Walletwasabi: Optimizing Anonymity Gain By Optimizing Timeouts

[nopara73]

Background

There's a constant 2h timeout in Wasabi, however this could be made dynamic and optimized for anonymity gain.

Quantifying Anonymity Gains

Take a round where 3 peer participated. All 3 got back 1BTC mixed coins, and 2 of them got back 2BTC mixed coins. In this case we quantify the quality of this coinjoin as 3*3*1 + 2*2*2, as 3 peer gained 3 anonymity set to 1BTC and 2 peer gained 2 anonymity for 2BTC. Let's call this number Wasabi Coinjoin Quality: WCQ. In this case WCQ = 44. The higher the WCQ is for a given coinjoin, the better it is.

Optimizing Timeouts

The idea is to aim for the highest possible WCQ by dynamically adjusting timeouts. After every coinjoin, we calculate WCQ and adjust the timeout depending on WCQ's direction by a 1m.

Examples

1. Start server.
2. Coinjoin 1 happened with WCQ = 10 and timeout = 120m.
3. Lower timeout by 1m.
4. Coinjoin 2 happened with WCQ = 11 and timeout = 119m.
5. Lower timeout by 1m.
6. Coinjoin 3 happened with WCQ = 10 and timeout = 118m.
7. Increase timeout by 1m.
8. Coinjoin 4 happened with WCQ = 11 and timeout = 119m.
9. ...

Notes

• This is purely server side change, so it does not requires client updates.
• With this algorithm we can make sure to deliver the greatest value with our current architecture to our users, as the timeouts would slowly converge towards the most optimal one.

[nopara73]

Actually this should be optimized to time instead of per coinjoin, as that's the relevant metric.

[lontivero]

I am not sure to understand the last comment so, probably I will say the same that you. I think the idea should be to optimize the anonymity/time (wqc/t). What would be something good because we could provide more anonymity to users by day so, those that keep mixing would speed up the process.

The problem is that easiest way to increase the number is by reducing the timeout closer to zero and that can be done only if we agree on having more coinjoins with less participants.

[nopara73]

The problem is that easiest way to increase the number is by reducing the timeout closer to zero and that can be done only if we agree on having more coinjoins with less participants.

Why? WQC depends on how many people you mix with exponentially: 2 peers mixed twice with 3,3 bitcoins -> 2mix*2peer*2anongain*3btc = 24wcq vs 3 peers mixed once with 3,3,3 bitcoins -> 1mix*3peer*3anongain*3btc = 27wcq.

So increasing the participants by 1/3 results in better wcq, despite halving the number of mixes.

[AvivMilner]

That's right - the optimal solution will likely not have the t -> 0. But I have a different concerns.

1. How do you know you are quantifying the value of a CoinJoin accurately? You could simplify it by simply considering the number of participants, or the sheer volume of the mix. Or you could simplify it to be the fees earned by the coordinator (which is closest to what Adam has right now).

2. Why do you think you should lower the timeout by 1 minute if the WQC goes up and vice versa? How are these things at all related? This doesn't seem to have a clear reasoning behind it.

Let me offer another idea entirely - you have 120 minute countdown. Assuming there are 40 participants registered or less, this countdown continues. For every person over 40 that registers, the server subtracts 1 minute from the countdown.

If we have 100 participants, the Coinjoin will happen 1 hour earlier. If we have 70 participants, it will happen 30 minutes earlier and so forth.

[Transisto]

I like @AvivMilner sugestion. Simple and straightforward

The important feature is smoothing the line between participant and forced delay.

Instead of arbitrary cutoff
99 participant = 120min,
100 participant = 0 min

Not sure what rate limiting there is at 100+ participants but it seems like a vulnerability to have someone mix coins overnight and not realize his stash got insta-Sybil mixed.

Current table stop at

[lontivero]

Why?

Because it is a function of two variables where you have a multiplication in the numerator (wqc) and a divisor (t). Then there are two ways to maximize it (get and infinite number):

1. Letting the time constant, increase the number of participants as much as possible (making wqc bigger) or,
2. Letting the wqc constant, decrease the interval as much as possible.

Given it is easier to make this wqc/t to grow by decreasing the t close to zero than making the number of participants close to infinite (we control the interval but not the number of participants) is that I said that.

Of course we don't need to keep one variable constant and the optimal value would be to decrease the interval as close to zero while the number of participants also increases (a dream).

What we don't know is if those two variables are really independent, i mean, we don't know if a reduction in the interval can cause a drop in users' participation, because in that case we should discover the optimal combination of time and wqc.

IMO it doesn't matter how long we wait for 100 participants, 10 minutes ago there were 79 waiting users and now there are 72 so, two hours, three hours or more hours allow us to increase the "probability" of joining 100 people but decreases the real wqc that Wasabi provides at the end of the day.

This is why I think that if this algorithm works as expected we will see a reduction in the timeouts.

---

Notes:

What you want to do is known as control theory and your suggested implementation is a variant of the _proportional_ control. In proportional control the next value of the variable (in this case, timeout) is multiplied by a factor, for example: next_time_out = current_time_out * factor. The problem with this is that the algorithm has no memory and then generates vibrations, meaning that the algorithm doesn't converge in an smooth way to the optimal value. That's why the bitcoin adjustment algorithm uses the expected number of blocks after two weeks and not simply based on how long it took to mine the latest block.

[nopara73]

@AvivMilner

How do you know you are quantifying the value of a CoinJoin accurately? You could simplify it by simply considering the number of participants, or the sheer volume of the mix. Or you could simplify it to be the fees earned by the coordinator (which is closest to what Adam has right now).

