discussions is that if the liquidity provider offers a sell, and people are allowed to take it at the LPs choice of oracle,
then would a huge drop within an hour not cause the LP to want to retract or even cancel ?
As I wrote in my description of the way we can make Oracle's competitive, the Oracle should not work for free. It should work for the contract-taker and that would be the LP. Who can simply cancel the UTXO on too much slippage.
Because why would an LP care for losing so much money that it would be enough to bribe a miner? That may be the question nobody's been asking...
cauldron doesn't rely on any oracles. This wouldn't apply to these contracts.
hmm, then how can this statement from Mathieu be true? https://t.me/bchchannel/402315
From what I understand about the tech, Cauldron does not rely on oracles right now. But I would love for @p2pcashadvocate to come and explain himself.
Not sure what Mathieu meant there. Cauldron uses CFMM for market making. Every transaction by itself is not aware of anything other than the amounts of tokens & bch it's holding.
Old prices means the old ratio of tokens to Bitcoin cash which set the price in a liquidity pool
Thanks for showing up, dude
Yeah I'm busy working on stuff 😆 but glad to clarify
so, one UTXO holds both tokens and sats and the ratio of them is used in the spending transaction or something?
Basically as long as utxo_token_amount * utxo_sat_amount <= output_token_amount * (output_sat_amount - fee) it is a valid trade.
So basically every transaction that spends some BCH from the pool/inserts BCH into the pool changes the ratio, right? Ordering is thus absolutely critical.
the price is implied by the state of UTXOs you're spending
With UTXO, ordering can't be changed, it isn't critical, it's instrumental.
I know, but one transaction can be mined and other TX can be not mined at random, which is the point
assuming things that are not actually possible on the network today.
Huh? Just make one transaction with signifiacntly higher fee, ensuring miners will pick it up like crazy. In case of (temporary) congestion you would expect the miners to not prioritize stuff? What is this, 2010?
try it. Do it. Show us how miners pick up a transaction that doesn't actually ever reach them.
Обсуждают сегодня