Quote from: pc on January 15, 2018, 03:03:15 PM
2. Offering a trading bot to the public is a bad idea, IMO. Such a bot makes it too easy for users to shoot themselves in the foot. They will blame it on us, even if was their own fault. See here for example: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23457.msg300913.html#msg300913

Very good point, actually ...

1. IMO a good trading bot will be able to pay for itself. Which is also the reason why I wouldn't publish it if I created one. :-)
2. Offering a trading bot to the public is a bad idea, IMO. Such a bot makes it too easy for users to shoot themselves in the foot. They will blame it on us, even if was their own fault. See here for example: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23457.msg300913.html#msg300913

Quote from: Brekyrself on January 09, 2018, 06:36:40 AM
What's the reason people are not voting for this?

I would like to know also. I like the idea of "official" bitshares bot.

What's the reason people are not voting for this?

Quote from: fav on December 28, 2017, 02:35:35 PM
still don't know from OP which one's the real one? please make it clear, and add an image from the wallet view if you want votings

Sorry for the unclarity. The duplicate WP appeared after OP here.

The right WP to vote for is the one with "($660/d)" and currently more votes:

DEXBot - User Friendly BitShares Market Making Bots ($660/d)

not this one:
DEXBot - User Friendly BitShares Market Making Software

Quote from: Customminer on December 26, 2017, 12:57:54 PM
Sounds like an interesting proposal, I'd like to see support for additional price feed sources - BTSBOTS was overly reliant on Poloniex for price feed stats.

Feel free to contribute to the document where we are collecting thoughts about different strategies: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hOPhow3WBwQmeNkL0JrIufvfE2TvsORD1OK0Xg3JnVg/edit#

Quote from: Customminer on December 26, 2017, 01:20:21 PM

Quote from: yvv on December 26, 2017, 01:08:11 PM

Quote from: Customminer on December 26, 2017, 12:57:54 PM
BTSBOTS was overly reliant on Poloniex for price feed stats.

This is not true. Btsbots price feed deviated from poloniex by a lot, because it was heavily weighted by Chinese exchanges with high volume.

When I last used it, it was either Poloniex or hardcoded prices - no other price feed sources. It was about this time that BTSBOTs completely ceased functioning correctly for me :(

In any case, this bot will be designed to allow for custom feed weighting and offsets.

still don't know from OP which one's the real one? please make it clear, and add an image from the wallet view if you want votings

Quote from: yvv on December 26, 2017, 01:08:11 PM

Quote from: Customminer on December 26, 2017, 12:57:54 PM
BTSBOTS was overly reliant on Poloniex for price feed stats.

This is not true. Btsbots price feed deviated from poloniex by a lot, because it was heavily weighted by Chinese exchanges with high volume.

When I last used it, it was either Poloniex or hardcoded prices - no other price feed sources. It was about this time that BTSBOTs completely ceased functioning correctly for me :(

Quote from: Customminer on December 26, 2017, 12:57:54 PM
BTSBOTS was overly reliant on Poloniex for price feed stats.

This is not true. Btsbots price feed deviated from poloniex by a lot, because it was heavily weighted by Chinese exchanges with high volume.

Sounds like an interesting proposal, I'd like to see support for additional price feed sources - BTSBOTS was overly reliant on Poloniex for price feed stats.

I support this project and will be volunteering my help throughout.

I've forked and architected major improvements to other MM bots on github (similar to Trade Machine) and have done over $150mm in non-direction market making volume. This expertise will go towards advising this project.

Please Stat-Dude as proxy if you haven't already.

Quote from: oxarbitrage on December 24, 2017, 02:35:27 PM
please note you have 2 active worker proposals that are actually the same(http://bitshares-explorer.io/#/workers)

http://bitshares-explorer.io/#/objects/1.14.73/
and
http://bitshares-explorer.io/#/objects/1.14.74/

need to make clear everywhere to the stakeholders for what to vote as they can't be deleted or updated!

Yes thanks for pointing that out. What apparently happened was this:

• We made a multisig account
• I proposed a WP to the multisig account using my own LTM account
• We all signed the proposed transaction
• There was some problem, and the WP didn't get included in the chain. There was some message about missing translation. We probably should have taken note and made a Github issue.
• We gave the account full permissions back, and made a new WP
• Got a message that can't propose worker without LTM.
• Upgraded to LTM
• Made proposal again, and it succeeded. This is 1.14.73
• The earlier WP was included in the chain as a surprise. This is 1.14.74
• We changed the account back to multisig

So it appears that a multisig account can create a WP but if it doesn't have LTM the error message won't indicate that. Maybe I should create an issue of this?

Quote from: yvv on December 24, 2017, 03:24:46 PM
Can one of these proposals be recalled?

At this time it is not possible, there is a bsip to support worker upgrade operation here: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0028.md

It is something that definitely will be added but unfortunately not there yet, sorry about that.

Can one of these proposals be recalled?