GLBSE - request for next features

[memvola]

A recent topic seems to be moving contracts out of GLBSE for security reasons, and another is being able to prove you actually possess shares. I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere, but both can be accomplished by an option to lock a certain number of owned shares (or all of it if easier) in your account for a specified number of days.

The locking process can provide a signed certificate of ownership that expires at a certain date. The lock should optionally get updated everyday. This way I will be certain that there is time delay in case my account gets compromised, and I'll get an e-mail notice when the locked shares get unlocked. It might also serve proof of ownership in an outage or an odd case of data corruption at GLBSE (assuming the keys aren't leaked, though they probably can be kept in a separate location).

Another functionality could be sending shares with a temporary lock, which would help making off-market transactions easier. If the receiving party doesn't pay, you'd have time to contest.

[Insu Dra]

A recent topic seems to be moving contracts out of GLBSE for security reasons, and another is being able to prove you actually possess shares. I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere, but both can be accomplished by an option to lock a certain number of owned shares (or all of it if easier) in your account for a specified number of days.

The locking process can provide a signed certificate of ownership that expires at a certain date. The lock should optionally get updated everyday. This way I will be certain that there is time delay in case my account gets compromised, and I'll get an e-mail notice when the locked shares get unlocked. It might also serve proof of ownership in an outage or an odd case of data corruption at GLBSE (assuming the keys aren't leaked, though they probably can be kept in a separate location).

Another functionality could be sending shares with a temporary lock, which would help making off-market transactions easier. If the receiving party doesn't pay, you'd have time to contest.

+1 with backups outside of glbse infrastructure/controle

[cytokine]

I would love it if you got a second chance to log in before having to do a captcha. I realize it's a balance between security and ease of use, but nearly every time I fail the login I end up doing the captcha between 5 and 10 times before I can get back in

Also, the ability to establish a PGP key just in case we are unable to log in would be useful as a backup. We could simple sign a message to you proving our ownership of the account if necessary.

[bitcoinbear]

I would love it if you got a second chance to log in before having to do a captcha. I realize it's a balance between security and ease of use, but nearly every time I fail the login I end up doing the captcha between 5 and 10 times before I can get back in

Also, the ability to establish a PGP key just in case we are unable to log in would be useful as a backup. We could simple sign a message to you proving our ownership of the account if necessary.

So you are suggesting GLBSE holds onto a database of the public keys corresponding to account emails?

[cytokine]

I would love it if you got a second chance to log in before having to do a captcha. I realize it's a balance between security and ease of use, but nearly every time I fail the login I end up doing the captcha between 5 and 10 times before I can get back in

Also, the ability to establish a PGP key just in case we are unable to log in would be useful as a backup. We could simple sign a message to you proving our ownership of the account if necessary.

So you are suggesting GLBSE holds onto a database of the public keys corresponding to account emails?

Correct. Just an idea though.

[btharper]

I would love some way to easily reply to and keep track of personal transfers.
Currently, they are just listed in the transfers in / out. It would be nice if it told me the account they were coming from / going to.

I believe someone else (on a whole other thread) found this information inside the full account CVS download. Though not the most direct way to get it.

[Francesco]

I would love some way to easily reply to and keep track of personal transfers.
Currently, they are just listed in the transfers in / out. It would be nice if it told me the account they were coming from / going to.

I believe someone else (on a whole other thread) found this information inside the full account CVS download. Though not the most direct way to get it.

Yes, I lost some time too before figuring it out.

[Nefario]

With much thanks to LWCoder, I've added the GLBSE android client to the front page (you'll need to log out to see).

I've also ordered yubikeys, so will begin to add them as a 2fa method when they arrive.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I would love it if you got a second chance to log in before having to do a captcha. I realize it's a balance between security and ease of use, but nearly every time I fail the login I end up doing the captcha between 5 and 10 times before I can get back in

Also, the ability to establish a PGP key just in case we are unable to log in would be useful as a backup. We could simple sign a message to you proving our ownership of the account if necessary.

So you are suggesting GLBSE holds onto a database of the public keys corresponding to account emails?

Correct. Just an idea though.

It would definitely be nice if you could tie your ownership of shares to a GPG key.

[matthewh3]

How about being able to open a demo account to have a play around before using real coin??

[EskimoBob]

Mark security issuers Buy and Sell orders with a different color in the order book.

