UNO markets, status of the dayWow the Bittrex order book looks a lot better now
Someone filled that up nicely. The order books have tightened on both exchanges between 0.0065 and 0.0068. There was some really healthy action on Cryptsy today and judging by which orders were filled it appears legitimate. The Bittrex volume of $800 was mostly fake, I take it that it was one of you due to the delist warning, you went a little overboard and could have saved a few cents but w.e.
All things Cryptsy and comparing costs of tradingI'm definitely not anti-Cryptsy either, & I don't think this is a sign of exchange collapse. I don't understand their logic here, and I think it was disrespectful of them not to inform their users before hand (they simply knew many people would withdraw and they would earn more if they didn't inform us). Though I'll continue storing some funds there just to have buy and sell orders on the UNO books at all times. I have done my part to reduce the Cryptsy cold wallet size, I've moved a lot of UNO out of that site and keep <5% of my UNO there. The disappointing thing about this fee change is it will make people even less likely to move their funds from the site long-term. Maybe a few will get spooked and withdraw now, but long-term it will be harder to reduce the cold wallet size. But as discussed earlier, we still don't know the distribution of that cold wallet, maybe someone with 30,000 UNO died and that will be there until Cryptsy closes and liquidates the funds that aren't withdrawn (which could happen in a few months or 40 years, who knows).
I'm considering getting verified on Cryptsy, since now verified users get a share of fees proportional to their holdings. It's quite minimal, so it's not worth it to keep funds there just for that, but if you've got them there for orders anyway it may be worth it to become verified. Withdrawal fees are 0.5%, 2% of those fees go to verified members, and there are ~40,000 UNO in Cryptsy. So with 200 UNO on Cryptsy a verified member would get 0.00005 UNO for every 100 UNO withdrawn from the site, rather minuscule... I'll have to decide if it's worth a few milli-uno for Cryptsy to have my personal info, I'm honest with my Crypto activities on my taxes so I guess the only risk would be someone hacking the site then personally breaking into people's homes looking for cold storage, but I keep that in well-hidden encrypted drives anyway
If anyone can think of another reason not to get verified let me know please.
I'm also disappointed in Cryptsy's lack of quality site improvements (like distribution data, order book depth etc.) as I've mentioned before, but that's not enough to keep me from trading there. A lot of our volume comes from Cryptsy so we've got to embrace it. One good thing about the change is that with no trade fees, our volume may increase, which always looks good. Also, it gives people more options; if they absolutely insist on keeping funds somewhere to trade, then Cryptsy should be their UNO exchange of choice. If they deposit to trade then withdraw immediately, as I prefer to do with the bulk of my funds, Bittrex and Cryptsy would be about equal in cost and it would depend on liquidity and which exchange you prefer to support. Cryptopia remains the cheapest option in that regard with 0.2% fees.
Getting listed on more exchangesI never got a response from Yunbi, The Rock Exchange, or Bitcoin Indonesia. Let's keep trying though, I urge you to contact other exchanges to request that they list UNO, and continue voting on BTER.
HashrateI too would like to know where the reduction in hashrate came from, hopefully it was due to temporary downtime at a pool and not somebody dropping us from their merge-mining options.
IMPORTANT: Community thoughts on paid-development and hardware wallet supportSiameze commented on my Ledger Wallet thread here
https://www.reddit.com/r/ledgerwallet/comments/3ldjsz/altcoin_support/ He said he was working on building API that could be used for UNO hardware wallet support and that he could share build notes with any developers who want to tackle the project. If you remember, he was turned away by Gekko's response to his willingness to accept payment from me for the Spanish translation. So in private message I offered to pay him secretly to finish the translation and build hardware wallet support but he declined. He said that kind of deal must be done in the open and with support of the community. I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on paying for development. I understand that an environment of cost-free collaboration is optimal but we cannot sit by and hope that just falls into place. I personally urge you all to consider paying for development of some worthy projects. I'm willing to contribute a few hundred dollars toward quality development. Done right, $1,000-$2,500 of investment may be the difference between a market cap of $300,000 and $1,000,000.
With a contract properly stored in a blockchain, Siameze may be willing to do some great projects such as hardware wallet support. He also said Cryptapus may be capable of that.
We are dealing with an advanced cryptographic technology worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. People who have spent time to acquire skills should be treated with respect. If somebody uses blatantly disrespectful language and a toxic attitude their messages should be deleted, and with enough violations they should be banned from the thread. It's that simple, if somebody wants their voice heard they should know how to communicate like an adult. We should not allow overt trolling to take place in an effort to prevent censorship. It's important to remain open and free, but not at the cost of community morale and professionalism.
Imagine that a group developing open-source software are having a meeting in a cafe to discuss an update, then a disheveled drunken man busts in swearing at people. The person organizing the meeting allows him to stay, so one of the coders leaves. That is basically what happened with Gekko, except I imagine he wouldn't act like that in real life. Just because this is the internet does not mean we should let the loud vulgar guy stay at the meeting.
