1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1WJCP5-0007lC-2a
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 01:38:19 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.102 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.102; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148102.authsmtp.net;
Received: from outmail148102.authsmtp.net ([62.13.148.102])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1WJCP3-0000F3-Of for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 01:38:19 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt14.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s1S1bc22074844;
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 01:37:38 GMT
Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s1S1bXvD066937
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 01:37:36 GMT
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:37:19 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Jorge =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@monetize.io>
Message-ID: <20140228013719.GA5786@savin>
References: <20140209180458.GB20126@savin> <20140209204434.GA11488@savin>
<20140210193247.GC17359@savin> <20140211175919.GV3180@nl.grid.coop>
<20140214052159.GF31437@savin> <20140217054751.GY3180@nl.grid.coop>
<CAC1+kJNTq2sMbORAU-HBSpTVE3ohzsxHrxXw9JOXZp5ux32Gtw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAC1+kJNTq2sMbORAU-HBSpTVE3ohzsxHrxXw9JOXZp5ux32Gtw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: e76439c1-a018-11e3-b802-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAoUHlAWAgsB AmIbW1VeU1p7WmQ7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq
WVdMSlVNFUsrAH8A VHZYJhl0cQxFfzBx bUFmVj4OW0J+dk8u
Q1MFFWwOeGZhPWMC AkhYdR5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhES
HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4nEzUx QQwYFDEuD0AJDyky
IB06I1pUFV0KP1l6 PEsqWVsePBJaFQxC HyMFAChfKkIdDzIx
DAhbW0FWGTtRCSJV GB4lPldEDyROWkIA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1WJCP3-0000F3-Of
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Decentralized digital asset exchange with
honest pricing and market depth
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 01:38:19 -0000
--IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:48:33AM +0100, Jorge Tim=F3n wrote:
> First of all, sorry for the delayed answer.
>=20
> On 2/10/14, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> > Got this:
> [...]
> Thank you, I knew this wasn't new for us but I doubted we had written
> it anywhere.
> As said in those mails, being only able to offer AAA for BTC and not
> BTC for AAA nor AAA for BBB is enough of a limitation to justify a
> hardfork IMO.
As usual, you don't need a hardfork.
Anyway, one-sided trade is sufficient to get a functioning marketplace
up and running and test out the many other issues with this stuff prior
to forking anything.
> On 2/14/14, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> > You're assuming the seller cares about fairness - why should they? They
> > offered a price for an asset and someone bought it; exactly which buyer
> > willing to buy at that price was able to complete the trade is
> > irrelevant to them. What they do care about is being sure that at
> > whatever given price they offered 100% of the buyers willing to buy at
> > that price actually see the offer in a reasonable amount of time - at
> > the best price the seller will get there will be only a single buyer
> > after all so you need that solid proof that said buyer was actually able
> > to get the offer.
>=20
> In fact, I don't think the seller will care enough about this to pay
> the proof of publication fee either. Assuming sellers can either
> broadcast the order on a bitmessage-like network or use your proof of
> publication scheme, the later will be always be more expensive. So my
> prediction is that most people will just use the simplest, fastest and
> cheapest method, but I guess only time can tell.
You can make the same argument against Bitcoin itself you know...
A Bitmessage-like network would be trivial to front-run via a sybil
attack. It's the fundemental problem with marketplaces - the data
they're trying to publish has to be public.
> I don't think this will be a tragedy, because like we discussed on
> IRC, I don't think the primary goal of markets is price discovery, but
> trade itself.
>
> About historic data, the actual trades are always public, and some
> kind of "archivers" could collect and maintain old orders for historic
> bid and asks, etc.
And again, how do you know that record is honest? Fact is without
proof-of-publication you just don't.
> As an aside, nLockTime would be nice not to always have to
> double-spend the inputs of an order to cancel it.
You mean a reverse nLockTime that makes a transaction invalid after a
certain amount of time - that's dangerous in a reorg unfortunately as it
can make transactions permenantly invalid.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000b52709f0485161e764ac0198960885ccab019a978322cc6e
--IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)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==
=ymTa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o--
|
