Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 144 results by morpheus
A really really great vouch for you! I've never saw this kind of information on a such low price.. if you'll ever sell other databases like this please let me know!
Sure, I will let you know.+vouch! good product
Thank you!thanks bought it.. very good price!
You are welcome!
I can start it, but i can't find nobody.
Funny, I'm on and can find myself, and the DarkExchange node.
When did you run it last? Is I2P running? Have you downloaded all of the peers?
Has this project gotten any traction?
While there seems to be plenty of interest, there aren't many people using the program.
Yeah, I think this is the best idea so far. That way as long as there is one person who is online they can act as a server to start with. As the community grows it will be more distributed.
If private/public key signing was used then we can guarantee who made the offer and who accepted the ofefer. For example an accepted offer can be timestamped so that whenever somebody.accepts an offer that has already been made the accepted offer is rejected.
Ideally the objective is for a critical mass of nodes are always online making sure the orderbook is always up-to-date.
Is there anything I can do to help out, morpheus?
There will be some issues in the details of making sure everyone has an up to date list of all offers, and keeping the data clean. I can think of a few now, but once I start implementing it, I'm sure more will come up.
I think there will be some issues keeping time on the network synchronized if we try to base everything on a timestamp. Plus, more than one person can accept an offer at the same time anyways. Though, I don't think it matters, since the one making the offer can choose which trade to fill in the end.
I don't remember your skill set Sultan. Can you program? Do you know Java? Do you know Clojure?
I forgot to run i2p before Dark Exchange the first time I ran it.
Ha, now that you mention it, I did exactly the same
Now it works, but I can't find anything... I created a offer and searched for it, but it won't find it.Suggestion: OP, can you add a "in person transfer in " option for trading?
I would like to add an in person option, but that would require some significant changes which I'm not prepared to do yet.
I've added another issue for in person transfers: https://github.com/macourtney/Dark-Exchange/issues/50
I make no promises on when I can get to it. Of course, if anyone implements it for me, I'll be glad to merge it in.
Is there still no way to make an offer and have it available for others to view when you go offline?
I understand this is very difficult to do in a decentralised manner, but I feel this problem is halting Dark Exchange's community growth.
It is quite clear that when people log on only to find themselves online, thus no offers, it makes it look like you have entered an empty hall expecting a bustling market. If this happens I believe more people will use it.
My suggestion is to have some kind of 'pass-the-parcel' technique where a node locally stores tgeir offers, and before it logs off it passes those offers to any online nodes before logging off, and thatnode does the same thing, and so on.
When a node comes back online, it can reclaim those offers so that it can broadcadt them itself.
Any thoughts?
I understand this is very difficult to do in a decentralised manner, but I feel this problem is halting Dark Exchange's community growth.
It is quite clear that when people log on only to find themselves online, thus no offers, it makes it look like you have entered an empty hall expecting a bustling market. If this happens I believe more people will use it.
My suggestion is to have some kind of 'pass-the-parcel' technique where a node locally stores tgeir offers, and before it logs off it passes those offers to any online nodes before logging off, and thatnode does the same thing, and so on.
When a node comes back online, it can reclaim those offers so that it can broadcadt them itself.
Any thoughts?
There is still no way to make an offer and have it available when you go offline. The 'pass-the-parcel' technique likely won't work since you don't really log off, but just disconnect from the network.
How about every node in the system keeps track of every offer (for now, only a subset in the future). If you're not online, it doesn't matter, someone somewhere has your offer. It would get tricky to keep track of the offers as they are accepted/rejected, but it would be possible.
Would that work for you?
Unfortunately, I haven't had a lot of time to work on Dark Exchange lately. I'm in the middle of adding a trust score to the system. When I have that in, I can look into something like this and fixing other issues.
I didn't realize there was still so much interest in the project.
I forgot to run i2p before Dark Exchange the first time I ran it.
It appeared to work find though, creating a username etc. But then I noticed no peers. There should be something to monitor network activity so we know what's going on.
Would also be nice to make more than one search at the same time... or search for multiple offers because I haven't been able to find any yet.
It appeared to work find though, creating a username etc. But then I noticed no peers. There should be something to monitor network activity so we know what's going on.
Would also be nice to make more than one search at the same time... or search for multiple offers because I haven't been able to find any yet.
I'll look into adding a warning message if the I2P network cannot be found. Issue 48: https://github.com/macourtney/Dark-Exchange/issues/48
Obviously, multiple searches and searching on multiple payment types is a popular feature request. I already have searching on multiple payment types as an issue: https://github.com/macourtney/Dark-Exchange/issues/37
I just added a new issue for running multiple searches at the same time. Issue 49: https://github.com/macourtney/Dark-Exchange/issues/49
Re: Decentralized BTC Exchange Client. impossible to implament?
There is already a working (mostly) decentralized exchange: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27055.0
It does not use the method described above. I'm not sure how you would implement it. Instead, it works like OTC where you can post your order to the network and others can find it, or you can search for orders already posted.
There is a working implementation, but hardly anyone is using it, and it's having issues with a few exceptions here and there. However, I've used it to exchange coins and so have a few others.
It does not use the method described above. I'm not sure how you would implement it. Instead, it works like OTC where you can post your order to the network and others can find it, or you can search for orders already posted.
There is a working implementation, but hardly anyone is using it, and it's having issues with a few exceptions here and there. However, I've used it to exchange coins and so have a few others.
There is already a working (mostly) decentralized p2p exchange: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27055.0
It works more like OTC over a p2p network.
It works more like OTC over a p2p network.
..I kind of prefer a dynamic demurrage-like factor that just multiplies every coin's value by a number based on the linked commodity price/index. People are already used to seeing their account balance go up and down by small amounts ("interest" and "fees" or perhaps "taxes").
The problem with demurrage is apparent with the thief scenario. If a thief steals a bunch of the coin and sells it for a very low price, the demurrage would take the coin from everyone based on how much they are holding. This gives the thief and incentive to dump their coin as fast as possible to avoid the demurrage. It also gives others hoarding coins an incentive to sell out before the higher demurrage kicks in. You could suddenly have a spiraling inflationary problem as everyone tries to dump their coins before demurrage.
The opposite could happen if someone buys a bunch of coin at once and a reverse demurrage kicks in. People would then try to buy as much coin as possible to get the most reverse demurrage fees, thus driving a deflationary spiral.
One thing I don't like about high fees is that they discourage commerce if stablecoins happen to be priced too low rather than too high. If you want the ideal coin for commerce, this doesn't work as well, since 50% of the time there are fees and 50% of the time there are not once equilibrium is reached. I agree it might work pretty well if it is mostly seen as a store of value.
I agree high fees will discourage commerce, but I don't see any way around it. However, I don't think high fees will be all that common. The only way to find out is to create the coins and see what happens.
If that volatility risk can be transferred somehow as I described, these coins become much better behaved, both for commerce and for storing value. The "bankruptcy scenario" I described above could fail gracefully into the fee-based system you describe, but during any normal market, you would get nearly perfect stability without any fees.
I don't see how you're going to avoid volatility entirely. Also, I don't get your shareholder proposition either. I think a certain amount of volatility will be necessary to live in a decentralized world. You could remove the volatility completely if you have an issuing authority, but then you have to rely on the issuing authority to do the right thing all of the time. If you're fine with that, just go with USD and the Fed.
So how about we contemplate the doomsday scenario for stablecoin:
What should the protocol do to transfer fees in this case? Is there a 90% transfer fee? 50%? 10%? If the transfer fee is too high, who is going to want to buy stablecoins? Transfer fees penalize buyers as well as sellers. If nobody wants to buy OR sell, there is no incentive for prices to go up. Stablecoin simply dies.
It would seem that the transfer fee needs to be pretty small even when the price diverges by a large amount from the underlying asset, otherwise the new currency is completely ruined. On the other hand, if the coins cease to track the underlying asset, nobody wants to hold the coins anymore, and the currency is completely ruined.
