This will remain to be seen...  I wouldn't have put it ALL there, because there are major problems that are being left unattended to.  However, I guess I'm still holding out hope that they'll grow a brain and we'll see some actual recovery...

I'm gonna go ahead and repost this here, since it'll likely get a bit more needed exposure:


Forgive me, but over the last month or better, your entire site has been a "certain system error".  I've stuck with it in hopes that it'd get better, but my faith is waning quickly.

What we've taken to calling "the big hack" simply won't work as an excuse any longer. It was over a month ago, and repairs should've taken hours not weeks, assuming you had ANY (let alone any enterprise grade) backup solutions in place.  Long since that should've been recovered from, your troubles have become increasingly unrelated to, but still excused by the big hack.

Your efforts have been misplaced on such things as upgrading the payout system to hourly from daily, while many still aren't getting payouts accurately or AT ALL.

Your support rep in chat gives absolutely nothing but excuses and mostly unfulfilled promises for remedies, and leaves the scene entirely when confronted with such.  As well, he consistently refers users to email in the details of the issue, and these emails seem to be getting returned to sender more often than getting thru.  When they do get thru, the responses seem to be minimalistic and unhelpful, if there's a response at all (seems most often there isn't).

Your withdrawal arrangements, altho partly understandably, are unreasonable.  Worse, you can't even keep to the arrangements as promised.

Your history pages don't provide anywhere near enough detail on transactions, and once a transaction gets shoved off the bottom of the page it becomes completely irretrievable for the user.  I've hesitated to come to the same conclusion that many others have, that this is done intentionally so as to make it easy for you to bury mistakes or creative accounting practices, but I'm starting to sway that direction.

In the last few days, purchases of hashing power will either show up in and then disappear from balances or never show up at all, and simply disappear into the ether (but still be reflected in transaction history).

New issue:  Seems the hashing power an account owns will just simply stop paying out at random, for hours or days.  One of my referrals lost 36+- hours of hashing on BOTH GHs and KS, and as soon as he spoke on it in chat, both started again, but no lost revenue has been compensated.  Seems maybe you're just hoping people won't notice their account activity, so you can do whatever you want with our money?

Seems to me, you've got a whole host of issues far more important than a couple of compromised forum accounts, and yet your attentions are here while you ignore what's really going on.

You don't run a site like this on your gaming rig, you run it on appropriately scaled enterprise servers.  Also, you don't hire the best friends to take care of coding, maintenance and support, you hire the best geeks.  Ignore either of these, and you will fall flat on your fa...whoopsie, too late...  Next time you go into business, get the right gear, hire the right crew, and make sure they do the right thing.  Better yet, IMHO, just don't.  This wasn't a learning experience on how to do it better, it was a disaster from which you should've learned that you're just not cut out for business at all.  Ron White says, "Ya' can't fix stupid..."  I do believe he was correct.  Children shouldn't play with big-boy toys...

Too bad, really.  I had kinda high hopes for your gig.

Forgive me, but over the last month or better, your entire site has been a "certain system error".  I've stuck with it in hopes that it'd get better, but my faith is waning quickly.

What we've taken to calling "the big hack" simply won't work as an excuse any longer. It was over a month ago, and repairs should've taken hours not weeks, assuming you had ANY (let alone any enterprise grade) backup solutions in place.  Long since that should've been recovered from, your troubles have become increasingly unrelated to, but still excused by the big hack.

Your efforts have been misplaced on such things as upgrading the payout system to hourly from daily, while many still aren't getting payouts accurately or AT ALL.

Your support rep in chat gives absolutely nothing but excuses and mostly unfulfilled promises for remedies, and leaves the scene entirely when confronted with such.  As well, he consistently refers users to email in the details of the issue, and these emails seem to be getting returned to sender more often than getting thru.  When they do get thru, the responses seem to be minimalistic and unhelpful, if there's a response at all (seems most often there isn't).

Your withdrawal arrangements, altho partly understandably, are unreasonable.  Worse, you can't even keep to the arrangements as promised.

Your history pages don't provide anywhere near enough detail on transactions, and once a transaction gets shoved off the bottom of the page it becomes completely irretrievable for the user.  I've hesitated to come to the same conclusion that many others have, that this is done intentionally so as to make it easy for you to bury mistakes or creative accounting practices, but I'm starting to sway that direction.

In the last few days, purchases of hashing power will either show up in and then disappear from balances or never show up at all, and simply disappear into the ether (but still be reflected in transaction history).

New issue:  Seems the hashing power an account owns will just simply stop paying out at random, for hours or days.  One of my referrals lost 36+- hours of hashing on BOTH GHs and KS, and as soon as he spoke on it in chat, both started again, but no lost revenue has been compensated.  Seems maybe you're just hoping people won't notice their account activity, so you can do whatever you want with our money?

Seems to me, you've got a whole host of issues far more important than a couple of compromised forum accounts, and yet your attentions are here while you ignore what's really going on.