No, you cannot. 6 people achieving 6 anonset set on 1 BTC and out of them 2 achieved 2 anonset on 2BTC: 6*6*1 + 2*2*2. You cannot simplify it by the number of participants, because then the score would be the exact same for this coinjoin as to a coinjoin where 6 people achieved 6 anonset on 1BTC. Both coinjoins have 6 participants, but the first is clearly superior.

or the sheer volume of the mix

That isn't a simplification, that is what the formula gives us:)

Or you could simplify it to be the fees earned by the coordinator (which is closest to what Adam has right now).

While it correlates with the results, it would still have more room to be inaccurate than the "sheer volume of the mix." On a philosophical note, I'd also like Wasabi to maximize the value provided for customers instead of the value taken by the company. The first goal, in the long term ultimately results in achieving the second goal anyway.

Why do you think you should lower the timeout by 1 minute if the WQC goes up and vice versa?

No reason. Ad-hoc. Something had to be chosen.

How are these things at all related? This doesn't seem to have a clear reasoning behind it.

There are 3 factors that influences how efficient Wasabi mixes are.

1. Denominations.
2. Timeouts.
3. How many people with how much bitcoin are queued at any given time.

We cannot touch the denomination without architectural changes. We don't have influence on the peers either, so the only thing we can touch is the timeouts.

Now, it's possible that the enqueued coins by the peers are the sole reason behind the volume going up and down. if this is the case the timeout adjustments would not make sense, but worse case scenario it won't ruin anything.

Let me offer another idea entirely - you have 120 minute countdown. Assuming there are 40 participants registered or less, this countdown continues. For every person over 40 that registers, the server subtracts 1 minute from the countdown.
If we have 100 participants, the Coinjoin will happen 1 hour earlier. If we have 70 participants, it will happen 30 minutes earlier and so forth.

Interesting idea. Intuitively I would think about it as a patience optimization. The more people there are in the round, the more likely someone will bail out, thus we would lover the timeout to mitigate the possibility. However as @Transisto noted ensuring smooth line is utmost important so let me offer another model here:

The timeout could be purely dependent on the number of desired participants, which is 100 peers right now.
So with 0 peer, the timeout would be 100, with 1 peer added, it would be 99, with one peer removed, it would be 100 again, etc...

However this would optimize based on whishful thinking, while my algorithm would optimize based on metrics. Also the "countdown" would be rendered unreliable and random in the clients, which is problematic.

[nopara73]

@lontivero Your deduction is incorrect, because t isn't the interval, it is a constant time, let's say 24h.

What we don't know is if those two variables are really independent, i mean, we don't know if a reduction in the interval can cause a drop in users' participation, because in that case we should discover the optimal combination of time and wqc.

That is correct, but we can only figure it out if we try. Worst case scenario nothing breaks.

See my answer to @AvivMilner's question in my previous comment: "How are these things at all related? This doesn't seem to have a clear reasoning behind it."

IMO it doesn't matter how long we wait for 100 participants

That is incorrect. If we would wait half a year, then WCQ would be very small or zero.

10 minutes ago there were 79 waiting users and now there are 72 so, two hours, three hours or more hours allow us to increase the "probability" of joining 100 people but decreases the real wqc that Wasabi provides at the end of the day.
This is why I think that if this algorithm works as expected we will see a reduction in the timeouts.

If it reduces the timeouts, that just proves our current timeout is incorrect.

What you want to do is known as control theory and your suggested implementation is a variant of the proportional control.

Correct, we don't know how much the timeout adjustment matters, but there's only one way to find out: try it, as we have no idea how much Bitcoin is enqueued at any given time.

[AvivMilner]

or the sheer volume of the mix

That isn't a simplification, that is what the formula gives us:)

Not exactly. Sheer volume just measures how many Bitcoin was on the right hand side of a mix. If you have 10 people mixing 1 Bitcoin, the value would be 10. If you add an 11th person, you get a linear increase to 11. The point is that this method is linear in how it values CoinJoins.

Allow me to articulate my concerns succinctly:

1. I have not been convinced that an exponential metric is appropriate to quantify mixing success. You are supposing that a single CJ with 100 participants (a score of 100*100) is the same value as 4 Coinjoins with 50 participants. My intuition tells me that 4 CJ with 50 participants is better.

2. Suppose you do know how to quantify CoinJoins - an algorithm that creates variable CoinJoin times is a step in the wrong direction. It adds more complexity and uncertainty that users are not sure about and needs to be explained. Recall, the goal should be simple - to maximize the number of people and coins mixing in this most efficient way. You might attract more users by fixing a more regular and expected timeout.

So I no longer like my own idea, as I think it makes things complicated with variable timeout timer.

I have said it in the past and I will say it again here for transparency - reduce all of the variability in the system to the extreme and users will have a way better time across the board.

1. Fix the denominations to 0.100 BTC
2. Fix the fees to exactly 0.3%, regardless of participants
3. Fix the times the CJ happen to every hour on the hour.
4. Fix the confirmation target of the CJ to <6 blocks
5. Fix the miner fee to be paid by the coordinator.
6. Allow for free re-mixing (to encourage rapid rise to 100 participants in each CJ)

[nopara73]

You're right, it's not sheer volume. That's why WCQ is better:

• WCQ: 100*100= 10,000, and 4*50*50= 10,000.
• Sheer volume: 100 and 4*50=200.

Your intuition is wrong. Think about it this way. 100 ppl gained 100 anonymity set in the first example. Let's break down the second example.

