NuPool 2 now active on Bittrex and Poloniex

[sportscliche]

After about 2 weeks exclusively on Poloniex, I finally saw the first reports indicating that I am providing liquidity. The most recent logfile recorded a long sequence of these:

2015/09/18-15:24:35 ERROR: submit: server response invalid
2015/09/18-15:24:37 DEBUG: /liquidity: server response invalid

In the ~24 hours since then, my client has given a succession of reports all with non-zero balance and non-zero rates. I haven’t changed anything in the configuration and I don’t have a large stake; just testing at this point.

[highspeedtractor]

Hi guys,

got answer from Bittrex support, they had a DB issue that orphaned some transactions. Already solved and I got my NBR’s back.
Now I am still interested why my balance jumped from 0.4 to zero. In my understanding, this balance is stored on the NuPool server. Should not be affected by DB issues on an exchange, right?

[Nagalim]

You may have received a payout or nupool restarted the server. You’re right that short of one of those two things happening your balance should not have reset.

[willy]

Now I am still interested why my balance jumped from 0.4 to zero

When exactly? We did a manual payout yesterday.

Should not be affected by DB issues on an exchange, right?

yes.

[highspeedtractor]

Happened exactly on 2015/09/18-23:25:01
I have attached a screenshot of the log which shows the period when error msgs appeared on a 1 second basis. Only deleted similar msgs to shorten it.

Any idea what happened? Ok, server connection was lost during this period but what does ‘global name logger is not defined’ mean? Just want to understand it.
Thx a lot for the support

[willy]

That was the manual payout I was referring to. The server has to be stopped for a short period of time. Mostly not longer than 2 minutes.
The 0.4 NBT balance was payed out (I hope!) and then reset to 0.

‘global name logger is not defined’

Nothing to worry about, just a small glitch in the debug logging.

[highspeedtractor]

Thank you willi, so everything is working as it’s supposed to be, except the payout which hasn’t arrived until now.
Let’s wait and see.

[Nagalim]

That transaction should be on the block chain and verifiable.

[willy]

Let’s wait and see.

Or let’s speed things up and write me your payout address via PM, so sam and I can check what is happening here.

[willy]

We’ve just investigated the issue mentioned by @highspeedtractor and two other users over our helpdesk and came to the following conclusion:

According to the logs, the server.py crashed on 2015/09/18-23:23:37 UTC and miraculously restarted itself 2015/09/18-23:24:37 UTC, exactly 1 minute later.
As we have no scripts monitoring server.py yet, we strongly suspect that the process (maybe even the whole server) was frozen and restarted by our provider DigitalOcean.

Due to this incident, we will start using supervisord for server.py monitoring by the next period.

All outstanding credits around that date should be paid out now: http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/5d78aed8a209bb40f86cb68d8823625561f2946203e748cb1a38e9969e341f52

Please contact us, if you’re missing payouts from that time frame.

[seki]

i see poloniex more than full these days! but i wonder in general what bot orders are placed and get full rewards?
usually i am like 50nbt buy/sell side
is this a random bot placement (whatever get first to place the orders?) or it has to do with the smallest spread? or something else?

[Nagalim]

Do you mean who gets rewarded when target is full? The person who gets rewarded is the person willing to accept the lowest reward, as specified by the ‘interest’ parameter in your config file.

[mhps]

Do you mean who gets rewarded when target is full? The person who gets rewarded is the person willing to accept the lowest reward, as specified by the ‘interest’ parameter in your config file.

What if more than target amount of liquidity is willing to take 0 interest? From my Liquidbits experience the above-target fund is not used most of the time, sometimes a small amount is used with 0% interest.

[Nagalim]

It uses a random number generator, I believe. Besides, what’s the difference between being rewarded 0% and not being rewarded?

[mhps]

Besides, what’s the difference between being rewarded 0% and not being rewarded?

It’s not “not being rewarded”. It’s not being used – not placed in the order book.

“being rewarded 0%” means my fund contributes to Nu liquidity.

[Nagalim]

Oh, the bot sometimes has problems with placing orders. I have to be honest though, I don’t often join pools operating under dutch auction conditions. It should, in theory, accept all your liquidity all the time if you use 0% interest. Do the conditions change if you restart the bot, or are they stable?

[mhps]

Do the conditions change if you restart the bot, or are they stable?

It’s totally repeatable. Restarting doesn’t kill the problem.

This is a topic drift but might notify @Cybnate and @woolly_sammoth as well.

[Nagalim]

I haven’t looked at the code. It could be that the server picks up to the target in liquidity and pays it out semi-randomly using complicated weights or whatever. Then, when the client sees liquidity not being compensated (as opposed to compensated 0%) it deletes orders so your liquidity is not at risk when the pool has reached target. Fixed cost avoids this, of course, by removing the target.

[zoro]

i think it is a random behavior by the bot. i tried also different spread values with no result.
in my opinion, priority should be given to users that have set the lower spread

[Cybnate]

It’s totally repeatable. Restarting doesn’t kill the problem.

Even at a 0.00% rates (no lower limit in config) my orders are still offered on the exchange. Just had to opportunity the test it live on BTC/NBT pair on CCEDK. So it appears to me it is being used, not rewarded but that is the Dutch auction so it works fine imo.

Edit: you are right, observing a bit longer it is actually not always the case. Just seeing an instance where the excess coins are not offered on the exchange., but that was after I raised the lower limit of the fee to 0.01. Still puzzled, maybe this needs a separate thread.