BitBay OFFICIAL BITBAY Thread Smart Contracts Decentralized Markets Rolling Peg

[funsponge]

2016 is going to be Bitbays year! All hail Mr Zimbeck!

[albert_mt]

Decentralized markets are definitely a hot topic right now. 
Is Open Bazaar considered the main competitor for Bitbay?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3zv6sc/sneak_peek_at_bitcoins_upcoming_killer_app_open/

lets beat Open Bazaar!!! they are strong but bitbay can be a serious competitor to them.

[Gillette]

I downloaded Bitbay client but I see 0 offers on the market. Does this mean that Bitbay is not in active usage?

[martinacar]

I downloaded Bitbay client but I see 0 offers on the market. Does this mean that Bitbay is not in active usage?

Is your wallet up to date? My guess is, is the wallet needs some more syncing to do to load up all offers in the market.

[rqdxrocket]

I downloaded Bitbay client but I see 0 offers on the market. Does this mean that Bitbay is not in active usage?

Is your wallet up to date? My guess is, is the wallet needs some more syncing to do to load up all offers in the market.

 I am not sure what is on the market right now but I can say that it does work and I had several items for sale on there a couple of months back.  I actually sold what I believe is the first publicly sold item on the Bitbay market.

  I am awaiting the next release (which hopefully will be soon) so I can relist my items.

Thanks
RQDxRocket

[Munti]

I downloaded Bitbay client but I see 0 offers on the market. Does this mean that Bitbay is not in active usage?

Is your wallet up to date? My guess is, is the wallet needs some more syncing to do to load up all offers in the market.

 I am not sure what is on the market right now but I can say that it does work and I had several items for sale on there a couple of months back.  I actually sold what I believe is the first publicly sold item on the Bitbay market.

  I am awaiting the next release (which hopefully will be soon) so I can relist my items.

Thanks
RQDxRocket

We should make a note of that. What was it you sold? GPU?

[rqdxrocket]

I downloaded Bitbay client but I see 0 offers on the market. Does this mean that Bitbay is not in active usage?

Is your wallet up to date? My guess is, is the wallet needs some more syncing to do to load up all offers in the market.

 I am not sure what is on the market right now but I can say that it does work and I had several items for sale on there a couple of months back.  I actually sold what I believe is the first publicly sold item on the Bitbay market.

  I am awaiting the next release (which hopefully will be soon) so I can relist my items.

Thanks
RQDxRocket

We should make a note of that. What was it you sold? GPU?

No its was the "Goodyear Tire Pressure Gauge" David is the one that bought it, it has been quite a while ago cant remember when, maybe David can give the timeframe on when I sold it to him.

Thanks

[Munti]

I downloaded Bitbay client but I see 0 offers on the market. Does this mean that Bitbay is not in active usage?

Is your wallet up to date? My guess is, is the wallet needs some more syncing to do to load up all offers in the market.

 I am not sure what is on the market right now but I can say that it does work and I had several items for sale on there a couple of months back.  I actually sold what I believe is the first publicly sold item on the Bitbay market.

  I am awaiting the next release (which hopefully will be soon) so I can relist my items.

Thanks
RQDxRocket

We should make a note of that. What was it you sold? GPU?

No its was the "Goodyear Tire Pressure Gauge" David is the one that bought it, it has been quite a while ago cant remember when, maybe David can give the timeframe on when I sold it to him.

Thanks

Do you still have the picture you used when posting it?
I would like to have it for our archive

[ArpFlush]

Question about the trust system on the BAY market (I'm noob)

1. Suppose I sell my iphone on BAY market. this means I also have to send xxx BAY to the "escrow account".
2. I have received the BAY's I asked for my iphone, so I send the device to the buyer.
3. Guess, at this moment, my BAY in escrow are still in escrow, right?
4. Buyer says that he never received the iphone
5. Buyer gets my BAY that were locked in an escrow account.

Could this be a possible scenario?  

[TrueAnon]

Dead coin is dead.

[tolikkk]

Question about the trust system on the BAY market (I'm noob)

1. Suppose I sell my iphone on BAY market. this means I also have to send xxx BAY to the "escrow account".
2. I have received the BAY's I asked for my iphone, so I send the device to the buyer.
3. Guess, at this moment, my BAY in escrow are still in escrow, right?
4. Buyer says that he never received the iphone
5. Buyer gets my BAY that were locked in an escrow account.

