Quote from: Akado on March 05, 2016, 11:00:18 pm

Quote from: xeroc on March 05, 2016, 10:17:28 pm

if someone snatches an order in an intermediate market .. you will end up with an asset that you might not have wanted.

However .. if there was a new feature (read: network upgrade, a.k.a. hardfork) .. that either executes ALL or NO operation in a transaction .. that could help .. but I don't really know if that can be easily intergrated given that you can also have partial fills etc .. @abit ??

A database needs to be ACID so no one should end with an unwanted asset. If the order is snatched in an intermediate market it can't be allowed be taken some time after by anyone else as that order doesn't exist anymore. It's a different order now. However that will only be updated on the next 3 seconds right (next block)?

Unless teh exchange is overloaded with people I dont think this could happen, otherwise that would have caused a problem already with people taking the same order at the same time.

The database is atomic out of the fact that it is single-threaded and uses the LMAX technology ..
But another trader's order in one of your intermediate markets could have been executed in the same block before your set of orders simply because it reached the current block producer first ..
then you might end up in an intermediate asset ..

This could probably be prevented as described above .. I'll add a github issue for it
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/609