Morpheus - have you considered how to handle a doomsday scenario like this?
- stablecoin starts out wildly successful, miners get rich, everybody is happy
- Stablecoin 2.0 comes out, and nobody wants the original stablecoins anymore
- Everyone tries to sell their stablecoins all at once, price drops 99%
- All confidence in the protocol is lost except a couple hardcore believers holding out hope that the protocol will somehow correct itself
What should the protocol do to transfer fees in this case? Is there a 90% transfer fee? 50%? 10%? If the transfer fee is too high, who is going to want to buy stablecoins? Transfer fees penalize buyers as well as sellers. If nobody wants to buy OR sell, there is no incentive for prices to go up. Stablecoin simply dies.
It would seem that the transfer fee needs to be pretty small even when the price diverges by a large amount from the underlying asset, otherwise the new currency is completely ruined. On the other hand, if the coins cease to track the underlying asset, nobody wants to hold the coins anymore, and the currency is completely ruined.
Morpheus - have you considered how to handle a doomsday scenario like this?
I'm not sure what would happen in a total doomsday scenario, but I doubt the above would happen. I don't think a new "better" currency would cause everyone to suddenly jump all at once away from Stablecoin. Instead, it would be a gradual migration where the price of Stablecoin would be consistently under the target. The transfer fee would kick in to destroy the Stablecoins at a regular rate which is exactly what we would want.
A doomsday scenario which is very likely to occur would be like the Mt Gox hack. What happens if a bunch of Stablecoin was stolen and the thief doesn't care about the exchange rate and just dumps the coins on the market. Since something like that has already happened with bitcoin, we can assume this would happen with just about any digital coin.
This scenario will cause some issues, but I think Stablecoin would survive. Lets look at each step of the thief's sale to see how Stablecoin would react.
1. The thief initially tries to dump all of his stolen coins on the market. All of the bids are cleared from the market and the price of Stablecoin drops. If the thief is able to dump all of his coins, he gets away with the money, and a bunch of others buy really cheap Stable coins. If not, He has to wait for more bids.
2. The thief still has more coins to dump and some of those with cheap coins may want to sell at a slightly higher price than they bought them at. If the transaction fees haven't change yet, this is really step one with the addition of more people selling below the fair value. When the transaction fees change, the program will now calculate a very low value for Stablecoin and end up with really high transaction fees. If the thief tries to sell, he will lose much of his stolen coins to transaction fees. Also, anyone who purchased cheap Stablecoins and wants to sell out, or anyone panicking will also pay high transaction fees. Some people will choose to pay the transaction fees, others will not.
There's the important distinction, choice. Some people will choose to return some coins to the either because the coins didn't cost them anything to begin with or they have lost faith in Stablecoins. Either way, coins are destroyed. Hoarders can hoard their coins until the price comes back up. Of course, with so many coins being destroyed, the price will come back up.
Also, the transaction fees are a disincentive for the thief to dump his coins all at once. If he does, he won't make as much money as he would if he sold them slowly. There will likely be some level where he doesn't care about the transaction fee and just wants to dump the coins. But, that would just allow some people to buy cheap coins for a while and allow some of the stolen coins to disappear.
3. Finally, some coins are destroyed, others end up with some cheap coins. The big downside, Stablecoin isn't as stable as the name suggests. It will be influenced by the market, but the goal is to always go back to a specific price. I believe it will do that even in this doomsday scenario.
If you destroy the money through transaction fees, you don't have direct control over coins destroyed by transaction fees CDT, you just can change the mandatory transaction fee rate MTR.
Even worse, when you increase MTR to fightdeflation inflation, V goes down, reducing CDT, making you increase MTR even more...a positive feedback that takes fees to the sky and stops transactions completely. It is better to have deflation inflation than no trade at all.
I don't think that morpheus's proposal can work as it is.
Even worse, when you increase MTR to fight
I don't think that morpheus's proposal can work as it is.
I don't think destroying coins through higher MTR will cause the spiral you predict.
