re “buy no” no “sell no” orders - it helps to record the user intent of my order.
I have a program that verifies that all of my positions are covered by an active “sell” order, and verifies that I’m not “selling” more than my position - to avoid an unintentional flip sell.
So even if it’s “the same thing” under the hood, it helps to be able to attach the intent to the order itself, and to be able to see that intent in the user interface, and to verify that I do t have an unintentional resting flip sell order.
Can we possibly get the “user_side” field available in the official api?
re “buy no” no “sell no” orders - it helps to record the user intent of my order.
I have a program that verifies that all of my positions are covered by an active “sell” order, and verifies that I’m not “selling” more than my position - to avoid an unintentional flip sell.
So even if it’s “the same thing” under the hood, it helps to be able to attach the intent to the order itself, and to be able to see that intent in the user interface, and to verify that I do t have an unintentional resting flip sell order.
Can we possibly get the “user_side” field available in the official api?
You could track the intent locally if it's an issue (although more work).
You could track the intent locally if it's an issue (although more work).
The whole point of v2 is weening api users off the habit of thinking in terms of buy/sell yes/no. It sucks for a few days and then you get used to it. There's no point in inching the api back towards the old semantics at this point. If you really want to you can tailor your own UI/record keeping to use the old semantics pretty easily
The whole point of v2 is weening api users off the habit of thinking in terms of buy/sell yes/no. It sucks for a few days and then you get used to it. There's no point in inching the api back towards the old semantics at this point. If you really want to you can tailor your own UI/record keeping to use the old semantics pretty easily
The `outcome_side` field sounds similar to user intent?
The `outcome_side` field sounds similar to user intent?
"verifies that I’m not “selling” more than my position" - you might want to look at reduce only orders
"verifies that I’m not “selling” more than my position" - you might want to look at reduce only orders
I'm not seeing outcome_side in the Create Order v2 docs
I'm not seeing outcome_side in the Create Order v2 docs
Why do sell orders placed on the website properly get called SELL orders in the orders page but when done through the new V2 it always calls it BUY?
Why do sell orders placed on the website properly get called SELL orders in the orders page but when done through the new V2 it always calls it BUY?
Because you're buying yes. You can only enter orders from the yes perspective thru the api.
Because you're buying yes. You can only enter orders from the yes perspective thru the api.
so what happens if it goes through then, is it separate from the no position or does it close it and pay out or what?
so what happens if it goes through then, is it separate from the no position or does it close it and pay out or what?
Yeah it closes it. Sell no = buy yes.
Yeah it closes it. Sell no = buy yes.
Why does the site still allow it to be done in the sensible way if API no longer does?
Why does the site still allow it to be done in the sensible way if API no longer does?
I would argue the api is more sensible. There is only 1 book, and the api now accurately portrays that.
I would argue the api is more sensible. There is only 1 book, and the api now accurately portrays that.
It's for the normies.
It's for the normies.
but now any time you place an order via API it loses info on the website
but now any time you place an order via API it loses info on the website
Now you never know if a buy order on the website is a buy order or not
Now you never know if a buy order on the website is a buy order or not
Yeah, I do wish there were an indicator of adding/covering a position but that's easy to calc on your own.
Yeah, I do wish there were an indicator of adding/covering a position but that's easy to calc on your own.
Love the reinforcement of rule #1
Love the reinforcement of rule #1
https://discord.com/channels/871819895443189862/927686720990892032/1517558916001693716
https://discord.com/channels/871819895443189862/927686720990892032/1517558916001693716
doesnt really address that the website still allows explicit sells so it's clearly still there under the hood and not actually removed, they just removed our ability to use it via API despite themselves understanding it was valuable enough for them to still use it on the website
doesnt really address that the website still allows explicit sells so it's clearly still there under the hood and not actually removed, they just removed our ability to use it via API despite themselves understanding it was valuable enough for them to still use it on the website
Yeah - you’ll give up on the website being usable in time as well if you trade via the API enough - sometimes I forget that some API traders still hold out hope for that (my ability to use it has been spotty at best for >1yr)
Yeah - you’ll give up on the website being usable in time as well if you trade via the API enough - sometimes I forget that some API traders still hold out hope for that (my ability to use it has been spotty at best for >1yr)