Thanks Xeroc, I will let it sit until that account has enough vested to bother with. Although I think on the next fee proposal the amounts should be based on a percentage of the value transfer as much as possible.

I have an account with 42 bts that is done vesting and available to claim but the fee to claim the tiny 42 bts is 293 bts... what gives?

Taking it up the ass on MCXNOW was the final push that got me into making an exchange. Funny how all things tie together to form a long chain of events and there unintended side effects. Banx.io will be back up within a few day(fingers crossed). I have been working on updating some of the backend functions which is why it is offline. Since the exchange itself received many positive reviews and people felt safe knowing I was watching over them, Mark and I sat down and worked out keeping it open to mutual satisfaction. Please note that Banx.io IS NOT BANX the coin or whatever you want to call it. The exchange is and has always been under my umbrella and is one of the only exchanges to never have been breached (although I bungle things up once in a while lol).

Banx.io was Atomic-Trade which I made to provide a safe and transparent place for people to trade after the scams of MTGOX and MCXNOW, which for the past 3 years it has successfully done. So you may not like Mark or his coin but you can't deny that the exchange and myself have always done the utmost to stay true to the original goal. You don't have to like Mark but what I can tell you with 100% certainty is that he has no intention of scamming anyone and while he may not meet his goals, he always tries his best. I will say that the path to hell is paved with good intentions however that is only if you choose to take that path which Mark could have but instead is taking the harder uphill road, which I think earns him a little bit of leeway on the things that have not panned out. We have all had projects that have not met expectations and Mark is still pushing forward which is more than what 99% of people do. He is not bailing, ditching or jumping ship, instead he is doing what any good business does and is realigning to his strengths.

This is just my 2 cents. I was not paid or asked to say or write this. I actually didn't even intend to write this, I just started writing (doh). I am not a Banx employee, I am not related to anyone who is. I am a contractor for Banx in that I run and host the exchange and it's servers. Of which I do not make a profit only cover costs. If I had a problem with Mark / Banx or thought he intended to rip anyone off I would be more than happy to say so.

Side Note: BANX is on the BTS chain and holders will be free to do as they please once I am done my work on the exchange they will be available with complete freedom.

Having used the memo route on our exchange for quite some time I can tell you that people don't really mess up the memo, since they know it is there money they are messing with. Only once did I ever have to look at a transaction and credit it manually because of a bad memo.

great thanks again, basically i was doing it right :-)

or is it (signed_transaction)[0].[1].Operations[0].memo.nonce a valid check after using transfer2 and comparing to get_account_history for a matching nonce? as it does not appear that transfer2 returns an operation id.

so i am better off sticking with the operation id?

I have been using transfer and looking at the history for a match and pulling the 1.11.**** ( i think its 1.11) and storing that i am now switching to transfer2 which returns a transaction id as b546a75a891b5c51de6d1aafd40d10e91a717bb3 now how do i call something like get object? is there a call to convert this no the 1.*.* format? I know I am probably missing something very simple here...

When trying to register a premium name an unknown error message is shown and the console shows the following error:

