[GAM] Gambit | Private Trading Group | Trading Indicators | Trading Classroom

[chinchs]

Collin, trading was not supposed to start yesteday? The google spreadsheet is blocked now, but I didn't saw any announcement

[4theLOVEofCrypto]

Collin, trading was not supposed to start yesteday? The google spreadsheet is blocked now, but I didn't saw any announcement

I had read that somewhere as well....that trading started yesterday.  Would love to hear an update too.

[raithe]

EDITED


This post is very old.  Please see the main thread at GambitCrypto.com for up-to-date information.


EDITED

[Ccexicocartel]

Trader Spreadsheet Update

Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1unCcQPa-_u34gZ0oKwWoIG6F_CbP0umK1x3tN2-qHAI/

Due to the overwhelming success of the crowdfund, we are changing things up a little bit to improve how the GAM trading fund operates. Rather than having a select few hand-picked traders manage everything, we are going to expand it into a larger competitive environment. We are allowing open nominations for traders who will be able to have their trades tracked, and every single trader will compete for a top-10 spot in the rankings. The top 10 traders will be the ones who have the real BTC follow their trades, and they will be rewarded with BTC payment for profitable calls. This will create an endless-competition where Gambit always has the best-performing traders be the ones making the calls. Allowing open nominations will also enable newcomers to be able to work their way up the ladder if their trading is profitable. This setup will remove any trader bias, intentional or not, from those of us working on GAM. We want the trading results to speak for themselves.

Having 30+ traders in a friendly competition ensures strong trading and removes any potential situations where bad traders are having a great week, or great traders are having a bad week. As trading history continues to build, the best traders will elevate the rankings and stay there. The spreadsheet offers the highest-ranked traders with the ability to earn the most BTC for staying there, in a "king of the hill" sort of manner.

Since the spreadsheet is starting off in a completely blank slate, tabula rasa, we are tracking 20-50 traders on paper. This allows us to start out with a proper top 10 list of the best performers when trading history comes in. This also allows any new interested traders to join in on equal ground. On a longer timeline, having a dynamically changing top-10 list of traders should provide the highest probability that the majority of trades are profitable, and that the GAM fund is trading most efficiently with the least risk to the fund.

For traders interested in participating, feel free to email raithe@gmail.com or message @gambitcrypto on twitter.

--While trading history is being gathered, the Gambit fund will be loaned out for swaps. 100% of the earnings will be used to build GAM buy support on the exchanges, and burn any tokens purchased. This data will be tweeted on @GambitCrypto after completion.

+1 all around. 

[Piston Honda]

Dev, very cool - holy crap the value of GAM has VERY strong potential from what i see with a bit of time.

I see David Seaman on there, lol.  just saying.

[merk475]

Dev, very cool - holy crap the value of GAM has VERY strong potential from what i see with a bit of time.

I see David Seaman on there, lol.  just saying.

He seems to be doing it right.  Love how this is evolving.  Crypto is scary as fuck right now....even giving new coins a look, but this dev seems to have his shit together.  Keep it up!

[merk475]

Trader Spreadsheet Update

Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1unCcQPa-_u34gZ0oKwWoIG6F_CbP0umK1x3tN2-qHAI/

Due to the overwhelming success of the crowdfund, we are changing things up a little bit to improve how the GAM trading fund operates. Rather than having a select few hand-picked traders manage everything, we are going to expand it into a larger competitive environment. We are allowing open nominations for traders who will be able to have their trades tracked, and every single trader will compete for a top-10 spot in the rankings. The top 10 traders will be the ones who have the real BTC follow their trades, and they will be rewarded with BTC payment for profitable calls. This will create an endless-competition where Gambit always has the best-performing traders be the ones making the calls. Allowing open nominations will also enable newcomers to be able to work their way up the ladder if their trading is profitable. This setup will remove any trader bias, intentional or not, from those of us working on GAM. We want the trading results to speak for themselves.

