Author Topic: Does codebase support reserved names in the asset space?  (Read 1346 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ronpaulmoneyman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
    • RonPaulMoney Site
Our chain will have 2 market-pegged assets. Silver and Gold.

Maybe I am not understanding--are you starting with only silver and gold or allowing ONLY silver and gold?

If it is the latter then just don't allow creation of market pegged assets during validation. If it is the former then, yes, you need to change the validation rules to reflect the restrictions that you want.

You are understanding. My mind is far from made up and the high level concept is not even clear to myself although I had a break through.

Currently, no MPAs except Silver and Gold.  So that means I have to create them myself once chain is live?  The other user-issued assets I want to protect via a long list of reserved anti-camping names. It might just be a long regular expression like 'bitUSD|bitEURO|bitDollar'.  Since this code would rarely be called a huge simple regexp would be fine.

So my new concept will be to create a 3rd class of asset that doesn't exist on the blockchain.  An example would be the RonPaulDollar which actually is just a representation of the MPA of Gold/Silver. So in effect we have "Gold backed dollars". The price feeds will be what enforces this.  I am confused about the use of both gold vs silver. Do we have "RonPaulSilverDollar" along with "RonPaulGoldDollar"?  I can't really merge both and let one person decide which asset is actually being tranferred. I'm trying to picture how to interface the 2 while maintaining the capability of both. The idea is that RPC calls are added that enable this. So it is nothing more than a layer of RPC calls that do the conversions. So you can only have Gold and Silver, but the amounts can be displayed in dollars or CNY or what have you. Perhaps I default populate the memo with something like "$120.30 in Silver".

So that is the current idea at the highest conceptual level. I almost want to just have either silver or gold, but people too often have a strong preference of one over the other.

I'm actually quite taken by this idea. It isn't in the realm of too much work and has a lot of value. badass imo. It will take some work on the GUI. Chinese can have their gold backed CNY, Europeans can go EURO.
 

Offline vikram

Our chain will have 2 market-pegged assets. Silver and Gold.

Maybe I am not understanding--are you starting with only silver and gold or allowing ONLY silver and gold?

If it is the latter then just don't allow creation of market pegged assets during validation. If it is the former then, yes, you need to change the validation rules to reflect the restrictions that you want.

Offline ronpaulmoneyman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
    • RonPaulMoney Site

One mistake I would like to avoid is people camping on assets that are similar to legitimate assets. I also don't want people creating bitGLD or bitGold or bitUSD because it does no one in the Bitshares community any good. Our chain will have 2 market-pegged assets. Silver and Gold.

The code could be kludged up with a big regexp test on registration but I wanted to make sure nothing like this existed? This is something that needs to be correct before the live chain.