• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Is Liquidity better?

October Liquidity... Is it better?

  • Total voters
    12
P

paperThin

Member
So, we voted "yes" on the liquidity providers on the October budget.

Are they in full action now?
Has anyone seen an improvement or any change at all in the liquidity?

I was a proponent of this budget item before the vote because I have been trying to denominate my wallet (unsuccessfully) for a while. It seems the larger denominations do not mix as easily. My thinking was that the Five (5) Elected LPs would make sure that they had all denominations available for mixing and that we would see a huge improvement in the time to denominate. In my case, NOPE! Still sitting on a pile of Dash that will not mix.

If you have seen a change in liquidity... please chime in!
 
Yidakee,

Your name was dropped when the budget was proposed. Are you managing this? Can you answer if all five(5) are in full LP mode? Can you confirm that they are holding all denominations (especially the large ones)? Any ideas about the current status (slow mixing)? At least is is slow for me. I would love to get more people to vote on their status so we can get a general idea of the network.

I don't really understand the 2 votes "much worse". Are they just discouraged or is it really slower than before. That seems hard to imagine, but if that's how you feel please make a comment. Thanks!!
 
I've been running with liquidityprovider=1 in dash.conf for a few days (voluntarily, not on the list) and it seems very slow, 40 coins for 99999 rounds and it's only transacting about once every 10 to 20 blocks and about 5 coins at most. Had to stop and restart mixing after starting the client too, wasn't doing any transactions without.

It should only be a temporary thing anyway, no idea on the details of evolution but working it out I think what we're seeing as a mixing function now will actually be the thing that enables the epic rise in transaction volume capabilities and if that's the case then it'll be one of the first things to be implemented for v13.
 
stan.distortion said:
I've been running with liquidityprovider=1 in dash.conf for a few days (voluntarily, not on the list) and it seems very slow, 40 coins for 99999 rounds and it's only transacting about once every 10 to 20 blocks and about 5 coins at most. Had to stop and restart mixing after starting the client too, wasn't doing any transactions without.

It should only be a temporary thing anyway, no idea on the details of evolution but working it out I think what we're seeing as a mixing function now will actually be the thing that enables the epic rise in transaction volume capabilities and if that's the case then it'll be one of the first things to be implemented for v13.
Click to expand...
That's exactly how it was designed - to act on every "15 blocks * <liquidityprovider>" (or more if there is no one in queue). It was not meant to mix your own funds but to help others a bit.
 
I really do not understand this. This proposal passed with 722 YES and 96 NO votes. Yet here we are in October and no one is even commenting on the results of the LP.
This would be one of the first trials of a concrete result from the budget. All the other stuff really has not appeared. Maybe this is symbolic of the overall community... no one cares?! Is this how each budget proposal will be met? After it is passed, will it be seen as "oh well, what's spent is spent"? We need to see real-world Marketing developments with the budget spent. We need to see iphone and android wallets... etc. (The Devs are a different story as they have been busting their axxes for the past year without compensation.)
I just can't believe that no one seems to care much about this small item (LP). Maybe it is the promise of a "fix" on the next revision... so the hope is there instead.
Who knows!
 
paperThin said:
I really do not understand this. This proposal passed with 722 YES and 96 NO votes. Yet here we are in October and no one is even commenting on the results of the LP.
This would be one of the first trials of a concrete result from the budget. All the other stuff really has not appeared. Maybe this is symbolic of the overall community... no one cares?! Is this how each budget proposal will be met? After it is passed, will it be seen as "oh well, what's spent is spent"? We need to see real-world Marketing developments with the budget spent. We need to see iphone and android wallets... etc. (The Devs are a different story as they have been busting their axxes for the past year without compensation.)
I just can't believe that no one seems to care much about this small item (LP). Maybe it is the promise of a "fix" on the next revision... so the hope is there instead.
Who knows!
Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay in answering, I've recently relocated work and the changeover took all my time, and right now with limited connectivity too...

You are quite right with your words! One thing is for sure, "oh well, what's spent is spent" - That is the defacto modus operandi of the budgeting system. Once it's voted and passed, it will be payed out no matter what, can't be reversed. That does not mean any budget was badly spent, it means it was at least tried, and in the future the vote for the same initiative will not pass rejected by the Masternodes. So you're spot on there. If anyone mis-uses the budgeting system, their reputation is probably tarnished forever, and I doubt many un-meaningful proposals will ever pass. Decentralised direct blockchain funding is something absolutely fantastic.