If the transaction fees are increased to avoid inflation, then it will cause people to avoid transactions. However, it would also cause people to ask more for their coins to cover the transaction fee which would cause deflation which is the goal of increasing the transaction fee in the first place. The would break the transaction fee death spiral and stabilize the price of the coin.
Actually, the transaction fee may never get paid if the threat of a transaction fee causes people to hoard Stablecoin and drive prices back up.
morpheus,
While pondering this topic this morning I suddenly realized there is a fatal flaw in your plan as stated. I'm very sad to have to point this out, because I really want something like this to work because it is so beautifully simple.
Your plan to destroy coins will not work as stated. You are right that destroying coins will give people incentive to not transfer them between wallets, but they will simply sell whole wallets loaded with coins instead. Once some people start doing this, anybody transferring the normal way will be at a disadvantage, and everyone will have to start doing it, then *poof* you completely lose all control over reducing the coin supply.
Personally, I have to return to pondering the hideously complex ideas in my proposal for the second bitcoin whitepaper for now, but I'm hoping you have a good answer for this because I liked your idea better.
While pondering this topic this morning I suddenly realized there is a fatal flaw in your plan as stated. I'm very sad to have to point this out, because I really want something like this to work because it is so beautifully simple.
Your plan to destroy coins will not work as stated. You are right that destroying coins will give people incentive to not transfer them between wallets, but they will simply sell whole wallets loaded with coins instead. Once some people start doing this, anybody transferring the normal way will be at a disadvantage, and everyone will have to start doing it, then *poof* you completely lose all control over reducing the coin supply.
Personally, I have to return to pondering the hideously complex ideas in my proposal for the second bitcoin whitepaper for now, but I'm hoping you have a good answer for this because I liked your idea better.
I don't have a great answer for this problem, but...
If someone wanted to sell 100 Stablecoin this way, they would have to create a new wallet and put 100 Stablecoin in it. If they did this while the price of Stablecoin is low, then they would have to pay the higher transaction fee. Thus solving the problem in this case. If they moved the coin while the price was high, they wouldn't have to pay the transaction fee, but they could just sell the coin for a profit instead. The only way this would work is if they bought the coin when the price is low, then moved the coin into separate wallets when the price is high, then sold the wallets when the price is low again. Not only is this complicated and risky, but the initial purchase would pay the high transaction fee.
An alternative to the above is if someone bought a bunch of Stablecoin at some point and doesn't care about selling exactly 100 coins. They could sell their entire wallet at once with some random number of coins inside. The problem with that is, the receiver couldn't pull the coins out of the wallet without paying the high transaction fees. The receiver would have an incentive to hold the wallet until the prices come back up. He could then sell the coins at a profit and may not have to worry about the transaction fee. Again this encourages hoarding which would drive the price of Stablecoin back up.
The big issue is an exchange like Mt Gox. If there were an exchange like Mt Gox which held all of its Stablecoin in a wallet and let people buy and sell on its open market, then the price of Stablecoin would be independent of transaction fees. Of course, anyone who bought a bunch of Stablecoin while the price is low would not be able to pull it out of the market without paying the transaction fee. This again would encourage hoarding which would drive price back up to the fair market value.
There may be issues in practice, and the transaction fee/miner reward may have to be adjusted at times. I still think it could work and I'm slowly working on an implementation.
If anyone has any info on creating your own bitcoin chain, let me know. I'm looking for a tutorial if one exists. Or maybe a tutorial could be added to the bitcoin wiki.
How do users deal with the trust issue? Reputations, etc.?
Currently it is not handled. However, there is an issue open to deal with it: https://github.com/macourtney/Dark-Exchange/issues/22
I will be so, so happy when this hypothesis actually gets tested by someone
I'm having too much trouble with multicoin and will look at modifying bitcoin directly (creating a new block chain and all). I'm not a C++ maven, so don't expect anything soon.
People don't behave rationally during a panic, and I don't think you can rule one out.
I'm sure panics will happen, but people who behave rationally would earn a lot of money from those who panic. I think it will sort itself out without destroying the currency. However, we won't know until the coin is created.