6 Dec 2018 |
komodobridge | [discord] <jl777c> fill:0 will accept a partial fill | 15:02:41 |
komodobridge | [discord] <wbradt> Ohhh thank you | 15:02:45 |
komodobridge | [discord] <wbradt> And, to make sure I understand, IOC orders (`fill:0 gtc:0`) are not _immediate_, but cancel after one minute, or the "typical blocktime"? | 15:06:23 |
komodobridge | [discord] <wbradt> So the effect is that an IOC order can only match with orders placed before it? | 15:07:07 |
komodobridge | [discord] <wbradt> And what would be the effect of `gtc` on a `dump` or `fomo` order? Would `fill` work for these? | 15:10:48 |
komodobridge | [discord] <jl777c> gtc would just keep issuing it till it got some sort of fill | 15:12:04 |
komodobridge | [discord] <jl777c> not sure if i tested fill on a dump or fomo, but i dont see why it would behave differently, their purpose is to autocalculate a price field | 15:12:42 |
komodobridge | [discord] <jl777c> but it could be an edge case bug | 15:12:47 |
komodobridge | [discord] <wbradt> So did I get "IOC" orders correct? "IOC orders (fill:0 gtc:0) are not immediate, but cancel after one minute, or the "typical blocktime"?" | 15:49:00 |
komodobridge | [discord] <jl777c> yes | 15:53:58 |
komodobridge | [discord] <wbradt> Was I right about "So the effect is that an IOC order can only match with orders placed before it?" | 21:59:45 |
komodobridge | [discord] <wbradt> So an IOC order cannot match with another order placed 10 seconds after it? | 22:00:01 |
komodobridge | [discord] <jl777c> it could, but not likely | 22:09:21 |
12 Dec 2018 |
komodobridge | [discord] <Acura> ERC20 Lightning Atomic Swap? https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=OLlFegcEZ8Y | 11:18:01 |
komodobridge | [discord] <wbradt> Is there any reason intrinsic to atomic swaps for why the trader using 212% is the liquidity provider? | 17:34:59 |
| noashh invited noashh2. | 21:41:23 |
13 Dec 2018 |
komodobridge | [discord] <artem.pikulin> @wbradt Hi, the swap protocol was designed at 2015-2016 when only few coins implemented BIP65 (CLTV opcode support). This approach allows 1 side of swap to send standard 2of2 multisig payment without timelock. Nowadays it's not really necessary as most coins seem to catch up and implement BIP65. According to this we will use simpler symmetric protocol version (both payments are CLTV) in MM2 so LP side won't need to have 212% balance anymore | 11:27:25 |
komodobridge | [discord] <wbradt> Thanks! @artem.pikulin very informative | 19:31:19 |
komodobridge | [discord] <wbradt> The docs say `recentswaps` "returns up to "limit" in reverse order the swaps on the node and the current pending swap (if any) so you can see what trade might happen." Does this mean it returns only swaps in which I have participated? | 19:34:21 |
komodobridge | [discord] <ComputerGenie 👴🏼📢> yes | 19:37:06 |
komodobridge | Redacted or Malformed Event | 21:57:38 |
komodobridge | Redacted or Malformed Event | 21:58:39 |
14 Dec 2018 |
komodobridge | [discord] <tolken> Oh that’s huge, I didn’t know the 212% balance thing would go away. Very cool. | 01:22:16 |
| noashh changed their display name from noashh-komodo to noashh-komodo (Old). | 13:07:01 |
| noashh changed their display name from noashh-komodo (Old) to noashh-komodo. | 13:16:01 |
komodobridge | [discord] <wbradt> @artem.pikulin So in MM2, if both payments are CLTV, would both sides of the trade need only 100%? Or does alice still pay dexfee? Or some other arrangement? | 14:58:00 |
komodobridge | [discord] <wbradt> @artem.pikulin So in MM2 would both sides of the trade need only 100%? Or does alice still pay dexfee? Or some other arrangement? | 14:58:14 |
komodobridge | [discord] <artem.pikulin> @wbradt Alice will have to pay small dexfee = 1/777 of trading amount as it was previously. | 15:00:17 |
komodobridge | [discord] <wbradt> Thanks--does bob still pay 100%? | 15:01:45 |
komodobridge | [discord] <wbradt> Thanks--does bob then pay 100%? | 15:01:53 |