Having 30+ traders in a friendly competition ensures strong trading and removes any potential situations where bad traders are having a great week, or great traders are having a bad week. As trading history continues to build, the best traders will elevate the rankings and stay there. The spreadsheet offers the highest-ranked traders with the ability to earn the most BTC for staying there, in a "king of the hill" sort of manner.

Since the spreadsheet is starting off in a completely blank slate, tabula rasa, we are tracking 20-50 traders on paper. This allows us to start out with a proper top 10 list of the best performers when trading history comes in. This also allows any new interested traders to join in on equal ground. On a longer timeline, having a dynamically changing top-10 list of traders should provide the highest probability that the majority of trades are profitable, and that the GAM fund is trading most efficiently with the least risk to the fund.

For traders interested in participating, or if you would like to nominate a trader, feel free to email raithe@gmail.com or message @gambitcrypto on twitter.

--While trading history is being gathered, the Gambit fund will be loaned out for swaps. 100% of the earnings will be used to build GAM buy support on the exchanges, and burn any tokens purchased. This data will be tweeted on @GambitCrypto after completion.

Thanks for the update.  Much appreciated.

[raithe]

Proof of Stake:
Just to reiterate for those unaware: Proof of work ended at block 15,000 without any hiccups, and we are currently nearing 17,500.  The coin is now 100% proof of stake, so remember to download the wallet and start staking to earn 5% interest per year.

Source code released:
EDITED: View Gambitcrypto.com for the most up-to-date source code.

[mistercashking]

bought some more. This is Looking good. 

[xamido]

Crypto is boring nowadays.

Guess i'll invest small amount in this one then.

[kashking]

Good work, this should get interesting when that doc starts to fill up!!

[Cor2]

Hey Collin,
How does the wallet decide to re-combine inputs that it earlier split in half?

I have now 143 inputs in my wallet, down to small fragments of 16 Gam (and this is only half the balance, the other half is immature).
Anybody know when they are being recombined, or do I need to do that by hand when there is too much dust?
I rather wait for the wallet to do this for me, since if I recombined staked inputs the wallet hides them while they are immature,
so I can only select them after 8 hours, but combining them causes me to lose the 8 hours maturity again...
So - how/when is recombination done?
Thanks!

[raithe]

Hey Collin,
How does the wallet decide to re-combine inputs that it earlier split in half?

I have now 143 inputs in my wallet, down to small fragments of 16 Gam (and this is only half the balance, the other half is immature).
Anybody know when they are being recombined, or do I need to do that by hand when there is too much dust?
I rather wait for the wallet to do this for me, since if I recombined staked inputs the wallet hides them while they are immature,
so I can only select them after 8 hours, but combining them causes me to lose the 8 hours maturity again...
So - how/when is recombination done?
Thanks!

Proof of stake is not my expertise but I will ask around and see if anyone can chime in.  Feel free to take a look at the source code yourself if you would like:  https://github.com/collinlahay/gambitcrypto

[Cor2]

Hey Collin,
How does the wallet decide to re-combine inputs that it earlier split in half?

Proof of stake is not my expertise but I will ask around and see if anyone can chime in.  Feel free to take a look at the source code yourself if you would like:  https://github.com/collinlahay/gambitcrypto

Thanks Collin, I believe that wallet.cpp has the relevant code:
in function CWallet::CreateCoinStake when a Staking Kernel is found, we are going through this code:
        // Attempt to add more inputs
        // Only add coins of the same key/address as kernel
        if (txNew.vout.size() == 2 && ((pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].scriptPubKey == scriptPubKeyKernel || pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].scriptPubKey == txNew.vout[1].scriptPubKey))
            && pcoin.first->GetHash() != txNew.vin[0].prevout.hash)
        {
            int64_t nTimeWeight = GetWeight((int64_t)pcoin.first->nTime, (int64_t)txNew.nTime);