Could this be a possible scenario?  

we are confident that this option in some cases can not be avoided, and options are not many, but there is a chance that when you track the entire chain and mail shipment and insurance of the goods and the payment and cancellation of the judicial and commercial claims and return of goods and who found the evidence of receiving by shooting on the camera and so on

[Munti]

Question about the trust system on the BAY market (I'm noob)

1. Suppose I sell my iphone on BAY market. this means I also have to send xxx BAY to the "escrow account".
2. I have received the BAY's I asked for my iphone, so I send the device to the buyer.
3. Guess, at this moment, my BAY in escrow are still in escrow, right?
4. Buyer says that he never received the iphone
5. Buyer gets my BAY that were locked in an escrow account.

Could this be a possible scenario?  

Not at all

The double deposit is there to make sure both will lose if dishonest.
It can not be sent to anywhere except to the wallet it was deposited from.
Besides, why would buyer say he never received the phone? You are not likely to release the deposit if the deal isn't done satisfactory, are you?

Edit: @tolikk Who are "we"? Not the BitBay team, thats for sure, because we know that scenario is not possible

[sidhujag]

Why did my post get just removed.

Anyways im sure that double deposit wont work on mass scale you need an arbiter

[Munti]

Why did my post get just removed.

Anyways im sure that double deposit wont work on mass scale you need an arbiter

Why do you think double deposit wont work?

(I posted the reason for deleting your post in Syscoin thread before I read your question here)

[sidhujag]

Why did my post get just removed.

Anyways im sure that double deposit wont work on mass scale you need an arbiter

Why do you think double deposit wont work?

(I posted the reason for deleting your post in Syscoin thread before I read your question here)

I think it will hinder adoption as vendors will not list things that they have to ensure collateral for AND not knowing if their funds will be locked indefinitely... it doesn't make much business sense although technically it is a superior implementation (however it is less work because no GUI is needed). A vendor would much rather have the piece of mind knowing an arbiter is involved that is impartial and not have to lock up funds, that really should be a discretion on the buyer side that he may have his funds locked until he receives his item(s).

It does open up a can of worms of knowing who to pick as an arbiter, because it has to be a trusted person who has incentive to do good, so you must design around that and create the incentive structure for the system to work. It cannot fully trustlessly on mass scale in this way unless you get an insurance agent involved somehow to provide the collateral for you for a charge.

That all being said, something using CLTV however may work using time locks and extending time locks somehow and I think David knows this.. however it is alot of GUI work to get this right, and more moving pieces, more complications, more unit tests.. but ultimately might be the optimal solution. But at this point 2 of 3 is probably the best way to go.

[Munti]

Why did my post get just removed.

Anyways im sure that double deposit wont work on mass scale you need an arbiter

Why do you think double deposit wont work?

(I posted the reason for deleting your post in Syscoin thread before I read your question here)

I think it will hinder adoption as vendors will not list things that they have to ensure collateral for AND not knowing if their funds will be locked indefinitely... it doesn't make much business sense although technically it is a superior implementation (however it is less work because no GUI is needed). A vendor would much rather have the piece of mind knowing an arbiter is involved that is impartial and not have to lock up funds, that really should be a discretion on the buyer side that he may have his funds locked until he receives his item(s).

It does open up a can of worms of knowing who to pick as an arbiter, because it has to be a trusted person who has incentive to do good, so you must design around that and create the incentive structure for the system to work. It cannot fully trustlessly on mass scale in this way unless you get an insurance agent involved somehow to provide the collateral for you for a charge.

That all being said, something using CLTV however may work using time locks and extending time locks somehow and I think David knows this.. however it is alot of GUI work to get this right, and more moving pieces, more complications, more unit tests.. but ultimately might be the optimal solution. But at this point 2 of 3 is probably the best way to go.

The vendors funds are not locked indefinitely. They can cancel at any time until someone enters their contract. And whoever enters a contract will have an incentive to fulfill the deal so they can get their deposit released.
The problem for vendors would be a different one. If a power seller from ebay started using our market he would have to have an enormous amount of Bay to list everything he is offering. We are discussing solutions for this. Basically we need an option to reduce the deposit for big sellers/buyers. We could make that dependent on the rep system. We can also make it possible to allow frozen Bay to be used for deposits.

The positive side for investors is of course that a lot of Bay will be tied up in transactions if the market is popular. Just imagine, how much Bay will be in double deposit if average transactions are $1000 a day. How long is average listing time (where seller has put down deposit) before someone enters the contract? 5 days? 10 days?
How long does the transaction take when buyer has entered the contract? 3 days domestic and 10 days international? Pick your numbers and do the math. We can easily have a situation where an average of $1000 daily transactions can create an average demand for $30 000 - $50 000 worth of Bay.

[sidhujag]

Why did my post get just removed.

Anyways im sure that double deposit wont work on mass scale you need an arbiter

Why do you think double deposit wont work?

