Price feeds for Gold, Siver, Euro, Pound, Oil, Litecoin, Peso, Franc, etc.

[matt608]

I don't think we should rush to start too many markets.  Starting a market is a pretty big commitment.   Every market makes the delegate job more difficult by making them publish more feeds and it's better if all delegates don't rely on the same automated script to publish feeds.  I am opposed to starting any more "crypto" type markets... I don't see any point to bitLTC bitNXT etc.  I don't even see a whole lot of reason/need for bitBTC.

A very small number of solid liquid markets is best at the moment, wait until the assets are really useful and people really have a desire for more.  Don't do something just to do it because I don't think we have agreed on a way to stop/unwind/retire support for a market.  As long as there are a few people holding on to some random asset you sort of owe it to them to keep a feed in place.  Worst case we could probably discontinue a market by giving a lot of notice and saying all shorts will be closed and bitassets credited BTSX at feed price but this will probably look bad.

Agree, a solid bitUSD with millions or billions in market cap is more useful than a bunch of smaller assets.

[maqifrnswa]

I don't think we should rush to start too many markets.  Starting a market is a pretty big commitment.   Every market makes the delegate job more difficult by making them publish more feeds and it's better if all delegates don't rely on the same automated script to publish feeds.  I am opposed to starting any more "crypto" type markets... I don't see any point to bitLTC bitNXT etc.  I don't even see a whole lot of reason/need for bitBTC.

A very small number of solid liquid markets is best at the moment, wait until the assets are really useful and people really have a desire for more.  Don't do something just to do it because I don't think we have agreed on a way to stop/unwind/retire support for a market.  As long as there are a few people holding on to some random asset you sort of owe it to them to keep a feed in place.  Worst case we could probably discontinue a market by giving a lot of notice and saying all shorts will be closed and bitassets credited BTSX at feed price but this will probably look bad.

This, and I also don't want to see too many variables change at once. 0.4.17 brought a bunch more new changes to the market, let's let the established markets do their thing for a couple of days (at least) before throwing more onto the fire

[emski]

I don't think we should rush to start too many markets.  Starting a market is a pretty big commitment.   Every market makes the delegate job more difficult by making them publish more feeds and it's better if all delegates don't rely on the same automated script to publish feeds.  I am opposed to starting any more "crypto" type markets... I don't see any point to bitLTC bitNXT etc.  I don't even see a whole lot of reason/need for bitBTC.

A very small number of solid liquid markets is best at the moment, wait until the assets are really useful and people really have a desire for more.  Don't do something just to do it because I don't think we have agreed on a way to stop/unwind/retire support for a market.  As long as there are a few people holding on to some random asset you sort of owe it to them to keep a feed in place.  Worst case we could probably discontinue a market by giving a lot of notice and saying all shorts will be closed and bitassets credited BTSX at feed price but this will probably look bad.

I completely agree with every sentence except the bold ones.

[vegolino]

I don't think we should rush to start too many markets.  Starting a market is a pretty big commitment.   Every market makes the delegate job more difficult by making them publish more feeds and it's better if all delegates don't rely on the same automated script to publish feeds.  I am opposed to starting any more "crypto" type markets... I don't see any point to bitLTC bitNXT etc.  I don't even see a whole lot of reason/need for bitBTC.

A very small number of solid liquid markets is best at the moment, wait until the assets are really useful and people really have a desire for more.  Don't do something just to do it because I don't think we have agreed on a way to stop/unwind/retire support for a market.  As long as there are a few people holding on to some random asset you sort of owe it to them to keep a feed in place.  Worst case we could probably discontinue a market by giving a lot of notice and saying all shorts will be closed and bitassets credited BTSX at feed price but this will probably look bad.

[Agent86]

I don't think we should rush to start too many markets.  Starting a market is a pretty big commitment.   Every market makes the delegate job more difficult by making them publish more feeds and it's better if all delegates don't rely on the same automated script to publish feeds.  I am opposed to starting any more "crypto" type markets... I don't see any point to bitLTC bitNXT etc.  I don't even see a whole lot of reason/need for bitBTC.

A very small number of solid liquid markets is best at the moment, wait until the assets are really useful and people really have a desire for more.  Don't do something just to do it because I don't think we have agreed on a way to stop/unwind/retire support for a market.  As long as there are a few people holding on to some random asset you sort of owe it to them to keep a feed in place.  Worst case we could probably discontinue a market by giving a lot of notice and saying all shorts will be closed and bitassets credited BTSX at feed price but this will probably look bad.

[davidpbrown]

instructions are here, very simple:
https://github.com/Bitsuperlab/operation_tools/tree/master/btsxfeed

I'm not convinced it's so simple.. 

In Linux, it wanted a dependency of python_requests; and detailing exactly how to combine the sample json and the existing config would be useful for json noobs.