First, let's say 1CJ with 50ppl. That'd 'be obviously worse. 50ppl gained 50 anonset.
Let's see for 2CJ with 50ppl. That'd be obviously worse, too. 50ppl gained 50 anonset once. And 50ppl gained 50 anonset twice. So that's 100ppl gained 50 anonset. That's obviously worse and easily comparable to 100ppl gained 100 anonset.
Now introduce 50ppl more ppl with 50 anonset. That's 150ppl gained 50 anonset. That's why "more" ppl gained anonset, they did not gained that much to be better than 100ppl 50 anonset.
Finally add the last 50ppl. Now we have 200ppl gained 50 anonset. That's just as good as to 100ppl gained 100 anonset.

Suppose you do know how to quantify CoinJoins - an algorithm that creates variable CoinJoin times is a step in the wrong direction. It adds more complexity and uncertainty that users are not sure about and needs to be explained. Recall, the goal should be simple - to maximize the number of people and coins mixing in this most efficient way. You might attract more users by fixing a more regular and expected timeout.

That could be the safer choice, as it's doubtful if we can tell if timeouts really matter. In that case we should go with 1h as that'd be a more psychologically graspable timeout.

[nopara73]

So far, here are the 24h WCQ stats since we took down the timeout to 1h from 2h:

Note, the only thing that matters here is the WCQ Sum, the rest of the stats are just interesting.

BEFORE
Day 3,  TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 709,   WCQ Sum: 12779
Day 4,  TxCount: 19,    WCQ Avg: 678,   WCQ Sum: 12882
Day 5,  TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 685,   WCQ Sum: 12343
Day 6,  TxCount: 21,    WCQ Avg: 524,   WCQ Sum: 11019
Day 7,  TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 743,   WCQ Sum: 13386
----
Day 8,  TxCount: 27,    WCQ Avg: 619,   WCQ Sum: 16738
----
AFTER
Day 9,  TxCount: 37,    WCQ Avg: 412,   WCQ Sum: 15255
Day 10, TxCount: 39,    WCQ Avg: 403,   WCQ Sum: 15729
Day 11, TxCount: 41,    WCQ Avg: 282,   WCQ Sum: 11573

[AvivMilner]

So it looks like the decrease of the timeout has led to more CoinJoins that are, on average, smaller. However, the sum of all Coinjoins done is slightly higher, according to our WCQ metric.

We should also ask about the long term effects (what will this new feature do in terms of encourgain more liquidity after 2 or more weeks have passed).

Also Adam - would you kindly report income by Wasabi as well? So that we may compare the effect of this change on income.

[nopara73]

BEFORE
Day 2,  TxCount: 2,     WCQ Avg: 633,   WCQ Total: 1266,        Income Avg: 0.01603843, Income Total: 0.03207687
Day 3,  TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 709,   WCQ Total: 12779,       Income Avg: 0.0190894,  Income Total: 0.34360934
Day 4,  TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 685,   WCQ Total: 13707,       Income Avg: 0.01877776, Income Total: 0.37555536
Day 5,  TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 685,   WCQ Total: 12343,       Income Avg: 0.01848049, Income Total: 0.33264889
Day 6,  TxCount: 21,    WCQ Avg: 524,   WCQ Total: 11019,       Income Avg: 0.01391941, Income Total: 0.29230762
Day 7,  TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 743,   WCQ Total: 13386,       Income Avg: 0.02097988, Income Total: 0.37763789
----
Day 8,  TxCount: 27,    WCQ Avg: 619,   WCQ Total: 16738,       Income Avg: 0.01676519, Income Total: 0.4526603
----
AFTER
Day 9,  TxCount: 37,    WCQ Avg: 412,   WCQ Total: 15255,       Income Avg: 0.01113924, Income Total: 0.41215224
Day 10, TxCount: 39,    WCQ Avg: 403,   WCQ Total: 15729,       Income Avg: 0.01117022, Income Total: 0.43563858
Day 11, TxCount: 41,    WCQ Avg: 282,   WCQ Total: 11573,       Income Avg: 0.00786254, Income Total: 0.32236444

[nopara73]

A bit longer timeframe into the past.

BEFORE
Day 362, TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 606,   WCQ Total: 10920,       Income Avg: 0.01608415, Income Total: 0.28951481
Day 363, TxCount: 23,    WCQ Avg: 481,   WCQ Total: 11064,       Income Avg: 0.01301796, Income Total: 0.29941317
Day 364, TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 678,   WCQ Total: 12207,       Income Avg: 0.01801706, Income Total: 0.32430712
Day 365, TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 638,   WCQ Total: 12765,       Income Avg: 0.01803379, Income Total: 0.36067585
Day 1,   TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 598,   WCQ Total: 11963,       Income Avg: 0.0171469,  Income Total: 0.3429381
Day 2,   TxCount: 22,    WCQ Avg: 575,   WCQ Total: 12657,       Income Avg: 0.01583459, Income Total: 0.34836114
Day 3,   TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 709,   WCQ Total: 12779,       Income Avg: 0.0190894,  Income Total: 0.34360934
Day 4,   TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 685,   WCQ Total: 13707,       Income Avg: 0.01877776, Income Total: 0.37555536
Day 5,   TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 685,   WCQ Total: 12343,       Income Avg: 0.01848049, Income Total: 0.33264889
Day 6,   TxCount: 21,    WCQ Avg: 524,   WCQ Total: 11019,       Income Avg: 0.01391941, Income Total: 0.29230762
Day 7,   TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 743,   WCQ Total: 13386,       Income Avg: 0.02097988, Income Total: 0.37763789
----
Day 8,   TxCount: 27,    WCQ Avg: 619,   WCQ Total: 16738,       Income Avg: 0.01676519, Income Total: 0.4526603
----
AFTER
Day 9,   TxCount: 37,    WCQ Avg: 412,   WCQ Total: 15255,       Income Avg: 0.01113924, Income Total: 0.41215224
Day 10,  TxCount: 39,    WCQ Avg: 403,   WCQ Total: 15729,       Income Avg: 0.01117022, Income Total: 0.43563858
Day 11,  TxCount: 41,    WCQ Avg: 282,   WCQ Total: 11573,       Income Avg: 0.00786254, Income Total: 0.32236444

[AvivMilner]

Ok, so it looks like there is a slight uptick in Income generated which is likely proportional to the new WCQ uptick since both metrics are based on exponential weighting of CoinJoins.

