 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
|
There are weird green numbers in the balances list.
|
|
|
|
Pete
With the greatest respect to the platform, which I have loved using, this new system on the order book is just plain incorrect. It will drive away users and I am fairly sure this is already happening, I have seen very limited trading going through on the doge market compared to previous days since this system was implemented. No other exchange in the crypto world or the standard financial instrument implements their fees this way. This effectively makes fees exorbitantly high, on doge for example fees at 135sats that I have to trade at 136 becomes 0.74%. If we take Earthcoin as an example it gets worse, say 19/18=5.5%. This is fundamentally broken.
The system must be adjusted such that a flat fee of x.x%, for example 0.1%, is charged on the total value of each trade. Even if this had a minimum value, it would be acceptable.
If you stick with the current system, you will lose customers rapidly as they realise this is not just a temporary bug and is in fact a deliberate error of judgement.
As I stated, I want to keep my business here, but if this isn't resolved in a matter of days I will be forced to take my business elsewhere. I cannot live with this flawed system.
Kind regards
Mark
EDIT: Since I wrote this I read above and discovered this system works down to exchange rates of 50sats only, so my EAC example is wrong. I still think the system is fundamentally flawed though, as on a 50sat coin we have a 2% trading fee. If you wanted to maintain a maximum of 0.1% you would need to remove fees from any coins with an exchange rate lower than 1000sats. Otherwise the fee % rises rapidly to a ridiculous rate. Doge is one of the biggest volume markets, but you will kill it on CoinedUp. Having said this, even if the fees were not exorbitantly high for these low value coins, the system is still just massively uncomfortable for any user and is contrary to the fee systems customers are happy with. So this change alone would not allow me to continue my business here.
Pete does not read this. Message him on twitter. |
|
|
|
|
I actually like the fee better this way. i just dislike the minimum 1 satoshi fee per coin rule.On a coin like DOGE, DGB and mana others that makes the fee 10 times higher or more.
|
|
|
|
The bid has to be above the ask by 1 point for the trade to execute so a 1.6% fee can be taken from every trade.
Is this a joke? Unfortunately true |
|
|
|
is the orderbook robot sleeping, or on holidays? :-)  same - trading is just impossible when BUY and SELL are not matched  even worse:  The bid has to be above the ask by 1 point for the trade to execute so a 1.6% fee can be taken from every trade. |
|
|
|
|
just paid a 0.7% fee per side on doge/btc???
by market maker do you mean trading vs your clients instead of clients trading vs each other
|
|
|
|
|
trying to skim profit without people noticing, but it causes order books to cross so we notice
|
|
|
|
|
too many coins disabled, payouts have been 0.005-0.008 per mhash after rejects/disconnects for the past 4 days mining 24/7. Pool was ruined when the botnet joined. To clevermining or hashcows?
|
|
|
|
Interesting to see us mining litecoin after the recent discussion to remove the coin.
|
|
|
|
|
Could you publish the pool reject rate? Even middlecoin does that. Mine went up a lot several days ago and has stayed there (especially vardiff share above target rejects).
I used to get about 0.0%-0.1% rejects with vardiff since i mine at low intensity and am near an endpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
Titan has a point.
Poolwaffle used our hashing power to DDoS his coin with us getting nothing in return.
|
|
|
|
|
Why did BTC earned start off at -0.3 for the day? hmm..
|
|
|
|
|
Did you decide on a new reject policy to use sometime in the future?
|
|
|
|
|
looks like accepting the old block for 3-5 seconds is reasonable but not more or less
|
|
|
|
Most of the late shares are probably from people mining on high intensity. Why not give 5 seconds of time rather than 1 block of time?
"Coin1 --> Coin2, Coin1 moves to a new block :: "1-stale" not useful" I don't know that 5s is better than 10s or 1s, but its better than 0s because submitting a block from the 1-stale share could orphan the coin1 block that another pool or miner found. Actually 5s is probably too long. Something like 1s or 2s would penalize poorly configured miners without throwing away the legitimate hashes that happen every with every new block. |
|
|
|
poolwaffle, are you sending "Clean Jobs == true" on the stratum work packet? (params[8] == true)
This should minimize stales.
Yep. We send it on every work change request that isn't difficulty adjustment (which we send again after 30 seconds with the flag if the user isn't respecting the new difficulty). But we're seeing a TON of shares submitted a significant amount of time after the clean jobs request. A lot of them 15-20 seconds after telling them the old work isn't valid, and those shares are still being accepted, which leads me to the guess that people have pushed their miners to max out hashrate (and in this case accepted shares) rather than actual accepted shares. Most of the late shares are probably from people mining on high intensity. Why not give 5 seconds of time rather than 1 block of time? |
|
|
|
|
If the 1 block old shares have any chance of resulting in a valid block (they do) they should be accepted! Rejecting them only makes profitability "look" higher while it is actually lower. You were the only pool doing this right don't be like the crap pools!
|
|
|
|
I triede that, on the eu server. But my rejected increased from 0.1% to 2% So im just using the one without country suffix.
If anything, a locked difficulty should drop reject %, not increase it. No country prefix is exactly the same as useast (it proxys to useast actually), would be better for you to just set to useast if thats your closest server. When I tried locked diff of 64 i got more rejects as well |
|
|
|
|
profit first, stats second
|
|
|
|
This would be the best exchange to get on before cryptsy |
|
|
|
|