(I posted the reason for deleting your post in Syscoin thread before I read your question here)

I think it will hinder adoption as vendors will not list things that they have to ensure collateral for AND not knowing if their funds will be locked indefinitely... it doesn't make much business sense although technically it is a superior implementation (however it is less work because no GUI is needed). A vendor would much rather have the piece of mind knowing an arbiter is involved that is impartial and not have to lock up funds, that really should be a discretion on the buyer side that he may have his funds locked until he receives his item(s).

It does open up a can of worms of knowing who to pick as an arbiter, because it has to be a trusted person who has incentive to do good, so you must design around that and create the incentive structure for the system to work. It cannot fully trustlessly on mass scale in this way unless you get an insurance agent involved somehow to provide the collateral for you for a charge.

That all being said, something using CLTV however may work using time locks and extending time locks somehow and I think David knows this.. however it is alot of GUI work to get this right, and more moving pieces, more complications, more unit tests.. but ultimately might be the optimal solution. But at this point 2 of 3 is probably the best way to go.

The vendors funds are not locked indefinitely. They can cancel at any time until someone enters their contract. And whoever enters a contract will have an incentive to fulfill the deal so they can get their deposit released.
The problem for vendors would be a different one. If a power seller from ebay started using our market he would have to have an enormous amount of Bay to list everything he is offering. We are discussing solutions for this. Basically we need an option to reduce the deposit for big sellers/buyers. We could make that dependent on the rep system. We can also make it possible to allow frozen Bay to be used for deposits.

The positive side for investors is of course that a lot of Bay will be tied up in transactions if the market is popular. Just imagine, how much Bay will be in double deposit if average transactions are $1000 a day. How long is average listing time (where seller has put down deposit) before someone enters the contract? 5 days? 10 days?
How long does the transaction take when buyer has entered the contract? 3 days domestic and 10 days international? Pick your numbers and do the math. We can easily have a situation where an average of $1000 daily transactions can create an average demand for $30 000 - $50 000 worth of Bay.

Once you have a contract the funds are locked indefinitely until one side decides to give in, how can you UNLOCK a locked contract that is based on double deposit?
 
You need to reduce barrier of entry as much as possible to gain network affect.  Demand for bay will come as a result of users wanting to use the system because it is easy and cheap and provides the service they want, not by reducing supply to appease investors.

There is subtly in what the users "want" as that is all up to marketing.

[Munti]

Why did my post get just removed.

Anyways im sure that double deposit wont work on mass scale you need an arbiter

Why do you think double deposit wont work?

(I posted the reason for deleting your post in Syscoin thread before I read your question here)

I think it will hinder adoption as vendors will not list things that they have to ensure collateral for AND not knowing if their funds will be locked indefinitely... it doesn't make much business sense although technically it is a superior implementation (however it is less work because no GUI is needed). A vendor would much rather have the piece of mind knowing an arbiter is involved that is impartial and not have to lock up funds, that really should be a discretion on the buyer side that he may have his funds locked until he receives his item(s).

It does open up a can of worms of knowing who to pick as an arbiter, because it has to be a trusted person who has incentive to do good, so you must design around that and create the incentive structure for the system to work. It cannot fully trustlessly on mass scale in this way unless you get an insurance agent involved somehow to provide the collateral for you for a charge.

That all being said, something using CLTV however may work using time locks and extending time locks somehow and I think David knows this.. however it is alot of GUI work to get this right, and more moving pieces, more complications, more unit tests.. but ultimately might be the optimal solution. But at this point 2 of 3 is probably the best way to go.

The vendors funds are not locked indefinitely. They can cancel at any time until someone enters their contract. And whoever enters a contract will have an incentive to fulfill the deal so they can get their deposit released.
The problem for vendors would be a different one. If a power seller from ebay started using our market he would have to have an enormous amount of Bay to list everything he is offering. We are discussing solutions for this. Basically we need an option to reduce the deposit for big sellers/buyers. We could make that dependent on the rep system. We can also make it possible to allow frozen Bay to be used for deposits.

The positive side for investors is of course that a lot of Bay will be tied up in transactions if the market is popular. Just imagine, how much Bay will be in double deposit if average transactions are $1000 a day. How long is average listing time (where seller has put down deposit) before someone enters the contract? 5 days? 10 days?
How long does the transaction take when buyer has entered the contract? 3 days domestic and 10 days international? Pick your numbers and do the math. We can easily have a situation where an average of $1000 daily transactions can create an average demand for $30 000 - $50 000 worth of Bay.

Once you have a contract the funds are locked indefinitely, how can you UNLOCK a locked contract that is based on double deposit?
 
You need to reduce barrier of entry as much as possible to gain network affect.  Demand for bay will come as a result of users wanting to use the system because it is easy and cheap and provides the service they want, not by reducing supply to appease investors.

