[Passed] Motion Dual side Nubot gateway in Poloniex @zoro - term 2

[Cybnate]

Well a little bit off-topic but required to underline my position the work I’m doing to run PyBot server. Just to name a few key differences:

• Clearing out logs and securing them for future analyses of delivery
• Cost of server hosting, backups and package updates

Re security:

• Updating server certificates and domain name once a year including the ongoing costs of them.
• Cost of security measures e.g. subscription to Cloudflare.

I can run NuBot (and PyBot) on any PC, laptop, tablet and Raspberry Pi without all the above costs and effort.

[Nagalim]

Logs are definately still a nubot thing. Server + backups is like $25/month. Domain name is like $1/month (not sure what a certificate is). Cloudflare isn’t necessary if we’re considering a barebones alp operation, like one on hitbtc or cryptsy that isnt expected to have a huge number of participants. Then again, the cryptsy pool was run with a 30 nbt operator fee.

[Cybnate]

With certificates I’m referring to PKI certificates. These prevent man-in-the-middle attacks by uniquely identifying servers. I’m using them for communications with Cloudflare. Cloudflare is a protection against denial-of-service attacks. It anonymises/changes the IP of the site. My experience is that these are minimal services are required to run public sites on the internet. Our own forum and website are also secured with these type of measures, nothing extraordinary.

Then again, the cryptsy pool was run with a 30 nbt operator fee.

So maybe we do agree that the fee is too high?

[Nagalim]

Current Liquidity

In the mean time the NuBots/PyBots operated with Nu funds needs to be scaled up imo.

So maybe we do agree that the fee is too high?

Not sure how well this meshes.

[cryptog]

It looks reasonable.

[zoro]

The “two times per day” is an understatement actually
As long as i am working online i am able to check nubot, thus the “one time” could be 4-8 hours straight.
Nubot proves to be very stable under windows (although java needs 1GB ram and 100% of 1 core’s cpu time)
Thus i am not expecting the QoS to be lower. I just wanted to make a less stressful for me and a more cheaper proposal for NU.
Moreover, nubot gateways are the best assets we have to defend the peg and this comes with a cost. ALP and MLP prove to be ineffective in dire situations in Poloniex although their operators do a great job, ALP users have their own “agenta”.
I am always in a constant effort to evaluate gateways. (work in progress)
In the future i am expecting a “fixed cost” proposal by FLOT for nubot gateways.

[zoro]

I finally got the hash from assistant and have updated the original post accordingly.

[masterOfDisaster]

Please have a look at this as well:

[Nubot Gateway] Poloniex @zoro (sell offset:0.25% , buy offset:5% ) - stand by

@zoro, is your NuBot running properly? The broadcast liquidity doesn’t get updated; buy side value is not moving if BTC price moves. It’s on “buy” : 19508.97, “ask” : 0.0 and was the same hours ago. I noticed that, because the broadcast liquidity value of my NuBot changed when yours didn’t.

[cryptog]

BET6WJctWyC6wpRfE9ytrVDHJSb8duG1kE , 1 NBT

I suppose i need to vote for a custodial grant here, right?

EDIT: voted.

[zoro]

Right

[masterOfDisaster]

There’s not really need for a custodial grant at the moment.
You can continue to use “BJs4YbtaqCmxeHLiR6zzjnZEotYVFAPfMo” to broadcast liquidity (it will stay valid for some time as it was granted roughly 1 month ago) and the payment for your services (supposing the motion passes) can be done by FLOT.

[zoro]

You are right. Then you suggest to change the proposal to a motion with ee20086eb56a8a7b0f722227086b05de9941a293
as voting address?

[masterOfDisaster]

ee20086eb56a8a7b0f722227086b05de9941a293

Is already available as hash for the motion.
If you want to make sure that people vote for what you want them to vote, make it clear what this voting is about, e.g. by removing the custodial grant address.

[zoro]

After suggestion by MoD, i changed the grant with a motion

Please vote this proposal as a motion with below hash:
ee20086eb56a8a7b0f722227086b05de9941a293
@cryptog
you may replace BET6WJctWyC6wpRfE9ytrVDHJSb8duG1kE
with above hash as motion vote.

[crypto_coiner]

Compensation scheme:The operator charges 250 NBT for 60 days of operation.If the operation is ceased by FLOT or NSR holder request before the end of this period, the remaining fees will be burnt or send to a FLOT’s NBT address.

Polo being intensive for Nu, to me it looks reasonable too.
Will add this to my feed

[cryptog]

ee20086eb56a8a7b0f722227086b05de9941a293

sorry for the delay, voted.

[zoro]

I still see some voters continue to vote with the old grant address:
BET6WJctWyC6wpRfE9ytrVDHJSb8duG1kE
instead of the new motion address:
ee20086eb56a8a7b0f722227086b05de9941a293

Please, replace your grant vote with the motion

[zoro]

All votes are transferred in the motion now.
But i don’t see much momentum in voting.
The nubot gateway will continue to operate until the end of the month. If the motion is not passed
i will have to respect the voters’ decision and seize operation (returning all funds back to FLOT).
@Nagalim, please fix your nubot asap

[masterOfDisaster]

don’t see much momentum in voting.

Yeah, well, maybe my Poloniex gateway got in between you and the NSR holders’ votes…
After all my gateway is free of operator fee until 2016-04-20.
I’m sorry, if that’s the reason.

But that was the last time I tried to create a far too cheap emergency solution for the greater good (=to support the peg) - I promise

[Cybnate]

Not sure how well this meshes.

Lacking any better proposals an no competition in sight, I will add this proposal to my datafeed at the next occasion.
Still think 125 NBT/month is too expensive for just monitoring a mostly stable NuBot. With two other bots on Poloniex we can afford short outages so the value of 24/7 monitoring is also limited imo.