Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - tbone

Pages: [1]

General Discussion / Order matching bug (when margin call order is on the book)

« on: July 28, 2017, 07:19:25 pm »

Traders often place orders outside the spread (i.e. buy orders above the best offer, or sell orders below the best bid). The expectation is that the order matching engine will walk the order book sequentially until the order is filled. This is how the trading engine of every platform I have ever seen works.

However, this does not work on the DEX as expected under one particular condition. It appears that when there is a margin call order on the book and the user places an order with the same price, the order matching engine matches the user's order with the margin call order, completely skipping the orders on the book that are inside the margin call order.

This issue was discovered by @alexpmorris, who posted about it on steemit.com, which sparked some discussion:

http://bit.ly/2tKiDfb

The ability to place orders outside the spread is particularly necessary in cryptocurrency trading, where the quantity of tokens available at the best bid or best ask is so often less than the quantity a trader is interested in buying or selling. In the vast majority of cases, the DEX handles such orders as expected. But this edge case could cause people to lose confidence in the platform and should therefore be corrected ASAP.

P.S. I understand there are several fixes queued up for the next hard fork. Does anyone know when that is expected to happen? If it's not soon, perhaps a temporary fix should be made in the UI pending the next hard fork containing this fix?

General Discussion / "Show unread posts since last visit" feature not working properly?

« on: June 18, 2016, 12:24:04 pm »

Is anyone noticing that the "Show unread posts since last visit" feature is not working properly lately? I rely on this feature to systematically read posts of interest that have been added to a thread since the last time I clicked on that thread. It used to be that this list of unread posts would grow and grow (as it should) until I clicked on each thread to either read the new posts or just to clear uninteresting (or foreign language) threads off the list. But now the list is periodically resetting on its own before I get a chance to read the unread posts, so I am missing a lot.

Anyone else noticing this problem? Unless it's just a problem specific to me (browser cookie issue?), this could be why the volume of posting on bitsahrestalk.org has diminished lately, or at least it could be a major contributing factor.

General Discussion / We need to make OpenLedger more visible on the forum site ASAP

« on: April 13, 2016, 07:51:29 am »

There's been some discussion on another thread about the need to make OpenLedger more prominent on the forum so visitors cannot miss it. Below is a post I made on the matter. This is critical and I think we should discuss how we can go about quickly creating a new top level forum category to be listed right after General Discussion and Bitshares 2.0, entitled "OpenLedger: Bitshares Default Wallet" or something along those lines. Thoughts?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22197.msg289461.html#msg289461

Quote from: tbone on April 12, 2016, 02:58:12 pm

Quote from: Akado on April 12, 2016, 02:25:40 pm
I think this is exactly what is needed. If OpenLedger keeps this up, it will be the "go to" place to trade the most recent coins. People will look for and expect OpenLedger to list them and will trade them there. It can create demand for OL. Maker, Digix and Lisk. The timing is right because atm people are throwing money at everything expecting another Ether like event. With this OL can get the acknowledgement and buzz it needed.

People expect Polo to add these new coins but they dont seem too responsive so it's a good chance to snatch some traders. Then it's just a matter of time until people get used to the platform.

It seems there are a lot of good things happening with OpenLedger. Ronny really seems to be getting the word out there. I'm also thrilled that we have LISK and soon to be Digix and hopefully Synereo and others trading here on the DEX. And although I have no idea exactly how it fits in, I am intrigued by CoinsBank. From what I can see, CoinsBank may ultimately be like another Coinbase. Imagine if BTS could be purchased from directly within a Coinbase account? That would be a game changer.

I'm also impressed by the OpenLedger video series Ronny has been putting together. And not just the tutorials. The new "You are in control" video (below) is really excellent.

I think a lot of this stuff needs to be much more front and center. Looking at the forum structure, OpenLedger is nowhere to be found! I think that's a mistake. New visitors to the forum should see OpenLedger quickly and easily. And the tutorials and other OpenLedger videos, etc. should be easy for anyone to find. With that in mind, perhaps we should consider creating a new forum after General Discussion and Bitshares 2.0 entitled "OpenLedger: Bitshares Wallet" or something to that effect. Thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG_XiOdbum8

General Discussion / EASY FIX to improve user experience on DEX

« on: February 16, 2016, 01:34:00 am »

The DEX has a serious flaw that is killing user adoption. It is simply way too confusing with all of the different versions of the same assets (primarily BTC, USD, CNY), and all of the associated different versions of the same markets. It's a major mess and I can't prove it but I would bet my life that adoption and usage are suffering dramatically.

But there's a relatively easy fix. What if we had the concept of "primary" and "secondary" markets...and each registrar could specify for their own users which markets fall into which category. So right now on the trading page we have 2 markets tabs: 1) My Markets and 2) All Markets. What I'm proposing instead is that we could have a "Markets" header with 3 tabs labeled: 1) Favorites, 2) Primary, 3) Secondary. The "Primary" markets would be a short list of markets designated as primary by the registrar. "Secondary" markets would be everything else. And "Favorites" would obviously be those starred by the user. This way the list of markets can be "cleaned up" so it's not confusing for users.

This solution would be very easy to implement yet would help improve adoption, and hopefully inch us a tiny bit further into the adoption/liquidity virtuous cycle we're painstakingly striving toward. Thoughts?

General Discussion / trading decred on the DEX

« on: February 05, 2016, 05:28:29 pm »

Looks like decred is looking for exchanges on which their currency can trade once it launches on 2/8. Might be good exposure for OpenLedger to be one of the first.

https://forum.decred.org/threads/mainnet-launch-date.380/
https://forum.decred.org/threads/mainnet-launch-date.380/page-4#post-6316

@ccedk
@xeroc

General Discussion / Upcoming hard fork (adding maker/taker flag, etc)

« on: December 05, 2015, 05:17:11 pm »

@bytemaster - you mentioned during yesterday's mumble that the upcoming hard fork would include an option for UIA issuers to specify whether they would like to implement maker/taker for their UIA. As I contemplate that, a few questions come to mind.

1. Are you planning with this hard fork to implement the maker/taker flag for BitAssets as well? If so, I assume it will be a parameter controlled by the committee via worker proposal, initially set to OFF? I'm a fan of the maker/taker model, but the final decision to use it should be in the hands of stakeholders.

2. I think most that have expressed their opinions regarding trading fees have favored a %-based fee in general. But specifically with regard to the maker/taker model, it seems that a %-based fee would be far more effective since the maker would then be rewarded for total liquidity provided as opposed to total number of trades. Where do we stand with %-based fees?

3. There's been some discussion on another thread today regarding how fees are allocated e.g. the issuer of a UIA would collect their fee from the buyer whereas the network would collect a fee if the seller was cashing out to BTS or a BitAsset, etc. To what extent is this model complicated by the introduction of the maker/taker setting?

On a separate note (but while talking about the hard fork), I don't think I've seen anyone disagree with the notion that the committee (not witnesses) should be setting SQP. Is this something we can fix with the upcoming hard fork? Should the committee be voting on that change to the code?

General Discussion / Question about shorting BitAssets

« on: October 29, 2015, 01:27:51 pm »

The help section on shorting BitAssets says you can short a BitAsset by first borrowing it from the network, then selling it short. So the question I have is, AFTER you borrow the asset, but BEFORE you short it, what is the net effect on your positions? Are you now long that BitAsset? What about your BTS position? Does that remain the same or is your long position reduced? Thanks in advance.