4 ms·

So you randomize instead of doing first come first serve. Everyone who got there orders in by the deadline gets an equal shot. You do verifiable randomness to p

So you randomize instead of doing first come first serve. Everyone who got there orders in by the deadline gets an equal shot. You do verifiable randomness to prevent the exchange from messing with trade orders. If you do a simple two phase system, you don't have to worry about the exchange leaking orders. You send in a cryptographically binding commitment to your order(this hides the order now, but prevents you from changing it later). After the time period is up, the exchange publishes a commitment to their randomized order of trades , then every party reveals their actual order. Then trades execute.

gaius 13y ago
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. You can't know in that situation what inventory anyone will have at the time you actually make the trade! I don't think you quite understand that these trades aren't simply converting money to something else. They are actually buying and selling things, abstract things to be sure, but things that your counterparty will either already own or be able to acquire on your behalf. You might as well say Amazon should send things to random addresses and everyone has an equal chance of getting what they ordered.
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  I think your Amazon point is rather inaccurate. With amazon people are ordering different products at fixed prices from one seller. In this case, the question is how do we actually determine the price for one product(say Google's stock) given many buyers and many sellers all with different price points. It's not the same thing at all. Someone/some algorithm has to match offers for sale with offers for purchases. Buyers are willing to buy at up to some price and seller sell at down to some prince. The question is when the matching is done, how frequently and whether you gain any advantage by being faster (other than having marginally more time to analysis). By contention is that you can accomplish this. While this may not work for, I don't think amazon or anything like that has much to do with it.
easytiger 13y ago
Sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever.

gaius 13y ago

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. You can't know in that situation what inventory anyone will have at the time you actually make the trade! I don't think you quite understand that these trades aren't simply converting money to something else. They are actually buying and selling things, abstract things to be sure, but things that your counterparty will either already own or be able to acquire on your behalf. You might as well say Amazon should send things to random addresses and everyone has an equal chance of getting what they ordered.

anologwintermut 13y ago
I think your Amazon point is rather inaccurate. With amazon people are ordering different products at fixed prices from one seller. In this case, the question is how do we actually determine the price for one product(say Google's stock) given many buyers and many sellers all with different price points. It's not the same thing at all. Someone/some algorithm has to match offers for sale with offers for purchases. Buyers are willing to buy at up to some price and seller sell at down to some prince. The question is when the matching is done, how frequently and whether you gain any advantage by being faster (other than having marginally more time to analysis). By contention is that you can accomplish this. While this may not work for, I don't think amazon or anything like that has much to do with it.

easytiger 13y ago

Sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever.