Trust-less liquidity pool

Liquidity Pools
#101

ERROR: liquidity: socket error, retrying in 15 seconds …
ERROR: submit: socket error
ERROR: /price/btc: socket error, retrying in 15 seconds …

#102

Ah thanks, was just about to write you a PM because I saw you having so many missings. Its really hard to figure out from my side what is wrong, since the server is very responsive for me. Do you also experience a large lag when accessing the server API with a browser?

http://104.245.36.10:2020/status

(Hit F5 several times, it should even response very quickly if you spam it)

EDIT: You’re not on a mobile connection, are you? There is a decent amount of data sent over the channel, so please don’t waste your data volume in the mid of the month :wink:

#103

1 - 5 sec. optical fibre.

Will be off line for a while.

#104

I just installed an uptime report service for the side in order to get a better understanding of the pings to certain locations. The server is located in San Francisco, California. Maybe I’ll look into better VPS offers, although I don’t want to let the costs explode during this beta run.

#105

So basically NuBot has much more parameters that you can tune in order to adjust more precisely your trading strategy like the spread or the incremental walls.
However I do feel that for in most cases, pybot is enough, at least for me, right now.

#106

This here worked for me on Windows 8:

Then a cmd window should show up with the client trying to connect to the beta server. Please let me know if this worked for you. The batch “script” also checks for a users.dat and even prefers it, I just allowed also users.txt files because it is more convenient to create them on Windows.

Any help with Mac would be highly appreciated, I don’t have an apple computer, so I cannot test it.

#107

on 0.12 now

2015/03/17-08:47:03 WARNING: too many rejected requests on exchange poloniex, adjusting nonce to 15428470
2015/03/17-08:47:03 ERROR: exception caught: ‘Poloniex’ object has no attribute ‘acquire_lock’

#108

Are you trying poloniex only or other exchanges as well?

#109

If this is to me, i am on poloniex only. 0-5% efficiency.

#110

Please either update your repository or download the new release. This bug should be fixed now.

Poloniex sometimes needs some time to find a good nonce. I also made this nonce search more aggressive for you. So please give the most recent client a try.

#111

I am on the latest

Have you changed 166 to 0.2?

#112

What do you mean?

#113

you said

#114

Oh, no 0.2 is the default (it means the efficiency has to be below 0.8 to trigger an adjustment). If you adjust it to 0.1 it would mean that an efficiency of 0.9 and lower would trigger it and so on…

But there is something else wrong in your case. I sent you a PM, let’s try to figure it out.

#115

I have been supporting NBT/BTC on the sell side at CCEDK for more than 12h with 20NBT or so.
Got 100% efficiency.
Got my first payout: 0.0302 NBT.
That has been working smoothly.
On top of that my 20NBT were exchanged for BTC.
Now my 20NBT are on the buy side.
I have the feeling to really contribute to providing liquidity, very easily with a quick return.
That is very impressive to say the least.

1 Like
#116

I ve tried Nubot instead of none (=Pybot) but it did not place any orders.
I suppose I should put somewhere a misc.json file but it is not that important right now.
Just good to know because in the near future I might want to use Nubot for some reason.

#117

Haha very nice, note that you actually earned 0.0402 NBT but the transaction fee will be subtracted and the pool currently runs with a ridiculous minimum payout of 0.03 NBT, so I can test as many payouts as possible.

I agree that this is a very nice aspect. I feel that many people would be willing to give it a try, and even if it is only one or two days (or hours) with moderate funds to see if they like it.

#118

So now, the question is would that trust-less liquidity pool design lead to liquidity providing centralization as we see in bitcoin’s mining?
I think we won’t see centralization, at least to the extent we see in mining.
Because there is no natural strong incentive to get “big” from an economic perspective: there is no variance reduction when you participate into a liquidity pool.
Of course one pool A would give more reward sthat another pool B because A is able to access cheaper electricity and has a better server design which makes it more energy-efficient but the difference would not be huge since the electricity consumption would not be that astronomical.
At the same time, there will be plenty of exchanges to work on, with several custodians at the same time, inducing a healthy competition because it would give plenty of choice to the participants.

2 Likes
#119

For Nu its only interesting how many people are able to submit liquidity. In this sense I agree that it would be bad if there would be one large custodian / pool which is responsible for submitting the majority of Nu’s liquidity - however this is unfortunately also the case right now.

I think it is in the responsibility of the shareholders to not give a single pool operator too much power, even if they have to take an offer by another pool operator with higher fees to accomplish that.

3 Likes
#120

paradigm shift.

1 Like