Print

• Show the most recent posts.

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TwinWinNerD]

MGW is in balance now:
get_confirmed_deposits BTC returns 249 108.94311256 vs assets 108.53611256 diff 0.40700000

There is one asset xfer of 0.407 mgwBTC pending, so it is matching to the satoshi.

Here is an interesting breakdown:
maxtime.22884582 BTC height.315888 of 315891 max 6.38458836 min 0.00005624 median 3.19232230 |unspent 108.94311256

The largest MGW deposit acct has 6.38 BTC, so <6% of the total. It will be nice to see this 6 BTC get smaller and smaller as each batch withdraw chips away at it. With a couple hundred accts, the ideal would be half BTC in each, but that will take quite some number of withdraws and I am not sure the current algo will properly converge to this.

Even at 6%, this is a much smaller target than a single acct and with it getting smaller and smaller and being stuck in a hard to access multisig acct, I think it is not such an attractive target. I guess I could just code up something that breaks up any large account into little pieces if the clumping doesnt get smoothed out on its own, its just that dealing with multisig is such a painful thing, I'd rather be changing API syntax or maintain servers

James

What does that mean? 6BTC?

My deposits account still has >20BTC in it.

[valarmg]

What does that mean? 6BTC?

My deposits account still has >20BTC in it.

It's about the internal workings of the MGW, not about user accouts. You know how bter had 50million in one wallet, the MGW is designed to store users BTC spread out among multiple wallets as a security precaution. James is saying that presently, in the MGW, there is only one wallet with greater than 6BTC in it and that's 6% of the total and that should become more spread out with time.

[igmaca]

There is a big temptation with centralized exchanges.

their can handle large amounts with a very small risk if these large amounts are poorly guarded and eventually stolen.

What real risk if they "lose" them or "steal" the money in escrow ?.

small enough to be tempted.
Imagine mgw had more expenses than income for any theirs inner motive in this moment.

¿mgw will respond to depositors?
What happens if they do not respond?

nothing, close and open under another name.

Why it's better mgw than any other exchange?

[cobaltskky]

There is a big temptation with centralized exchanges.

their can handle large amounts with a very small risk if these large amounts are poorly guarded and eventually stolen.

What real risk if they "lose" them or "steal" the money in escrow ?.

small enough to be tempted.
Imagine mgw had more expenses than income for any theirs inner motive in this moment.

¿mgw will respond to depositors?
What happens if they do not respond?

nothing, close and open under another name.

Why it's better mgw than any other exchange?

Mgw would weather it out like any other exchange, until the stores of money runs dry.

[jl777]

MGW is in balance now:
get_confirmed_deposits BTC returns 249 108.94311256 vs assets 108.53611256 diff 0.40700000

There is one asset xfer of 0.407 mgwBTC pending, so it is matching to the satoshi.

Here is an interesting breakdown:
maxtime.22884582 BTC height.315888 of 315891 max 6.38458836 min 0.00005624 median 3.19232230 |unspent 108.94311256

The largest MGW deposit acct has 6.38 BTC, so <6% of the total. It will be nice to see this 6 BTC get smaller and smaller as each batch withdraw chips away at it. With a couple hundred accts, the ideal would be half BTC in each, but that will take quite some number of withdraws and I am not sure the current algo will properly converge to this.

Even at 6%, this is a much smaller target than a single acct and with it getting smaller and smaller and being stuck in a hard to access multisig acct, I think it is not such an attractive target. I guess I could just code up something that breaks up any large account into little pieces if the clumping doesnt get smoothed out on its own, its just that dealing with multisig is such a painful thing, I'd rather be changing API syntax or maintain servers

James

What does that mean? 6BTC?

My deposits account still has >20BTC in it.

you have the mgwBTC assets, that is your balance
the balance in "your" multisig deposit address is actually part of the global combined virtual wallet
you are not able to directly access that multisig address to withdraw, but when you transfer your mgwBTC asset,MGW will use unspent outputs from potentially any deposit address to satisfy the request.

As long as the unspent outputs match the mgwBTC assets, there will always be a set of unspent outputs to satisfy any withdraw request

[eimon]

Is MGW working with 1.2.5 client? I'm currently running 1.1.6 but will update if MGW will still run.

[_mr_e]

Is MGW working with 1.2.5 client? I'm currently running 1.1.6 but will update if MGW will still run.

It's working fine for me.

[VanBreuk]

There is a big temptation with centralized exchanges.

their can handle large amounts with a very small risk if these large amounts are poorly guarded and eventually stolen.

What real risk if they "lose" them or "steal" the money in escrow ?.

small enough to be tempted.
Imagine mgw had more expenses than income for any theirs inner motive in this moment.

¿mgw will respond to depositors?
What happens if they do not respond?

nothing, close and open under another name.

Why it's better mgw than any other exchange?

As valarmg mentioned above, the fact there's no central wallet in MGW -but rather spread balances in multiple multisig accounts- makes it both a tough and a not too appealing target for attackers.

