So you are proposing to favor NuLagoon over Polo. I think I can vibrate with that. After all, what is important is to protect the peg not the trade volume.
I am sorry to have you frustrated.
I think with some insistence we can get it to pass.[quote=“masterOfDisaster, post:153, topic:3117”]
I will decommission the Poloniex NuBots and withdraw all funds to FLOT before I need to go on a trip in February. I
If the motion does not pass before your trip and you decide to decommission the bots, what choice do we have if the peg is endangered on Polo? I think we will have to reduce drastically the operations of NuPool or use T5.
While I have not yet reached the $1000 lower limit, I would appreciate it if you involve my T3 address in the upcomming buyback calculation. I calculate based on my last price entry that I could use around 3 BTC at this address if you don’t mind (I currently have 3.34649 BTC):
I might try my hand at crafting a txn next week. y’all forgot the T3, hehe. No big deal, I still have some buy side and plenty of sell side left. Maybe this week will see people buying back all the nbt they sold last week.
My private BTC multisig key was compromized. I am working with @ttutdxh to replace my key.
The probability that someone gets my key is low. Using it to sign something I don’t want to sign and causing harm is even less probable because 4 other FLOT members have to sign it. Still I will explain what happened after a new address is made and the current one is not used.
@masterOfDisaster can you please update OP to change my quoted text from the key post?
edit to add: the transaction in OP will need to be changed although the current one is needed to transfer fund, I suppose.
Anyone can do it. I might do it later, if nobody beats me to it.
Sorting the pubkeys in lexicographical order is very useful, because you don’t need to remember the sorting and just the “sorting algorithm”.
We should consider creating a 2-of-3 multisig address with very few funds on it, just to be more agile (which sometimes is necessary) than with 5-of-8, although I need to check whether that’s allowed.
I expect to find a motion that states otherwise.
2 groups of 2-of-3 would start to be “strictly” more agile than 5-of-8. Though I think 5-of-8 has been good enough for non-controversial transactions so far, and I’m not inclined to introduce further key management complications.
5-of-8 needs to be used for the vast majority of the funds due to security reasons.
But during recent times of enormous pressure - and although the FLOT was always way faster than 36 hours! - I wished for having more agile transactions.
That subset could refill T3 custodians etc. as well regularly, while being refilled from 5-of-8 from time to time.
It would share load.