Unfortunately, the latest crop of bots are being used to skew the order books by automatically creating orders that have no intention of being filled. This frustrates traders who are trying to find the real price of a coin.
To combat this, we are making the following changes.
Order Entry
1.Number open orders per market will be limited to 10.
2.Only 100 orders may be placed in a one hour period on a given market.
3.These caps apply both to UI and API trades
This is from bittrex about squashing bots so I don't think they like bots lol they wouldn't be doing this if bots were making them lots of btc lol
The sad thing is that this won't resolve anything but will more than likely just irritate real traders, especially that 10 open orders limitation. The guys running these bots will just modify them to be able to use multiple accounts and IPs and then carry on. This sort of thing happens all the time. People get all pissed off about things like bots, a company implements stuff to try and combat them (which you can rarely do in reality), and the changes screw over the real people once more. The "fix" for these bots filling up the order books so we can't see what's going on, was to simply allow us to see the entire order book or at least a hell of a lot more than just the ridiculous 50 entry limit if we want to. There's absolutely no reason not to be able to grab the entire order book via the api at the very least. |
|
|
|
Best for as many of us as possible to collectively buy upward in price and take the bots/n00bz out of the equation. Don't sell anything for a while, to prevent them from getting back in and repeating the pattern. A few hours will pass and the market will normalize. Need to actually walk the buys up as well so the bots move up with you. Been playing against these bots all week on some other coins. Some interesting patterns that's for sure. |
|
|
|
In the past 24 hours, doge went from 67 to 77 and back down to 73 currently. So, ignoring the peak in the middle, doge is actually UP more than 10% from 24 hours ago. How long would you have to leave money in a bank to get that kind of return based on interest rate? 15 years, maybe? As opposed to 1 day? From a coin that started out as a joke? In August while a lot of investors were out on vacations and stuff and the prices were dropping, I had picked up some Doge at 23 and 35 as I believed prices would go up (not as much as it has though) within a week or two of Sept. Few weeks later. Nice little profit. |
|
|
|
XMR people think they know everything. So let them. I think now you can see why BCX says he's going forward with the attack and why a lot of people dislike the Monero people. When I was reading through the previous thread from a month or two ago where BCX talked about an attack, I was struck with just how arrogant and cavalier the Monero devs came across. Sometimes it's best to just let people get smacked upside the head. |
|
|
|
Now it also appears that the only difference between sublinear ring signatures and non-sublinear ring signatures is the lack of bloat from the former. A dev (I think he's a Monero guy) said that Chandran Signatures are actually larger and slower. So I asked him about it given the StealthSend white paper says they're smaller and gave examples of how they would be smaller. He explained that yes, with the examples given in the white paper, they would be smaller than CN, but when you have a lot less sigs in the mix, it would actually end up being larger than the CN sigs. He also showed me a Monero transaction that was very small, < 1k in size. He also said that Chandran Signatures have the same issue as the CN ones that were outlined in a whitepaper about flaws in Monero. |
|
|
|
|
Wow. Never heard of this coin before and looking at the price, I don't think I've seen any coin really that has a steady increase like that. Very nice.
|
|
|
|
Is the total PoW duration roughly 2 months? So end of October, maybe into a bit of November?
Personally, I would like to see PoW remain an option even after said total is reached in order to help process transactions and alow miners to collect tx fees. Interesting comment as, in my so far limited experience with all of this, I've been coming to the conclusion that a hybrid coin with a nice long PoW is really the way to go for long term interest, use and stability. |
|
|
|
|
Is the total PoW duration roughly 2 months? So end of October, maybe into a bit of November?
|
|
|
|
This has already been addressed by the Monero devs and doesn't doom cryptonote. Chandran signatures have the same issue, and are much bigger and slower, and have other issues. We don't know if they will be practical to use but if so we can drop them in. Ignore the shill. Don't know about them being slower, but are they really bigger? Just looking at the SealthSend whitepaper and it says they're smaller. "For example, instead of requiring 9.5 kB, a 100 key Chandran signature (with no further optimizations) would would require about 7 kB." The constant factor is much bigger. Yes if you do 100 mix sig it will probably be smaller. If you do a 5 or 10 mix it will be bigger. You are stuck with large transactions regardless of the degree of mixing you want. If we do add Chandran signatures we would likely have both kinds with a cutoff. Under the right conditions (not using dusty inputs) our transactions can be extremely small. For example, take a look at this one, mix 5 and only 824 bytes: http://chainradar.com/xmr/transaction/08d5befb17f0708766733ef57419855954f6885488662f588f2005459eb3cdb5There are some other issues with them I'm not prepared to address right now, but we will have a writeup at some point. Thanks for clarifying that for me. |
|
|
|
This has already been addressed by the Monero devs and doesn't doom cryptonote. Chandran signatures have the same issue, and are much bigger and slower, and have other issues. We don't know if they will be practical to use but if so we can drop them in. Ignore the shill. Don't know about them being slower, but are they really bigger? Just looking at the SealthSend whitepaper and it says they're smaller. "For example, instead of requiring 9.5 kB, a 100 key Chandran signature (with no further optimizations) would would require about 7 kB." It then goes on to talk about using random nonces for more savings and ends up with this I think. "For example, a 100 key stealthsend signature requires only about 3.8 kB, compared to 9.5 kB for CryptoNote ring signatures." Are there other things that might mitigate theses savings? |
|
|
|
Why are you all so 100% sure of Librexcoin succeeding?
