Mint-Gox

This is probably all wrong, but here is an attempt at making a flow chart??? Looks like a heart, is that a good sign or bad? LOL



IXQXHI.png


Unfortunately, I forgot to figure out how the exchanges would extract their fees?!?!?!
 
Sub-Ether said:
Yeeks! what a pompous arrogant idiot , I can't believe I trusted mintgox with my darkcoin trading with someone like Ryan Kennady in charge.
Click to expand...
I didn't hear until very recently that moohla bought mint gox (of course with investor's money)
 
tungfa said:
i have to meditate over that for a while .....>
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure you should, it's making me feel dizzy and sick looking at it, and I made it! LOL. Damn, making schematics takes talent I never knew I lacked!

LOL, looking at it now, it might be the stupidest looking thing ever, LOL
 
Thanks so much for this nice uterus mandala that's perfect for my meditations. Will make my daily flights to the 胎蔵界 and the five wisdom kings so much easier. Just kidding. :wink:

Unfortunately the devil dwells in the details... one thing which is not so clear to me in your representation is how and on what authority the exchanges initiate the transfer. It seems that exchange X needs to know about A, even though A is not its customer, in order to release B's funds via the masternodes? How would that happen exactly? Also what exchanges do you expect could be convinced to hook themselves up to such a system? How could they be convinced?

I gather that somehow the masternode network keeps control of the funds until they are released. That requires some authority logic in the masternodes to make decisions on fund releases. Don't you think it would be much easier and safer to have a pure p2p transfer from A to B and from B to A? Like with the atomic cross chain transfer mechanism that was hard to digest?

Just keep it coming. Great work!
 
Well, I was thinking that the exchanges would only be the match makers, and the masternodes would trigger the release of funds. Trigger, not actually do the release because the funds should always be in the owner's wallet. The reason I want exchanges to handle match making, etc... is because I figure we need them for all the other things exchanges do, like that stuff I have no clue about... shorting, etc... There has to be incentives for these kinds of services. I figured they could charge separately, kind of at the same time, but directly from the client, for the exchange.

A pure p2p transfer would require people finding each other and agreeing on a price, etc... It would be slow, not very anonymous and no record could be kept on what just traded so that a price can be established. We need a real exchange, that can handle huge volumes in no time at all, but where the coins are never entrusted to anyone except the group that is actually making the exchanges. The diagram simplifies it to two individuals, but what if B only wants to exchange for 0.5 DRK? A third or forth person would have to be found to take up the slack.

So this needs to look and feel just like Cryptsy but without the risk of trusting your coins in Cryptsy's wallets.

I didn't sleep last night, so I'm pretty giddy, LOL. I don't know if anything I'm saying or trying to do makes any sense whatsoever, but I felt like trying so I did, :wink::rolleyes:
 
TanteStefana said:
A pure p2p transfer would require people finding each other and agreeing on a price, etc... It would be slow, not very anonymous and no record could be kept on what just traded so that a price can be established.
Click to expand...

A p2p exchange doesn't have to be slow. You could solve discovery of A and B with a p2p network which includes each exchange wallet and where each exchange wallet knows what each other exchange wallet wants to trade by broadcasting its orders to everyone in the network. Or by using a trade blockchain mined very rapidly by each wallet.

BTC to DRK and DRK to BTC will be no more an no less anonymous as Bitcoin.

You could easily keep records of trades in a pure p2p system. Either in a trade blockchain which is mined by the exchange wallets or In a distributed db which every exchange wallet keeps built in. The limiting factor of the distributed trade db approach would be scalability of the network for many participating exchange wallets with many trades. Probably the blockchain approach is better for scalability of the p2p exchange.

The way you use this trade blockchain/db for statistics and graphs in the gui of the exchange wallet is left to the developer of such a p2p system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sounds good, make it so, lol

At this point, I'm so out of my league, all I can do is cheer.

Darkcoin Darkcoin, what do we want?
Decentralized exchanges for you to flaunt!
With Masternodes handling all of the work,
other coins with jealousy will go berserk!

OMG, I can't even make it as a cheerleader! ROFLMAO

(this is why I should never show my face in public, LOL)
 
Coins101 just made a great post on BTC today as well, Quote:

Devs:

If you build multi-sig into DRK, especially on mobile, then there is an argument against reduced regulation as regulation is mainly about consumer protection from things like exchanges and other financial intermediaries losing your money while they are in custody of it.

If you maintain a hold over it through multi-sig, you remove a major need for regulations.

Then its just about FinCEN stuff - reporting of financial crimes.
 
TanteStefana said:
OMG, I can't even make it as a cheerleader! ROFLMAO
Click to expand...

Oh, shut up. You're the one and only drk-cheerleader and you know it.

And isn't coins101 an inspiration? Multi-sig indeed + p2p. What's there to regulate anymore? The system regulates itself. I think I know now how to do it. Simpler than described before. Time to stop talking and deliver. Guess this will take a while 'cause I'm old and lazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top