From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WJRga-00079B-7N for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:57:24 +0000 Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com ([209.85.215.43]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WJRgY-0005AP-QN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:57:24 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id e16so2707511lan.16 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:57:16 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jCI/valhY/hFYq/C1O5lqv7CAtLPrMaWxfqjQcm2UAE=; b=Hz6rGS+QDr2UtbhyvJ+1czgYAQHZQlkwTHgaY5YFIMD3S06NQrivZsLq45lP+PAp/m BNFzPa2UFDQlK2McYiTzl+7LIIeV0uRS94sFhu6b3r1J/yZ9Bd/Pm1YbMDhnyzIkHTcX gllRNfe2yJfhMSkeF1tDg9kFmrioMZMo8WsCNSez3nP2+Ycifh3WQf3CjlsDj4podqTN rK61whrRpQc3PuLz2IzUmkHEntvDfCAVl6+Wo/FOnuRVdqaO+AdnZ3W0hJxmf4KpGI1B ABBnfdA9niLgrB+P2ohnLDz1BORd+GKXWZo6QwbnRezMAyagR1ZdKHUBLL8NFsez3W/c Kivg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm7xwkO6QNzIid+A6Gnrt9Gt3fCOGSq3WfNEhUFhA/gYmEOVh9mqSZo58Y1Goz4x+cUycAc MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.144.35 with SMTP id sj3mr7207718lbb.44.1393609792647; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:49:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.62.136 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:49:52 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [108.193.6.130] In-Reply-To: <20140228013719.GA5786@savin> References: <20140209180458.GB20126@savin> <20140209204434.GA11488@savin> <20140210193247.GC17359@savin> <20140211175919.GV3180@nl.grid.coop> <20140214052159.GF31437@savin> <20140217054751.GY3180@nl.grid.coop> <20140228013719.GA5786@savin> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:49:52 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= To: Peter Todd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1WJRgY-0005AP-QN Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Decentralized digital asset exchange with honest pricing and market depth X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:57:24 -0000 On 2/28/14, Peter Todd wrote: > 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. I'm totally FOR experimenting with this as it is and I'm happy that Alex/Killerstorm is working on "regular" colored coins. > 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 see the Bitcoin analogy... Anyway, I still don't think the seller cares, if he sells at the price he was asking, what would he care about "front running" those parallel networks. I've seen many street markets without "public information" and they work just well. >> 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. Well, the trades that appeared in the chain actually occurred. Buying to yourself at fake prices? Be careful, the miner could just separate the order and fill it himself. Or anyone paying a higher fee, for that matter. Again, you haven't addressed why the seller cares more about "accurate historic market data" than just his own fees and sell. > 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. Yes, I'm aware this is a concern for many people and that's why I bring it up when there's an useful use case (we have several important uses in freimarkets). Probably this belongs to another thread or just #wizards, but if I remember correctly, the last discussion we had about this, I think with you and gmaxwell, was more or less like this: -Valid transactions could get invalid with a regorg -Just like with any transaction if a double-spend appears, this just means that you would need to wait for expiry transactions to be somewhat buried to accept payments from it. -That introduces fungibility problems. -True, but doesn't seem a particularly difficult problem (I think we actually drafted some potential solutions, like introducing a maturity rule for expiry transactions) and the advantages outweigh that potential problem IMO. So in summary, I feel like before actually solving the problem we need to rise more awareness on how nice and necessary nExpiryTime would be. Anyway, sorry, I just wanted to point out another use, a deeper discussion about this belongs to another thread. --=20 Jorge Tim=F3n http://freico.in/