I like your bot btw.
Why is it down? I can use some more bitUSD, even at 2 at a time.

Shouldn't be down... i'll check it out. when the market is this thin I have put on very cautious settings so it isn't manipulated.
it's still in testing mode, thus the small values. I had to hack the wallet to get the API i needed. I pushed the commit to graphene, might take some time to trickle down to everyone else.

I think I'm the only market maker at the moment...

why openbtc trade.btc is used by exchanges instead of bitbtc?

Because the market rules only enforce one side of the peg. (I've been ranting about this for months). The only rule is 1 bitBTC >= 1 BTC.

If I'm an exchange,  and someone gives me 1 BTC, I don't want to exchange it 1:1 for something that is guaranteed to be worth more than 1 BTC. Same goes for users, I don't want to give my valuable bitBTC over to someone just to get a cheaper BTC. So I (the exchange) creates my own asset which is force pegged at 1 BTC (minus fees) because I will always give you a BTC in exchange for your XXXbtc. In that way, closed UIA are better than core assets -- they actually have a forced peg.

Once an XXXbtc is in the system, I don't know what you can do with it. Sure you can trade it for BTS, but you could have just done that instead of getting XXXBTC. And blocktrades / openledger can just convert BTS->BTC for you, no need to go through XXXbtc first. I guess if you're a high frequency trader you might save money on the DEX versus blocktrades/ccdek <-- post below me answers this, you can trade against things there are no market for yet at any other exchange -- like MUSE

Sorry if you have to explain it like I'm 5 but would this allow us to plug a raspberry pi into our home network and run a full node on it?  I just listened to the Lets talk bitcoin episode #260 and Dan mentioned running a full node and pointing the light client to it.  This sounds like a more secure way of running bts 2.0 for some people instead of using the web wallets?

Yes. At first just as a package, but if there is interest and funding, as a flashable disk image.  I've made and tested both during the graphene testnets (links to them are in the OP).

Cube has great questions, I collected data over the past year on ppa:showard314/bitshares
https://people.debian.org/~showard/ppastats/
bitshares 1.0 has about 20 consistent users
bitshares 2.0 has 1 or 2 users
additionally, bitshares 2.0 has 1 user using ppa:bitshares/bitshares

the dropoff is probably since the online web wallets are so good, and those that will use the cli tools know how to compile themselves.

I don't know if this accurately reflects the potential, since these numbers are without any advertising or anyone (besides me) telling people about the packages. Since no official site links to them, many don't know they exist or feel as if they are inferior. I agree that the biggest market is windows and apple by far (30x bigger perhaps?), but the early adopters will skew towards linux -- and although users can compile on their own many just want to fire-and-forget, just let the systems upgrade themselves with apt-get as needed.

I can compile libreoffice, but I never have.

I don't want to argue for the worker, I don't need the money -- but if this is something the community feels is worthwhile, great. If not, I can put it on ice for whenever it is needed (if ever). All I want is something we can point to for linux users as "the way" to get binaries "officially" since cryptonomex doesn't have the experience (and it is a distraction to them).

If there is no support for a worker, would the community be OK if I hacked the ppa packages to make myself the referrer on all accounts opened using the ppa packages? I could also do something with openledger where @ccedk pays to maintain and distribute their "official openledger linux packages" which sets them as a referrer, and they promote and distribute those packages through their sites. Then people would see that there are "official" packages out there.

updated yesterday, don't know if anyone is keeping track so i'll post here

Quote

Do community contributors then:
Branch off graphene/stable
And pull request to graphene/develop?

We don't have permission to push to graphene/api-123 I think

Rather:

Code: [Select]

git clone https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene.git
cd graphene

# create own fork on github and add as your 2nd remote
git remote add noisy https://github.com/noisy/graphene.git

# sync repos before creating new branch
git fetch --all

# create new branch based on 'stable'
git checkout origin/stable -b api-123

# make some changes
vim README.md
git add README.md
git commit -m "type in README"

# push branch to your fork
git push noisy api-123

# And the last thing.... create a pull request: noisy/api-123 to graphene/stable
If you have ANY questions about git please ask me. I am always happy to help. I consider myself as git expert I started using it in 2008 when I worked in Opera Software, and since then... git is considered by my as the most important tool I use

One part says to merge your change fork with graphene/stable, and another part of the instructions say to merge with graphene/develop.

https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/wiki/How-we-use-version-control
graphene/stable : Most recent common ancestor of $CHAIN/master across all chains. Preferred basis for patches, since patches written against this should apply to any chain. so graphene/stable is the basis for patches

and then it says:
All pull requests should be against graphene/stable, unless they contain code specific to some chain.However, in the workflow examples, the instructions say to:
1) create your own branch with the changes (based on graphene/stable)
2) merge your changes with graphene/develop
Merge it into graphene/develop:

git fetch graphene git checkout graphene/develop -b develop git merge graphene/api-123 git push graphene HEAD:develop3) then aftercode review merge graphene/develop to graphene/master

the documented workflow skips merging/pull-request with graphene/stable

looking through the code, the private key is not saved to the wallet when you create an account.

I had to hack the wallet to get it:
I exposed "derive_private_key" in the wallet api
then added:
std::cout << key_to_wif(derived_key);
to the derive_private_key implementation in wallet.cpp

that allowed me to get the wif private key from a normalized brain key

You can see the list of current witnesses and # votes here:
http://cryptofresh.com/

it looks like you need more votes (138M is the smallest)

could you list your monthly expenses?

OP updated with detailed breakdown

Worker proposal costs:
$15/day (~3966 BTS)
New worker proposal every 3 months to adjust for price.
Breakdown:

• Servers: $80 monthly for front-end and back-end servers.
• Domain name: $15 one time
• SSL cert: free (startssl, just to prevent man-in-the-middle attack on the info page)
• Development time: $50/hour based on jobs at freelancer.com
• 10 hours: server set-up development of build scripts (done)
• 1 hour/week maintenance (new versions/bug fixing)
• New distributions and architectures are not included yet. They will add as development time based on actual time spent in future months

Daily expenses over 90 days:
[80*3+15+(10+1*12)*50]/90 = $15.05/day
Rounded down to $15/day