From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@monetize•io>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Decentralized digital asset exchange with honest pricing and market depth
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:37:19 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140228013719.GA5786@savin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAC1+kJNTq2sMbORAU-HBSpTVE3ohzsxHrxXw9JOXZp5ux32Gtw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2839 bytes --]
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:48:33AM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
> First of all, sorry for the delayed answer.
>
> On 2/10/14, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> > Got this:
> [...]
> Thank you, I knew this wasn't new for us but I doubted we had written
> it anywhere.
> As said in those mails, being only able to offer AAA for BTC and not
> BTC for AAA nor AAA for BBB is enough of a limitation to justify a
> hardfork IMO.
As usual, you don't need a hardfork.
Anyway, one-sided trade is sufficient to get a functioning marketplace
up and running and test out the many other issues with this stuff prior
to forking anything.
> On 2/14/14, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> > You're assuming the seller cares about fairness - why should they? They
> > offered a price for an asset and someone bought it; exactly which buyer
> > willing to buy at that price was able to complete the trade is
> > irrelevant to them. What they do care about is being sure that at
> > whatever given price they offered 100% of the buyers willing to buy at
> > that price actually see the offer in a reasonable amount of time - at
> > the best price the seller will get there will be only a single buyer
> > after all so you need that solid proof that said buyer was actually able
> > to get the offer.
>
> In fact, I don't think the seller will care enough about this to pay
> the proof of publication fee either. Assuming sellers can either
> broadcast the order on a bitmessage-like network or use your proof of
> publication scheme, the later will be always be more expensive. So my
> prediction is that most people will just use the simplest, fastest and
> cheapest method, but I guess only time can tell.
You can make the same argument against Bitcoin itself you know...
A Bitmessage-like network would be trivial to front-run via a sybil
attack. It's the fundemental problem with marketplaces - the data
they're trying to publish has to be public.
> I don't think this will be a tragedy, because like we discussed on
> IRC, I don't think the primary goal of markets is price discovery, but
> trade itself.
>
> About historic data, the actual trades are always public, and some
> kind of "archivers" could collect and maintain old orders for historic
> bid and asks, etc.
And again, how do you know that record is honest? Fact is without
proof-of-publication you just don't.
> As an aside, nLockTime would be nice not to always have to
> double-spend the inputs of an order to cancel it.
You mean a reverse nLockTime that makes a transaction invalid after a
certain amount of time - that's dangerous in a reorg unfortunately as it
can make transactions permenantly invalid.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000b52709f0485161e764ac0198960885ccab019a978322cc6e
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 685 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-28 1:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-09 18:04 Peter Todd
2014-02-09 20:44 ` Peter Todd
2014-02-10 19:32 ` Peter Todd
2014-02-11 17:59 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2014-02-14 5:21 ` Peter Todd
2014-02-17 5:47 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2014-02-27 23:48 ` Jorge Timón
2014-02-28 1:37 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2014-02-28 17:49 ` Jorge Timón
2014-03-01 17:45 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2014-03-01 18:22 ` Jeff Garzik
2014-03-01 18:28 ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-03-01 18:33 ` Jeff Garzik
2014-03-02 18:08 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2014-03-02 19:03 ` Jorge Timón
2014-02-12 16:34 ` Dan Carter
2014-02-14 5:20 ` Peter Todd
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140228013719.GA5786@savin \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=jtimon@monetize$(echo .)io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox