do you have modify the trade logic in this fork?

[hotpot999]

I have to fix also I have confirmed
it's very easy to develop a script  to attack the margin call orders.
and very danger to the system.






ufa1688

[hotpot999]

 what bull shit do you want to get from me?
I think I have describe the problem very clear  Bitshares blockchain is security, how good it can use to keep people's right, all bull shit.
maybe you are all cheaters.






ufa1688

[zhf9916888]

alt大神，你好。看了你的基于BTS内盘机器人交易的文章和设计。十分佩服。我也想用机器人做市；但目前相差网站www.btsbots.com已经打不开了，导致我不能使用。故特发邮件询问一下。多有打扰。谢谢。

[fav]

Sell your stake and move on if you don't see any value in your investment. This thread is moving nowhere.

[alt]

Yes, I got it.
the Blockchain never told me it coudn't sent 100 CNY to others when I want to transfer 10 CNY.
the Blockchain never told me it coudn't sent 100 USD to others when I want to transfer 10 CNY.
the Blockchain never told me it coudn't sent to account B when I want to transfer to account A.
the Blockchain never told me it coudn't sell at price 1.0 when I want to sell at price 10.0
the Blockchain never told me nobody can control my account without my key.
the Blockchain is just a joke.

so that's your point?
I think this Blockchain is far away to be a financial tools.
it's just a joke game.
all people told oethers how security DEX is are cheaters. you should never do it again.

nobody ever told me about these rule.

Who told you that the margin call would be filled at the lower price? I guess nobody did. It's just an assumption on your side.

I admit that it's a *reasonable* assumption, and that this is how it *should* work. But the fact that it doesn't is not a bug. It's just the way it has been implemented, and AFAIK it does not violate the specification.

It's not the only point where the market engine does not behave how people assume it does, see the case brought up by @alexpmorris a couple of months ago. The market engine needs an overhaul, but that is something that takes care, and planning, and detailed specifications, and lots of discussion. You don't do someting like this overnight.

[pc]

nobody ever told me about these rule.

Who told you that the margin call would be filled at the lower price? I guess nobody did. It's just an assumption on your side.

I admit that it's a *reasonable* assumption, and that this is how it *should* work. But the fact that it doesn't is not a bug. It's just the way it has been implemented, and AFAIK it does not violate the specification.

It's not the only point where the market engine does not behave how people assume it does, see the case brought up by @alexpmorris a couple of months ago. The market engine needs an overhaul, but that is something that takes care, and planning, and detailed specifications, and lots of discussion. You don't do someting like this overnight.

[alt]

I am good to accept the truth.
just need our spokeman told others the truth, and don't be a cheater.
never say to others how security the DEX is.
tell them it's a high risk action to use the DEX.

as the most active trader in DEX,
nobody ever told me about these rule.
so where is my compensation?

Bitshares owes you no compensation, in accordance with the implemented MIT license: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

Specifically:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.

[R]

as the most active trader in DEX,
nobody ever told me about these rule.
so where is my compensation?

Bitshares owes you no compensation, in accordance with the implemented MIT license: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

Specifically:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.

[alt]

how shameless this bitshares committee @fav is.
there is a flaw make me lost money, an will continue make more people lose.
you said this flaw is in the rule, you said this flaw is not emergency to fix.
and you lied to others the Bitshares blockchain is security, how good it can use to keep people's right, all bull shit.
maybe you are all cheaters.

as the most active trader in DEX,
nobody ever told me about these rule.
so where is my compensation?
I remember the committee member @fav have told me I will get it of course.
where is it now?

have you told the shorters they will lose 10% even there are plenty of bid orders in the market?
have you told the buyer their bid order can't be filled even their order is in the first position?
this is just another joke from the core team.

Shorters should know that they risk a 10% penalty when being margin called. None of the defined operational parameters are broken through this behaviour.
IMO this bug is a flaw, but not a serious problem. It certainly doesn't justify an emergency fix, or whatever you expect.

Make sure to contact the bitshares blockchain for a refund.

Good luck though, since every loss happened within the rules.

[rnglab]

@alt mate, for better or worst (it's up to us), code is not the law as you already know. Consensus is.

would you accept network funds to collaborate improving the DEX?

what are your thoughts about BSIP38's draft

[fav]

as the most active trader in DEX,
nobody ever told me about these rule.
so where is my compensation?
I remember the committee member @fav have told me I will get it of course.
where is it now?

have you told the shorters they will lose 10% even there are plenty of bid orders in the market?
have you told the buyer their bid order can't be filled even their order is in the first position?
this is just another joke from the core team.

Shorters should know that they risk a 10% penalty when being margin called. None of the defined operational parameters are broken through this behaviour.
IMO this bug is a flaw, but not a serious problem. It certainly doesn't justify an emergency fix, or whatever you expect.

Make sure to contact the bitshares blockchain for a refund.

Good luck though, since every loss happened within the rules.

[abit]

This should work properly by using your Smart asset to reduce the collateral first, then fill all orders until sold or until it reaches the margin call price.

IMHO this approach is a big change. Of course it's possible to change the code to something like this, although personally I don't like this behavior, it should be decided by stake holders, we can discuss the pros and cons first anyway.

[alt]

as the most active trader in DEX,
nobody ever told me about these rule.
so where is my compensation?
I remember the committee member @fav have told me I will get it of course.
where is it now?

have you told the shorters they will lose 10% even there are plenty of bid orders in the market?
have you told the buyer their bid order can't be filled even their order is in the first position?
this is just another joke from the core team.

Shorters should know that they risk a 10% penalty when being margin called. None of the defined operational parameters are broken through this behaviour.
IMO this bug is a flaw, but not a serious problem. It certainly doesn't justify an emergency fix, or whatever you expect.

[alt]

have you told the shorters they will lose 10% even there are plenty of bid orders in the market?
have you told the buyer their bid order can't be filled even their order is in the first position?
this is just another joke from the core team.

Shorters should know that they risk a 10% penalty when being margin called. None of the defined operational parameters are broken through this behaviour.
IMO this bug is a flaw, but not a serious problem. It certainly doesn't justify an emergency fix, or whatever you expect.

[sahkan]

I agree with @alt , this needs to be fixed. If we continue to have the sharp price drops in crypto we are bound to have some margin calls and the losses will be much greater than they should have been. This should work properly by using your Smart asset to reduce the collateral first, then fill all orders until sold or until it reaches the margin call price.