There's no Source Code released and nobody really knows how it works in detail, right?
pff this is your opinion -_ - NoNo, this is really my question - what assures you guys so much? - Plus it's not an opinion its a fact that there is no source code yet. shhhhh. The P&D shills and sockpuppets will turn on you with talk like that. lol |
|
|
|
 Hmmm I'd say we are at currently at ''thrill'' stage. Prepare for final push followed by epic dump.You're about right. Course it was dumped earlier but recovered. I suspect that was one of the smaller P&D groups. People seem to forget that the coin was at this level a few weeks back as well and got dumped. And there's really not much new that would warrant this price. I personally believe it will dump and then go through another cycle for the next big thing to be released. This coin and XST seem to be perfect for multiple P&Ds over the next couple months. |
|
|
|
both stealth and librex are owned by a P&D group....roughly 40% on both coins...there goal was to pump both to 15k before exiting. Don't believe me?? I don't care as time will tell. Why are both coins being pumped simultaneously??? Is this just coincidence?
There's been more than one P&D group playing with these two coins. |
|
|
|
Best FUD bomb I've seen since I'm in crypto. This guy is truly evil.
Totally. Announcing all this in the trollbox is highly suspicious. He did do this back in 2012 to Litecoin in BTC-e trollbox and then renegged on his "attack" claiming it was just a joke and to strengthen LTC. We will see if he is right or wrong soon enough. One thing is for sure....BCX still has his massive ego and needs people to know he can do what he claims. I remember that. Good times! The stuff of legend.  Monero is no AuroraCoin. We will soon see if it's the next Litecoin. BCX can read the writing on the wall better than most. He's just a little late to the Monero party, where all the cool kids are. Thanks for the cheap notes BCX. You're the best!  So you think hes trying to get cheap coins? Most of the people in these XMR threads seem to be just interested in getting cheap coins, especially a lot of the so called "supporters" of XMR. |
|
|
|
What about PoS this will come only we didn't decide the %. Which method of PoS is being implemented. Was reading over the NXT, BC PoS V2 and Reddcoin PoSV white papers. Near as I can tell, NXT resolves the nodes issue with PoS but encourages hoarding. BC PoS V2 resolves the nodes issue but I didn't quite get how the staking works so not sure if it also encourages hoarding or not. Reddcoin PoSV seems to try and strike a balance between a variety of PoS issues. Not sure if there are other solutions out there and if there are any that are "perfect". |
|
|
|
Think I'm going to have to check out that Boolberry coin despite the weird name. The Monero people just seem far too fanatical and delusional.
I don't think so. Those fanatics might be trolls. And this Viper1? You think its just possible he might not be 100% sincere? Is it true? Viper1 is just a troll he is fuding in all different forums. Thats possible just his clone account. Fudding? LOL. Oh yeah. My post history sure does bear that out. You guys spend way too much time on this forum when you automatically assume someone if fudding or a troll just because you don't like what they might have to say. And yeah, I'm pretty serious although I'm holding off on any CN coins at this point. There are a few coins I avoid purely because of the community and Monero is one of them. When you have a community with fanatics in them, given human nature, it's just a matter of time until they implode. I've been around long enough now to see how they start to turn on each other and end up tearing a coin down. |
|
|
|
I'm far from an expert on this stuff, but it's my understanding that there's a couple problems with PoS. The first being that those that hold the majority of the coins basically control the network. i.e. Like a 51% issue. The other problem is that when people are staking, there's no economy going on. Sort of a catch 22 thing. You need people actually using the coins for it to gain wide spread acceptance and use, and yet you need people staking to secure the network. I recently read about some coin that was changing it in some way so that actually using the coin would increase your stake in some way. There was also a paper out in June about Proof of Activity that I think tried to address these issues but it's a bit above my head at this point. So basically I'm asking if BTCD has done anything like that or if it's the "typical" PoS.
