300 BTC Coding Contest: Distributed Exchange (MasterCoin Developer Thread) - page 46.

grazcoin

sr. member

Activity: 284

Merit: 250

Quote from: Tachikoma on November 06, 2013, 01:54:35 PM

Quote from: Bitoy on November 06, 2013, 01:12:09 PM

Example scenario

Seller post 10 coins for sale
BuyerA post a purchase request for 3 coins (but has not paid)
Available is 7

BuyerB post a purchase for 10 coins but since available is only 7 he gets only 7.
BuyerB makes a payment.
Available is 0 (7 paid by buyerB and 3 still pending payment from buyerA)

After 1 day BuyerA didn't pay and time expired.
Available is 3.

Is this correct?

According to my interoperation Buyer B's Purchase Offer would be invalid since he wanted 10 coins but at that moment only 7 were available.

I am more for Bitoy interpretation.
Right after BuyerB sent the purchase/accept offer of 10, he could see that he actually reserved only 7 coins (as 3 are reserved for BuyerA).
Then he should pay for those 7 coins.
At that point, if BuyerA pays, he gets the 3 coins he reserved, and if he doesn't, those 3 coins become available for other buyers - BuyerB could then ask for another 3 coins.

Generally, purchase offers for more than the available amount should be considered valid for the whichever amount available.

grazcoin

sr. member

Activity: 284

Merit: 250

Quote from: Tachikoma on November 07, 2013, 05:42:35 AM

Please don't store any sensitive data server-side, make it a full javascript implementation. There have been too many hacks already.

Server side has only public available data. Nothing to steal there.
Private keys - they better stay totally offline, but if you like to risk, they could be on your online private device, making the usage easier.

Tachikoma

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

Please don't store any sensitive data server-side, make it a full javascript implementation. There have been too many hacks already.

grazcoin

sr. member

Activity: 284

Merit: 250

Quote from: dacoinminster on November 06, 2013, 02:30:51 PM

Quote from: Tachikoma on November 06, 2013, 02:08:31 PM

I really don't understand the problem.

Zathras is making an Windows based client. I'm sure it will have a nice installer with it and for him this is as easy as pressing the compile button.

My client will be very easy to use on any unix-based system, much like Grazcoin's implementation. As long as there is a wallet for any flavour I don't really see a problem.

I feel strongly about this because I have no way to accomplish a windows installer because of a decision I made months earlier. If I knew this was a requirement before hand I would have decided to build the application in Python since it's much easier to build on Windows. I am working my ass of and you are basically telling me; sorry it's useless.

Whew! I'm relieved to hear you say this. I think I must have chosen my words poorly at first.

I didn't mean to say that all desktop clients need a Windows installer, but rather that we need a Windows installer for at least one of the desktop clients before we can call this contest finished. It sounds like you agree?

I am glad to hear that windows installer is not a must now, since I speak no MSFT.
The wallet mastercoin-tools will announce is javascript based, and runs inside a browser. It solves then also windows usage case as well (and more importantly in recent times - smartphones usage).
Support for offline usage will be available too.

Bitoy

sr. member

Activity: 449

Merit: 250

Quote from: zathras on November 06, 2013, 04:05:52 PM

Thanks mate, have to say I am quite proud of how the new exchange panels look, might post a teaser screenie later after work

Looking forward to see your work. We need to post more test data

Bitoy

sr. member

Activity: 449

Merit: 250

Quote from: dacoinminster on November 06, 2013, 02:56:23 PM

bitoy - great job on mymastercoins.com!

I've added links to the OP of the main project thread, and to our subreddit. I'll see about getting it listed on Mastercoin.org too. Looks like masterchain.info needs a link from there too.

Thanks!

If anybody notices that their project isn't linked from one of our channels, please let me know. I don't want to slight anyone!

