Topic: [ANN] Coincer: The Decentralized Cryptocurrency Exchange (Read 4076 times)
I like the project but the name, not so much. Following....
Very interesting project. Assuming the platform is stable can it be a safe place to store coins as well as trade?
Well, some people suggested that it might be good to implement simple wallets for the coins and connect directly to the coin's networks, but it seems to me to be needlessly complicated. So far I prefer to connect to other clients, that provide wallet functionality, via their API. Currently, I already have some support for bitcoind-like API and would like to add support for Electrum and possibly other clients as well.It should be pretty safe way of trading, although probably not the cheapest and definitely not the fastest (because it's happening on blockchains so one has to wait for confirmations).
Very interesting project. Assuming the platform is stable can it be a safe place to store coins as well as trade?
after the fall of cryptsy - decentralized exchanges are the futur.
Bice project
Bice project
bitbucket ... i use github ...
Of course, I'm a fan of decentralisation. 
hahaha ... and you are a funny bugga ...
nice one ...
im off to bed now ... cant wait to see what the working product might look like ...
#crysx
bitbucket ... i use github ...
Of course, I'm a fan of decentralisation. what a great project ...
Thanks! 
why dont you add it to git - so those who are interested could help 
...
Well, if you go to Download, there's a link under "Source Code" leading right to the git repository! ...
kool - and tanx ...
bitbucket ... i use github ...
but nonetheless - this is a very good looking project ...
tanx mate ...
#crysx
what a great project ...
Thanks! why dont you add it to git - so those who are interested could help ...
Well, if you go to Download, there's a link under "Source Code" leading right to the git repository! ...
xhire ...
what a great project ...
why dont you add it to git - so those who are interested could help ...
#crysx
what a great project ...
why dont you add it to git - so those who are interested could help
...#crysx
With BIP66, all parts of BIP62 should be fixed (except those where the malleability comes from ECDSA signatures, but those aren't relevant here as it's the sender who strives for the txid remaining the same and no one else could be affected).
I think the main issue would be if the forked alt has not updated its tx signing code (as the sender's txid could be changed without their knowledge).
By this I am referring to the low S values issue which I patched for CIYAM here: https://github.com/ciyam/ciyam/blob/master/src/crypto_keys.cpp#L531
Other than that I think that using P2SH (rather than the original multisig) is just a neater approach (it probably doesn't alter the workflow though).
But honestly, I don't expect too many of them to include needed features.
With BIP66, all parts of BIP62 should be fixed (except those where the malleability comes from ECDSA signatures, but those aren't relevant here as it's the sender who strives for the txid remaining the same and no one else could be affected).
I think the main issue would be if the forked alt has not updated its tx signing code (as the sender's txid could be changed without their knowledge).
By this I am referring to the low S values issue which I patched for CIYAM here: https://github.com/ciyam/ciyam/blob/master/src/crypto_keys.cpp#L531
Other than that I think that using P2SH (rather than the original multisig) is just a neater approach (it probably doesn't alter the workflow though).
Seems we are doing very similar things: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/acct-using-cltv-more-effective-than-a-sleeping-pill-1340621 (also based upon TierNolan's basic idea but reworked to use CLTV with P2SH so no malleability issues and txs should be considered as "standard" for both Bitcoin and Litecoin now).
CLTV is one of the things I have in mind when I write about extending the trading part of Coincer. On the other hand, I'm not going to completely abandon current approach. But maybe you know more than I do about current malleability issues in Bitcoin? Because as far as I (think I) know, there shouldn't be anything that could affect this atomic protocol. With BIP66, all parts of BIP62 should be fixed (except those where the malleability comes from ECDSA signatures, but those aren't relevant here as it's the sender who strives for the txid remaining the same and no one else could be affected).Also if you are doing a GUI then with some very minor tweaks you could get it to work with AT blockchains as well (Qora and Burst) as they have supported ACCT for a long time now.
I'll definitely have a look at both Qora and Burst. :c) Although a GUI has a low priority for me, it still is on my ToDo list and eventually will be implemented.
Seems we are doing very similar things: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/acct-using-cltv-more-effective-than-a-sleeping-pill-1340621 (also based upon TierNolan's basic idea but reworked to use CLTV with P2SH so no malleability issues and txs should be considered as "standard" for both Bitcoin and Litecoin now).
If you would like to use some of the CIYAM code to get your implementation using CLTV and P2SH you would be welcome to (also feel free to PM me if you wish to discuss it).
Also if you are doing a GUI then with some very minor tweaks you could get it to work with AT blockchains as well (Qora and Burst) as they have supported ACCT for a long time now.
If you would like to use some of the CIYAM code to get your implementation using CLTV and P2SH you would be welcome to (also feel free to PM me if you wish to discuss it).
Also if you are doing a GUI then with some very minor tweaks you could get it to work with AT blockchains as well (Qora and Burst) as they have supported ACCT for a long time now.
whats the status on this?
Oh, you just remined me that I haven't finished my summarizing post on this. Anyway, I don't have much time this nor next month, so there won't be probably anything new happening. Then (in March), I'm going to focus on improving P2P layer, communication protocol and probably also refactoring trading, because I need to extend it a little bit, but its current state isn't very nice. You can also expect another testing session. :c)Very nice project ! Good luck
Thanks!
Very nice project ! Good luck
whats the status on this?
It seems like a pretty useful development. So... will we still see this coming out?
Absolutely! 
It seems like a pretty useful development. So... will we still see this coming out?
Thank you everyone who took part in the test! We found several bugs and I gathered some data about the network to analyse. I would also like to thank a lot Dogecoin devs who fixed the testnet chain for me. 
I promise that the next testing session will be annonced a bit more ahead.
We found several bugs and I gathered some data about the network to analyse. I would also like to thank a lot Dogecoin devs who fixed the testnet chain for me. I promise that the next testing session will be annonced a bit more ahead.
Seems like a good concept.
Can't wait till it is working, might try it out later.
Can't wait till it is working, might try it out later.
Jump to: