While I find @nasdaq's initiative applaudable, I'd still like to point out that these assets are by no means trustless. They still belong to their original issuer, and they still have many permissions set that would allow the issuer to rip off holders of these assets.

In that light I expect witnesses and committee members to be extra careful and take appropriate measures before supporting them.

It means BTWTY had a black swan, you can't currently borrow it.

https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/691

The "registrar" and "affiliate referrer" settings on your account have no longer any meaning since it was upgraded to LTM. You have been set as your own Lifetime Referrer, which means you receive 80% of your own fees as cashback.

If you create accounts yourself, you set *their* registrar and/or referrer to your own account, to receive cashback from their fees.
If you use your account to refer users to another registrar (like OpenLedger), that registrar will set your account as "affiliate referrer" for accounts created through your referrals.

Quote from: xeroc on March 06, 2016, 10:37:31 am

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

Is this problem solved?

The problem has never existed, see my post above for a solution.

http://docs.bitshares.org/development/namespaces/chain.html#_CPPv2N8graphene5chain16custom_operationE

Interesting proposal. Thanks @bitcrab .

Might make sense to code such a mechanism into the blockchain. The committee are unpaid, Running such infrastructure could easily cost more than what we'd earn in fees.

Erm... I "donated" several BTC IIRC, but I don't have any SOLCERT tokens in my wallet. How do I claim them?

FTR - the issue was resolved. All is well.

Pretty sure it's dead & has been for years.

I know it's not. :-)