This is occuring on the MUSE chain, for some reason, calling the get_block() api call on certain blocks has started failing with a strange error:

{"id":1,"method":"call","params":[0,"get_block",[4658091]]}

{code:1,message:7 bad_cast_exception: Bad Cast
Invalid cast from object_type to Array
    {"type":"object_type"}
    th_a  variant.cpp:530 get_array,data:{code:7,name:bad_cast_exception,message:Bad Cast,stack:[{context:{level:error,file:variant.cpp,line:53
0,method:get_array,hostname:,thread_name:th_a,timestamp:2016-04-09T20:28:59},format:Invalid cast from ${type} to Array,data:{type:object_type}}
]}}

If I call the function on the prior block it returns fine. Any ideas what could be causing this?

Got a linking error trying to build witness_node in Release:

Linking CXX executable embed_genesis
../chain/libgraphene_chain.a(types.cpp.o): In function `graphene::chain::extended_public_key_type::operator fc::ecc::extended_public_key() const':
types.cpp:(.text+0x595): undefined reference to `fc::ecc::extended_public_key::deserialize(fc::array<char, 78ul> const&)'
../chain/libgraphene_chain.a(types.cpp.o): In function `graphene::chain::extended_private_key_type::operator fc::ecc::extended_private_key() const':
types.cpp:(.text+0x9f5): undefined reference to `fc::ecc::extended_private_key::deserialize(fc::array<char, 78ul> const&)'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[2]: *** [libraries/egenesis/embed_genesis] Error 1
make[1]: *** [libraries/egenesis/CMakeFiles/embed_genesis.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2

Just saw this on BCT; it's a simulation of a blockchain market maker in the unreleased eMunie, using BTC as a test bed:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1357914.0

I'd love to hear what @bytemaster has to say on the subject.

I was just musing over possible directions to take metaexchange in the future, one of them was to move most of metaexchange functionality onto the DEX (order matching, market making etc), such that the user would then have the convenience and speed of using a centralised exchange (confirmation times are a PITA for users, and the METAEX.IOUS are basically instant), while at the same time having at least some of the security of a  decentralised service.

The only real hitch to this idea is the transaction fees for transferring funds, placing and cancelling orders. It would be totally impossible to explain to users of metaexchange why they need to pay a transaction fee (of any kind) to place, or cancel an order. The fact that canceling refunds the cost of placing the order is not enough to make this frictionless.

I actually found myself discounting bitshares as a way to achieve decentralisation of metaexchange, and pondering forking the entire blockchain to remove the fees, but that is ridiculous.

IMO, it would be great if we could just remove all fixed size fees and replace them with a PoW submitted by the sender, which will eliminate spam while making transactions zero fee (except order fills, that is an acceptable fee for any exchange).

Got a bizarre error trying to send a transaction:

{code:1,message:10 assert_exception:Assert Exception
my->_key != empty_pub: 
    {}
    th_a  elliptic_secp256k1.cpp:118 serialize

    {"from":"metaexchangebtc","to":"usd-collateral-holder-453","amount":"12206.79294","asset_symbol":"BTS","memo":"mX: buy BTS_BTC","broadcast":true}
    th_a  wallet.cpp:2002 transfer,data:{code:10,name:assert_exception,message:Assert Exception,stack:[{context:{level:error,file:elliptic_secp256k1.cpp,line:118,method:serialize,hostname:,thread_name:th_a,timestamp:2015-12-17T00:38:13},format:my->_key != empty_pub: ,data:{}},{context:{level:warn,file:wallet.cpp,line:2002,method:transfer,hostname:,thread_name:th_a,timestamp:2015-12-17T00:38:13},format:,data:{from:metaexchangebtc,to:usd-collateral-holder-453,amount:12206.79294,asset_symbol:BTS,memo:mX: buy BTS_BTC,broadcast:true}}]}}
Any idea what's going on there?

This is making sending transactions impossible. @bytemaster  @theoretical

My win64 chain is corrupt, but I have a linux x46 chain - are they compatible?

This has been bugging me for a while:

Indicating everywhere in the trade UI that prices are BTS/USD is incredibly confusing; that terminology isn't used on any exchange anywhere, and it confuses people. Having just USD will be so much easier to understand.

So, don't have this:

price : 20 USD/BTS, have this instead:
price 20 USD

That will cut down on clutter and be more inline with other exchanges.

Q) Why is there a problem implementing pegged assets?

A) The primary answer is that there can be no redeemability to the real asset on chain, for obvious reasons (since fiat/gold/silver/oil are not digital in the first place).

Q) Why is bitshare's current solution inadequate?

A) Those who borrow bitUSD from the system are at much higher risk than those who buy it from the market because the borrower must actively maintain his collateral and can get margin called by the system if the feed price moves enough

Q) What effect does this have on the price?

A) The borrower is forced to price his risk into the sale price of the bitUSD he borrows from the system - this leads to a situation where the price of bitUSD will always trade at a premium compared to the feed price, this damages the viability of the product as a whole.

Q) Is there another design which doesn't have the same biased risk profile, or is this just a natural consequence of not having redeemability?

A) Discuss