Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jz831

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Not matching is the correct behaviour, IMO, because if you trade more than 1 unit the sub-satoshi price difference might make more than 1 satoshi absolute difference.

Edit: Hint: if you create an order with the intent of matching an existing order you can use a slightly worse (for yourself) price. The order will always be filled at the price of the existing order.

Coming from a user experience view, what's suggested here, is a platform which, at times, does not function properly (unless the fractional math behind the scenes gets fixed).  As a user, if I click on an Ask or Bid in the UI, with the intent to have the client make the transaction, when i fund the order, I expect it to actually execute (in fact, everything that is easily visible to the user means being confounded by why the intended trade never happens - this seems like a less than ideal implementation).  What I don't expect is having to manually over/under bid an Ask or Bid, to execute the transaction.

Ahh interesting.  The devil's in the details! In this case, details are beyond 8 9 decimal places it would seem... silly computers  :D

I can see why that would happen, were the prices off by an amount (a satoshi, or fraction of a BTS) - but when I submit these stalled orders, I click on the Ask (or Bid) to make the purchase (or sale), as I have done any number of other times and have had it work correctly.   My above example isn't ideal, as the order went threw after more testing (once i inverted the market) - however, here's another current example, in the MOONFUND asset market (

Bid = Price: 0.68 BTS amount: 3,821 total: 2,599
Ask = Price 0.68 BTS amount: 3,821 total: 2,599

These prices, amounts and totals match verbatim, but the order remains stalled, and unexecuted.  The depth chart matches and touches, yet the order never gets made.  Puzzling, no?

I've had this happen several times now, where I place an order to buy an asset, and the order gets broadcast & transmitted, and i see it on the market, but it never executes.  I just tried it via the web client (using a different account), and it worked just fine.  I am running the latest (for OSX) available, Version 2.0.160406

I can't figure out what it happening - any clue?  :-\

eg: check out open.lisk asset - there are matching orders there, currently a bid for 325 BTS for 19.07 units for a total of: 6,197 BTS, and an ask for 325 BTS 11.76 units, total of 3,821, and the orders don't execute, never get fulfilled - can someone explain this behavior, and/or how to work around it?

Well, after testing some more, it seems this issue can be resolved if the market is inverted (selling/buying BTS, instead of the asset in question, i.e. orders made on the BTS:OPEN.LISK market work as expected, but orders placed on the OPEN.LISK:BTS market stall) - at least that's what seems to be happening.

My first though is the volume can vary quickly and it would change the composition of the Bit20 too often.

No if you use the average weekly or monthly volume!

PS you can use both (marketcap + volume) but give 70% weight to volume and 30% weight to marketcap for example...


This is a great idea, and discussion.  I look forward to seeing what develops.

Technical Support / Re: BitShares 2.0.160223 for OSX?
« on: March 03, 2016, 03:32:34 pm »
Many thanks.     Also, fwiw, I see the OSX version has now been posted to the github release page

Technical Support / BitShares 2.0.160223 for OSX?
« on: February 28, 2016, 02:02:32 am »
Any idea when the latest release will be built for OSX, and posted to GitHub?

Technical Support / Re: Status on Bitshares ShapeShift
« on: January 23, 2016, 04:53:00 am »
I don't mean to be a bother, but is there any ETA or update on this?

I have recovered some of my accounts with this method, but a couple of my accounts are missing some BTS balances - any idea of what to try?  I just recovered one, which is missing ~ 75k BTS from it, and another account has more than that missing.  I took a screenshot on 10/13 of my 0.9.3c balances pre-fork, to use for comparison, but i'm kinda stuck as to what to try. I found an xfer from polo in the 1st week of Aug which would account for 90%+ of the ~75k missing funds in the one account's 2.0 import, is there a way to scan a v1 block in v2?  My other assets' balances are correct, however.  A bit concerning about the missing BTS tho, i'm holding off on importing the 2nd account with the greater missing BTS until I learn more.

is there a definitive reply to the questions asked here? 

Before the oct 13 date, do I need to remove all my orders from the internal decentralized exchange?  Like buy and sell orders for Brownies, Notes, etc?

What about bitassets?

Your link provided, is dead, xeroc, so not of much use to answer the questions...

Thanks for the kind offer - best of luck with metaexchange and your other projects.  I've loved the service provided by metaexchange thus far, keep it up!

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: House cleaning
« on: July 03, 2015, 04:26:54 am »
I manage delegate.bitcoinjim (3%), more as a hobby/challenge just to see if I could get it working, tho I am an ardent BTS supporter and do my best to turn folks onto the system.  I also am responsible for around ~1GHs of scrypt hashing (and a handful of X11) @ the pool.  I also intend to contribute to 2.0 by running a witness node. 
I really hope that even before 2.0 launches, we're able to continue to clean up the existing 101 delegates and trim some dead weight from there, and replace with active contributors.  It does seem a bit baffling that there are currently over 20% of the 101 who don't publish any feeds at this point.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Developer delegate: dev.bitsharesblocks
« on: June 18, 2015, 04:51:21 am »
Thanks for the update, and for all the hard work.. Apologies if my post wasn't the proper way to alert on this issue, just wasn't sure where to go.

ya ya, murphy's law and all that, it never fails  :)  BSB is awesome stuff, thanks again!

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Developer delegate: dev.bitsharesblocks
« on: June 17, 2015, 08:15:57 pm »
Is there an issue with BSB? The last block available on is 2,827,953   Jun 17, 2015 8:11:00 AM

get_info in the client is currently returning:
  "blockchain_head_block_num": 2829761,
  "blockchain_head_block_age": "6 seconds old",
  "blockchain_head_block_timestamp": "2015-06-17T20:12:30",
... [snip]


General Discussion / Re: New BitShares (2.0) Website Feedback
« on: June 10, 2015, 05:38:46 pm »
The Infographic is currently 404'ing, fwiw:

Pages: [1] 2 3 4