!!! GrapheneApi error:  get_required_fees [Array[1], "1.3.0"]0: Array[1]0: Array[2]0: 51: Objectactive: Objectextensions: Array[0]fee: Objectname: "nameredacted"options: Objectowner: Objectreferrer: "1.2.00000"referrer_percent: 0registrar: "1.2.00000"__proto__: Objectlength: 2__proto__: Array[0]length: 1__proto__: Array[0]1: "1.3.0"length: 2__proto__: Array[0] Object {code: 1, message: "7 bad_cast_exception: Bad Cast↵Invalid cast from t...array_type"}↵    th_a  variant.cpp:575 get_object", data: Object}code: 1data: Objectmessage: "7 bad_cast_exception: Bad Cast↵Invalid cast from type 'array_type' to Object↵    {"type":"array_type"}↵    th_a  variant.cpp:575 get_object"__proto__: Object {"code":1,"message":"7 bad_cast_exception: Bad Cast\nInvalid cast from type 'array_type' to Object\n    {\"type\":\"array_type\"}\n    th_a  variant.cpp:575 get_object","data":{"code":7,"name":"bad_cast_exception","message":"Bad Cast","stack":[{"context":{"level":"error","file":"variant.cpp","line":575,"method":"get_object","hostname":"","thread_name":"th_a","timestamp":"2016-02-19T01:28:37"},"format":"Invalid cast from type '${type}' to Object","data":{"type":"array_type"}}]}}
app.js:102 ERROR AccountActions.createAccount Object {code: 1, message: "7 bad_cast_exception: Bad Cast↵Invalid cast from t...array_type"}↵    th_a  variant.cpp:575 get_object", data: Object}code: 1data: Objectcode: 7message: "Bad Cast"name: "bad_cast_exception"stack: Array[1]0: Objectcontext: Objectdata: Objecttype: "array_type"__proto__: Objectformat: "Invalid cast from type '${type}' to Object"__proto__: Objectlength: 1__proto__: Array[0]__proto__: Objectmessage: "7 bad_cast_exception: Bad Cast↵Invalid cast from type 'array_type' to Object↵    {"type":"array_type"}↵    th_a  variant.cpp:575 get_object"__proto__: Object__defineGetter__: __defineGetter__()__defineSetter__: __defineSetter__()__lookupGetter__: __lookupGetter__()__lookupSetter__: __lookupSetter__()constructor: Object()hasOwnProperty: hasOwnProperty()isPrototypeOf: isPrototypeOf()propertyIsEnumerable: propertyIsEnumerable()toLocaleString: toLocaleString()toString: toString()valueOf: valueOf()get __proto__: get __proto__()set __proto__: set __proto__()

I have redacted out some information such as name, referrer and registrar.

This error is thrown regardless of the name and the software is the latest light client (issue is confirmed on both windows and mac).

BTS and Eth should not be compared since they have very different features. However if BTS could have a blockchain code runner (execution environment) like Eth it would definitely make BTS the best overall platform.

Is it possible that the reason for this error is the wallet is trying to decrypt the memo from a send transaction and it can't because it only has the public key? I haven't had time to look at the code but it was the first logical reason that i could think of. If this is the case the wallet should not throw an error on this at all as it should check the op type and to/from to make sure it actually should bother trying to decrypt it.

My wallet has been showing this strange error lately

2107186ms th_a       wallet.cpp:2442               operator ()          ] Error
when decrypting memo: 10 assert_exception: Assert Exception
wallet._keys.count(op.memo->to): Memo is encrypted to a key <KEYREMOVED4SECURITY> not in this wallet.
    {"k":"<KEYREMOVED4SECURITY>"}
    th_a  wallet.cpp:2435 graphene::wallet::detail::operation_printer::operator
()

It doesn't make sense that the wallet can't decrypt a transaction it has sent (yes it is unlocked) or have the key to do so. Why would "memo->to" be encrypted, shouldn't just the message be encrypted.

I use the nonce returned in signed_transaction and then get the history and match the nonces then keep the id. I have not had a problem so far do you foresee any issues with this route?

Quote from: bytemaster on October 26, 2015, 07:03:51 PM

Quote from: monsterer on October 26, 2015, 06:47:09 PM

Quote from: maqifrnswa on October 26, 2015, 06:22:22 PM
I think he wants the other direction, CMC taking data from bitshares (not the other way around)

Take a look at metaexchange's markets summary API, that's all they needed to integrate us:

https://metaexchange.info/api/1/getAllMarkets

Very interesting, so how do we communicate to CMC that  TRADE.BTC and OPEN.BTC are really just BTC ?

Just talk to Gliss because he will have to code the name conversion into his system or you would have to return the name as just BTC but I wouldn't do that. He will need a JSON api that gives him the trade data similar to our simple api.

Why keep a long hash instead of a simple set of numbers?

I ask because I am not keeping track of the hash just the id.