“Have no fear of perfection — you will never reach it” — S. Dali
Thanks for the feedback guys, I will prepare a grant for the 990 NBT in the next few days.
@masterOfDisaster Not sure whether it is worth to change the 120 NBT /60 days for the NBT/BTC pair. If there is clear steer from the shareholders to not support NBT/BTC ALP/MLP on any exchanges except 1 or 2, I will convert it to a dual-side Pybot at no cost after this grant expires.
I still think there is value to maintain minimal liquidity (say 500 either side) on any exchange supporting NuBits encouraging decentralisation and choice for the average user to sign up with his/her local exchange till we have B&C operational providing a real alternative. The main value is in visibility and accessibility for users who are actually going to keep the NuBits in their wallets and use it to pay for goods and services. I think that is a small price to pay. I’m specifically not mentioning traders.
Do we have figures as for this primary use of NBT? users population keeping their NBT to pay for goods and services
I believe we cannot be aware of how NBT is used exactly. I mean it is in the nature of an anonymous token that you cannot tell how it is spent
I dare to say that NBT is indeed used for goods and services but mostly indirectly through BTC and then to fiat via other services (payment processors,visa,etc)
Although it is obvious that it should be the other way around! (BTC --> NBT --> fiat )
This is where we should concentrate our efforts (NBT <–> fiat) together with the adoption of NBT for direct use by merchants.
This might indeed be able to provide a sweet spot (to have a target of few hundred USD value per side), although removing ALP completely would remove ALP operator fees, too.
Even a small ALP operation requires an operator. The operator fees are then in a bad ratio to the ALP liquidity volume.
It might still be worth it.
I posted the related figures we have recently here: NuDroid v4 - Now available on Google Play. I can’t think of anything else to provide proof of actual usage. Maybe the amount of NBT addresses with a balance larger than a few NBT?
Not sure if I understand this right? NuBots also have operator fees. I’m good to reduce the LiquidBits amount from 150 NBT/60 day to 100 NBT/60 days given the amount of work I have on it. However the difference is relatively small, I suppose you are referring to other operators?
i was just trying to say that a small ALP operation still requires an operator - in difference to completely removing an ALP operation from an exchange
And I think a standard ALP operator can have more efforts than a passively operating NuBot manager.
So I don’t consider it wrong if an ALP operator requires a higher fee than a NuBot operator.
Automatic payment failed yesterday due to Nu deamon misbehaving and requiring a restart. Today it went through fine.
Will do a manual payout for yesterday’s rewards in next 25h.
The server has been restarted. The server crashed with a known issue:
ERROR: exception caught in main loop: list index out of range : list index out of range
The bounty to fix this still stands: 100 US-NBT Bounty to fix issue beyond error message ALP pool software
Isn’t it about time to sit that error out and plan the transition towards ALP2 with NuBot?
I’m aware that the NuBot integration has been released a few days ago, but what about the ALPv2 software? Apparently it has been finished, but haven’t seen an announcement with a link to the latest version. Quick search on the forum and a 3 months scrollback on Gitter didn’t deliver a link other than a test instance.
Do you know where to find a link? Did I miss something, have I been out of the loop given your response?
No I don’t, but can have a look.
I don’t think you’ve been out of the loop.
I was trying to say: don’t waste efforts for a system that will likely be discontinued
Appreciate the concern. But I think it is only discontinued when there is a working and stable replacement available under an open license. So until then I’m interested in fixing issues in current application.
You are right.
Sometimes I might be thinking ahead too far…
Liquidbits server has continuous problems i see. is this connected somehow with running pybot for Poloniex?
No, this is an old problem which started to appear in October last year as far as I know. I can’t get my finger on why it happens as it is very random in time. That’s why there is the 100 NBT reward on it, it is not easy to fix.
The other issues are related with Nu daemon terminating/not responding, which started to appear since 2.x. As long as it not more than once a week I need to restart something I’m fine with it. Just inconvenient.
Due to the name change of the trading pair and API from NBT to US-NBT on CCEDK it appears to be no longer possible to add new orders with the current instance of LiquidBits on CCEDK. The Bittrex and Poloniex are still working fine at this stage.
Will try to apply a quick-fix after the scheduled payout in 2 hours time. There is a risk if it is not working that a longer outage might be required and that I have to set up a different instance for my PyBots on Bittrex and Poloniex. The software might not be able to easily differentiate the base pairs across exchanges.
My apologies for any issues and downtime in advance. This was an unscheduled change by CCEDK on request of the community and I will try as good as I can to accommodate it.
LiquidBits is still down. Issues are proving challenging, server doesn’t respond properly any longer. Logs are not generated.
Will post further details when making progress.
Edit: 7:57 UTC: Server remains unresponsive. Possible other issues. Creating snapshot to secure logs and reverting to backup from earlier today. This may take a while.
Edit: 9:22 UTC: Server restored. PyBots still don’t connect. Server started, no logs. Very strange. Suspect hangover issues from DNS issues 2 days ago. Will restore backup from last week as last resort. Will do this overnight (NZ time).
I’m aware that this already creates a lot of efforts, but…
…could this be an opportunity to make a hard cut over to ALPv2?
I mean, the ALP clients need to upgrade, because of the changed CCEDK API, right?
A properly scheduled and announced change would be way better.
But it seems that it’s already too late for that.