Thinking about this from a users perspective - the answer has to be 40, the protocol needs to ensure that an attempt to reduce liability cannot result in increasing it.

Following on - the protocol would need to ensure that the adjusted offer is recognised reserved based on the initial purchase offer, and as fulfilled once the initial purchase offer is fulfilled.

This

Surprised it has not been mentioned, but Bitstamp is almost certainly your best bet from the UK, but you will need to verify your account once registered - which takes a few days.

Trades are priced in dollars, and conversions are done on deposit and withdrawal, but the fees are reasonable.

I randomly sent Rastapool a bitcoin by accident (don't ask), all it took was a polite request and he sent it straight back.

@rastapool
Thanks man - figured you deserved some public praise for your honesty.

Hi - i'm a few weeks our of date on progress here, but have just read the last few pages, if there is a quick answer why this is the preferred approach i'd love to hear it, but considering a "late" buy offer as invalid seems a bit non-sensical to me.

Does this suggest orders must be individually matched against counter-party offers?  If so, how will support high volume trading scenarios?

I would expect any confirmed order (including an order attempting to fill a currently open offer) to remain valid until filled or cancelled - is there a reason why this model is not appropriate here?

Similarly I would expect an order for more than an offered amount to result in an open order for the outstanding quantity - no?

How do I view the order book?

Sorry for reviving this - but I was hoping to migrate my bitcoin-qt wallet into armory, just hit the problem described below and found my way here, any update on whether this is now possible?

Net revenue from hardware sales: BTC 71k

Net revenue from mining: BTC 33k

Hardware is now more than two thirds of the revenue stream, these numbers show the extent to which Friedcat is working hard (and well) to diversify the business.

In the short-medium term, even the revenue from hardware is going to continue to diminish to the point of break-even or even negative ROI for sellers (let alone buyers). 

Bottom line, even the log scale for difficulty (http://www.blockchained.com/ 7th chart down) is increasing exponentially, and anything with a revenue stream inversely proportional to it is fighting a losing battle.

Personally I'd like to see Friedcat looking further ahead and working to develop relationships and products aimed at the merchant services markets (e.g. dedicated processing capabilities for companies like Bitpay/MtGox), or even entering the MS/payment market themselves as consumer interest in China grows.

I have a few shares, I no longer think of them as an opportunity to profit from mining hashpower alone - AM needs innovation beyond "the next batch".

Is it just me/the light or are have all but one of these been plated with blue as well as gold?

Correlation != causation

This is great - thanks all, lots of love in this forum!

@birdy now that you mention it, Satoshi would have been a far more appropriate name to threaten to call the cat. In hindsight I should have put much more thought into it before casually making that promise - wife is already cross.

Anyway - over 100 likes/shares/tweets so far, please keep it coming!

So here's the deal, I work for Deloitte and I love Bitcoin.

I have been trying to raise the profile of Bitcoin within the company for a while but for a global consultancy firm that actually works with most of today's largest banks, and which typically targets established market opportunities that offer a low risk profile - I gotta be honest it's a hard sell!

Anyway - I've finally had an article approved for the Deloitte public blog, if I can drum up enough interest I might be able to convince the powers that be to let me write a white paper on Bitcoin, which in turn just might lead to a conversation happening between two people important enough to change the way a large organisation thinks about (or even uses) Bitcoin.  I think that would be a good thing.

My ask is this:

1. Read the blog: it's short, and you might even like it!

2. SHARE IT using the buttons on the page

It is the SHARES that are measured, not the views, there is a quarterly in-house scoreboard and if I can top that list we'll be getting somewhere.

http://blogs.deloitte.co.uk/customer/2013/10/bitcoin-currency-20.html?utm_source=email&utm_medium=social_media&utm_content=email1&utm_campaign=email_cus_to_bitcoin_virtual_currency

I can't promise much in return, no children on the way any time soon but a possible cat on the horizon, if i can get 1000 shares i will name the cat Bitcoin.

Thanks for your time

Really impressed by what this competition has achieved - a great case study.

Well done guys.

I'd like to see a roadmap for nailing share ownership and trading capabilities, I think this should be the next priority.

Once built, a worthwhile use of foundation cash could be to use funds to buy shares in various Bitcoin denominated stocks (e.g. mining companies like Asicminer which were traded until recently on btct.co before it closed), then offer those stocks for sale at a modest discount via the mastercoin platform.

This would provide an opportunity to prove the capability whilst also attracting new users and further investment in MSC.

My take on this was:

1. "We have been looking at whether we could engage the Bitcoin enabled consumer base by enabling Bitcoin as a source of funding within the existing PayPal payment model (i.e. Bitcoin>PayPal>eBay) and thereby retain our existing payment commission model."

Probably some mileage in this as long as eBay can maintain competitive advantage as a premium marketplace provider.

2. "We also realise that long term this might be game over for PayPal and our associated revenue stream, and we are reluctantly looking at the possibility of a future landscape with direct Bitcoin>eBay integration.  However we anticipate that the legal and regulatory hurdles associated with enterprise scale adoption of Bitcoin would mean this is not likely to become a realistic threat or opportunity for at least a few years"

Again, probably about all someone in his position could say.

