Topic: BitBay OFFICIAL BITBAY Thread Smart Contracts Decentralized Markets Rolling Peg - page 138. (Read 542151 times)

The UI could use some love, sure, but that's an easy fix later on. The core technology is what makes this coin unique. If rolling peg comes online by the end of the year this coin will rocket. Keep up the good work.

Yes, there are two reasons nobody wants to use BitBay to buy/sell something:
1. Horrible UI.
2. No one in his right mind will download the blockchain or try to learn what's "bootstrap". I mean common people, byers, not crypto enthusiasts.

Me too, I think it still needs to improve it doesn't look very nice
It's true that the competition isn't for the most part doing a great job too with the UI, but BitBay client really has an odd feeling, it's just not pretty.
But what's amazing though is how it's so damn complete and already available.
Those features man

what this coin really need are wallets that are more userfriendy. if i had the tech knowledge i would help. all that i can offer is beta-testing.

Yes it's ridiculous, the top 100 is filles with shitcoins.
But this coin actually proposes something and it's just barely in the top 100
Lol, maybe it lacks marketing or something. I never heard of this crypto before so

its out off top 100 now

No idea, it's sort of ridiculous that it isn't top 20. We don't know why, however eventually the market will react to it. Still better than Dogecoin!

Can someone edit the front post to add Cryptopia under the exchanges header? Cheers,

If this crypto really has all the features listed, why is it still so low on marketcap

Really the pegging, api etc is still all of for completion this year? that's great news.
I'm unwinding in a lot of projects to get more bay at 700 sats. It is pretty insane to see bay getting almost nudged out of the top 100 by a ton of new projects offering nothing more than promises and dreams.

The wallet exists... bitbay.market

It's been around for 3 years. We have constant updates almost every month. The whole project will finish hopefully sometime this year.

The seller of coins aka the person depositing $400 coins goes into a joint account with the buyer.

So lets say she was selling coins for cash. I think the term "seller" confused you.

Alice is selling $400 of COINS for cash. She wants Bob to trust her and this will be Bobs FIRST purchase of crypto.

They go into a DDE contract 2 of 2 joint account.

Now when Bob sends $200 in cash Alice can't steal it or Bob blows up the money.

They both release the contract and everyone wins.

The risk is that Bob just blows up Alices money before sending his cash. This is why it is critical for Alice to interview Bob in advance or decide how much money she wants to advance. She could even simply advance 200 dollars and a 10 dollar deposit just something nominal. So with her advanced payment she would not really have any logical reason to keep the cash if she is almost breaking even.

Guarantor work for sellers and buyers in trade deals as well or even employment contracts. If a person was buying a 200 dollar guitar, the seller of the guitar may not want to put up collateral as they don't hold much Bay. The buyer would then do something similar to the above scenario.

When will the wallet be released?

unilateral is uneven deposit (usually its double deposit) do to the review rating of the seller or buyer the deposit can be lower if both parties agree because of user rating.



Try the client  try it on a small transaction you would understand it more, all your question could be answer by using it.

I don't quite understand how a unilateral system would work.  In the second example, buyer puts up double, so 400 gets locked in contract?  What if seller sends an empty box?  Does the buyer reject the transaction and get all 400 back?

What if the seller did actually send his item but the buyer rejects the transaction anyway?  Does the buyer get his money back while the seller loses his item?

I'm sure I must be missing something 

Guarantor contracts mean it's unilateral. One side puts up deposit. Example, you sell 200 dollars of coins, deposit 200 advanced payment 200 collateral. Buyer deposited nothing. Now he knows he can trust seller. Sellers only risk is buyer blows up contact before sending cash.

Similar solution with sales, buyer puts up double seller puts up nothing. Seller trusts buyer because he knows his item can be shipped.

The level of guarantor can be adjusted

I don't think it's a barrier to entry because they save so much money by using it and one party is always going to hold coins.

These questions are good and just realize this is a small concession considering we crush theft and deception.

The build works on tons of computers. The issue is not with berkley db. It was forked 8 months ago so that isn't your issue. Try PyWallet or some of the other recovery methods. Also you should always backup wallet.dat I don't maintain the QT and it's similar to the Blackcoin QT which has been forked a lot. Maybe if we upgraded to newest Bitcoin core we would find Bitcoin patch but I'm not sure they patched that.

If you built it yourself then maybe but I think your issue is a common issue with Bitcoin.

I code the markets wallet which runs no risk of database corruption because it doesn't mix database with private keys unlike wallet.dat

I wish I could be more of a help but all I can say is always backup your wallets

If you follow some of those instructions you have a chance try pywallet to see if you can get private keys outta that

I guess we'll have to see how it unfolds in practice.  It sounds good, but it seems to presuppose the existence of a market that isnt yet there.  Chicken and the egg.  If everyone has to start as untrusted entities within the network, without rep, then you will still face the barrier to entry problem.  It seems to invite over-dependence on a centralized guarantor (who?), which could just as easily gain strength as lose it when the network matures, and corrupt the original intent into something like an eBay/PayPal.

I guess you're saying in practice you, as a seller, can buy a gurantee from someone who will financially back the integrity of the transaction and foot the bill if things go afoul?  And same as with the buyer?  If the buyer doesn't have collateral he can purchase -- what would you call it? a voucher? -- from someone who will back the transaction on that side?

Sounds like a transaction fee to me, albeit a decentralized one.  IMO unless there's some sort of financial incentive baked in people will find a way to game this system and burn it down before it has a chance to flourish.

Devil's advocate here.  Like I said, behind the project, but something as elemental as this really needs to be fleshed out in great detail.  If there's any extant literature to this end, please point me in that direction.

tried that
looks like wallet.dat was created with berkley bd 6.x but wallet require berkley bd 5.x not sure how this happened ?
has this coin been forked recently ?

This is why deposit can be customized in the first place. Users who are new can take guarantor contracts do they aren't forced to put up funds. Those can be unilateral for example. The whole thing is an exercise in building trust. That's why we have a rep system built in. For an untrusted party like you said, collateral should be equal to the item value.