Double-checking balances by exchange helped me figure out my discrepancies.

The price of Steem has been incorrect in cointracking for weeks now, maybe because of weird prices on Korean exchanges and some others. As of today the cointracking price is 30% higher than the real price, 27k sats instead of 21k which is what coinmarketcap.com correctly shows.

It's messing up my portfolio value and will have serious consequences on earnings and tax calculations, can you please fix the price? Ideally you'd go back and check when your price started diverging and fix the historical prices from that point.

Edit: I found the post where you explain where the prices are from, and the culprit is worldcoinindex which is counting bithumb price and volume which is pretty dumb. The other two sources agree, you may wanna consider removing worldcoinindex from your sources until they fix that. The kimchi premium must be messing up values for lots of coins, not just Steem,which will cost all your users money.

Currently it seems everything counts as a trade in the statistics for number of trades. Can you please make it so that only actual trades are counted, not deposits, withdrawals etc?

Might not be the same issue but there's a quite annoying bug where if you try to import a csv file with just one small error in it, the import screen tells you everything is fine and that the data was imported, but no data actually gets saved. I encountered this when constructing my own csv files, if a trade had no buy amount for example no errors or warnings were raised, and the whole import failed silently.

Makes it very hard to debug what's actually wrong with the csv file.

You haven't actually earned it yet I'm afraid since it's only a tentative payout until the 4th of July at which point the first payout happens. After the 4th of July payouts will happen on a much more regular basis, more or less daily I think.

That first payout will be very big however so the good news is you stil have until then to create good content and get upvotes.

Trying to market something is not the same as trying to catch noobs, you are intentionally assigning malicious intent because of your biased opinions. While the safety may be available from most blockchains, the usefulness is not, but guessed you missed the part about pegged assets.

Swiss banks are no longer what they were either, just see Swiss-leaks. And before you try to twist my words again, no I'm not saying tax evasion is great nor that Bitshares should be used for it, but scandals like that one are eroding the confidence in Swiss banks and their ability to keep their client's money safe from outside influences.

You're mixing apples and oranges here imo, that statement was made up by the Bitshares "marketing department" and does indeed refer to the safety of your funds compared to in a traditional bank, which is subject to government confiscations, bankruptcy, Cyprus style haircuts and other kinds of risk. Like you said in another post this is equally true for any blockchain based currency, although they of course do not offer the market pegged assets with interest payment that makes Bitshares more similar to a traditional bank.

While I regret the tone of some of the Bitshares supporters in this thread, I fail to see any serious arguments from the Nubits crowd as to why their system is not a fractional reserve system. I see a lot of handwaiving from Hyena about how we should:

• Trust the custodians because it's not in their interest to run away with our money
• "The custodian is putting their PERSONAL capital at risk"
• "To have a cryptocurrency that is not volatile, a degree of human intervention is needed. There's simply no other way"
• there are exchanges that have NBT/USD trading pairs and that's where the peg is originally maintained. The NBT/BTC traiding pairs are just some random internet people doing arbitrage

The first one is such a poor argument I'm surprised you even dare use it. This has been proven wrong time and time again in the real world, Karpeles being a great example. Any time people have access to large amounts of money there is a risk of them running away with it, period.

Second argument: Unless I'm mistaken the user "Kiara Tamm" has access to at least 1.8 million NuBits. How much of her own money did she put up in order to do so? Zero as far as I can tell.. Why do you feel comfortable trusting her with that amount of money? From what I can tell looking through her posts she's already made huge losses on the price slide of PPC from 1.4$ do ~0.3$ today.

The third argument: that's a big statement that you cannot back up with anything. It might be, it might not be.. While Bitshares also has human intervention for now in the form price feeds, a major difference from NuBits is that no humans have the ability to run away with money as is the case for Nubits.

Fourth: Looking at CMC i see 0 volume for NBT/USD, the major volume is for NBT/BTC, meaning the custodians must have taken huge losses from the fall in BTC price.

Or from Jordan about how:

• Fractional reserve doesn't apply because the system is designed to not hold reserves.
• The system has several tiers of liquidity so there's nothing to worry about

At the end of the day what matters is: if there is a "run on the Nubits bank", can the custodians make everyone whole? It seems to me the system relies on a great deal of obfuscation to make this possible, through the "tiers of liquidity" and a general lack of transparency. At the current point in time it appears to me as if the first three tiers of liquidity would not be sufficient. If the fourth tier is activated, it would cause a big fall in the NuShares price so it is not at all clear it would be sufficient. Was the recent fall in NUShares price due to this tier getting activated for example?