The long term effects of this change will be very interesting.

[bharmat]

These are the daily incomes since 1 Jan:

1 | 0.3429381
2 | 0.34836114
3 | 0.34360934
4 | 0.37555536
5 | 0.33264889
6 | 0.29230762
7 | 0.39711304
8 | 0.44784824
9 | 0.40725297
10 | 0.42587476
11 | 0.32236444
12 | 0.35203404

When we started the timeframe decrease there was an obvious jump, but the last two days shows a slight drop. IMO this timeframe is still too short to base statistics on it, so lets wait a bit more and evaluate on 27 Jan as discussed previously.

[molnard]

Let me add my notes about this topic.

Decreasing the timeout to a fixed value:

Pros:

• If I would like to CoinJoin I will wait for 1 or two hours - it doesn't matter. Less time gives better user experience.
• Ppl who are satisfied with less anonset can mix cheaper. From the user side, this is a good point as they can stop mixing "earlier". We got some complaints about this.
• On the other hand, users who need larger anonset will have to participate in more rounds, which is good for privacy.

Cons:

• Have to take care of the too-long-mempool chain problem.
• More CJ eats more block space. Regarding the miner fees, it is slightly more expensive but from the user side, you will pay less coordinator fees as you can stop mixing earlier.

Changing the timeout dynamically:

Pros:

• Automatic adjustment of optimal CJ. The question is what to optimize. The quality of CJ is a good idea.
  Cons:
• Need to set up hard limits of the adjustment. For example, do not decrease the timeout less than half an hour.
• Adjustments can have unexpected side effects like too-long-mempool chain. There is no way to discovers these until we push it into production. Some issues will only appear with a specific adjustment setting which might not be obvious for the first glance.

[Transisto]

too-long-mempool chain is easily solved by the coordinator auto bumping
fees of unconfirmed TX.

On Mon., Jan. 13, 2020, 06:38 Dávid Molnár, [e-mail]
wrote:

Let me add my notes about this topic.

Decreasing the timeout to a fixed value:

Pros:

• If I would like to CoinJoin I will wait for 1 or two hours - it
  doesn't matter. Less time gives better user experience.
• Ppl who are satisfied with less anonset can mix cheaper. From the
  user side, this is a good point as they can stop mixing "earlier". We got
  some complaints about this.
• On the other hand, users who need larger anonset will have to
  participate in more rounds, which is good for privacy.

Cons:

• Have to take care of the too-long-mempool chain problem.
• More CJ eats more block space. Regarding the miner fees, it is
  slightly more expensive but from the user side, you will pay less
  coordinator fees as you can stop mixing earlier.

Changing the timeout dynamically:

Pros:

• Automatic adjustment of optimal CJ. The question is what to
  optimize. The quality of CJ is a good idea.
  Cons:
• Need to set up hard limits of the adjustment. For example, do not
  decrease the timeout less than half an hour.
• Adjustments can have unexpected side effects like too-long-mempool
  chain. There is no way to discovers these until we push it into production.
  Some issues will only appear with a specific adjustment setting which might
  not be obvious for the first glance.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/zkSNACKs/WalletWasabi/issues/2940?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAC643B3X33HSVKZVDTGEL3Q5RHCPA5CNFSM4KCYM2MKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEIYMUMY#issuecomment-573622835,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAC643HHUMLG373OQNEB2R3Q5RHCPANCNFSM4KCYM2MA
.

[AvivMilner]

A more ideal solution is that the coordinator should set fees that roughly guarantee confirmation within 6 blocks. Currently it is set to 144 blocks.

[Transisto]

Lowballing and increasing as needed is cheaper than overshooting and we can
fail at overshooting and be in the same situation. Seems only ideal for it
being easier to code.

On Mon., Jan. 13, 2020, 11:41 Aviv Milner, [e-mail] wrote:

A more ideal solution is that the coordinator should set fees that roughly
guarantee confirmation within 6 blocks. Currently it is set to 144 blocks.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/zkSNACKs/WalletWasabi/issues/2940?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAC643ADH7TGZROCLSJ7GQTQ5SKU5A5CNFSM4KCYM2MKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEIZNGQQ#issuecomment-573756226,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAC643F6JPUTHHFL7H5QZHLQ5SKU5ANCNFSM4KCYM2MA
.

[MaxHillebrand]

I think that decreasing the timeout to a fixed value will lead to more disruption, for example the mix with only 5 anonset. In this case it was simply too early to decrease to such a low timeout, and thus this tx wasted rather a lot of blockspace.

The advantage of having the dynamic calculation is that it will be more smooth [I think] and if the user demand for mixes decreases, then it will also adjust the timeout upwards. So I would guess that this would result in a more steady anonset per round. Though as mentioned above, this needs to be tested in production to actually find out...

Regarding long unconfirmed chains, I agree with @Transisto here, it is a lot more economical to start with low-balling the fees [like 144 blocks] and then with every unconfirmed CJ increase the fee by several blocks. For example, every new CJ as 10 blocks less in the confirmation target. This is basically child pays for parent, where every subsequent CJ pays fees for all previous unconfirmed coinjoins. This might however be a bit "unfair" as users of later CJ pay the fees of earlier users...