            // Stop adding more inputs if already too many inputs
            if (txNew.vin.size() >= 100)
                break;
            // Stop adding more inputs if value is already pretty significant
            if (nCredit >= nStakeCombineThreshold)
                break;
            // Stop adding inputs if reached reserve limit
            if (nCredit + pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue > nBalance - nReserveBalance)
                break;
            // Do not add additional significant input
            if (pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue >= nStakeCombineThreshold)
                continue;
            // Do not add input that is still too young
            if (nTimeWeight < nStakeMinAge)
                continue;

            txNew.vin.push_back(CTxIn(pcoin.first->GetHash(), pcoin.second));
            nCredit += pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue;
            vwtxPrev.push_back(pcoin.first);
        }
    }
    // Calculate coin age reward

Now, all my inputs are under the same key; I have no reserved balance and nStakeCombineThreshold is supposed to be 1000 coins.
So, why are my dozens of 15 Gambit inputs that are all mature not combining? Beats me...

[Cor2]

Hey Collin,
How does the wallet decide to re-combine inputs that it earlier split in half?

Proof of stake is not my expertise but I will ask around and see if anyone can chime in.  Feel free to take a look at the source code yourself if you would like:  https://github.com/collinlahay/gambitcrypto

Thanks Collin, I believe that wallet.cpp has the relevant code:
in function CWallet::CreateCoinStake when a Staking Kernel is found, we are going through this code:
        // Attempt to add more inputs
        // Only add coins of the same key/address as kernel
        if (txNew.vout.size() == 2 && ((pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].scriptPubKey == scriptPubKeyKernel || pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].scriptPubKey == txNew.vout[1].scriptPubKey))
            && pcoin.first->GetHash() != txNew.vin[0].prevout.hash)
        {
            int64_t nTimeWeight = GetWeight((int64_t)pcoin.first->nTime, (int64_t)txNew.nTime);

            // Stop adding more inputs if already too many inputs
            if (txNew.vin.size() >= 100)
                break;
            // Stop adding more inputs if value is already pretty significant
            if (nCredit >= nStakeCombineThreshold)
                break;
            // Stop adding inputs if reached reserve limit
            if (nCredit + pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue > nBalance - nReserveBalance)
                break;
            // Do not add additional significant input
            if (pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue >= nStakeCombineThreshold)
                continue;
            // Do not add input that is still too young
            if (nTimeWeight < nStakeMinAge)
                continue;

            txNew.vin.push_back(CTxIn(pcoin.first->GetHash(), pcoin.second));
            nCredit += pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue;
            vwtxPrev.push_back(pcoin.first);
        }
    }
    // Calculate coin age reward

Now, all my inputs are under the same key; I have no reserved balance and nStakeCombineThreshold is supposed to be 1000 coins.
So, why are my dozens of 15 Gambit inputs that are all mature not combining? Beats me...

Update: I can see that occasionally (once in the past 15 stakes in the last 2 hours) that one of those actually combined about 20 inputs, because the number of my inputs has gone down by about 35, so it looks like somehow there is a random process that occasionally combines a bunch of inputs but normally it is not done, even though the code suggests that it could...

[Cor2]

Hey Collin,
How does the wallet decide to re-combine inputs that it earlier split in half?

OK, I dug into the debug log to find the transaction that combined many inputs and found that actually 23 inputs were being
combined into one staking event, see the relevant part below. Interesting that the total value is over the 1000 coin threshold:

CheckStake() : new proof-of-stake block found 
  hash: c942288626a9e212b9e782491fd61feb37910f518cb8e84403d9f4bed3cbd8db
proofhash: 00007b6c34df468ef70da12b881144d1b6a6c36ebe8e5323b553c81c41bf1895 
target: 0001054033000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
CBlock(hash=c942288626a9e212b9e782491fd61feb37910f518cb8e84403d9f4bed3cbd8db, ver=1, hashPrevBlock=b5ee180a3ee8b1fd928138ac145cb8d98cac2ce39eaf456ce8f5addea900d542, hashMerkleRoot=27e9616631d1713bd889e86777318a6b767aaac49e020ba710ca1d195f6ad416, nTime=1432792100, nBits=1e086d6d, nNonce=0, vtx=2, vchBlockSig=304402202d285b22021aa5e94b2deeeba7778190a958c57e1bcc73d2fa3433bc06056a950220175b3fcd53e9bc8462c07af638f8794f6c7f655c91f104b581dac5977153525b)
  Coinbase(hash=ffc78ce152, nTime=1432792100, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(0000000000, 4294967295), coinbase 02e145)
    CTxOut(empty)
  Coinstake(hash=044fc0a62f, nTime=1432792100, ver=1, vin.size=23, vout.size=2, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(4404a90e6f, 2), scriptSig=3045022100b5a4a3931a0153)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(1b6489ac13, 2), scriptSig=304502210094e1da3c7a7c02)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(8b960d2fad, 2), scriptSig=3044022062b5af64dc0dca33)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(270e618cad, 1), scriptSig=304402205b57faa1b397a971)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(270e618cad, 2), scriptSig=3044022056912b2c2506534a)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(aad1e729b8, 2), scriptSig=30440220327e771c09996dc4)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(e23f021dbb, 1), scriptSig=3044022004a33ec90b8485ee)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(e23f021dbb, 2), scriptSig=3045022100f07a01eceda782)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(e257db3bea, 1), scriptSig=3045022100b7e8e4b562b5de)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(4da73a41ff, 1), scriptSig=304402206577b450afcf2a94)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(4b738ee171, 2), scriptSig=304402204771e02cbaa12b17)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(31888d73d1, 1), scriptSig=3045022100e220a34031e894)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(31888d73d1, 2), scriptSig=304402207e2cd617db349016)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(972db1944e, 2), scriptSig=3045022100865f99092ca443)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(c2f3be3074, 2), scriptSig=304402204b5f16e2c5bf88ae)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(e5a39d41f6, 2), scriptSig=3045022100d91d839599209a)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(af3243daeb, 1), scriptSig=3045022100dae9646561be1c)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(af3243daeb, 2), scriptSig=3044022032432ba8774cb600)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(16714a68e7, 1), scriptSig=3045022100f3763055fb9f11)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(16714a68e7, 2), scriptSig=304402200ac8bb49dfb8f8e2)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(43bc199157, 1), scriptSig=3045022100f1e36bce1d9647)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(18b1058b91, 1), scriptSig=3044022017aa0130147355e3)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(18b1058b91, 2), scriptSig=3045022100b93d20024661c8)
    CTxOut(empty)
    CTxOut(nValue=1157.08334162, scriptPubKey=03d2e666928bae3c75ec37de0d56bc02f772a559e20f51319b154faed043794c2d OP_CHECKSIG)
  vMerkleTree: ffc78ce152 044fc0a62f 27e9616631
out 1157.08334162
AddToWallet 044fc0a62f  new

[Cor2]

Hey Collin,
How does the wallet decide to re-combine inputs that it earlier split in half?

OK, I dug into the debug log to find the transaction that combined many inputs and found that actually 23 inputs were being
combined into one staking event, see the relevant part below. Interesting that the total value is over the 1000 coin threshold:

 Coinstake(hash=044fc0a62f, nTime=1432792100, ver=1, vin.size=23, vout.size=2, nLockTime=0)

Hmmm, the plot thickens: all other times I see that vout.size = 3 which causes the wallet to skip the re-combination,
only when the vout.size = 2 will the "if" statement pass to enter the re-combination code.
So, now it is a question as to *why* the vout.size parameter is only rarely equal to 2.