I also like to add this one:
Make users bid/ask stand out from the order book (btc-e has it well implemented)
Highlight users bid/ask in the order book (btc-e has it well implemented).

I am going to bring this on up once more because we need more transparency to issuers actions and I think this is valuable for the investors too.
 

[bitcoinbear]

Mark security issuers Buy and Sell orders with a different color in the order book.

I also like to add this one:
Make users bid/ask stand out from the order book (btc-e has it well implemented)
Highlight users bid/ask in the order book (btc-e has it well implemented).

I am going to bring this on up once more because we need more transparency to issuers actions and I think this is valuable for the investors too.
 

I think this is a good idea. The user's own orders could be highlighted yellow (and maybe have a cancel option on the asset page, so we don't have to go back to the portfolio to cancel, and then back to the asset page to replace the order when moving the price). The asset issuer's orders could be highlighted orange or something like that.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Mark security issuers Buy and Sell orders with a different color in the order book.

I also like to add this one:
Make users bid/ask stand out from the order book (btc-e has it well implemented)
Highlight users bid/ask in the order book (btc-e has it well implemented).

I am going to bring this on up once more because we need more transparency to issuers actions and I think this is valuable for the investors too.
 

Wouldnt they just use sock puppet accounts ?

[Bitcoin Oz]

Would more liquidity appear if trading fees were shared on glbse ?  For example if someone buys shares the seller splits the cost of the fees 50/50 rather than just one side paying all the fees.

[OgNasty]

Would more liquidity appear if trading fees were shared on glbse ?  For example if someone buys shares the seller splits the cost of the fees 50/50 rather than just one side paying all the fees.

How would that improve liquidity?  That would remove one of the benefits of leaving an open order on the exchange.  I think it would have a negative effect on liquidity and result in more volatility and destabilization of assets.

[bitcoinbear]

There are two ways liquidity could be improved, either Nefario gets it to work so people can place multiple bids with the same bitcoin, or people add more bitcoin and place more bids.

I often see great deals due to the low liquidity, the huge spreads on many assets. There are a couple assets I have been making like 5-10% per week buying and selling (but very low volumes), but I just don't have enough bitcoins to place bids on everything at once. There have been a few times somebody dumps shares and I say to myself I wish I had known they were going to sell, I would have bid much higher than they got.

[Nefario]

Allowing people to place multiple bids with the same BTC results in lots of what I see as spam orders, it's happened every time I've allowed it.

The only way to improve liquidity is to have more BTC on there, either in the form of peoples own BTC or margin.

Actually, at the bitcoin conference Meni was telling me that margin also performs the same functionality more or less as options. I didn't quite understand it at the time (I was pretty tired) but this is one of Meni's strengths.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Allowing people to place multiple bids with the same BTC results in lots of what I see as spam orders, it's happened every time I've allowed it.

The only way to improve liquidity is to have more BTC on there, either in the form of peoples own BTC or margin.

Actually, at the bitcoin conference Meni was telling me that margin also performs the same functionality more or less as options. I didn't quite understand it at the time (I was pretty tired) but this is one of Meni's strengths.

Margin trading would definitely increase liquidity since you could place more orders on the same btc balance.

[markm]

The way Open Transactions handles multiple offers made with the same assets is to check the offer when someone clicks on it, to see if the person offering still has enough balance to execute the offer.

That way a person with for example 100 bitcoins could make 100 bitcoin offer on every market of every asset, but as soon as one of them is taken up the rest become vapourware that will vanish as soon as someone clicks on one to see if it is still good.

This is kind of a compromise between allowing people to express an interest in "whichever I can get first out of all these possibilities any one of which I will accept" and allowing those who care whether an offer they see in the orderbook is real or not to be able to check by forcing it to go look whether it still has funds enough behind it to make it real.

Since it is in any case extremely inefficient to have people constantly polling the server asking what offers exist most likely a ticker will be added so that offers can all be published somewhere other than the server's own API to take the polling load off of the server, whereupon the concept of "depth" will in any case become moot since it can be expected that most offers that would otherwise be on the books will instead be out in the wild watching the ticker ready to respond to any offers that appear on the ticker that they like.

-MarkM-

[nimda]

Allowing people to place multiple bids with the same BTC results in lots of what I see as spam orders, it's happened every time I've allowed it.

What's wrong with spam orders? Just the graph? That's been useless forever. Other than spam orders that already mess up the graph, there's nothing wrong with them. They'll either get auto-removed or filled by a seller, which makes them real orders.