[nopara73]

Automatic timeout proved to be incorrect, as there's no drastic jump or drop caused by cutting the timeout in half, so however we would mess with the timeouts it would be just noise (see @lontivero's argument on control theory (https://github.com/zkSNACKs/WalletWasabi/issues/2940#issuecomment-571727036))

Day 1,  TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 598,   WCQ Total: 11963,       Income Avg: 0.0171469,  Income Total: 0.3429381
Day 2,  TxCount: 22,    WCQ Avg: 575,   WCQ Total: 12657,       Income Avg: 0.01583459, Income Total: 0.34836114
Day 3,  TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 709,   WCQ Total: 12779,       Income Avg: 0.0190894,  Income Total: 0.34360934
Day 4,  TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 685,   WCQ Total: 13707,       Income Avg: 0.01877776, Income Total: 0.37555536
Day 5,  TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 685,   WCQ Total: 12343,       Income Avg: 0.01848049, Income Total: 0.33264889
Day 6,  TxCount: 21,    WCQ Avg: 524,   WCQ Total: 11019,       Income Avg: 0.01391941, Income Total: 0.29230762
Day 7,  TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 743,   WCQ Total: 13386,       Income Avg: 0.02097988, Income Total: 0.37763789
----
Day 8,  TxCount: 27,    WCQ Avg: 619,   WCQ Total: 16738,       Income Avg: 0.01676519, Income Total: 0.4526603
----
Day 9,  TxCount: 37,    WCQ Avg: 412,   WCQ Total: 15255,       Income Avg: 0.01113924, Income Total: 0.41215224
Day 10, TxCount: 39,    WCQ Avg: 403,   WCQ Total: 15729,       Income Avg: 0.01117022, Income Total: 0.43563858
Day 11, TxCount: 41,    WCQ Avg: 282,   WCQ Total: 11573,       Income Avg: 0.00786254, Income Total: 0.32236444
Day 12, TxCount: 40,    WCQ Avg: 312,   WCQ Total: 12510,       Income Avg: 0.00880085, Income Total: 0.35203404
Day 13, TxCount: 34,    WCQ Avg: 228,   WCQ Total: 7776,        Income Avg: 0.00676652, Income Total: 0.23006198

[nopara73]

The trend is turning around.

Day 1,  TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 598,   WCQ Total: 11963,       Income Avg: 0.0171469,  Income Total: 0.3429381
Day 2,  TxCount: 22,    WCQ Avg: 575,   WCQ Total: 12657,       Income Avg: 0.01583459, Income Total: 0.34836114
Day 3,  TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 709,   WCQ Total: 12779,       Income Avg: 0.0190894,  Income Total: 0.34360934
Day 4,  TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 685,   WCQ Total: 13707,       Income Avg: 0.01877776, Income Total: 0.37555536
Day 5,  TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 685,   WCQ Total: 12343,       Income Avg: 0.01848049, Income Total: 0.33264889
Day 6,  TxCount: 21,    WCQ Avg: 524,   WCQ Total: 11019,       Income Avg: 0.01391941, Income Total: 0.29230762
Day 7,  TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 743,   WCQ Total: 13386,       Income Avg: 0.02097988, Income Total: 0.37763789
---
Day 8,  TxCount: 27,    WCQ Avg: 619,   WCQ Total: 16738,       Income Avg: 0.01676519, Income Total: 0.4526603
---
Day 9,  TxCount: 37,    WCQ Avg: 412,   WCQ Total: 15255,       Income Avg: 0.01113924, Income Total: 0.41215224
Day 10, TxCount: 39,    WCQ Avg: 403,   WCQ Total: 15729,       Income Avg: 0.01117022, Income Total: 0.43563858
Day 11, TxCount: 41,    WCQ Avg: 282,   WCQ Total: 11573,       Income Avg: 0.00786254, Income Total: 0.32236444
Day 12, TxCount: 40,    WCQ Avg: 312,   WCQ Total: 12510,       Income Avg: 0.00880085, Income Total: 0.35203404
Day 13, TxCount: 34,    WCQ Avg: 228,   WCQ Total: 7776,        Income Avg: 0.00676652, Income Total: 0.23006198
Day 14, TxCount: 48,    WCQ Avg: 342,   WCQ Total: 16456,       Income Avg: 0.01030176, Income Total: 0.49448484
Day 15, TxCount: 40,    WCQ Avg: 400,   WCQ Total: 16014,       Income Avg: 0.01329587, Income Total: 0.53183509

[AvivMilner]

Wow, OK very interesting. Now it looks like a pretty sizable uptick in volume and revenue. Looks like there is a lot of variance.
Could be something like the change in the price affecting demand.

[bharmat]

IMO as we discussed earlier we need to give it some longer timescale to have better statistics.

[nopara73]

Sure, we set 27th of January. I'm just leaving some partial reports here.