Thanks dacoinminster

Bitoy

sr. member

Activity: 449

Merit: 250

Quote from: Tachikoma on November 06, 2013, 01:54:35 PM

Quote from: Bitoy on November 06, 2013, 01:12:09 PM

Example scenario

Seller post 10 coins for sale
BuyerA post a purchase request for 3 coins (but has not paid)
Available is 7

BuyerB post a purchase for 10 coins but since available is only 7 he gets only 7.
BuyerB makes a payment.
Available is 0 (7 paid by buyerB and 3 still pending payment from buyerA)

After 1 day BuyerA didn't pay and time expired.
Available is 3.

Is this correct?

According to my interoperation Buyer B's Purchase Offer would be invalid since he wanted 10 coins but at that moment only 7 were available.

Thank you Tachikoma. I'll update my codes.

dacoinminster

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1031

Rational Exuberance

I should probably at least mention in this thread my list of proposed changes for the next rev of the spec:

Quote from: dacoinminster on November 06, 2013, 07:27:03 PM

I have cloned the github repo of the spec (https://github.com/mastercoin-MSC/spec), and I have prepared the following comprehensive list of changes planned for version 1.2 of the spec:

Fix incorrect sequence number description (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3122349)
Clean up various things which were still undecided as of 1.1 or are now out-dated (as I find them)
Include description of how to determine change addresses (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3190175;topicseen#msg3190175)
Quote
- All protocol transactions should have the same output amount. If one output is different, that is the change address.
- If all outputs are the same, then look at sequence numbers:
  - If there is a broken sequence (i.e. 3,4,8), then the odd-man-out is the change address (8 in this example)
  - If there is an ambiguous sequence (i.e. 3,4,4), then the transaction is invalid!
  - If there is a perfect sequence (i.e. 3,4,5), then the transaction is invalid!
Integrate Zathras' Class A/B/C documentation describing multi-sig (https://masterchest.info/files/mscappendix_draft.pdf)
Clarify distributed exchange rules when BTC is not involved (especially that buy/sell orders can be matched automatically
Add support for "pay dividend" command (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3233723;topicseen#msg3233723)
Add support for "spending limits" on a savings address (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3412565;topicseen#msg3412565)
Add support for "kickstarter" type fundraisers (where money is returned if the goal isn't met) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.msg3451098;topicseen#msg3451098)
Add support for "Contract For Difference" betting (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mastercoin-suggestion-contracts-for-difference-324830)
Add support for "Distributed e-commerce" transactions (http://www.reddit.com/r/mastercoin/comments/1nqcq3/mastercoin_could_be_extended_into_a_fully/)

I hope I got everything. If you think something else should be in that list, please let me know!

TKeenan

hero member

Activity: 874

Merit: 1000

Quote from: dacoinminster on November 06, 2013, 05:24:43 PM

Sheesh. With the recent bitcoin price run-up, this contest is now worth ~$80k! Compare that to the meager $25k we gave away for the last one . . .

80K!!! Hell, you can buy one very freaking nice Harley for that kind of coin. WOW!

dacoinminster

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1031

Rational Exuberance

Sheesh. With the recent bitcoin price run-up, this contest is now worth ~$80k! Compare that to the meager $25k we gave away for the last one . . .

Of course, the price sometimes falls hard too, but still . . . pretty cool for the moment. Cool

zathras

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Thanks mate, have to say I am quite proud of how the new exchange panels look, might post a teaser screenie later after work

Tachikoma

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

Can't wait for it Zathras, your wallet looks so pretty and I got a Windows VM all set up to try it out

zathras

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Hey guys,

Yep there will definitely be an installer with my wallet

I'm toying with just how far to go in the installer (eg is it acceptable to modify the users bitcoin install ourselves to enable the txindex and kick off a reindex as required for 'fat' Mastercoin wallets and such).

Tachikoma, wish it was one click :p but I dont use clickonce though - I'm a control freak

also just if you want to I am more than happy to help spin up an MSI (windows installer) for you if it will help once you want to do a 'major' release & as long as we can safely package ruby with it (license wise)

Also anyone looking at my wallet on git this is waaay out of date, sorry (eg still uses the old unencrypted multisig). New release with lots of new toys and the new code branch incoming over the next few days.

Thanks!

TraderTimm

legendary

Activity: 2408

Merit: 1121

.

