types have to be converted( 'Sell'=2 and 'Buy'=1)

Cheers

Salut à tous,

A l'heure où la vague Bitcoin commence à déferler sur la France, nous sommes plusieurs à travailler sur des projets d'envergure qui pourraient être mobilisateurs.
Je vous propose un apéro communautaire ou chacun pourra présenter ses projets et d'éventuelles synergies pourront être identifiées.

Il ne s'agira pas de présenter Bitcoin, je vois que Renaud a très bien fait ça la semaine dernière, mais plutôt pour ceux qui sont déjà familiarisés d'aller plus loin et pour ceux en pointe de se faire connaître.
Pour ma part, il s'agira de vous présenter une nouvelle plateforme de conception en ligne de bots, dont la version gratuite proposera 3 bots de tradings sur MtGox, TradeHill et ExchangeBitcoins.

J'ai créé un Doodle avec mes dispos pour déterminer la meilleure date.
On peut également discuter du lieu adéquat ici.

A bientôt,

Jesse

Hi, what about my proposal of a 2nd crypto currency.
You may need an escrow to secure double transaction, but there's no need for additional trust.
The issues I see are the following

• It does not inherently help to cash your btc in $, but it moves most transaction fees on the btc/bt$ market and relegate traditional exchanges to in/out operations, pretty much like Dwolla kind of services
• You need to trust the value of those bt$: that can be backed by a distributed fund (the "Bank"), which builds up from btc transaction fees. The main point and difference between btc and that new bt$ exchange currency, is that the latter is made to be entirely owned by the bank to start with. That distributed bank does not need any central authority. Each node witnesses bank transactions and can monitor the in/out of btc on the distributed bank account. The network can monitor live the individual btc amount that everyone is insured for, and adjust accordingly the max volume each user is allowed

Overall, it seems feasible to me, and even if it's not helping in the short term because we currently need more ways to echange btc in real $, it makes sure in the long run that digital/analog exchanges are not pumping the market fees, but rather taking a small Dwolla/like fee, while most transactions are btc/bt$.

On a second thought, there seem to be 2 issues discussed:

How you can distribute $ transactions with escrowing techniques: I'm glad if that if a payment service accepts that use of their API, but they may also refuse, be it to protect traditional exchanges.
What I propose is something different:
a second block chain of much more stable value because it is backed by a virtual bank insured in btc.
If at any time you know you can withdraw, say 100 btc at market price, you may very well place most of your low amount / high frequency orders on the distributed market.

Of course by the end of the day, you still need to cash out your btcs on a regular exchange, but that's just as traditional exchange have to cash their dollars at the end of the day: Dwolla gets only a small gain because most transactions are kept on the btc Exchange side.

If trades move to a distributed exchange, most transaction fees are kept on the P2P network, and valued only to consolidate the insuring fund.
As a result, the traditional exchanges would find themselves in a position similar to Dwolla.

I'm sorry I don't read your last post as such. Let me know if the following is indeed what you had in mind.

P2P pairing of asks/bids is trivial as you noted.
Now you're talking about an analog currency counterpart to a btc order, and use of an escrow to validate it.

If the 2nd currency is also a block chain, then there's no need for a trust artefact.
Nodes are paired, 1 transaction is made for each currency, that's it: pairing is really all you need technically.

Now the problem is how does that 2nd currency trades against analog resources. If it's got the same characteristics, then there's good chance both currencies will get completely paired in real time, you're left with 2 clones of the same thing and you haven't moved any closer to analog value.

There are IMHO 2 solutions out of this:

• Either the 2nd currency must have another intrinsic use and value (namecoin is actually maybe a good candidate), so that the market can indeed value them differently over time
• Change the dynamics of the 2nd currency. You can for instance  imagine that initially, the P2P Exchange is also a bank that collectively owns all the available bt$ for that 2nd currency with no more mining allowed.
  
  • Once the exchange is already up and running, one can join the exchange simply by starting to trade btc for bt$, either with an individual or with "the bank", which always trades at the last ticker price.
  • The only way out is by cashing out your bt$ into btc either from an individual or from the bank.
  • The main question is at the beginning then: who creates the bank? Whoever does so could in theory accumulate a large quantity of bt$ for nearly no coins and we get back to the arguments about Satoshi Nakamoto and early adopters. One could also decide that for a period of time, bt$ will trade for a fixed rate of btc until the bank reaches a good reserve of btc. That leaves time for everyone to get in at identical conditions. Then only can the rate vary according to free market.
  • If the bank gets dry, it means someone it means people have cached out the initial amount, which could be a problem since it means bt$ are again left paired with btc until the bank can warrant withdrawals again. One could say that in such conditions the bank keeps a reserve of BTC, an insurance built over time with transaction fees for instance, and maybe a period of controlled rate, with the acceptance that moderate withdrawal at market price is all you are guarantied -> this is pretty much MtGox conditions as we know them and this is probably fine with most btc users.

What do you guys think?

What about indeed using a second block chain? One could for instance imagine such a p2p distributed Exchange where you trade bitcoins for namecoins.

I suppose the authenticated API was down before the announcement was made.
Looking forward to testing some more.

