Bitstamp TX Fee Exploit - Fee 1.16% instead of 0.2% [Bitstamp Fixes on May 15th]

[dave111223]

Because changing your entire decimal precision could cause unintended bugs....

As opposed to what? Intended bugs?
Just because something is inconvenient or hard does not mean it should not be done, applying half-assed pseudo band-aids is exactly what you should not do.

When you have zero experience in a field, and no valid point to make, your best course of action is usually to refrain from talking.

My point is that the order limit can be place immediately; while the more permanent solution of higher precision decimal rounding can be tested and implemented over a longer period of time.

So your solution would be what?

a) Leaves the system running as is (stealing fees) for months while safely developing and test the change in rounding.

b) Rush out a change in decimal precision without adequate testing and hope it has no bugs?

Try to discuss the point rather than semantics and ad hominem

[samson]

This exchange is straight up scamming it's customers.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Bitstamp do not want to make changes because they will make less money from fees.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

[ninjabenja]

My typical 30 day trading volume is 300k at minimum.

And you didn't notice you were being ripped off?

If I had I would have been the OP. Shit happens. I guess that somehow as "obvious" as it must have been, none of the other handful of people who use stamp noticed it either. Our bad.

Still no reply to my comment on their facebook or the tweet I sent them.

Link to tweet? I will check quality and retweet.

https://twitter.com/NinjaBenjamin/status/463721726493589504

[davout]

Try to discuss the point

Your display of braindamage does not constitute a point in any way.

Bitstamp do not want to make changes because they will make less money from fees.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

+1

[btcusury]

Transaction Fee Malleability?


Allegation that DGEX.com also does this: https://nextcoin.org/index.php/topic,4705.0.html

[btcdrak]

Personally, I ditched Bitstamp for Bitfinex because stamp suck.

[davidgdg]

as if 0.5% for < $500 isn't ridiculous enough, the most honest and reliable exchange in my experience so far has to be btc-e with their 0.2% flat rate, why would you even use bitstamp in the first place  

That hasn't been my experience. Deposits at BTC-e were credited days or even weeks late. Mysterious three figure fees approaching 1% per deposit were deducted and customer service queries went unanswered. In fact I moved from BTC-e to Stamp for exactly these reasons and so far I have been very happy with them.  

[smooth]

Has Bitstamp commented this thing at all? There are multiple ways to fix this... and being quiet makes it worse.

Actually there happens to be a single correct way to fix it.
For pretty much the same reason there is one single correct way to count.

Their answer is simply magical.

Fixing it by applying the fee to the order instead of by transaction is also valid. The way this would be done is to reserve the full fee (based on order quantity) when an order is opened, but then credit back only the unfilled portion of the fee when the order is closed (canceled or filled). Round the first up, round the second down (except in the special case of zero filled). They get the generated rounding breakage they seem to want, but once per order.

[davout]

Fixing it by applying the fee to the order instead of by transaction is also valid. The way this would be done is to reserve the full fee (based on order quantity) when an order is opened, but then credit back only the unfilled portion of the fee when the order is closed (canceled or filled). Round the first up, round the second down (except in the special case of zero filled). They get the generated rounding breakage they seem to want, but once per order.

It is indeed a much less scammy behaviour than what's currently happening.
That doesn't really work for small orders though, and is actually harder from a technical point of view, than simply increasing the precision of the stored amounts.

I think that'd be a good blog post subject, technical and accounting issues related to rounding and the best ways to solve them.

[dreamspark]

Not sure this will satisfy davout but; 


Bitstamp have updated their minimum order amount to $5:

Dear Bitstamp clients,

On May 15th, 2014 the minimum trade amount will be changed to $5.00.

Bitstamp’s accounting system rounds trading fees to pennies. To greatly reduce the impact of this rounding for our clients the minimum trade amount is being raised to $5.00.

The $5.00 trade minimum will apply to both our web interface and our API.

Best regards,
Bitstamp team

https://www.bitstamp.net/article/bitstamp-minimum-trade-changing-to-5/

[mmitech]

Not sure this will satisfy davout but; 


Bitstamp have updated their minimum order amount to $5:

Dear Bitstamp clients,

On May 15th, 2014 the minimum trade amount will be changed to $5.00.

Bitstamp’s accounting system rounds trading fees to pennies. To greatly reduce the impact of this rounding for our clients the minimum trade amount is being raised to $5.00.

The $5.00 trade minimum will apply to both our web interface and our API.

Best regards,
Bitstamp team

https://www.bitstamp.net/article/bitstamp-minimum-trade-changing-to-5/

it wont, because no matter what Bitstamp would do he wouldn't be satisfied..... the reason is simple when you know who he is 

[dreamspark]

Hence the 

[davout]

I'm slightly amused by the implication that the fact I operate another exchange somehow makes the hard figures, and the shittyness of the workaround any different

[jack0m]

This is ridiculous: there would be no issue at all if they let you set embedded fees, e.g. I buy 0.0023BTC for 1$ gross price, I get 0.0023/1.002 = 0.00229541BTC net amount and the difference = 4.59µBTC is deducted as fees

[oda.krell]

Writing here to voice my support for the '$5 trade minimum' fix.

On the plus side: fees can be expected to be near the advertised fee percentage from now on.

Also on the plus side: Bitstamp reacted fast to customer complaints and implemented a fix.

Also also on the plus side: Automated high frequency/low volume traders will hate it.

On the negative side, it seems to bring out the trolls. Oh well, can't have everything.


tl;dr To some it might look like a hack, but it's a solid hack, so no complaints from me.

[HerrAndreas]

Writing here to voice my support for the '$5 trade minimum' fix.

On the plus side: fees can be expected to be near the advertised fee percentage from now on.

Also on the plus side: Bitstamp reacted fast to customer complaints and implemented a fix.

Also also on the plus side: Automated high frequency/low volume traders will hate it.

On the negative side, it seems to bring out the trolls. Oh well, can't have everything.


tl;dr To some it might look like a hack, but it's a solid hack, so no complaints from me.

+1

[jack0m]

Writing here to voice my support for the '$5 trade minimum' fix.

On the plus side: fees can be expected to be near the advertised fee percentage from now on.

Also on the plus side: Bitstamp reacted fast to customer complaints and implemented a fix.

Also also on the plus side: Automated high frequency/low volume traders will hate it.

On the negative side, it seems to bring out the trolls. Oh well, can't have everything.


tl;dr To some it might look like a hack, but it's a solid hack, so no complaints from me.

no need to raise the limit with embedded fees. At current rate you could even lower it down to 10 cents and still have a negligible rounding within a satoshi

[kurious]

Writing here to voice my support for the '$5 trade minimum' fix.

On the plus side: fees can be expected to be near the advertised fee percentage from now on.

Also on the plus side: Bitstamp reacted fast to customer complaints and implemented a fix.

Also also on the plus side: Automated high frequency/low volume traders will hate it.

On the negative side, it seems to bring out the trolls. Oh well, can't have everything.


tl;dr To some it might look like a hack, but it's a solid hack, so no complaints from me.

Agreed - issue raised, exchange responded with a reasonable fix.  Job done.   

We have had far worse concerns ignored by other exchanges in the past, let's face it.

[blankia]

I still do not agree with this partial fix of Bitstamp. If I place one order I want to be charged for just one order, regardless if it is bought into by three different orders. I decided to place one order so should be charged for just one. Bitstamp is just a scammer exchange with a bad reputation.