That leaves the fifth tier, parking through interest rates. The efficiency of this tier is unknown and by the time it is needed the trust in the system might already be gone, at least if the process were known to the public.

Can the public know at any one point what tier of liquidity is being used? If not, the system may hold until someone figures out what's happening, at which point it will most likely collapse. It's similar to how exchange prices can hold up to a certain degree until the final proof that they've been hacked or "lost" all the deposits becomes available.

Good luck with this, will be interesting to watch!

+1, I would also like to vote for Bytemaster.

I also noticed there's no block explorer linked in the supply column for BTSX, can you add www.bitsharesblocks.com please?

Btw I'm the developer of the site, if you need a json feed for current supply of BTSX and its assets I'd be happy to provide you with one.

Good stuff, will have to check out the client.

Looking forward to the first offering using Peershares!

That doesn't make sense though, maybe you should add the "apply signal to sell/buy" like for the insurances.

Tbh I'm less and less impressed by this bot, it keeps executing trades and thinking they timed out, while in reality the trades either went through or were partially filled. This just happened again on Bitfinex BTC/USD, and I'm not using big orders here, ~0.1BTC. So now it's basically stuck, and although it's in "bought" position edit:(might have been a UI bug, it's now correctly in "sold" position) and it's updated the last buy price, it's waiting on buy signals to fill the rest of the order, which it's tried to do twice but timed out every time once again..

I tried to use "force buy" as the price was now slightly lower than the original buy, but it failed because it's using an incorrect calculation of trade amount, not sure why, so an order got placed for more USD than I had left on the sold side.

Should I be using market orders rather than limit orders to ensure the bot works correctly? Seems risky buy maybe not so much with tiny orders like mine..
 

Another thing, I might be misunderstanding things here, but is there a reason why a buy signal should be blocked by a "last buy percentage drop loss" safety?


Coin position: sold, last buy at 581, two indicators producing a buy signal at 561; which was blocked by a sell safety??

I'm using limit orders but having issues with Cryptsy also. Here's an excerpt from my log from last night, the bot placed three orders to buy, all of which finally went through but the bot only registered one as successful., the last one. Which is why it kept buying when it shouldn't have..


Here's the trade log from the bot: PS. Notice that the bot sold at a loss even though the "overcome fee insurance" is activated. Gonna stop using Cryptsy I think..

I bought the beginner license the other day and am currently testing it. It's having a hard time with Cryptsy, it's placing order's but when order's don't get filled rapdily they time out  in the software and count as cancelled, but they remain open in Cryptsy.

I also lost one of my bots after restarting the server, which is quite annoying as it now has to rebuild all the transaction history. I also lost all the transaction history on the bot that remained, so now I'll need to deactivate it for several hours, bah..

Now another thing that's a major frustration, is the lack of flexibility in displaying transaction histories. Why can't I simply display the last 24 hrs; or 48hrs; or whatever timeframe I want? Surely that information can be downloaded somewhere and stored locally, so when you add a bot with a given pair on a given exchange, the software would download at the very least the previous 24 hrs of transactions!

It's also very frustrating to lose all the transaction history except for the last 480mins whenever you change any settings for an indicator, can't you store it locally and let us modify things as we want?

I created an account there today as well but from what I've seen so far I really don't feel like trusting them with any of my coins.

A lot of random "page not found" errors, which work on refresh, and worst of all is that the 2fa is impossible to activate... At first the page timed out, now it's throwing "incorrect code" every time..

I've uploaded all the changes I made to the proxypool and Web interface for PLX to github. I'll try to polish the instructions or write a guide tomorrow, but if you've already setup a node then you shouldn't have a hard time implementing the changes. If somethings missing let me know and I'll fix it tomorrow.

For payouts you need to add columns in the database, I added the commands to the howto. Apart from that the changes should be fairly easy to incorporate.

github.com/svk31

Is it showing up now? Don't forget to send me your PLX address

I encountered a bug in the payout script earlier today, I believe it was constructing a transaction with user="none" which is the default value when no PLX address has been set, and it made the script crash. I've now corrected it and it's running fine. When the script crashed it made all the addresses disappear from the "Active users" category, as no new shares had been registered in the last 5 minutes. Unsurprisingly this all coincided with Teamviewer servers taking a crap, meaning I couldn't log onto my pc to fix things..

Thanks for the block explorer, got it working with my frontend now