yes it is actually quite functional now (though the label 'alpha' is still there)

also, if you buy diaspora invites, may i suggest you get them from me instead?
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5082

yes, ultimately where 'free money' is concerned, human monitors will not solve the problem. no matter how low you set the reward, there are people whose time is worth nothing, and they'd thus be willing to spend it getting something > nothing.

Nothing wrong with testnet coins having value. they had value before the testnet was reset, and they'll have value again at some point, right up until testnet is reset again (if it is).

it can always be scripted to run the PoW calc outside the browser, then submit the result. seems like that would be only a temporary solution - long enough to last until the cheaters write code.

it seems that a ripple instance would be perfect for this, since it is built precisely for keeping track of interpersonal credit.

heh, i think sending the fibonacci sequence would be good
http://xkcd.com/289/
1.1235813 or 11.23581321
anyone with a modded client that lets you send full-precision amounts - go for it.

bitcoin matrix screensaver

looking good. that was def 40 btc well spent for the logo.

how about clearsigning your bids, mndrix?

i understand your concern... but trying to prevent dark pools is like alcohol and drug prohibition - it sounds good on paper, but it'll never work. every trade on bitcoin-otc is a 'dark pool' trade. every time someone buys on bitcoin4cash, it's a 'dark pool' trade - inasmuch as the bids and asks aren't visible, nor are trade amounts. so the "full dark" pool on mtgox is really nothing different - it is a separate market, like any other direct p2p exchanger.

further, the iceberg-style orders, are exactly what can be achieved with a trading bot. so in fact, rather than giving an advantage to the big player, they spread it to the small player. since normally, only the large player would find in worthwhile to invest in running a bot, but the iceberg order type opens this strategy up to everyone, including the small players, iceberg in fact levels the playing field. so if your goal is to level the playing field between large and small players, you should in fact be in favor of the iceberg orders.

the only really problematic order type, imo, is the current dark/light implementation, since as i describe in my earlier post, it disadvantages regular limit order placers. and i personally advocate for it to be removed (and replaced with iceberg).

ooo interesting, mndrix.

here's a free idea for y'all.

there's no need for exchanges to trust each other. what you need to do is set up a 'meta-exchange', which has accounts on all the major exchanges, and automatically gives the best price to a person placing an order on your metaexchange. in addition to that, the metaexchange would of course also have its own exchange with local user balances, the order book, etc.

eventually, since the biggest aggregated order book will be on the metaexchange, it'll suck up most of the order volume from the other exchanges, thus becoming the biggest exchange.

step 3: profit!

well, it is a mission because bitcoin is a very hard currency, while most of the popular means of transferring national fiat currency (e.g., paypal) are very soft (chargebacks). thus, it requires a lot of trust on the part of the bitcoin seller. which of course presents a problem to the potential bitcoin buyer.

http://wiki.bitcoin-otc.com/wiki/Using_bitcoin-otc already has some good content to start with, though some of it is OTC specific, other (about safety and chargebacks) is not.

it is already easy to use - click on the webchat link, and ask in channel if anyone's selling. of course, the problem is that most newbies want to buy for paypal and some such, which brings us to the trust issue as above. regardless of the mechanism of OTC registration (admittedly pgp is probably not too newbie-friendly), getting trust takes time, so with online p2p trading, nobody can expect to come in and start buying large quantities of bitcoin with soft payment methods.


do you volunteer?

if you have any ideas that could be used on OTC, i'd be glad to hear them.

the problem with this is that any distributedly-published orders are not binding, and therefore your 'order book' will fill up with all kinds of stuff. i know from direct experience, creating an inside bid/ask quote for OTC (http://bitcoin-otc.com/ticker.php) that you tend to end up with (a) stale orders, (b) joke orders (c) orders using some specific payment methods that as a result of their peculiarities have higher/lower pricing (e.g., cash in person in such and such city), etc.

so aggregating order feeds from all sorts of places, you'll basically end up with a mishmash of all kinds of orders wherein "best ask" or "best bid" have little meaning.

further, even if something is a legitimate order, you may not want to take it if you don't trust the counterparty.

in all, i'd say don't expect from this any more than you'd expect from a simple list of bitcoin exchangers. which is not a bad thing in itself, mind you - just not as useful, in many ways, as an exchange that intermediates both sides of a transaction.

davidonpda:

wow, sad to see it go. while i never got around to registering myself, i was looking forward to seeing it in operation.

i guess the problem was that there are plenty of other avenues of exchange by now, that going through the laborious KYC registration process when you could just... go elsewhere, didn't make sense for a most users.