This is a few days old and is by no means revelatory, but the following is a short excerpt from the transcript of a presentation (followed by Q&A) with Tom Hudson (eBay Inc. - VP Investor Relations) at the CLSA Investors Forum - 24th Sep 2013.


Question: Going back to the transaction medium, how do you see the rise of some virtual currencies like even bitcoin or QQ currencies, or something like that? How do you see the trend going forward for this kind of electronic currencies?

"Yes, the reality is something like bitcoin or what have you, to be determined what happens with something like that. It's clear that the monetary systems -- we can potentially enable that source of funding on PayPal. I mean the reality is PayPal is used to fund Facebook credits, as an example. So we can certainly participate in that as a funding mechanism. Where they grow? I don't know. I don't want to speculate.

The reality is what I know about the financial system is that regulation is only moving in one direction. And it appears the world is getting more complicated and regulatory burden is actually rising. I think that creates higher hurdles for new business models.

Is there opportunity for something like a virtual currency like a bitcoin? I'm not sure. I don't want to speculate."

Question: Do you see any opportunities for eBay to accept this kind of transaction medium?

"The reality is potentially; but obviously you need to then be able to convert that medium to cash.

Take something like a bitcoin, we have seen competitors on the payment side actually have challenges and assets seized as a result of that, because it's operating outside of the financial system. So as an entity that's cooperative with the regulatory in terms of the financial environments, the reality is we are going to operate within the parameters. And if something changes and it becomes more accepted by the powers that be, then expect eBay to potentially move."

Any odds/offers published would need to be maintained and updated or removed if no longer valid, in the same way as anyone offering betting services online has to keep on top of the odds they offer.  This is a necessary and vital facility.

Where it gets interesting is if a major event occurs which significantly changes the odds of an event occurring whilst an offer is live, we might see the bet provider racing to close/adjust an offer whilst a flood of bet matches are submitted - with the outcome (bet filled or bet adjusted) potentially being determined by nothing more than the order of transactions within the next block.

Call it what you like - i guess i have a problem with the box on the left in this picture.



I just think the solution needs to be something other than big dumb buckets of money programmed to blindly buy and sell at predictable points.  To me this is the achilles heal of the entire project (besides the UTXO issue, which i suspect will be resolved in time) and i'd rather see it sidelined whilst alternative models for trade are considered.


A couple of reasons below why I don't think the "escrow" solution is viable (some of these are variations of points orig posted by others).

1. Price variance. Instruments designed to offer exposure to the price movement of an underlying asset (e.g. "Goldcoin") can never offer true 1:1 exposure, since the differences in market environment conditions between the underlying and the tracker instrument will always create different risk profiles, and therefore different valuations once risk is priced in.  Buying a "Goldcoin" with mastercoins for example introduces several layers of risk on top of buying "Gold", such as the risk bitcoin itself may implode, that the mastercoin protocol may be discovered to have technical vulnerabilities or may be ruled illegal.  As a result of these continually fluctuating conditions, price correlation with underlying assets will vary as risk premiums are priced locally.  An "escrow" which steps in to prop up a market which has dipped due to a change in environmental conditions is distorting the market, not correcting it.  As a result the fund would continue to push prices up beyond "fair value" toward it's programmed target, with sellers happy to continue selling as the fund perpetually depletes itself.

2. Depletion. Once any escrow becomes depleted, the underlying value of the instrument backed by the fund is reduced (the total potential value which could be injected into the market is reduced, and if nothing else the risk that the escrow will become fully depleted has increased).  Not only does this create a a vicious circle with increased risk causing reduced valuations and feeding into scenario 1 above, but at this point, anyone duplicating the instrument feed can offer the chance for investors to jump ship and enter a new version of the same instrument (one with a new and healthy escrow). This in turn amplifies the downward pressure, and escrow-depletion of the original instrument.

3. Manipulation. A trader aware of the escrow logic could conceivably game it for profit. Let's say a trader is bullish and holds the highest open bid on the market, now say there happens to be a thin volume on the sell side and a buy of 5 MSC would push the asset price up 300 basis points and beyond the escrow trigger threshold. Knowledge that doing this would trigger the escrow to sell into the bidwall might be worth far more than the 5 MSC outlay (and if he's really savvy he'll have also reduced his bid to a sliver above the next highest offer). In this way people will be looking for opportunities to trigger escrow events to their advantage when certain market conditions exist.

The escrows are also my largest point of concern.

Any model which enables forward predictability such as "if i make trade X, the escrow will make trade Y" enables manipulation, and will ultimately fail.

To be honest I would prefer to see escrows and any reliant capabilities officially excluded from the spec and discussed for possible future inclusion via the foundation if viable models can be identified.

Was the specific timezone of the deadline confirmed by J.R?  what will happen to transactions posted after the deadline?  what constitutes a confirmed transaction?