Every single aspect of what you write is actively being worked on! About reporting, as a community based and novel thing going, you're quite right, and this is indeed my responsibility in this budget proposal. To be honest, I never thought hard questions would pop up so soon - but quite fair

Anyway, yes, we do have a Liquidity Provider "party-mix" going. It's actually quite cool, we're all changing configs and tweaking stuff between us, and monitoring performance. For example, someone tried creating a blank 1,6GB wallet (or was it 16? lol, something insane) only to stress test the QT to see how many keys it would hold, as LP wallets eat up keys like starved monkey's in a banana field.

As to how performance of the network is affected or not, I'm not the best person to answer. I'm just acting a Project Leader making sure everyone is actually doing their work (and they bloody well are) and act as blockchain fund recipient for redistribution. Much more work is being done daily than I would ever expect for such a low compensation.

All in all I can say the proposal was voted on, and acted upon without quirks. The Dash Blockchain Governance proposal is 100% a success. As to the practical effect of this initiative, I'm really not the best person to comment. LP certainly is working, people are measuring it by the number of key's used (and they are getting eaten up very fast, so that says quite a lot), number of block gaps, changing parameters, etc. Very much like mining guys tweaking their rigs for maximum performance.

I have reports of both great improvement and noticing nothing special. Not a single "Much Worse" as we have cast in the voting section above.

Remember that LP in itself is no guarantee for performance, but a booster idea to oil the engine. I think most LP's are using under 150 Dash and I believe these notice a better performance, so it's natural that bigger denominations aren't so swift. Remember that LP's get heavily taxed for their mixing, even with Udjin's "wait in queue" fix.

.
 
Just a thought, what about a satisfaction vote on completion? Not sure if that can be done but a good history would be a help with future proposals by the same submitter.

Just a reflection on proposals, not on how this is going :) Any comparison figures for before and after? Have it running here and if there's anything I should change... no idea how many keys atm :/
 
Sub-Ether said:
What we forgot to do was measure the mixing speed before the liquidators were activated, there is no empirical comparative data to draw upon.
Click to expand...

Oh well, not heard anyone complaining at least, not sure how much they where complaining before though :/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yidakee said:
...
Remember that LP in itself is no guarantee for performance, but a booster idea to oil the engine. I think most LP's are using under 150 Dash and I believe these notice a better performance, so it's natural that bigger denominations aren't so swift. Remember that LP's get heavily taxed for their mixing, even with Udjin's "wait in queue" fix.
.
Click to expand...

Did you really mean that the 5 LP's are only holding 150 dash in their wallet? When that breaks down into denominations do they have the 100's in there? Prior to the vote (which I was a big proponent and asked to be included) was that the LP would hold at least 1 MN in the wallet so that it could mix the larger denominations. The monthly payment for the LP would be at least as much as a MN profits even with the "heavy fees". It seems that mixing small denom is generally not a problem, but to mix a full MN (1000 dash) has taken me more than a week because the 100 denom do not mix. It seems the LP's should forego the income from a MN in return for the income of the LP.

As a person trying to mix the 1000 dash, I believe that I am offering more "mixing power" to the network than a LP because there is no 15 transaction pause (correct me if I am wrong), yet I cannot find enough mixing partners to mix my 100 dash denoms.

Update: As soon as I typed all that out, I had several 100 denoms mix... so who knows. I will keep an eye on it for a bit.

Yidakee... Thanks for the feedback. I agree that this whole decentralized governance is AWESOME!
 
paperThin said:
Did you really mean that the 5 LP's are only holding 150 dash in their wallet? When that breaks down into denominations do they have the 100's in there? Prior to the vote (which I was a big proponent and asked to be included) was that the LP would hold at least 1 MN in the wallet so that it could mix the larger denominations. The monthly payment for the LP would be at least as much as a MN profits even with the "heavy fees". It seems that mixing small denom is generally not a problem, but to mix a full MN (1000 dash) has taken me more than a week because the 100 denom do not mix. It seems the LP's should forego the income from a MN in return for the income of the LP.

As a person trying to mix the 1000 dash, I believe that I am offering more "mixing power" to the network than a LP because there is no 15 transaction pause (correct me if I am wrong), yet I cannot find enough mixing partners to mix my 100 dash denoms.

Update: As soon as I typed all that out, I had several 100 denoms mix... so who knows. I will keep an eye on it for a bit.

