[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[Rannasha]

I fully support the change to the number of significant digits. I will still work on a bot though

[1715283029]

1715283029

[1715283029]

1715283029

[1715283029]

1715283029

[EskimoBob]

I will be rolling out a change tonight that will limit any bid or ask order to a maximum of 4 significant digits.  What does this mean?  Here are some examples:

Bid           Becomes

10123.5    10120.0
1012.35    1012.00
101.235    101.200
10.1235    10.1200
1.01235    1.01200
0.101235    0.101200
0.0101235    0.0101200

Correct me if I'm wrong, but should the last 2 also be rounded?

Also, what about the stocks with very low prices like B.YAMBC, BTC-GOLD etc. 0.0003 or 0.0004 is a huge difference there. Maximum number of digits should be depending on stock price and not fixed.
Nevermind (fixed quote), so the 4 significant digits are counted after the first non-zero digit

I'd be happy, if you would announce major changes like this with a leadtime of 24+ hours and more visible in the future.

+1

BTW, does this also affect LTC-Global?

It will affect LTC-Global too, yup.

You're both right, for this one I'll wait until tomorrow (monday) ~2000 UTC to make the change.

Cheers.

Very interesting change indeed. Hopefully this will improve liquidity.

[Lohoris]

• Charging a very minor fee for order creation and cancellation...  minimal enough to not affect normal users, but significant enough to add cost to running a bot 24/7 with constant order updates.  Something like 0.00001 maybe.  Perhaps allow the first 20 order updates per day to be free, to not impact the average user at all.

Why should you enable bots first, and then fight them so hard this way... nonsense.
The 4 significant digit change is much better and settles the question, IMO.

[dexX7]

• Longer cache on order book API.  This will not affect regular users but will require additional work by bot owners to grab up-to-the-moment data for their bots.  However, this just pushes them off to webscraping the orderbook.  Making the orderbook require authentication helps to identify the bots, and rate limit pageviews (kind of how CloudFlare detects a ratelimit violation when they help protect against DoS).
  
• Rate limiting the OAuth API order creation (or any order creation without 2FA)
• Charging a very minor fee for order creation and cancellation...  minimal enough to not affect normal users, but significant enough to add cost to running a bot 24/7 with constant order updates.  Something like 0.00001 maybe.  Perhaps allow the first 20 order updates per day to be free, to not impact the average user at all.

Hell no! Please.. This would kill every realtime chart application.

I have no bot running, but I'm using external chart tools and I'm working on my own betting interface with success. And if you stop data fetching, people will use different methods. My solution would be to parse the IRC feed. And this would esentially suck as there are no trade ids included and I can only guess the mapping, when updating with "real data" ...

[parseval]

• Longer cache on order book API.  This will not affect regular users but will require additional work by bot owners to grab up-to-the-moment data for their bots.  However, this just pushes them off to webscraping the orderbook.  Making the orderbook require authentication helps to identify the bots, and rate limit pageviews (kind of how CloudFlare detects a ratelimit violation when they help protect against DoS).
  
• Rate limiting the OAuth API order creation (or any order creation without 2FA)
• Charging a very minor fee for order creation and cancellation...  minimal enough to not affect normal users, but significant enough to add cost to running a bot 24/7 with constant order updates.  Something like 0.00001 maybe.  Perhaps allow the first 20 order updates per day to be free, to not impact the average user at all.

Hell no! Please.. This kills would every chart application.

I have no bot running, but I'm using external chart tools and I'm working on my own betting interface with success. And if you stop data fetching, people will use different methods. My solution would be to parse the IRC feed. And this would esentially suck as there are no trade ids included and I can only guess the mapping, when updating with "real data" ...

This shouldn't affect my charting application...  I've already got a bot up to parse the IRC feeds, in addition to pulling from the API.  I grab the latest trades from the API for ltc-global and btctc, and use the IRC bots for Bitfunder, Havelock, and MPEx.  This shouldn't really impact charting applications, unless you're hammering the orders API endpoint every 30 seconds to get an up to date orderbook for some kind of cumulative depth graph (I'm not sure what the cache rate is on this order book currently).