Running the qt seems to validate; recreate; or edit the config.json and that removes the updated detail for bts_rpc etc, which is a surprise.

It seemed to be working using the client, though I didn't get to the point of seeing feeds because in trying to then run the usual qt client in parallel clashed and had it throw a locked database error. I haven't time to battle with that just now.

Is it possible to run client and qt together?.. would be surprised if not. Is it possible to run the qt with feeds being broadcast or must that be a client only?

[sschechter]

It looks like it's still called BitGLD, is this going to be changed?

The genesis block is set in stone .. don't thing it will or can be changed.

Even if it was possible, you don't like bitGLD?

I've never been a trader of anything other than crypto so I'm far from an expert, but I would much prefer bitGOLD.  Everyone knows automatically what that is, it's virtual gold, obviously.  Dropping the "o" just seems pointless.  People have to then ask, 'what's bitGLD, does that stand for gold?'  Gold is short enough a word.  bitGOLD conjoures the image of gold, it's an awesome name, bitGLD is a step away from the actual thing, an abstraction.  One of the great things about bitassets is the name, just the real thing with 'bit' in front of it.  I'd be worried about holding bitGLD just because it sounds weird (though I may be foolish to feel that way).

I would imagine its name came from this (which I think it more closely resembles over the real thing):
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GLD

[xeroc]

there is still a description for each an every asset

Code: [Select]

{
  "id": 7,
  "symbol": "GLD",
  "name": "Gold",
  "description": "1 troy ounce .999 fine gold",
  "public_data": "",
  "issuer_account_id": -2,
  "precision": 1000000,
  "registration_date": "20140719T000000",
  "last_update": "20140719T000000",
  "current_share_supply": 0,
  "maximum_share_supply": 1000000000000000,
  "collected_fees": 0
}


[matt608]

It looks like it's still called BitGLD, is this going to be changed?

The genesis block is set in stone .. don't thing it will or can be changed.

Even if it was possible, you don't like bitGLD?

I've never been a trader of anything other than crypto so I'm far from an expert, but I would much prefer bitGOLD.  Everyone knows automatically what that is, it's virtual gold, obviously.  Dropping the "o" just seems pointless.  People have to then ask, 'what's bitGLD, does that stand for gold?'  Gold is short enough a word.  bitGOLD conjoures the image of gold, it's an awesome name, bitGLD is a step away from the actual thing, an abstraction.  One of the great things about bitassets is the name, just the real thing with 'bit' in front of it.  I'd be worried about holding bitGLD just because it sounds weird (though I may be foolish to feel that way).

[xeroc]

It looks like it's still called BitGLD, is this going to be changed?

The genesis block is set in stone .. don't thing it will or can be changed.

Even if it was possible, you don't like bitGLD?

[matt608]

The price Gold and Silver are supposed to track is definitely one ounce of physical metal, not any ETF.

I would prefer calling them BitXAU and BitXAG anyway - that way there is no language bias applied.

Right, they shouldn't be named BitGLD and BitSLV. Those names would cause too much confusion among people familiar with the ETFs.

It looks like it's still called BitGLD, is this going to be changed?

[bytemaster]

There is a bug in the current market engine that prevents orders from being matched against the short wall if they are the first order in a block to match.  This bug has been fixed along with a handful of other small issues that are fixed in 0.4.17-RC2 and scheduled to take effect in 24 hours assuming RC2 testing passes and 0.4.17 is officially tagged.

[Markus]

GLD is closest to launch given the statistics.
The whole GLD sell depth is a single short at double the real price.
Is that a market?

This is a bug in the GUI. What is actually the offered collateral ratio is displayed as the price. If you check the console the limit for this short is actually 38000 - and that is even a few per cent below the peg. And it overlaps with a small buy order at 40000. As you can see, there is a market and feeds are the only thing preventing this trade from happening. (The min market depth requirement was abolished I thought)

>> blockchain_market_list_shorts GLD
AMOUNT                        COLLATERAL RATIO              COLLATERAL                    PRICE LIMIT                   ID                                     
================================================================================================================================
1.000000 GLD                  80000                         80,000.00000 BTSX             38000. GLD / BTSX             c58e39bb558e08cc6a4ca2e7c3124c97b1910f4c

[xeroc]

No it's not .. but you don't need to trade for twice the price ..

I can remember when cryptsy starts trading new shitcoins .. they always start with ridiculous prices hoping for a fool/bot to take the order.
I am not sure if it's an issue of the asset or the delegates/feeds that people can get fooled .. further, anybody can short at reasonable prices once the market is open .. so I don't think this scenario will persist for long.

[emski]

GLD is closest to launch given the statistics.
The whole GLD sell depth is a single short at double the real price.
Is that a market?