0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I still wonder whether shorts need to compete on interest, except at the feed price. It could be simpler to treat all offers above the price feed as 0% interest, assuming all shorts are rational.
This removed the shorts from the order book, making the whole trading experience much more approachable for newcomers.
It also removed the interest rate on shorts, which has been shown to be a gimmick because equilibrium rate is 0% (via the existing ability to self-short and take an unbounded portion of it for yourself at any time).
Besides being a big change, was there a major downside to this approach?
Nothing's been fixed yet. Another 5% drop in BTS price (at the current pace in about one hour) and we'll see masses of short positions called with the asset market totally dried up and shorting still impossible. 30% more and undercollateralisation looms.Perfect time for the dumping whales to give Bitshares the coup de grace.Probably all just a planned resilience test.
Quote from: starspirit on March 22, 2015, 04:25:36 amWhat's the "10%" is people are referring to? I thought in the current system expiring shorts sit at the price feed if there are no lower asks (i.e. no penalty), and that called shorts can buy as high as 110% (i.e. a 10% penalty)- is that incorrect? Sorry if my understanding is wrong, I've just not seen these confirmed.This is another market bug that was introduced (in 6.2 I believe): not only the called shorts but also the expired ones will buy as high as 110%. How you describe it is how it should work and how it used to.
What's the "10%" is people are referring to? I thought in the current system expiring shorts sit at the price feed if there are no lower asks (i.e. no penalty), and that called shorts can buy as high as 110% (i.e. a 10% penalty)- is that incorrect? Sorry if my understanding is wrong, I've just not seen these confirmed.
As for the shorter's price and interest rate argument, I want to confirm that the first preference is the price (the lower, the higher priority) and if the price being equal, the system compares the interest rate (the highter, the more priority), is that correct? Thanks.
Quote from: inarizushi on March 21, 2015, 09:41:28 pmI remember having seen some people that were upset that they had to pay the 10% increase when their shorts ended, maybe just last week or 2 weeks ago. Maybe, hopefully, it changed in 0.7.Obviously, stolen funds is way worse (I didn't know there was such a bug). But losing money because of some coding error that is not taken seriously is also quite infuriating, and all shorters are at risk.We are taking the problem very seriously. It takes some time to develop a patch for the live market. We need to be careful that we do not introduce other bad issues, which has happened in the past with emergency fixes. We will have it fixed as soon as we can.
I remember having seen some people that were upset that they had to pay the 10% increase when their shorts ended, maybe just last week or 2 weeks ago. Maybe, hopefully, it changed in 0.7.Obviously, stolen funds is way worse (I didn't know there was such a bug). But losing money because of some coding error that is not taken seriously is also quite infuriating, and all shorters are at risk.
Quote from: starspirit on March 21, 2015, 07:58:44 pmWhy is it necessary for shorts to compete on both interest and price? If we set the price as always equal to the feed price, wouldn't the interest rate suffice to queue shorts? Then the 50% order would be at the front of the queue and easily get taken out on small volume, and interest would normalise after that.If you force shorts to always short at the feed price, then in a bear market they will self-short and just sell the BitUSD at a higher BTS/BitAsset price in the free BitUSD : BTS market. Allowing shorts to match above the price feed just takes this two-step process and makes it a one-step process for the shorts.The BitAsset design isn't flawed. This is simply a bug in the implementation of the design. And that bug should be fixed as soon as possible. Let's not pretend this is some flaw in the design that requires us to rethink the whole thing. It is just an unfortunate coding mistake.
Why is it necessary for shorts to compete on both interest and price? If we set the price as always equal to the feed price, wouldn't the interest rate suffice to queue shorts? Then the 50% order would be at the front of the queue and easily get taken out on small volume, and interest would normalise after that.
BTW, the BitGold market is blocked with a 50% order too and there are no suitable bridges/external markets for BitGold. The best external offer is on bter for more than 2x the fair price.