Just started trading on ExchangeBitcoins. Also went smoothly, plus their API works fine (after minor adjustments to my MtGox bot).
Haven't tested withdrawals though, but everything seems encouraging so far.
It just needs some proper Volume now

Cheers

I started trading there yesterday, as I was looking for a platform with a running API to test my bot.
As far as I know, this is for now the only place with an API up and running right now.

The site is quite minimal, but it  does the job, and at least they get your open orders sorted.
However, just like tradehill, it does not consolidate your orders of the same price, which is a nice feature of MtGox for bots.
Be careful with the dropdownlist for order types, seems a bit dodgy to me.
Also like TradeHill, it reserves the value of your open orders, which is fine to me because my bot already does that; Accordingly, the "available" amounts give me a good reading of what the bot gets to play with (I don't auto-cancel for now)

After some minor modifications to clean up their Json (to fix a bug and to convert to the MtGox format), I was able to use the same component I had just started to test on MtGox on last Week-End.
Runs smoothly at the moment, plus the commission is quite low, so I'm definitely up for testing some more, though I haven't experienced withdrawals yet.

Cheers,

Hi,

I'm having trouble using the Tradehill test APIs.
I'm using a .Net Client, ServicePointManager.ServerCertificateValidationCallback was set to a true returning delegate to bypass SSL issue.

No pb retrieving the Ticker with a Get request:{"ticker": {"sell": "11.9999000000", "buy": "61.0000000000", "last": "11.9999", "vol": "0", "high": "0", "low": "0"}}

But when posting to https://api-test.tradehill.com/APIv1/USD/GetOrders with name=myemail and pass=mypwd I get {"error":"Not logged in."}
Similar Bot works fine on getOrders, buyBTC and sellBTC on MtGox API

Has anyone experienced that problem?
Any successful attempts?

Thanks in advance for your advices.

Newbie here,

I just recently found out about Bitcoin, got myself a MtGox Account and a couple of BTC.
I understand that BitCoin is not all about speculation, I've read quite a bunch of very interesting posts here and there, so this is rather about experimenting with the available tools.

Now that I'm a bit more familiar with the principles and that the rally has slowed down a bit, I thought I'd give a try to tracking the market and issuing small orders to account for local variations.
I tried to account for the 0.65% fee per trade and apparently failed to do so, as the fees have absorbed just about all my gains.

Here are the notifications I received by email:

You Sold 10 BTC for 18.89!
You Bought 5 BTC for 18.511!
You Bought 5 BTC for 18.601!
You Sold 10 BTC for 18.979!
You Sold 5 BTC for 18.919!
You Sold 5 BTC for 18.979!
You Sold 5 BTC for 18.919!
You Sold 10 BTC for 18.979!
You Sold 10 BTC for 18.97!
You Bought 5 BTC for 18.3!
You Bought 5 BTC for 18.3!
You Bought 5 BTC for 18.4!
You Bought 5 BTC for 18.4!
You Sold 9 BTC for 18.97!
You Bought 5 BTC for 18.4!
You Sold 15 BTC for 18.9!
You Bought 10 BTC for 18.3!


and here is the corresponding Mt Gox account history

   Sold BTC   10 for 18.7673   -10   187.673   30.718   925.288
   Bought BTC   4.97 for 18.6302   4.968   -92.555   40.718   737.615
   Bought BTC   4.97 for 18.7208   4.968   -93.005   35.75   830.17
   Sold BTC   10 for 18.8557   -10   188.557   30.782   923.175
   Sold BTC   5 for 18.7962   -5   93.981   40.782   734.618
   Sold BTC   5 for 18.8558   -5   94.279   45.782   640.637
   Sold BTC   5 for 18.7962   -5   93.981   50.782   546.358
   Add BTC   xx   50   0   55.782   452.377
   Sold BTC   10 for 18.8557   -10   188.557   5.782   452.377
   Sold BTC   10 for 18.8467   -10   188.467   15.782   263.82
   Bought BTC   4.97 for 18.4179   4.968   -91.5   25.782   75.353
   Bought BTC   4.97 for 18.4179   4.968   -91.5   20.814   166.853
   Bought BTC   4.97 for 18.5185   4.968   -92   15.846   258.353
   Bought BTC   4.97 for 18.5185   4.968   -92   10.878   350.353
   Sold BTC   9 for 18.8468   -9   169.621   5.91   442.353
   Bought BTC   4.97 for 18.5185   4.968   -92   14.91   272.732
   Sold BTC   15 for 18.7772   -15   281.658   9.942   364.732
   Bought BTC   9.94 for 18.4197   9.935   -183   24.942   83.074
   Sold BTC   7.54 for 18.7771   -7.543   141.636   15.007   266.074
   Sold BTC   6.61 for 18.7772   -6.607   124.061   22.55   124.438
 
As far as I understand you get:

a 0.65% commission on the price you ask when you sell
a 0.65% commission on the price you bid AND on the coins you get when you buy.

I must say this is not really how I understand "0.65% fee per trade".
With the volume of trading that Mt Gox now has, I'd have expected a little more details, something more professional and more transparent about the underlying computations.

What do you guys think ? Is that normal and are there some other fees I should be aware of?
Cheers