[Passed] Single Sided NBT Gateway on HitBTC - Updated 18FEB16

[Nagalim]

I really dont think we should put shareholder funds on bter. Also, you cant do a gateway for cny, so you would only be talking about btc, i assume.

Maybe do one on ccedk’s btc pair?

[nmei]

Yes, BTC - that’s what I was wondering.

[nmei]

OK - I asked the assistant for a hash.

BTdQH5QNHU1EHsbAxfbZfQpk9YRR8EDJfu 1 NBT

The balance (99 NBT) to be paid in 60 days.

[Cybnate]

Sounds fine to me. Will add this to my datafeed when hashed. Also accepting hash on Daology.

[cryptog]

looks reasonable and useful. we need to diversify the exchanges that we use. HitBTC is a nice exchange.

BTdQH5QNHU1EHsbAxfbZfQpk9YRR8EDJfu 1 NBT voted.

[Cybnate]

when hashed

Any luck with the hashing or is assistant not working for you?

[nmei]

Check daology:
https://daology.org/proposals/57d57a1ac3ee0b1f2bea22958fc126a385967383

[Cybnate]

I just noticed that you have used this grant address at least 2 times before:

1. https://blockexplorer.nu/address/BTdQH5QNHU1EHsbAxfbZfQpk9YRR8EDJfu/1/newest
2. https://blockexplorer.nu/address/BTdQH5QNHU1EHsbAxfbZfQpk9YRR8EDJfu/1/newest

I understand that you can’t re use the same address more than once for receiving a grant (at least within the 6 months term). The above supposedly proves otherwise which is interesting.
@CoinGame has something changed in 2.x as far as you are aware?

For now I’ve added it to my datafeed assuming it will go for a third time. At least an interesting experiment. Hope @nmei is comfortable with it.

[nmei]

Ooops, I didn’t mean to use that one…oh well

I can tell you that even if you do keep using it - as I’ve accidentally done. You don’t get paid when the grant is passed.

[jooize]

1. https://blockexplorer.nu/address/BTdQH5QNHU1EHsbAxfbZfQpk9YRR8EDJfu/1/newest2. https://blockexplorer.nu/address/BTdQH5QNHU1EHsbAxfbZfQpk9YRR8EDJfu/1/newest

I only see one transaction. What do you mean?

[nmei]

It was used twice as a grant address - both successful. But only one grant was funded.

[jooize]

Successful in the sense we can see the vote go through?

Did the grants have different amounts requested?

[nmei]

Yes it met the required votes.
The grant had 2 different amounts.

[jooize]

Then I believe that’s why both were able to be voted through. I asked about this earlier and was told it’s possible to vote on different amounts, but only the first amount to pass will ever be granted.

More importantly, voting on the same amount as a previous grant with the same address will conflate the votes.

[nmei]

Well it was my mistake. I meant to use a different address…but I copied and pasted the wrong one.

[jooize]

Sure, I’m just pointing out that I think it doesn’t make sense to vote for the address if a grant to it has previously passed with the same amount. I would argue it doesn’t seem good practice to reuse anyway, but in this case there appears to be consensus issues with the approach.

For now I’ve added it to my datafeed assuming it will go for a third time. At least an interesting experiment.

[CoinGame]

Sorry i’m late here. Grant addresses can only be used once if they pass. I suppose you could use one again if it had not passed but it’s bad practice. You won’t be able to submit liquidity info and there will not be a new record for that grant passing in the client (which you can see on the voting page).

[jooize]

As shareholders may still be voting on the previous grant address+amount combination (or they chose instead to vote for the amount that is used for a subsequent grant with a different amount) it can influence the result of the vote. Even if no votes have been broadcast in a while, clients may lie suspended and later come online and inadvertently cast votes on the new grant, which is unfair.

[nmei]

We’ll I want to broadcast this…
So I’ll have to rehash…

[crypto_coiner]

Compensation: The operator charges 100 NBT for 60 days of operation. To be paid at the end of the period.

Why 100NBT? is the operation expected to earn or loose money for Nu?