Currently service costs are around making even, but there's developments down the road (InstantDEX) that will increase revenues significantly, and anyways service fees can always be adjusted according to MGW transaction costs.

Please refer to the Multigateway Docs to learn more. They are prominently technical so they don't cover extensively other issues yet, but they will.

Is MGW working with 1.2.5 client? I'm currently running 1.1.6 but will update if MGW will still run.

You can update to Lite MGW 1.4.1, longzai's update for NRS 1.2.5.

And to this moment there's no intentions to pause MGW, James is working on it and we hope to go past the DGS block nicely - at most with a temporary service pause. But again, remember that delays in deposits/withdrawals at this stage do not imply your funds are at risk.

[eimon]

Thanks. Just updated to 1.2.5 and MGW is working. New client is looking good 

[Ludom]

I have a deposit problem.

I asked for the deposit adress. It's the "35qhYUvUf4K1QXpGXmFLGVtPXZBZVRK8gj"

But if I try to make a deposit from my "MultiBit" wallet, it's say : "L′adresse « 35qhYUvUf4K1QXpGXmFLGVtPXZBZVRK8gj » n′est pas une adresse valide de bitcoin." (The address is not a valid adress of bitcoin)

What should I do ? Is it possible that the MGW give a non-valid address ?

Thanks for your help.

[Pilot]

I have a deposit problem.

I asked for the deposit adress. It's the "35qhYUvUf4K1QXpGXmFLGVtPXZBZVRK8gj"

But if I try to make a deposit from my "MultiBit" wallet, it's say : "L′adresse « 35qhYUvUf4K1QXpGXmFLGVtPXZBZVRK8gj » n′est pas une adresse valide de bitcoin." (The address is not a valid adress of bitcoin)

What should I do ? Is it possible that the MGW give a non-valid address ?

Thanks for your help.

If your multibit wallet up to date? The mgw address is mutisig address and some older wallets and also exchanges won't accept it due to it starting with a 3.

[Ludom]

Thanks, I think it was the problem. 

[TwinWinNerD]

MGW is in balance now:
get_confirmed_deposits BTC returns 249 108.94311256 vs assets 108.53611256 diff 0.40700000

There is one asset xfer of 0.407 mgwBTC pending, so it is matching to the satoshi.

Here is an interesting breakdown:
maxtime.22884582 BTC height.315888 of 315891 max 6.38458836 min 0.00005624 median 3.19232230 |unspent 108.94311256

The largest MGW deposit acct has 6.38 BTC, so <6% of the total. It will be nice to see this 6 BTC get smaller and smaller as each batch withdraw chips away at it. With a couple hundred accts, the ideal would be half BTC in each, but that will take quite some number of withdraws and I am not sure the current algo will properly converge to this.

Even at 6%, this is a much smaller target than a single acct and with it getting smaller and smaller and being stuck in a hard to access multisig acct, I think it is not such an attractive target. I guess I could just code up something that breaks up any large account into little pieces if the clumping doesnt get smoothed out on its own, its just that dealing with multisig is such a painful thing, I'd rather be changing API syntax or maintain servers

James

What does that mean? 6BTC?

My deposits account still has >20BTC in it.

you have the mgwBTC assets, that is your balance
the balance in "your" multisig deposit address is actually part of the global combined virtual wallet
you are not able to directly access that multisig address to withdraw, but when you transfer your mgwBTC asset,MGW will use unspent outputs from potentially any deposit address to satisfy the request.

As long as the unspent outputs match the mgwBTC assets, there will always be a set of unspent outputs to satisfy any withdraw request

Yes, I understand that.

Just wanted to know what the 6.38 BTC you were talking about meant?

[VanBreuk]

<< A REMINDER FOR ALL MULTIGATEWAY USERS >>

The release of NRS 1.2.6 is NOT a mandatory upgrade at this moment, you can reach DGS block 213,000 using NRS 2.1.5.

I'm saying this because although the current Lite MGW 1.4.1 may work perfectly fine with NRS 1.2.6, we cannot be completely sure until longzai1988 verifies it. So if you have installed Lite MGW 1.4.1 and still want to do MGW deposits/withdrawals, do not update to NRS 1.2.6 yet since that will overwrite the UI files to default and remove the Multigateway page from your client.

If anyone installs NRS 1.2.6 and then installs Lite MGW 1.4.1 extension on top, things might work perfectly but again they might not, so if you want to use MGW please stay in 1.2.5 at this moment.

And of course remember that trading mgwBTC or mgwLTC in the AE is completely independent from Multigateway and does not require Lite MGW installed in your client.

you have the mgwBTC assets, that is your balance
the balance in "your" multisig deposit address is actually part of the global combined virtual wallet
you are not able to directly access that multisig address to withdraw, but when you transfer your mgwBTC asset,MGW will use unspent outputs from potentially any deposit address to satisfy the request.

As long as the unspent outputs match the mgwBTC assets, there will always be a set of unspent outputs to satisfy any withdraw request

Yes, I understand that.