You don't run a site like this on your gaming rig, you run it on appropriately scaled enterprise servers.  Also, you don't hire the best friends to take care of coding, maintenance and support, you hire the best geeks.  Ignore either of these, and you will fall flat on your fa...whoopsie, too late...  Next time you go into business, get the right gear, hire the right crew, and make sure they do the right thing.  Better yet, IMHO, just don't.  This wasn't a learning experience on how to do it better, it was a disaster from which you should've learned that you're just not cut out for business at all.  Ron White says, "Ya' can't fix stupid..."  I do believe he was correct.  Children shouldn't play with big-boy toys...

Too bad, really.  I had kinda high hopes for your gig.

Is there a way to mine via Nvidia GPU without cuda?  I'm operating from a few installations of Porteus 2.1 Linux, and for whatever multitude of reasons, the cuda-toolkit just will not install correctly, thus cudaminer will not build (either normal or vertcoin variants).

I'd love to see VTC's algo added to the standard bfgminer (unlikely, due to dev's lack of scrypt interest), cgminer, etc, but until then, is there a way to mine with OpenCL?

Honestly, I'd have to guess that it's all BS... Look at how careful he was to imply, but NOT actually state that it was QTBT that CAUSED the loss...

Or, it was simply a coincidence of timing, and he's just too stupid to actually do any research into the actual cause...

Whether the intent was dirty or just dumb, though, the resulting effects are the same: FUD, looking like an id10t, and loss of any respectability IMHO...

Hehe, can we call a FUD-spreading id10t for what he is?

With all the folks using this app, and even contributing real ideas for its improvements for all this time, one might consider that if this were actually valid in any way, we'd have probably heard something about it...

@IGHOR

Something I noticed:

If I set rules as such:
and the reverse in a rules group for buys and run them in concurrent mode, quite often things seem to hang up and nothing further will happen.

If I had to take a guess, what it appears to be doing is this:
MLP jumps from 7.5ish to 7.8ish, and the 7.7/7.75 rules get skipped, probably because the 7.8 rule is appropriately determined to have the ball.  However, because the 7.7/7.75 rules never executed, neither will the 7.8 nor anything further, until MLP gets back down to the 7.7 rule's domain.

Again, that is a guess as to the cause, and not a terribly educated one.  Just seems to have been the case each of the times I've sat and watched it occur.

This is the case on a Phenom 9150e quad with 8G RAM (only 3.5G avail due to 32b without PAE ATM), Porteus 2.1 Linux, if any of that matters.

edit:  In fact, as I was typing this, it did it to me again.  Missed the first two rules, and I had to manually create several sell orders at 7.75-7.8ish prices to get done what the series of rules should have...

@ whydifficult

Forgive me please, if you will, for the tone of my last... Had a rough day (one of many), and this issue was just the bitter icing on a dirt cake.  Ya' know what they say about excuses and back-sides...lol

I do understand that Gekko is a WIP, and may possibly crash.  I also understand that default settings may not be the best for a given set of circumstances.

I guess what I do not yet understand is why, in 2 separate situations on 2 different exchanges (and I believe on different systems), it consistently lost money rather than making any gains whatsoever, and crashed:

1.  CEX.io in sim-mode with settings changed according to recommendations made here in this thread

2.  BTC-e in trading mode with defaults, but with no indication that I've yet seen that the defaults are not appropriate for it.

Might I ask the following, as it sounds like you're re-writing much of it already:

How difficult might it be to set it up such that depending upon which exchange / currency pair you set it to run with, it sets safe or at least lower risk defaults accordingly?  As well, it might be valuable to set up the startup scripts so that if the service fails, it can be stopped and restarted.  I haven't had any time (nor do I have much supporting knowledge) to check into how this might be done, but it was an idea that I had...

If I weren't so behind on modern software development (last I programmed was Basic on C-64 and crApple 2c's...hehe), I'd dig in and help.  For that matter, I'm still hoping to, to some minimal extent.  If I weren't so dead broke, I'd donate now.  I will donate once Gekko's helping me dig outta' this pit I'm in!!

Again, my apologies for previous attitude, and appreciation for your work on this!



edit:  Shoulda' gone to bed, but...  This got my attention in the config's:
  sellTreshold: -0.25,
  buyTreshold: 0.25

Forgive my financial ignorance (I'm quickly learning), but might these be reversed?  In my mind, you'd want to sell at EMA+N.nn rather than -N.nn, and buy at -N.nn, but I can't be sure that I'm interpreting things correctly, or even in the same ball-park...

@Uli123

I very much agree with many of your suggestions, particularly the idea that the rules are too static.  I'd love to see that change, for sure!

@IGHOR

I'm wondering if there's been any progress on getting Cryptsy support ready?  NOT asking to rush you, but rather, I've begun to dig around in the sources for my own experimentation, and thought I might ask if you'd already begun so as to not end up reinventing the wheel...

As well, might you have any hints as to where I'd be best to start?  ATM, I'm simply considering copying the BTCe (as that's the one I currently use) files, and editing them according to the API diff's.  Would that be a decent way to go about this, and more importantly, as very much a NON-developer, would I be better off to just wait (lol)?

Ouch...

OK, so again, I have the issue that it seems to be trading backwards.

This, now, is on BTC-e, all defaults, trading for real. Before, it was happening on CEX.io in sim-mode.