Quote from: Markus on March 22, 2015, 01:10:18 amI am slightly shocked how much the developers ignore the severity of this bug.How are they ignoring it?Quote from: Markus on March 22, 2015, 01:10:18 amIf you want a safe quick fix, reduce the 50% max APR to something like 5%. This is one single variable and surely can not break anything else.And what happens if that safe quick fix somehow breaks consensus. There is a process in place now to prevent bigger problems from occurring due to a fix being rushed. The last time a fix was rushed for an even bigger bug, the "fix" ending up forking the blockchain and the real fix required rolling back many hours worth of blocks (thankfully there were apparently no double spend issues). Let's avoid having a situation where the cure is worse than the disease, and follow proper testing procedure. The devs are taking it seriously, it seems that there is already a patch being prepared, however these things still need to be properly reviewed and tested before release.By the way, to the people with shorts expiring in the next few days (which is actually not a lot of money by the way), you do know you can sell your spare BTS (which you should always have if you are shorting) for BTC and then use the BTC to buy BitUSD via an outside exchange or a bridge like metaexchange, and then use the BitUSD to cover the short, right? That does add some fees due to the various spreads, but I bet it is much less than 10%. Just something that might be worth looking into.
I am slightly shocked how much the developers ignore the severity of this bug.
If you want a safe quick fix, reduce the 50% max APR to something like 5%. This is one single variable and surely can not break anything else.
I'm not claiming its flawed, but maybe you're comment was a general one.
I was merely suggesting that beyond the quick fix, its a useful time to consider whether there is an improved way of handling this aspect of shorts, as we should do from time to time with all aspects of bitAssets.
Quote from: inarizushi on March 21, 2015, 08:06:51 pm"Nobody can short." How is that not an absolute emergency ? If nobody took advantage of the bug until now, that's fine, but now, it's over. Nobody can short. When shorters will have to cover, they will have to buy at the price someone is willing to sell, or lose the 10%. I don't understand how the market peg can hold.I'm just saying it's a matter of perspective. It is a serious bug that should be fixed as soon as possible. But shorts not working and even the market peg breaking is not as bad as actually having your funds stolen.Are we sure that the expired cover orders will buy up to 10% higher than the BTS/BitAsset price feed or not? I haven't seen a conclusive answer to this. But if it is true, I wonder if shorts and forced covers can be temporarily shut down by the delegates not publishing price feeds? If so, I think it would make sense to do that to buy shorts time until this bug is fixed.Or actually, the delegates could offset the price feeds by 10% so that the expired cover order is limited to the real price feed. The call price being at a slightly lower BTS/BitAsset price temporarily is not a big deal, and shorts can't short now anyway.
"Nobody can short." How is that not an absolute emergency ? If nobody took advantage of the bug until now, that's fine, but now, it's over. Nobody can short. When shorters will have to cover, they will have to buy at the price someone is willing to sell, or lose the 10%. I don't understand how the market peg can hold.
Quote from: inarizushi on March 21, 2015, 02:33:28 pmSo... nobody seems to really care. Crazy.I mean it is a serious bug, but I think "absolute emergency" is an over-exaggeration. The worst case with this bug is that shorts are suspended and anyone who already has a short position is unable to roll over their shorts. So it sucks if you are forced to exit your short position (either by buying BitUSD to cover or by others buying up your expired cover order at the price feed) when you did not intend to, but as far as money-related bugs go this is fairly tame IMO. It isn't as bad as the previous transaction malleability bug that would allow someone to nearly empty out your balance if you transferred a small fraction of your balance to them.
So... nobody seems to really care. Crazy.
Very cool *feature! * block any market with 1 BTS or less! Me like it!
Quote from: btswildpig on March 20, 2015, 01:53:22 pmalready reported to Github . Several developers have been notified . Great, I hope this will be solved today...
already reported to Github . Several developers have been notified .