Just wanted to know what the 6.38 BTC you were talking about meant?

All the deposit accounts in MGW converge towards an average balance using internal transfers, so the same amount of BTC is distributed as evenly as possible between multiple multisig accounts. That 6.38 BTC figure is the balance of the "highest" multisig account in the moment James checked.

The point is that your BTC balance in MGW is represented by your mgwBTC assets, not by an amount of X BTC in one specific multisig account, since BTC are internally distributed for security.

[TwinWinNerD]

But that would be a multisig deposit address and it has more than 6 BTC? https://blockchain.info/address/3ME1nRN4p9wGmYYGZPYFe8WTVDhszaW6p5

[Pilot]

<< A REMINDER FOR ALL MULTIGATEWAY USERS >>

The release of NRS 1.2.6 is NOT a mandatory upgrade at this moment, you can reach DGS block 213,000 using NRS 2.1.5.

I'm saying this because although the current Lite MGW 1.4.1 may work perfectly fine with NRS 1.2.6, we cannot be completely sure until longzai1988 verifies it. So if you have installed Lite MGW 1.4.1 and still want to do MGW deposits/withdrawals, do not update to NRS 1.2.6 yet since that will overwrite the UI files to default and remove the Multigateway page from your client.

If anyone installs NRS 1.2.6 and then installs Lite MGW 1.4.1 extension on top, things might work perfectly but again they might not, so if you want to use MGW please stay in 1.2.5 at this moment.

And of course remember that trading mgwBTC or mgwLTC in the AE is completely independent from Multigateway and does not require Lite MGW installed in your client.

you have the mgwBTC assets, that is your balance
the balance in "your" multisig deposit address is actually part of the global combined virtual wallet
you are not able to directly access that multisig address to withdraw, but when you transfer your mgwBTC asset,MGW will use unspent outputs from potentially any deposit address to satisfy the request.

As long as the unspent outputs match the mgwBTC assets, there will always be a set of unspent outputs to satisfy any withdraw request

Yes, I understand that.

Just wanted to know what the 6.38 BTC you were talking about meant?

All the deposit accounts in MGW converge towards an average balance using internal transfers, so the same amount of BTC is distributed as evenly as possible between multiple multisig accounts. That 6.38 BTC figure is the balance of the "highest" multisig account in the moment James checked.

The point is that your BTC balance in MGW is represented by your mgwBTC assets, not by an amount of X BTC in one specific multisig account, since BTC are internally distributed for security.

I didn't start using the MGW gateway prior to 1.2.5, which in my understanding has the new API. My deposit worked fine, which to me means the code still works with the 1.2.5 API.

Granted, this isn't a full test but anecdotal evidence.

The only thing I did have to do, after installing 1.2.5 from the multigateway or site was...

del *.gz /s

to delete all the .gz files which weren't updated with the mgw UI files in the installer. I'm not sure if that is fixed yet in the mgw installer or not. Is it?

[TwinWinNerD]

BTW: A deposit of mine got stuck: f5e9d514e0fccbc9c7aafaa071df0554588ebf67a9d2039a3519bc49289ac6fa

I got he AM with the details but I never got the assets.

Got the AM from 14477396523717328369  "MGW2"

[VanBreuk]

I didn't start using the MGW gateway prior to 1.2.5, which in my understanding has the new API. My deposit worked fine, which to me means the code still works with the 1.2.5 API.

The incompatibilities would happen at block 213,000, where DGS kicks in. Before that, no API changes are yet active.

The only thing I did have to do, after installing 1.2.5 from the multigateway or site was...

del *.gz /s

to delete all the .gz files which weren't updated with the mgw UI files in the installer. I'm not sure if that is fixed yet in the mgw installer or not. Is it?

Although every relevant file will be overwritten as you unzip/install Lite MGW new releases, if you want to keep everything tidy using the Windows installer you can always Uninstall (which will only leave behind the blockchain folder plus any other files you added to C:/NXT) before running the new installer.

BTW: A deposit of mine got stuck: f5e9d514e0fccbc9c7aafaa071df0554588ebf67a9d2039a3519bc49289ac6fa

I got he AM with the details but I never got the assets.

Got the AM from 14477396523717328369  "MGW2"

James, could you please check this?

https://nxtblocks.info/#section/txid/14477396523717328369
Nxt acct ID 10626333978591385112

[jl777]

BTW: A deposit of mine got stuck: f5e9d514e0fccbc9c7aafaa071df0554588ebf67a9d2039a3519bc49289ac6fa

I got he AM with the details but I never got the assets.

Got the AM from 14477396523717328369  "MGW2"

server ran out of assets
anon needs to refill

[Pilot]

I didn't start using the MGW gateway prior to 1.2.5, which in my understanding has the new API. My deposit worked fine, which to me means the code still works with the 1.2.5 API.

The incompatibilities would happen at block 213,000, where DGS kicks in. Before that, no API changes are yet active.

I don't think that's true. The new API is in place now. I see the new API when I browse to http://localhost:7876/test and we are prior to block 213000.