Tachikoma

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

I've just updated Mastercoin-explorer to parse blocks faster. As soon as a new block is propagated it will be parsed and added. This should make your transactions appear much faster. Masterchest however is still faster since it can be unconfirmed transactions. If your lookup is time critical I would always check Masterchest (as well).

Tachikoma

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

Reedeming multisig transactions is currently hard. We only want to do this if there are enough wallets available that can create these consolidate transactions easily and automatically. A lot of clients won't even recognise the funds from a multisig and not report it. This could be a problem UX wise.

We have already been discussing this earlier in the thread if you want the full scoop

dexX7

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1026

Today I took a look at raw transactions, multi signatures and class B transactions.

And after observing the exodus address I was wondering:

Is there a specific reason to use an additional output for the change when doing multi sign transactions?

Example transaction:
Tx id: d445e92dc860b9fe62c53200906c7dfefd011ff2c46d3d99ef996dee0f2ae820

In:

0: a6d92ae97880377d6a7f76542e0a2ebf57f7668da11d33fa76ef9822358fe2f5, vout: 0

Out:

0: 14Jr6RpLfRJjVADJyDb8eD45XCi8X52GAs, value: 0.04966 (change)
1: 13NRX88EZbS5q81x6XFrTECzrciPREo821, value: 0.00006 (reference)
2: 1EXoDusjGwvnjZUyKkxZ4UHEf77z6A5S4P, value: 0.00006 (exodus)
3: 14Jr6RpLfRJjVADJyDb8eD45XCi8X52GAs, 1Ak2A5gh8wLCqjJXPGxCVUts85UzGvX4ok, value: 0.00012 (self reference, data)

Total out: 0.04966+0.00006+0.00006+0.00012 = 0.0499 BTC

If I'm not mistaken, this would yield the same result:

In:

0: a6d92ae97880377d6a7f76542e0a2ebf57f7668da11d33fa76ef9822358fe2f5, vout: 0

Out:

0: 13NRX88EZbS5q81x6XFrTECzrciPREo821, value: 0.0000543 (reference)
1: 1EXoDusjGwvnjZUyKkxZ4UHEf77z6A5S4P, value: 0.0000543 (exodus)
2: 14Jr6RpLfRJjVADJyDb8eD45XCi8X52GAs, 1Ak2A5gh8wLCqjJXPGxCVUts85UzGvX4ok, value: 0.0497914 (self reference + change, data)

Total out: 0.0000543+0.0000543+0.0497914 = 0.0499 BTC

The multi sign output can then be referrenced as vin for a new transaction:

In:

0: (simplified multi sign tx id from above), vout: 2

Out:
....

Those 1-of-n outputs seem to be redeemable, too, so is there a reason not use them?

dacoinminster

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1031

Rational Exuberance

bitoy - great job on mymastercoins.com!

I've added links to the OP of the main project thread, and to our subreddit. I'll see about getting it listed on Mastercoin.org too. Looks like masterchain.info needs a link from there too.

Thanks!

If anybody notices that their project isn't linked from one of our channels, please let me know. I don't want to slight anyone!

Tachikoma

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

Totally!

dacoinminster

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1031

Rational Exuberance

Quote from: Tachikoma on November 06, 2013, 02:08:31 PM

I really don't understand the problem.

Zathras is making an Windows based client. I'm sure it will have a nice installer with it and for him this is as easy as pressing the compile button.

My client will be very easy to use on any unix-based system, much like Grazcoin's implementation. As long as there is a wallet for any flavour I don't really see a problem.

I feel strongly about this because I have no way to accomplish a windows installer because of a decision I made months earlier. If I knew this was a requirement before hand I would have decided to build the application in Python since it's much easier to build on Windows. I am working my ass of and you are basically telling me; sorry it's useless.

Whew! I'm relieved to hear you say this. I think I must have chosen my words poorly at first.

I didn't mean to say that all desktop clients need a Windows installer, but rather that we need a Windows installer for at least one of the desktop clients before we can call this contest finished. It sounds like you agree?

Topic: 300 BTC Coding Contest: Distributed Exchange (MasterCoin Developer Thread) - page 46. (Read 129207 times)