An attempt to help you: https://github.com/pch957/btsprice/pull/6

Many thanks, I replied to the pull request before spotting your post here. Once it's been tested as functional I'll release the 750 bitUSD bounty.

alt's btsprice use CNY/BTS rate as a base for all the prices, so I'm using it for Hertz/Hero.

rate_cny["HERTZ"] = compute_hertz() * rate_cny["USD"]
In the above snippet of code, does rate_cny["USD"] result in the bitCNY:bitUSD rate, or the BTS:bitUSD rate?

If it's not BTS:bitUSD then it will not line up with the other hertz price feeds.

I'm not a witness so I can't test the publication. I'll try to setup it on testnet when I will have some time (probably next week).
Let me know if a witness using alt's script is avialable for testing.

I've got the hertz name reserved on testnet, I can provide you price feed publish rights on testnet if you're interested.

In the mean time, there were multiple witnesses on bitsharestalk who stated that they would consider supporting hertz once integrated into btsprice - I'll reach out to them in the next couple days.

I have also started to gather all changes from the community on my repo: https://github.com/Zapata/btsprice/commits/master (WIP)

Thanks, this is well needed!

  super cool! Don't give your private keys to a robot kids, but, you can check out the blockchain, accounts, spreads, prices all you want. Now I kinda want a google home. Voice activated trades on the blockchain, that wont happen for a while.

The bot's fully open source, so you can see that the internals don't handle any BTS keys, it's solely read-only functionality similar to the functionality offered by the BTS HUG REST API & Oxarbitrage's many libraries.

It mostly works at this point and yeah will work across all of google's platforms (TV, tablets, chromebooks, speakers, phones, etc).

Once it's in a fully functional state there will need to be efforts made to improve localization so as to enable hundreds of millions of users worldwide use the beyond bitshares google assistant in their native language.

Voice activated trades would be highly unlikely, however redirection to bitshares wallets/apps for completing such trades would be trivial. In fact, currently when the bot shows you market info for usd:bts it also links to the open-explorer.io page for usd:bts. It's not impossible to implement non read-only functions, it would just be a massive headache to do so, perhaps a couple years down the road or if someone forks the bot and wants to try they can do so.

Why not issue your token on the Bitshares DEX? Saves a lot of resources getting it going.

https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cm-steem/hertz-passed-its-first-trough-price-feed-appreciation-incoming-updates-and-charts

Passed the first trough in production!

http://open-explorer.io too

Quote from: xeroc on March 18, 2018, 06:35:53 am

Quote from: Customminer on March 18, 2018, 02:28:28 am

Quote from: xeroc on March 17, 2018, 04:14:22 pm

This will ultimately raise a few questions about the STEALTH token which is a FeeBacked Asset that has been given by Dan for the development of Stealth. If the backend devs where to continue its development using funds from the reserves, it would only be fair to re-evaluate how well those that currently hold STEALTH (those that have interest in its development and usage), performed in the last 2-3 years.
For me, it never made sense to work on STEALTH only so that some other people (STEALTH holders) can earn money of it.

If solely implemented by the bitshares-core dev worker proposal then non-FBA is appropriate, otherwise fair enough. There'd be nothing stopping the copy/pasting of the stealth code without the FBA though right?

In a hardfork, yes.
But that requires (as usual) a BSIP and the approval of BTS holders.

In this case, not only need approval of BTS holders but also STEALTH holders. There is a somewhat "social contract".

A social contract between some parties who no longer associate with BTS, ultimately the only social contract which should have been established is a worker proposal.

This will ultimately raise a few questions about the STEALTH token which is a FeeBacked Asset that has been given by Dan for the development of Stealth. If the backend devs where to continue its development using funds from the reserves, it would only be fair to re-evaluate how well those that currently hold STEALTH (those that have interest in its development and usage), performed in the last 2-3 years.
For me, it never made sense to work on STEALTH only so that some other people (STEALTH holders) can earn money of it.

If solely implemented by the bitshares-core dev worker proposal then non-FBA is appropriate, otherwise fair enough. There'd be nothing stopping the copy/pasting of the stealth code without the FBA though right?