[nopara73]

Day 1,  TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 598,   WCQ Total: 11963,       Income Avg: 0.0171469,  Income Total: 0.3429381
Day 2,  TxCount: 22,    WCQ Avg: 575,   WCQ Total: 12657,       Income Avg: 0.01583459, Income Total: 0.34836114
Day 3,  TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 709,   WCQ Total: 12779,       Income Avg: 0.0190894,  Income Total: 0.34360934
Day 4,  TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 685,   WCQ Total: 13707,       Income Avg: 0.01877776, Income Total: 0.37555536
Day 5,  TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 685,   WCQ Total: 12343,       Income Avg: 0.01848049, Income Total: 0.33264889
Day 6,  TxCount: 21,    WCQ Avg: 524,   WCQ Total: 11019,       Income Avg: 0.01391941, Income Total: 0.29230762
Day 7,  TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 743,   WCQ Total: 13386,       Income Avg: 0.02097988, Income Total: 0.37763789
Day 8,  TxCount: 27,    WCQ Avg: 619,   WCQ Total: 16738,       Income Avg: 0.01676519, Income Total: 0.4526603
Day 9,  TxCount: 37,    WCQ Avg: 412,   WCQ Total: 15255,       Income Avg: 0.01113924, Income Total: 0.41215224
Day 10, TxCount: 39,    WCQ Avg: 403,   WCQ Total: 15729,       Income Avg: 0.01117022, Income Total: 0.43563858
Day 11, TxCount: 41,    WCQ Avg: 282,   WCQ Total: 11573,       Income Avg: 0.00786254, Income Total: 0.32236444
Day 12, TxCount: 40,    WCQ Avg: 312,   WCQ Total: 12510,       Income Avg: 0.00880085, Income Total: 0.35203404
Day 13, TxCount: 34,    WCQ Avg: 228,   WCQ Total: 7776,        Income Avg: 0.00676652, Income Total: 0.23006198
Day 14, TxCount: 48,    WCQ Avg: 342,   WCQ Total: 16456,       Income Avg: 0.01030176, Income Total: 0.49448484
Day 15, TxCount: 40,    WCQ Avg: 400,   WCQ Total: 16014,       Income Avg: 0.01329587, Income Total: 0.53183509
Day 16, TxCount: 43,    WCQ Avg: 347,   WCQ Total: 14956,       Income Avg: 0.01085831, Income Total: 0.46690746
Day 17, TxCount: 39,    WCQ Avg: 284,   WCQ Total: 11087,       Income Avg: 0.0091189,  Income Total: 0.35563744
Day 18, TxCount: 36,    WCQ Avg: 352,   WCQ Total: 12696,       Income Avg: 0.01103607, Income Total: 0.3972987
Day 19, TxCount: 40,    WCQ Avg: 309,   WCQ Total: 12372,       Income Avg: 0.00951266, Income Total: 0.3805067

[nopara73]

Total WCQ before and after without transition, which was day 8.

[nopara73]

