This is an alpha build of the new exchange software britcoin and intersango will be running. http://beta.intersango.comTODO sort orderbook properly save last value of select elements change order placed message to be less confusing display outstanding orders total |
|
|
|
If I can sell 0.00000000 BTC for 0.00000001 GBP, I could do that 100 million times and make a whole British Pound! I wonder how you get around the limits. The code is doing: order_worthwhile_check($amount, $amount_disp, '0.0005');
order_worthwhile_check($want_amount, $want_amount_disp, '0.0005');
That check is for the order as a whole, not for the partial orders produced when a trade occurs. So if you place an order 1 BTC for 10 GBP and it gets filled as 0.99999999 BTC you will have a remaining partial order of 0.000000001 BTC. So this isn't something that's exploitable, basically peoples orders are getting rounded up or down by very small amounts of 0.00000001 for the entire order. So in the worst case someone might have 0.002% of their order rounded off. |
|
|
|
The limits on britcoin are artificial. The actual precisions is 8 places after the decimal, or 0.00000001.
Of course, but since britcoin is using the intersango code I'd have thought the same artificial limits would be in place for the USD exchange too. The artificial limits were put in place for a reason (it helps prevent these zero trades and code errors, for one thing), so it seems odd that they're not on all the intersango exchanges. What I posted where trades, probably the tail end of orders for normal amounts. |
|
|
|
Dark exchange is basically just a very complicated #bitcoin-otc |
|
|
|
|
What you're asking for is basically impossible to do while simultaneously following anti money laundering and anti terrorism laws and eliminating counter party risk.
|
|
|
|
-community funded
-open-source
-all profits get reinvested in both exchange and large bitcoin development efforts
--
could be a good way to bootstrap bitcoin development in terms of being able to offer bounties, pay coders, etc and also have an open-source exchange.
Fyi you've basically just described the bitcoinconsultancy.com |
|
|
|
What happened to the limits of 0.005 or so? On britcoin there's a minimum size for both BTC and GBP, and it's something of that order.
Isn't this USD exchange using the same code?
The limits on britcoin are artificial. The actual precisions is 8 places after the decimal, or 0.00000001. |
|
|
|
Are there any plans to merge intersango.eu, britcoin and intersango.us?
yes |
|
|
|
It looks like a trade of amount 0 has gone through and has caused the problem. This is the culprit: {"date": 1311104701, "price": , "amount": 0}I also noticed a trade in the order book earlier today where one of the quantities was zero so looks like the validation may need tightening up somewhere. (Edit: that's a guess, I haven't read the code in any detail) That's a good guess. The issue is that 2 trades went through in which one side got 0. | 16947 | 18518 | 1 | 18539 | 0 | 2011-07-19 18:44:01 | | 16973 | 18548 | 2 | 18562 | 0 | 2011-07-19 20:45:01 | Those numbers are scaled 10^8, so those are trades for 0.00000001 for 0 and 0.00000002 for 0. |
|
|
|
Is it 0% commission? If so, that may be worth mentioning, since the competition isn't.
It is. |
|
|
|
Sell price: 1BTC = 8
Buy price: 1BTC = 9,90
Those prices are nuts; you can get way better prices @ bitmarket!
bitmarket doesn't eliminate counter party risk at all... |
|
|
|
I've seen it. Do you have any comment on my post immediately previous to yours? Do you accept that orders are being matched at prices neither party requested? Can you point me to a specific order in which the order was filled at a price neither party requested? In the past the problem has been people putting in orders that were a terrible deal for themselves and them going through. |
|
|
|
Nothing is wrong with BritCoin itself, but there must be SOMETHING wrong when it is reporting that a sale was made where somebody paid 10,000 pound for a BitCoin, I am certain that sale never went through or was for a small amount of BitCoins, it shouldn't have even got matched in the first place!
All the erroneous data needs to be cleaned out, when you look at BitCoin Charts and display the last 60 days' activity for BritCoin its all skewered because of this rubbish data!
No, they really happen; I had one myself (not at that crazy rate though). Their software is buggy; user beware! Unfortunately if you point out this bug to Britcoin they fob you off. If you would like to see the order matching for yourself.. just go and look https://gitorious.org/intersango/intersango/blobs/master/cron/process_orders.php |
|
|
|
|
Yeah I can confirm the problem is that MyOpenID was (is?) down.
Actually at this point we've had significant downtime for all of the openid providers....
|
|
|
|
So Britcoin needs to fix their feeds is what I gather, and they made the issue public?
I'd not accept the site either and Britcoin needs a new person to represent them, because I would not trust my money with kids, and that was the action of children. If this is the case. Seems like a very odd way to handle business, on a web forum.
Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Britcoin feed. |
|
|
|
I noticed this as well, and it was messing up the graph big-time. It must be a bug or something.
There is no bug on the britcoin side, merely someone who has placed an order that is extremely unlikely to ever go through. |
|
|
|
why do i need an open id? no other xchange wants that...
Bitparking actually does... and it's better to have an account at google/facebook... kept safe than on mtgox *cough* *cough* well, i have no open id, and donīt want to use my googleaccount, as i have to permit the site to do to much stuff with my googleaccount same reason, i donīt allow facebook applications... Logging in with google's openid does not permit britcoin to do anything at all. |
|
|
|
[...] TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 [...] is extremely widespread among commercial servers. Main reasons are 1) it's default preferred cipher in most versions of IIS, 2) these two algorithms are absolutely fastest and least CPU-intensive.
However, because there are known cryptoanalytic attacks against both RC4 and MD5, this ciphersuite is notoriously reported as "weak" by some pentesting tools and teams.
This is not true or at least not accurate, as the specific usage of RC4 and MD5 - in SSLv3 with 128 bit key - has no known and working attacks. That's one reason why PCI-DSS v1.2 now doesn't list any specific algorithms for SSL but instead just says you should use "strong" ones. And widespread usage of TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 among financial organisations seems to confirm the interpretation that it's still considered a strong ciphersuite.
On the other hand NIST SP 800-52 doesn't allow neither RC4 or MD5 because they're not FIPS-approved algorithms, with one exception - connecting in client mode to external, commercial systems with this specific ciphersuite enabled. Which seems to set the balance quite even, because SP is only binding for US federal agencies.
And...
There are two reasons why the new attacks do not apply to RC4-based SSL. First, SSL generates the encryption keys it uses for RC4 by hashing (using both MD5 and SHA1), so that different sessions have unrelated keys. Second, SSL does not re-key RC4 for each packet, but uses the RC4 algorithm state from the end of one packet to begin encryption with the next packet. The recent techniques of Fluhrer, Mantis and Shamir thus do not apply to SSL.
Summary: RC4_128 WIFI (WEP) = Not secure RC4_128 HTTPS = Secure w/ no known exploits AES/RC6 HTTPS = Most secure & recommended amirite? The vast majority of WiFi points with WAP are actually using RC4 and dont know it. WPA TKIP, temporal key interchange protocol, aka exchange keys faster so that RC4 is secure. |
|
|
|
Brand new  It says it's not secure because its using RC4_128, with MD5 for message authentication and RSA as the key exchange mechanism. Probably still a work in progress, amirite? What says that isn't secure? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