i suppose we'll just have to wait until someone like scottrade, or one of the big forex players, decides to add BTC to their trading options.

toffoo, addressing some issues you raise.

re: dark-only orders being separated: indeed, they are completely separate, basically equivalent to bitcoin-central being separated from the OTC market and each being separated from mtgox. so indeed prices could drift between them, no different as they can drift between exchanges. my point is that since dark-only is essentially a separate exchange... there's no reason for me to even worry about what goes on there, if i don't want to use it.

re: minimum price increment: the front-stepping by tiny fractions of a cent, using bots, is an issue that is exactly equivalent, whether we are talking about regular limit orders, or iceberg orders. hence, it is, IMO, something to be discussed separately, outside of the dark pool thread.

re: extra cost of iceberg orders: i have no problem if in addition to the 'implicit cost' of forgoing priority for the dark portion of your order, the market raises the fee for the iceberg order type by a few tenths of a percent. together with the implicit cost, this should serve as sufficient discouragement from use of dark pool without good cause.

the current implementation of the dark/open order cannot be accomplished with bots. see my post above.

good stuff - i suggest you make a site (if you don't have one already), and post your entry into the main Trade page on the wiki.

an issue of trust: how does a prospective interested party know you won't just walk away with the funds?

haha, looks like you have just invented a new pastime: spam lending.

the full db of ratings has a nice web interface:
http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratings.php
and also a cool contributed graph:
http://corrupt.jails.se/~magnetron

the irc command 'gettrust' gives you level1 (direct) and sum of level2 (second degree) ratings. (more levels soon to come).

so in fact... that's pretty much the direction OTC web of trust is leaning in.

Here's my take on the issue of dark pools.

There are two parties that need to be considered when thinking about the 'fairness' of dark pools. One party is the prospective buyer or seller coming in and placing a market order. For this party, the existence of dark pools presents no disadvantage, since the at-market transaction only stands to be executed at a price that is strictly better than the bid/ask spread posted in the open order book. Thus far, this is the only party that has been considered in the discussion.

The second party, is the people who place limit orders - namely the outstanding open bids and asks. When a party comes in, looks at the open orders, and places a limit order accordingly, it has expectation that say, given that a trade in amount X comes in on the buy or sell side, his order is going to be filled. If there is a hidden dark pool, however, he is operating on incomplete information when placing his order, and stands to get his order filled slower, or not at all. This is a clear disadvantage to the limit order placing parties.

Thus, the dark pools in their current implementation, essentially take from the limit order placers and give to the market order placers and the dark pool order placers. This amounts to a 'taking' from one party to give to another, and is in my opinion not a good, or fair, thing to do.
   
I think the proper way to do dark pool orders is to use "iceberg orders", wherein a dark pool order entry gets two inputs, the total order quantity, and a display quantity. This is how it is currently done on exchanges that support dark pool liquidity in addition to open order book. I quote from the wikipedia article on dark pools, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_liquidity


Note the defining feature of this style of dark pool: the dark pool order user gets the same priority as the other limit order placers, and once his display quantity is filled, he goes to the back of the queue. This way, there is no taking from the limit order placers. The fact that this type of order would fill slower than a fully-open order, would encourage people to put larger parts of their order into the open (as would the extra charge by the exchange, if it is instituted.)

One final note: the current implementation of dark pools is NOT equivalent to what one could do with a bot, contrary to has been stated a couple times in this thread. When using a bot to continually maintain a smaller display order, one's whole order quantity is NOT prioritized over all outstanding limit orders. Rather, before the bot can react to replace the display quantity, any market orders coming through would be filled by other outstanding orders. In fact, you may notice that the activity that is achievable by a bot is exactly equal to the "iceberg orders" described above. Thus, those who would like to achieve equivalence to what could be done via botting, should vote to remove the current dark pool implementation and replace it with the "iceberg" order type.
   
These comments only apply to the dark/light order type, since the full-dark order is effectively completely separated from the rest of the market, I have no opinion on whether to keep it or do away with it, I think it is irrelevant.
   
Therefore, following from the reasoning above, I vote for the removal of the current style of dark/light order type, and its replacement by a proper iceberg-style order type, which does not take from the limit orders and give to the dark and market orders.
   
Given the available poll options, I chose the second option, namely, "keep it, but remove the dark/normal option". If there were an option to say "change dark/normal to a standard iceberg order" I would have voted for it, but there isn't.
   
I ask all participants in this poll to consider the above, and vote for either option 2 (remove dark/light, keep full-dark), or option 3 (remove both), if you agree.