But like I said, these are just speculative ideas on how to counteract the bot influences.. I don't necessarily think they all need to be implemented, I'm just brainstorming.  You're right that a dedicated botter would find a way around these measures and get their data some other way.  It really all depends on whether bots are really seen as a detriment or not, and whether the cost of inconveniencing the bot operators is worth the effort.. there's a point of diminishing returns where there's only so much you can do.

[Lohoris]

Why should you enable bots first

You can't "disable" bots. Having no API does not prevent bots, and an API is helpful for many other things.
And then there's the question of how exactly bots are harmful - after all, they're just doing what humans told them to.

And I totally agree with that.
I'm very very much against this mad crusade agains bots, it's just misinformed people who randomly attack something they don't understand.

[runam0k]

Please keep scams on BitFunder.

+1

+2

Odd response given that this "scam" has been up and running (as AMC-PT) on BTC-TC for weeks now.

[TsuyokuNaritai]

Odd response given that this "scam" has been up and running (as AMC-PT) on BTC-TC for weeks now.

You really want to bring up the subject of what's already been up-and-running?

Active Mining Corporation owner(s) shall hold 15,000,000 AM shares

AM shares will be sold on BitFunder and BTCT.CO and any other exchange, following asset approval or tendered by AMC shares.

[Pompobit]

Odd response given that this "scam" has been up and running (as AMC-PT) on BTC-TC for weeks now.

You really want to bring up the subject of what's already been up-and-running?

Active Mining Corporation owner(s) shall hold 15,000,000 AM shares

AM shares will be sold on BitFunder and BTCT.CO and any other exchange, following asset approval or tendered by AMC shares.

So do you mean this is a scam because the name resembles AsicMiner shares? The shares are sold as AMC on BTCT (ActM soon) and as ActiveMining on Bitfunder

[kleeck]

Odd response given that this "scam" has been up and running (as AMC-PT) on BTC-TC for weeks now.

You really want to bring up the subject of what's already been up-and-running?

Active Mining Corporation owner(s) shall hold 15,000,000 AM shares

AM shares will be sold on BitFunder and BTCT.CO and any other exchange, following asset approval or tendered by AMC shares.

So do you mean this is a scam because the name resembles AsicMiner shares? The shares are sold as AMC on BTCT (ActM soon) and as ActiveMining on Bitfunder

Exactly. If their are issues with this security then it should be represented with a negative vote and comment. The last time an issue was raised, which was related to the asset name, it was quickly revised and ActM went up to 4 votes. At least give Ken something to work with.

I believe their are a lot of naysayers, doubters, and generally paranoid individuals in regards to ActM but I don't believe that means it should not be traded. Let the market decide if ActM is where they want their BTC.

[WildFire.ca]

Does anyone have any info on the Android app. It's not receiving data or something.

Please keep scams on BitFunder.

+1

+2

You sound like someone who knows something. Can you share you wisdom on this topic with the rest of us.

[Pompobit]

You sound like someone who knows something. Can you share you wisdom on this topic with the rest of us.

+1

[kleeck]

You sound like someone who knows something. Can you share you wisdom on this topic with the rest of us.

+1

+2

[FloatesMcgoates]

Damn the "excessive wait time cannot achieve lock" is back and hampering trades.

[Lohoris]

Does anyone have any info on the Android app. It's not receiving data or something.

It's been broken for weeks, now.

[ar9]

Excessive wait time.

Can't make any transactions...

[odolvlobo]

Excessive wait time.
Can't make any transactions...

I'm getting "Invalid Bid Input", trying to place a bid on BTC-TRADING-PT for 30 shares at 0.7306

[elgapoorre]

Excessive wait time.
Can't make any transactions...

I'm getting "Invalid Bid Input", trying to place a bid on BTC-TRADING-PT for 30 shares at 0.7306

Me too. It's for other shares though. Seems to be a more complex problem on BTCTs side.

[yxxyun]

I got the invalid input too ...

[ArcticWolf]

I got the invalid input too ...

Seems btc-tc is down or has problems, there hasnt been any transactions in 90 minutes (check the Realtime tab)