Yidakee... Thanks for the feedback. I agree that this whole decentralized governance is AWESOME!
Click to expand...

This is what I like to see. Constructive critique, not just bitching. Yes, I remember initially we were going for large amounts, but then IIRC, Udjin warned us not to do it as it would greatly bloat the chain unnecessarily, and would be a waste if no one was actually mixing. So the proposal was readjusted to a smaller amount, but then dropped completely. Then Udjin solved the puzzle with his 1 line of code fix, so the proposal was re-activated, with the small amount parameter.

This was/is an interim solution to boost mixing, until Evan pushes out the excitingly sounding new code that eliminated the need for LP's and as I understand it correctly, not even mixing partners. I have no clue if a new proposition will be made, and if so, then I do believe we should indeed up the stake for LP's.

Thanks for youe feedback, I'll pass it along to Evan.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been following this, and to clear things up, what Udjin did was make it so anyone running liquidityprovider, would NOT mix UNLESS there was a request from a regular user to mix, then they would jump in. This was so that liquidity providers did not endlessly mix amongst themselves constantly, bloating the blockchain for no good reason.

Now I've been running a liquidityprovider=1 This means that I'm ready to mix at any block (15 would be every 15 blocks) and so if the 5 people are so slowed down, then they'd be providing as few as 1 mix ever 4 minutes. I think that most of 'em know to run it as fast as possible to be there when needed though.

And I've recently gotten my wallet up to just under 150 coins and have been mixing, using up a steady 150 addresses per 24 hours. Sometimes a lot more, sometimes a few less. So I think there are people out there being well serviced, but they're not the type to post on BCT or DT. Probably into the black market and don't advertise. I wish someone who keeps an eye on those guys, and what they're saying could report here and let us know. I was on a reddit thread someone posted, and they were complaining about how long it took. This was before or just after we started this liquidity provider thing, and I would like to hear if the use of Dash has increased since?

So my question is, has any of you who have voted in this poll actually done some mixing recently? And have you clocked it? How did it go? It's hard to judge the project without any data!
 
TanteStefana said:
....
Now I've been running a liquidityprovider=1 This means that I'm ready to mix at any block (15 would be every 15 blocks)
...
Click to expand...
nope
UdjinM6 said:
That's exactly how it was designed - to act on every "15 blocks * <liquidityprovider>" (or more if there is no one in queue). It was not meant to mix your own funds but to help others a bit.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TanteStefana said:
No? What do the numbers mean then please. My mixing increased when I went from 15 to 1. Could you explain what it means then Udjin please?
Click to expand...
Oh, I bolded a part I was nope-ing about to make it more clear: liquidityprovider=1 - you are ready to mix every 15 blocks, liquidityprovider=15 - you are ready to mix every 15*15=225 blocks.
 
Ah, I see. Is there a reason not to mix every block? I mean, when there is a request? And I've been wondering, is there a reason not to mix multiple coins at once? Like 3 X 100, 3 X 10, 3 X 1 etc... in each round so that it can go much faster? I mean, is there a timing attack? I figure if we run it though many masternodes, the likelihood that any of the MN are logging what happened through the whole mixing system is just as unlikely as before, isn't it?
 
TanteStefana said:
Ah, I see. Is there a reason not to mix every block? I mean, when there is a request? And I've been wondering, is there a reason not to mix multiple coins at once? Like 3 X 100, 3 X 10, 3 X 1 etc... in each round so that it can go much faster? I mean, is there a timing attack? I figure if we run it though many masternodes, the likelihood that any of the MN are logging what happened through the whole mixing system is just as unlikely as before, isn't it?
Click to expand...
The reason not to mix every block is to preserve LPs funds spent on fees etc., there were some calculations about this provided by Evan some time ago. You can always mix as an ordinary user to speed things up (but that would cost you more per time frame).

It already does use X x 100 where X could be 1-10 to mix. I doesn't mix multiple denoms like 100 with 10 together though ("complex" mixing) because it's actually easier to find someone who has only 10s or only 100s to mix then someone who has both 10s and 100s. We thought this should speed things up so we removed "complex" mixing some time ago.
 
Yes, I understand each mix has to be the same denominations. I guess I don't understand the way fees are set up. I also didn't know that all slots for all denominations would need to be filled for the mixing to proceed. I guess if enough people ran a liquidity providers, mixing could happen each block (for anyone requesting it). Oh well, we don't even have any way to concretely clock this to see if mixing is going faster, or if we're even making an impact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top