These aren't problems. The majority of coin holders controlling the network is the ideal situation, since these are the ones who are most incentivised to maintain the coin's value and worth. It means a 51% attack is extremely difficult since an attacker has to buy a majority of coins, and as he starts buying the price goes out, making it many times more expensive than a PoW attack. There is no conflict between staking and spending. Not all coins need to be staked for the network to be secure, and there will never need to be a situation where a huge percentage of coins are actively being traded at a single instance in time. When the coins aren't actively moving they can be staked. Basically PoS has many advantages over PoW, so those who prefer PoW coins will often have to make up reasons why their system is better. I understand that PoS has advantages over PoW. But it also has some disadvantages. I just finished reading through both the BC PoS V2 and Reddcoin PoSV white papers. They both outline the various problems/issues with PoS and they both have implemented things to try and deal with some of those issues. I also ran across this paper http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~idddo/CoA.pdf which discusses a Chain of Activity protocol to resolve some PoS flaws and it was spun off from PoA that I found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=659275.0. As I said in my post, I'm asking if BTCD has done anything along those lines. I would have to assume it hasn't given the responses. |
|
|
|
I have a couple questions about this coin related to more basic fundamentals as opposed to any sort of "gimmick" type things.
1. Unlike a few other coins that have anonymity, even if they're not currently trustless, BTCD doesn't have any anonymity yet correct?
2. What has BTCD done to overcome the BTC blockchain bloat issue?
3. Is the PoS in BTCD basically that the richest coin holders control the blockchain or has it implemented some alternate system to alleviate that problem.
4. How solid is the current hashrate in comparison to something like Peercoin? i.e. How secure is the network? 2. You seems to be not well informed but PoS coins don't have any issues with the Blockchain bloat. Ok. Would you care to explain why that is then? I guess the closest to Bitcoin in terms of being around the longest would be Peercoin but I haven't got that one and downloaded to blockchain in order to compare it. |
|
|
|
thanks! What the heck happened with this coin on Aug 3rd? The hashrate just skyrocketed and if bitinfocharts is right, it's roughly 100x that of Litecoin. I don't know much about some of these coins but near as I can tell from that site, BC would be maybe 3rd overall in terms of hashrate only behind bitcoin and namecoin. That just seems so hard to believe. Is there something odd about the BC hashrate? I mean if it's real, that would make it the 3rd most secure network around wouldn't it? Assuming of course most of that hash isn't in the hands of just a few people/groups.
Bitinfocharts is wrong there, they missed to upgrade in time before then PoS 2.0 hardfork and messed up there BC stats a bit. Since BC is pure PoS there is no "real" network hashrate, at least none that could be compared to the classic PoW coins. I was also comparing it to classic PoS coins like peercoin and what bitinfocharts is showing is huge numbers for BC compared to coins like that. So what they're showing is messed up? Been trying to figure out what coins have some solid fundamentals and figure hashrate is a pretty important one. Peercoin is not pure PoS but a PoW/PoS hybrid. There is absolutely no way to compare the hashrates of PoW coins to PoS since no classic energy wasting a.k.a. mining is used to secure the network. If you want to understand it better you should look into the PoS 2.0 whitepaper on the blackcoin homepage and read some basics about PoS (sorry for the lack of links, on the phone atm), there are also some threads at the subreddit (my sig) where the basics are explained pretty well. Since BCs codebases has been used for hundreds of other coins since march and there has been no successful attack whatsoever one would think the fundamentals are very strong, also rat4 (main dev) is working to improve BC more or less every day (see github). All righty. So I had a look at the white paper. Also read a little more about PoS. And in the process ran across the reddcoin PoSV info (was wondering why their hashrate was going up a lot recently and that's why). So in BC, you've removed the coin age which means you have to be online in order to stake. That would sort of explain the huge rise in the hashrate. By removing the coin age it sort of solves the problem of not enough nodes being online. Don't understand how rewards are determined without that coin age though. Maybe you could explain that part. But BC would still have the problem of people hoarding coins does it not? i.e. there's no reason to move the coins around in an economy. Reddcoins solution improves on the nodes issue, but not to the same extent. But in PoSV, coin age decays over time so it's in the interest of people to actually move coins around to keep the coin age "fresh". I guess a person could just send them to themselves so it would be questionable if it truly improves anything. Redcoin's PoSV also did something to improve on multiple fork consensus. Didn't see anything in PoS V2 about that though. So did I get all of that right? Not sure what's better as neither seems "perfect" or all inclusive. lol |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