[Hyperjacked]

Trader Spreadsheet Update

Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1unCcQPa-_u34gZ0oKwWoIG6F_CbP0umK1x3tN2-qHAI/

Due to the overwhelming success of the crowdfund, we are changing things up a little bit to improve how the GAM trading fund operates. Rather than having a select few hand-picked traders manage everything, we are going to expand it into a larger competitive environment. We are allowing open nominations for traders who will be able to have their trades tracked, and every single trader will compete for a top-10 spot in the rankings. The top 10 traders will be the ones who have the real BTC follow their trades, and they will be rewarded with BTC payment for profitable calls. This will create an endless-competition where Gambit always has the best-performing traders be the ones making the calls. Allowing open nominations will also enable newcomers to be able to work their way up the ladder if their trading is profitable. This setup will remove any trader bias, intentional or not, from those of us working on GAM. We want the trading results to speak for themselves.

Having 30+ traders in a friendly competition ensures strong trading and removes any potential situations where bad traders are having a great week, or great traders are having a bad week. As trading history continues to build, the best traders will elevate the rankings and stay there. The spreadsheet offers the highest-ranked traders with the ability to earn the most BTC for staying there, in a "king of the hill" sort of manner.

Since the spreadsheet is starting off in a completely blank slate, tabula rasa, we are tracking 20-50 traders on paper. This allows us to start out with a proper top 10 list of the best performers when trading history comes in. This also allows any new interested traders to join in on equal ground. On a longer timeline, having a dynamically changing top-10 list of traders should provide the highest probability that the majority of trades are profitable, and that the GAM fund is trading most efficiently with the least risk to the fund.

For traders interested in participating, or if you would like to nominate a trader, feel free to email raithe@gmail.com or message @gambitcrypto on twitter.

--While trading history is being gathered, the Gambit fund will be loaned out for swaps. 100% of the earnings will be used to build GAM buy support on the exchanges, and burn any tokens purchased. This data will be tweeted on @GambitCrypto after completion.

I posted my paper trades on Twitter and on here last week...Can I be listed in the spreadsheet under @ohyperjacked ? I called BTC buy  when it was at 231 and tweeted my buy of Grid at 300 Sats...
My twitter is Original HyperJacked.  I will email you later today! thanks and love the Gambit concept
Cheers Hype

[griffen1102]

Hey Collin,
How does the wallet decide to re-combine inputs that it earlier split in half?

OK, I dug into the debug log to find the transaction that combined many inputs and found that actually 23 inputs were being
combined into one staking event, see the relevant part below. Interesting that the total value is over the 1000 coin threshold:

 Coinstake(hash=044fc0a62f, nTime=1432792100, ver=1, vin.size=23, vout.size=2, nLockTime=0)

Hmmm, the plot thickens: all other times I see that vout.size = 3 which causes the wallet to skip the re-combination,
only when the vout.size = 2 will the "if" statement pass to enter the re-combination code.
So, now it is a question as to *why* the vout.size parameter is only rarely equal to 2.

I have no clue what any of this shit means, but thank you for trying to tackle this problem!

[Cor2]

Hey Collin,
How does the wallet decide to re-combine inputs that it earlier split in half?

OK, I dug into the debug log to find the transaction that combined many inputs and found that actually 23 inputs were being
combined into one staking event, see the relevant part below. Interesting that the total value is over the 1000 coin threshold:

 Coinstake(hash=044fc0a62f, nTime=1432792100, ver=1, vin.size=23, vout.size=2, nLockTime=0)

Hmmm, the plot thickens: all other times I see that vout.size = 3 which causes the wallet to skip the re-combination,
only when the vout.size = 2 will the "if" statement pass to enter the re-combination code.
So, now it is a question as to *why* the vout.size parameter is only rarely equal to 2.

I have no clue what any of this shit means, but thank you for trying to tackle this problem!

It is not really a problem, unless the nr of inputs become more than the wallet can handle.
I have seen it over 250 inputs already and I know that a wallet can handle over 1000 but not much more - depending on
the performance of the processor on which it is running...