There is subtly in what the users "want" as that is all up to marketing.

Yes, once both parties have entered a contract the funds are locked. But I don't see where you get indefinitely from. They will both have an incentive to get the deal done so the funds can be released.

We will not reduce supply to appease investors. As a matter of fact you need a little surplus of money in a well functioning economy. But we will use pegging to avoid the volatility you see in other coins. And just to be clear, with pegging we don't mean a fixed price forever. (Pegs have a long history of failing in fiat) Think of it as a stabilizer.

[ArpFlush]

Not at all

The double deposit is there to make sure both will lose if dishonest.
It can not be sent to anywhere except to the wallet it was deposited from.

I don't understand it i think. Is there some technical post about this technique? Maybe "arbiters" like in Openbazaar could be a solution?

Besides, why would buyer say he never received the phone? You are not likely to release the deposit if the deal isn't done satisfactory, are you?

Buyer could be a scammer too. But again, I have to read more about this system.

[sidhujag]

Why did my post get just removed.

Anyways im sure that double deposit wont work on mass scale you need an arbiter

Why do you think double deposit wont work?

(I posted the reason for deleting your post in Syscoin thread before I read your question here)

I think it will hinder adoption as vendors will not list things that they have to ensure collateral for AND not knowing if their funds will be locked indefinitely... it doesn't make much business sense although technically it is a superior implementation (however it is less work because no GUI is needed). A vendor would much rather have the piece of mind knowing an arbiter is involved that is impartial and not have to lock up funds, that really should be a discretion on the buyer side that he may have his funds locked until he receives his item(s).

It does open up a can of worms of knowing who to pick as an arbiter, because it has to be a trusted person who has incentive to do good, so you must design around that and create the incentive structure for the system to work. It cannot fully trustlessly on mass scale in this way unless you get an insurance agent involved somehow to provide the collateral for you for a charge.

That all being said, something using CLTV however may work using time locks and extending time locks somehow and I think David knows this.. however it is alot of GUI work to get this right, and more moving pieces, more complications, more unit tests.. but ultimately might be the optimal solution. But at this point 2 of 3 is probably the best way to go.

The vendors funds are not locked indefinitely. They can cancel at any time until someone enters their contract. And whoever enters a contract will have an incentive to fulfill the deal so they can get their deposit released.
The problem for vendors would be a different one. If a power seller from ebay started using our market he would have to have an enormous amount of Bay to list everything he is offering. We are discussing solutions for this. Basically we need an option to reduce the deposit for big sellers/buyers. We could make that dependent on the rep system. We can also make it possible to allow frozen Bay to be used for deposits.

The positive side for investors is of course that a lot of Bay will be tied up in transactions if the market is popular. Just imagine, how much Bay will be in double deposit if average transactions are $1000 a day. How long is average listing time (where seller has put down deposit) before someone enters the contract? 5 days? 10 days?
How long does the transaction take when buyer has entered the contract? 3 days domestic and 10 days international? Pick your numbers and do the math. We can easily have a situation where an average of $1000 daily transactions can create an average demand for $30 000 - $50 000 worth of Bay.

Once you have a contract the funds are locked indefinitely, how can you UNLOCK a locked contract that is based on double deposit?
 
You need to reduce barrier of entry as much as possible to gain network affect.  Demand for bay will come as a result of users wanting to use the system because it is easy and cheap and provides the service they want, not by reducing supply to appease investors.

There is subtly in what the users "want" as that is all up to marketing.

Yes, once both parties have entered a contract the funds are locked. But I don't see where you get indefinitely from. They will both have an incentive to get the deal done so the funds can be released.

We will not reduce supply to appease investors. As a matter of fact you need a little surplus of money in a well functioning economy. But we will use pegging to avoid the volatility you see in other coins. And just to be clear, with pegging we don't mean a fixed price forever. (Pegs have a long history of failing in fiat) Think of it as a stabilizer.

Yes after talking to David I implemented a pegging feature to avoid volatility issue. Yes they have incentive to get the deal done but if the consumer really does feel he gets cheated and vendor has shipped and lost goods then they both ar eout of luck, none of which want to give in and lose their share, they will remain locked because they do not want the other to get the coins... you need an arbiter here to resolve the situation, whoever loses here has incentive to STOP using the system and look elsewhere with their business.

I was goin to implement the double deposit escrow but after thinking about it a bit and speaking with other notable people I came to the consensus that the best idea is to have an arbiter (buyer pays a fee which he gets a 0.05% cut out of the deal IFF he signs off on a refund or release, otherwise doesn't get a cut), and have done the GUI for it which took the longer than the actual feature.