Here's the log of my trades (all times UTC):

Date     Amount        Type       Price         Total               Manual or Gekko

03:57   B0.0170397   bought    $630.00     $10.73501101   Manual
04:18   B0.0170057   sold        $635.50     $10.80712235   Manual
04:32   B0.0170656   bought    $632.00     $10.78545921   Manual
(So far so good, right?)
13:55   B0.0170315   sold        $617.10     $10.51013866   Gekko (Are you freakin' kidding me?)
Then Gekko crashed.  It was not running when I got home, so I re-ran it.
12:43   B0.0159465   bought    $657.77     $10.48912931   Gekko (Umm... Really?)

I'm not sure what caused Gekko to crash.  If I had to take a guess just now, I'd say it was likely a flakey moment in my InterWebs connection (quite frequent, unfortunately).  What I CAN say is that:

1.  Gekko darn well should be able to stand up to a loss of Internet, and recover from it when returned
2.  Gekko should re-read logs from last run to determine if the Buy order it's creating is going to lose us money
and
3.  When the price is low, it's time to BUY, NOT SELL...

I experienced this very sort of thing on my first attempt to purchase BTC with USD, but in BTC-e.  Several times edited the rule (while disabled) after the first failure and re-enabled.  This resulted again in a beep-notify, rule status claimed done, no order opened, no transaction completed.

Amount was around $10, rule was for spend all @ Buy Price, triggered at Sell Price being lower than specified.  Had to log into BTC-e and place order manually.

Here's something I just noticed...

I'm attempting to utilize the calculator function, to determine decent low-risk (if there is such a thing) rules to set.

Trouble is, I'm starting with BTC balance, and attempting to calculate a Sell-then-Buy scenario.  The calculator will not allow the sell field to be edited, only calc'd automatically based on other variables.  It'll also not allow for the Buy / Sell rows to be reversed.

Might be useful if it were possible to do either...

If I could make a suggestion from a faucet USER's viewpoint:

Make it so that if I have a registered email or username with BTC address, I can EITHER enter the BTC address OR the email/username (or maybe any one of the 3), and it all goes to the same account.

Because of the fact that there are so many badly coded faucets out there that do NOT disclose in great enough detail how their payout is handled until after address is entered, I find that even though I have my BTC addy reg'd with my email, I still end up with 2 separate balances that I need to get up over the minimum payout, and it becomes difficult to track...

I do, eventually, plan on having my own faucet running, and am considering your backend for it.  Until this is fixed however, I'm up in the air...

Hmmm...

Mine's been running in Simulated Mode for 3-4 days, with a CEX.io API key-set.

Currency is BTC, asset is GHS, and thresholds were each changed to -0.025 and 0.025 respectively, as I read that this is what most folks are using.

The result:  Each and every Profit Report (simulated) shows a NEGATIVE number.  The first was -9 and change, and it's progressively decreased to currently -15.xxx.

I've gotta' wonder, if I actually enabled trading with the defaults (and just the changes noted above), would I actually be losing money?  If so, how might I edit things to prevent this?

I can understand that there will be losses / chances of loss in the trading arena, but to lose at EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION?  That'd be silly...

Understood and appreciated! I probably would've made that mistake, and caused a bit of a catastrophe for myself...lol

This last few weeks have been quite the learning process for me!!

You say multi-exchange is not supported, and I can see what you mean with that.

I do not currently need or have accounts with more than 1 of the supported exchanges to test this, but it seems to allow for running multiple instances of itself, at least on Linux..  Is that not the case?  I can run one and log into BTC-e, then run again, and the login screen pops up.

As for multi-currency monitoring, will this be supported in the future?  I'd never have thought about it before using the script that I do, honestly, but it might be nice to have the ability to check if another path to same resulting investment (via another currency trade) would result in better ROI.  Not a necessity, by any means, but of potential value...

IGHOR:

Thanx so much for the update!

Is there a chance of adding support for Cryptsy, and again, CEX.io?  It'd be so much easier to use this than their non-optimal sites...

As well, if / when CEX is supported, there are already 3rd party scripts that handle such things as auto-reinvestment, so some of the rule suggestions I'd have would quite closely follow what's being done there...

Here's the one that I'm currently using, in particular:  https://github.com/Eloque/CexControl

It is quite effective.  Even goes so far as to determine, on each run, whether you'll get more bang for the buck: 1. Trading NMC for BTC then BTC for GHS, 2. Trading BTC for NMC then NMC for GHS, or 3. Trading either NMC or BTC directly for GHS.  It then, of course, places orders accordingly.

If either/or is not intended to be supported officially, any hints on how I might hack up support on my own?  I'm no programmer, but I'm willing to make the attempt...

LOVE IT!

Brand new to really getting into bitcoin (way late to the game, I know), and loving having this app for working with BTC-e!

I'm wondering tho, any chance of adding CEX.io? I'm doing most of my initial trading there, and would really prefer a client such as this over their somewhat bloated and slow web interface...

Why the heck not, I'll throw my card in the hat...

Thanx so much for the info! 

1M1FmJBFpt5PLbyvgwbeMrRVRku71xPQ3Q