Topic: Unified ASICMINER orderbook - page 2. (Read 16410 times)

Not really keen on registering a throw-away Google account for this purpose, and I don't really think we want to have the book be outside of this forum. I'm guessing I'm not alone.

(I liked that I got the order book notifications with the full order book).

That said, I'm starting to wonder, with trading volume so low on the forums, if a unified orderbook still makes sense. There currently aren't ANY ASICMINER auctions on the forums, and there haven't been for about 24 hours. This leads me to beleive we should retire the unified book for now, and let folks auction of shares as will, especially since unifying it might not make sense the passthroughs allow easy movement back and forth from real shares.

This definitely made sense a month ago before the PT exchanges were up and running in force, but now I don't think it makes as much sense.

Does anyone strongly feel that this is something we need now? (Bearing in mind we could resurrect it if people started actively auctioning/bidding AM shares in the forums.)

If so, what is the reason we need it?

This was what I had in mind: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArEKHOCcuc3fdDJhQVhzZkZzWkNOeTJjRTRsWGV5Z0E#gid=0

We could slowly add people to be able to access/edit the doc. It shows a revision history so those that abuse it could have their access removed.

This way, it doesn't have to be just one person. Thoughts?

First let me say, I have no time to run the orderbook or moderate, but I feel I have a pretty good sense of how this should work. If acting moderator needs a second opinion, if I am available, I am willing to give one.

Proposed first draft of rules (please do read and comment):

0) Thread needs to stay on topic. Topic being an ASICMINER orderbook, and any rules clarifications. Nothing else.
1) This orderbook is only for actual ASICMINER shares, not PT shares. Any PT share bids/asks are invalid, and person doing so is in violation of thread rules.
2) The "current orderbook" consists of the last consolidated orderbook summary and any posts since then.
3) If moderator misses a bid/ask when summarizing we need to set a rule deciding whether or not that bid/ask stays valid.  I would propose for simplicity's sake, that if a moderator misses a bid/ask, it is invalidated and needs to be reposted. (Hopefully this won't happen too often, and if it does, we should probably get a new moderator.)
4) If there is a matching bid and ask on the order book, they move to "execution" state and become binding immediately. This is true even before the trade is summarized as in execution. However, when the next summary is done the moderator should list those trades in the "execution" section. Zefir did a great job with this, and we can go back and look at his examples.
5) Bids and asks will be parsed by the moderator in chronological order.
6) A bidder or seller may retract their bid or ask if it is not in "execution" yet.
7) Lots need to be a minimum of 50 shares and should be in even multiples of 50 shares. (Wondering if we want to make this 100 shares instead of 50?)
What do we want to do if someone breaks the rules? IE: quits out of binding trade? My sense is offending party should be barred from thread.
9) Two parties in execution may back out of a trade in execution, only if both parties agree, and post so publicly. (I would say this should be discouraged though.)
10) After a trade has been executed both parties need to say so publicly.
11) Escrow is not required, but encouraged for new traders who are selling. (buyer beware.)

Anything else? (Please note there was some questions in there that we as a group should answer.)

If you make a new thread link it here. I'm not really trading right now but I will place some low and high bids.

Thanks

Acknowledged and those interested in collaborating, please reply here. I have a few ideas but will need the input of others for it to be successful.

This exactly. Whoever volunteers to take care on this order book is welcome to step up. I refused to continue for a simple reason: maintaining the order book also implies arbitration responsibility, which in this case is not possible. We can't dispute rules that were not specified but have been assumed to be common sense.

As lessons learned, whoever decides to continue the orderbook should

• start a new thread
• specify the exact rules (including those we forgot/missed here)
• import existing quotes from this thread

for a clean and fresh start.


Good Luck

Helixone, I have some ideas and would be willing to help. Will pm you in about 5-6 hours for details.

Well the 2/3 folks who were running the orderbook have indicated a preference to close it. If you want to volunteer to keep the order book up to date, and "moderate" this thread, I'm sure there is still some use to be had. If you are going to do that, I'd clarify some of the "unwritten" rules.

-helixone

Is this thread still active?
If it isn't, then close it.

Are we going to take Uglux's case as an exceptional case and move forward, or just give up?

Cancel my bid plz

change 224
bid 100 @ 0.63

Well.. then.. cancel 239

Yes please.

This can only work if we all stick to a common sense set of rules. My interpretation of a binding auction is that as soon as a a bid matches an ask, they become that - binding and shall be executed. The only valid way to abandon the pending trade is when both sides agree to cancel it. Allowing one side to trade his shares to a different user would void the system (i.e. everyone could claim to have bought / sold his shares in PM).

Therefore, the trade between Nexus6 and inau bypassing Uglux' broke this unwritten rule, introducing a precedent that makes continuing this approach of a centralized orderbook hard to accomplish. At this point I suggest to close this thread and move over to PT for trading.

I would not want to have special rules for myself.  My interpretation of this is that the orders themselves are binding, but the person who you fill with does not have to be someone you match with on the orderbook.

Davos... according to the rules of the thread, I believe you are correct. However inau started this thread.. so I don't know if he can change the rules for himself?

The way I personally see it, is that nexus 6 needs to also buy Uglux's 100 shares @ 0.80, or Nexus6 will be in violation of thread/auction rules. (IE: Bid/ask's that are "matched" are binding.)

(I'd guess that if both Uglux and Nexus 6 agree to cancel their matching bid/ask, perhaps that is one situation where the transaction could be cancelled.)

Didn't your bid fill #238?

Remove 256. Private trade with inau

remove 246
paid: https://blockchain.info/tx/f4bd73949b4b0bce9f8c55c330875d12fe10169e38d8ca3e7688e7b0b3ecd82d
thank you

Bid 100 @ 0.80