Final Results

Total WCQ

Total Income

Data

Day 293,        TxCount: 22,    WCQ Avg: 627,   WCQ Total: 13814,       Income Avg: 0.01606907, Income Total: 0.35351961
Day 294,        TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 748,   WCQ Total: 13468,       Income Avg: 0.01951842, Income Total: 0.35133162
Day 295,        TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 985,   WCQ Total: 19705,       Income Avg: 0.02609909, Income Total: 0.52198194
Day 296,        TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 915,   WCQ Total: 18313,       Income Avg: 0.02430677, Income Total: 0.48613545
Day 297,        TxCount: 10,    WCQ Avg: 570,   WCQ Total: 5705,        Income Avg: 0.01646815, Income Total: 0.16468155
Day 298,        TxCount: 27,    WCQ Avg: 710,   WCQ Total: 19185,       Income Avg: 0.0188368,  Income Total: 0.50859374
Day 299,        TxCount: 24,    WCQ Avg: 748,   WCQ Total: 17970,       Income Avg: 0.02069698, Income Total: 0.49672762
Day 300,        TxCount: 19,    WCQ Avg: 667,   WCQ Total: 12681,       Income Avg: 0.01892273, Income Total: 0.35953205
Day 301,        TxCount: 16,    WCQ Avg: 856,   WCQ Total: 13699,       Income Avg: 0.02452474, Income Total: 0.39239596
Day 302,        TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 714,   WCQ Total: 12865,       Income Avg: 0.02100671, Income Total: 0.3781208
Day 303,        TxCount: 17,    WCQ Avg: 877,   WCQ Total: 14911,       Income Avg: 0.02501448, Income Total: 0.4252462
Day 304,        TxCount: 15,    WCQ Avg: 869,   WCQ Total: 13037,       Income Avg: 0.0248396,  Income Total: 0.372594
Day 305,        TxCount: 19,    WCQ Avg: 660,   WCQ Total: 12543,       Income Avg: 0.0186098,  Income Total: 0.35358638
Day 306,        TxCount: 14,    WCQ Avg: 775,   WCQ Total: 10861,       Income Avg: 0.02117372, Income Total: 0.29643218
Day 307,        TxCount: 21,    WCQ Avg: 465,   WCQ Total: 9773,        Income Avg: 0.01305526, Income Total: 0.27416054
Day 308,        TxCount: 17,    WCQ Avg: 711,   WCQ Total: 12094,       Income Avg: 0.01970905, Income Total: 0.33505388
Day 309,        TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 928,   WCQ Total: 18561,       Income Avg: 0.02589982, Income Total: 0.51799643
Day 310,        TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 702,   WCQ Total: 14048,       Income Avg: 0.02078946, Income Total: 0.41578924
Day 311,        TxCount: 22,    WCQ Avg: 554,   WCQ Total: 12189,       Income Avg: 0.0168651,  Income Total: 0.3710323
Day 312,        TxCount: 9,     WCQ Avg: 580,   WCQ Total: 5225,        Income Avg: 0.01823713, Income Total: 0.16413419
Day 313,        TxCount: 29,    WCQ Avg: 702,   WCQ Total: 20358,       Income Avg: 0.02079054, Income Total: 0.60292594
Day 314,        TxCount: 17,    WCQ Avg: 716,   WCQ Total: 12188,       Income Avg: 0.02160999, Income Total: 0.36736993
Day 315,        TxCount: 19,    WCQ Avg: 856,   WCQ Total: 16272,       Income Avg: 0.02509971, Income Total: 0.47689467
Day 316,        TxCount: 10,    WCQ Avg: 810,   WCQ Total: 8107,        Income Avg: 0.02280544, Income Total: 0.22805449
Day 317,        TxCount: 28,    WCQ Avg: 639,   WCQ Total: 17901,       Income Avg: 0.01905816, Income Total: 0.53362874
Day 318,        TxCount: 17,    WCQ Avg: 562,   WCQ Total: 9556,        Income Avg: 0.01795279, Income Total: 0.30519756
Day 319,        TxCount: 16,    WCQ Avg: 615,   WCQ Total: 9855,        Income Avg: 0.01938405, Income Total: 0.31014486
Day 320,        TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 592,   WCQ Total: 11853,       Income Avg: 0.01801073, Income Total: 0.36021468
Day 321,        TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 516,   WCQ Total: 9303,        Income Avg: 0.01581469, Income Total: 0.28466449
Day 322,        TxCount: 11,    WCQ Avg: 578,   WCQ Total: 6360,        Income Avg: 0.01740133, Income Total: 0.19141469
Day 323,        TxCount: 23,    WCQ Avg: 839,   WCQ Total: 19312,       Income Avg: 0.02389361, Income Total: 0.54955314
Day 324,        TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 637,   WCQ Total: 12747,       Income Avg: 0.01895871, Income Total: 0.37917432
Day 325,        TxCount: 15,    WCQ Avg: 640,   WCQ Total: 9613,        Income Avg: 0.01770143, Income Total: 0.26552151
Day 326,        TxCount: 16,    WCQ Avg: 595,   WCQ Total: 9527,        Income Avg: 0.01733694, Income Total: 0.27739106
Day 327,        TxCount: 16,    WCQ Avg: 646,   WCQ Total: 10336,       Income Avg: 0.01903792, Income Total: 0.30460675
Day 328,        TxCount: 17,    WCQ Avg: 579,   WCQ Total: 9849,        Income Avg: 0.01699089, Income Total: 0.28884524
Day 329,        TxCount: 9,     WCQ Avg: 601,   WCQ Total: 5413,        Income Avg: 0.01679172, Income Total: 0.15112551
Day 330,        TxCount: 24,    WCQ Avg: 615,   WCQ Total: 14775,       Income Avg: 0.01757951, Income Total: 0.42190826
Day 331,        TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 929,   WCQ Total: 18597,       Income Avg: 0.02597049, Income Total: 0.51940981
Day 332,        TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 632,   WCQ Total: 12649,       Income Avg: 0.0179863,  Income Total: 0.35972613
Day 333,        TxCount: 17,    WCQ Avg: 503,   WCQ Total: 8565,        Income Avg: 0.01424396, Income Total: 0.24214737
Day 334,        TxCount: 21,    WCQ Avg: 567,   WCQ Total: 11916,       Income Avg: 0.01610759, Income Total: 0.33825955
Day 335,        TxCount: 17,    WCQ Avg: 668,   WCQ Total: 11368,       Income Avg: 0.01937136, Income Total: 0.32931323
Day 336,        TxCount: 17,    WCQ Avg: 830,   WCQ Total: 14120,       Income Avg: 0.02277862, Income Total: 0.38723655
Day 337,        TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 864,   WCQ Total: 15554,       Income Avg: 0.02401043, Income Total: 0.43218788
Day 338,        TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 897,   WCQ Total: 16157,       Income Avg: 0.0248321,  Income Total: 0.44697797
Day 339,        TxCount: 17,    WCQ Avg: 767,   WCQ Total: 13039,       Income Avg: 0.02110874, Income Total: 0.35884868
Day 340,        TxCount: 15,    WCQ Avg: 757,   WCQ Total: 11366,       Income Avg: 0.02036936, Income Total: 0.30554051
Day 341,        TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 652,   WCQ Total: 11749,       Income Avg: 0.01682814, Income Total: 0.30290659
Day 342,        TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 577,   WCQ Total: 11551,       Income Avg: 0.01453756, Income Total: 0.29075121
Day 343,        TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 693,   WCQ Total: 12490,       Income Avg: 0.0181163,  Income Total: 0.32609351
Day 344,        TxCount: 21,    WCQ Avg: 818,   WCQ Total: 17191,       Income Avg: 0.02162869, Income Total: 0.45420264
Day 345,        TxCount: 16,    WCQ Avg: 687,   WCQ Total: 11006,       Income Avg: 0.01801876, Income Total: 0.28830021
Day 346,        TxCount: 19,    WCQ Avg: 705,   WCQ Total: 13410,       Income Avg: 0.01828093, Income Total: 0.3473377
Day 347,        TxCount: 17,    WCQ Avg: 721,   WCQ Total: 12260,       Income Avg: 0.01944295, Income Total: 0.33053021
Day 348,        TxCount: 15,    WCQ Avg: 645,   WCQ Total: 9686,        Income Avg: 0.01736835, Income Total: 0.26052529
Day 349,        TxCount: 13,    WCQ Avg: 608,   WCQ Total: 7907,        Income Avg: 0.01568042, Income Total: 0.20384547
Day 350,        TxCount: 23,    WCQ Avg: 782,   WCQ Total: 17987,       Income Avg: 0.02039525, Income Total: 0.46909089
Day 351,        TxCount: 23,    WCQ Avg: 658,   WCQ Total: 15146,       Income Avg: 0.01728664, Income Total: 0.39759283
Day 352,        TxCount: 19,    WCQ Avg: 757,   WCQ Total: 14398,       Income Avg: 0.02084322, Income Total: 0.39602118
Day 353,        TxCount: 17,    WCQ Avg: 869,   WCQ Total: 14778,       Income Avg: 0.02333221, Income Total: 0.39664761
Day 354,        TxCount: 15,    WCQ Avg: 855,   WCQ Total: 12825,       Income Avg: 0.02392702, Income Total: 0.35890531
Day 355,        TxCount: 16,    WCQ Avg: 521,   WCQ Total: 8339,        Income Avg: 0.01436124, Income Total: 0.22977996
Day 356,        TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 691,   WCQ Total: 12451,       Income Avg: 0.01892831, Income Total: 0.34070963
Day 357,        TxCount: 17,    WCQ Avg: 539,   WCQ Total: 9167,        Income Avg: 0.01416637, Income Total: 0.2408283
Day 358,        TxCount: 21,    WCQ Avg: 568,   WCQ Total: 11934,       Income Avg: 0.01504666, Income Total: 0.31597993
Day 359,        TxCount: 21,    WCQ Avg: 353,   WCQ Total: 7417,        Income Avg: 0.00983621, Income Total: 0.20656043
Day 360,        TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 575,   WCQ Total: 10357,       Income Avg: 0.01568545, Income Total: 0.28233826
Day 361,        TxCount: 21,    WCQ Avg: 624,   WCQ Total: 13116,       Income Avg: 0.01730529, Income Total: 0.36341122
Day 362,        TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 606,   WCQ Total: 10920,       Income Avg: 0.01608415, Income Total: 0.28951481
Day 363,        TxCount: 23,    WCQ Avg: 481,   WCQ Total: 11064,       Income Avg: 0.01301796, Income Total: 0.29941317
Day 364,        TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 678,   WCQ Total: 12207,       Income Avg: 0.01801706, Income Total: 0.32430712
Day 365,        TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 638,   WCQ Total: 12765,       Income Avg: 0.01803379, Income Total: 0.36067585
Day 1,          TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 598,   WCQ Total: 11963,       Income Avg: 0.0171469,  Income Total: 0.3429381
Day 2,          TxCount: 22,    WCQ Avg: 575,   WCQ Total: 12657,       Income Avg: 0.01583459, Income Total: 0.34836114
Day 3,          TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 709,   WCQ Total: 12779,       Income Avg: 0.0190894,  Income Total: 0.34360934
Day 4,          TxCount: 20,    WCQ Avg: 685,   WCQ Total: 13707,       Income Avg: 0.01877776, Income Total: 0.37555536
Day 5,          TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 685,   WCQ Total: 12343,       Income Avg: 0.01848049, Income Total: 0.33264889
Day 6,          TxCount: 21,    WCQ Avg: 524,   WCQ Total: 11019,       Income Avg: 0.01391941, Income Total: 0.29230762
Day 7,          TxCount: 18,    WCQ Avg: 743,   WCQ Total: 13386,       Income Avg: 0.02097988, Income Total: 0.37763789
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day 8,          TxCount: 27,    WCQ Avg: 619,   WCQ Total: 16738,       Income Avg: 0.01676519, Income Total: 0.4526603
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day 9,          TxCount: 37,    WCQ Avg: 412,   WCQ Total: 15255,       Income Avg: 0.01113924, Income Total: 0.41215224
Day 10,         TxCount: 39,    WCQ Avg: 403,   WCQ Total: 15729,       Income Avg: 0.01117022, Income Total: 0.43563858
Day 11,         TxCount: 41,    WCQ Avg: 282,   WCQ Total: 11573,       Income Avg: 0.00786254, Income Total: 0.32236444
Day 12,         TxCount: 40,    WCQ Avg: 312,   WCQ Total: 12510,       Income Avg: 0.00880085, Income Total: 0.35203404
Day 13,         TxCount: 34,    WCQ Avg: 228,   WCQ Total: 7776,        Income Avg: 0.00676652, Income Total: 0.23006198
Day 14,         TxCount: 48,    WCQ Avg: 342,   WCQ Total: 16456,       Income Avg: 0.01030176, Income Total: 0.49448484
Day 15,         TxCount: 40,    WCQ Avg: 400,   WCQ Total: 16014,       Income Avg: 0.01329587, Income Total: 0.53183509
Day 16,         TxCount: 43,    WCQ Avg: 347,   WCQ Total: 14956,       Income Avg: 0.01085831, Income Total: 0.46690746
Day 17,         TxCount: 39,    WCQ Avg: 284,   WCQ Total: 11087,       Income Avg: 0.0091189,  Income Total: 0.35563744
Day 18,         TxCount: 36,    WCQ Avg: 352,   WCQ Total: 12696,       Income Avg: 0.01103607, Income Total: 0.3972987
Day 19,         TxCount: 40,    WCQ Avg: 309,   WCQ Total: 12372,       Income Avg: 0.00951266, Income Total: 0.3805067
Day 20,         TxCount: 35,    WCQ Avg: 337,   WCQ Total: 11796,       Income Avg: 0.01000347, Income Total: 0.35012154
Day 21,         TxCount: 27,    WCQ Avg: 297,   WCQ Total: 8033,        Income Avg: 0.00965104, Income Total: 0.26057811
Day 22,         TxCount: 48,    WCQ Avg: 422,   WCQ Total: 20302,       Income Avg: 0.01238315, Income Total: 0.59439165
Day 23,         TxCount: 39,    WCQ Avg: 358,   WCQ Total: 13964,       Income Avg: 0.01017054, Income Total: 0.39665134
Day 24,         TxCount: 38,    WCQ Avg: 320,   WCQ Total: 12172,       Income Avg: 0.00888375, Income Total: 0.33758278
Day 25,         TxCount: 43,    WCQ Avg: 271,   WCQ Total: 11669,       Income Avg: 0.00709074, Income Total: 0.3049022