More conversation on Skype regarding this topic…
[4/3/15, 11:16:24 AM] Shannon Code (ZTC): you can transfer it manually I assume
[4/3/15, 11:16:44 AM] Shannon Code (ZTC): just prevents exchanges that support that flag to not allow public exchange trading
[4/3/15, 11:17:20 AM] joshunseth: If you can transfer it manually, you cannot bar exchange trading
[4/3/15, 11:17:34 AM] blockscan: I am somewhat a proponent of using soft rules. Its tricky for a protocol this young to accomodate all instances and requirements. In J-Dog’s case, why not implement a softrule such as that you will only honor token’s that have not been transferred.
[4/3/15, 11:18:19 AM] Shannon Code (ZTC): I have speculated using a gateway address in order to transfer legitimately
[4/3/15, 11:18:19 AM] blockscan: Its relatively easy to track whether these have been transfered or not
[4/3/15, 11:18:42 AM] blockscan: this should accomodate token use cases as vouchers, etc
[4/3/15, 11:18:44 AM] Shannon Code (ZTC): that way even tokens exchanged out of band need to be re-registered by passing through an address (like coloring them)
[4/3/15, 11:19:04 AM] joshunseth: It seems like a kind of dumb rule to implement into the protocol
[4/3/15, 11:19:12 AM] joshunseth: and should be a rule implemented by the centralized service that is using CP
[4/3/15, 11:19:21 AM] blockscan: yea… the gateway method will also work. It would allow “recyling” of tokens.
[4/3/15, 11:19:35 AM] Shannon Code (ZTC): it sounds very smart contracty to me.
[4/3/15, 11:29:37 AM] J-Dog: @junseth: I am not talking about barring trading or sending in general… just barring trading on the DEX…. certainly someone could come up with some centralized exchange and the assets could be traded there and nothing we could do to prevent it. (other than the trading/source validation checks just mentioned)
[4/3/15, 11:30:34 AM] J-Dog: but it seems like a simple thing to me… add a flag to each asset, track if it is allowed to trade on the dex, if not, don’t allow order to be placed… but then again, I could be offbase
[4/3/15, 11:31:04 AM] J-Dog: the non-trading on the DEX is not so much of a pressing issue as changing the asset properties, as that is something that is needed today.
[4/3/15, 11:31:16 AM] joshunseth: Philosophical question: what good is it if you can trade it elsewhere but not on the dex?
[4/3/15, 11:33:30 AM] J-Dog: short-term long-term solutions… short-term you can make asset owners feel more confident that their asset can’t be pumped/dumped/manipulated via the dex…. and the only way to do that would be for someone to do a decent amount of footwork to write a centralized asset exchange.
[4/3/15, 11:34:06 AM] J-Dog: Eventually someone will write a centralized asset exchange… hell, maybe even me… so it isn’t a long-term solution to prevent asset manipulation…. but it will help in the short-term I think
[4/3/15, 11:34:08 AM] Shannon Code (ZTC): in my opinion the exchange market provides an easy to manipulate (not real) representation of a token’s value. Where a utility token or receipt might not need to be on an exchange.
[4/3/15, 11:34:15 AM] joshunseth: If you can pump/dump/manipulate elsewhere, it doesn’t matter if it’s on the dex or not.
[4/3/15, 11:34:54 AM] J-Dog: you can’t easily do that now
[4/3/15, 11:57:19 AM] J-Dog: The asset reputation/feedback system is not going to solve this issue…
example… I have a bunch of FLDC and I use that to set buy/sell walls and drive the price of FLDC up, sell to the suckers, and then crash it…. lots of people get upset because they were manipulated into buying FLDC because they thought the pump was related to the project… so they see price going up and jump on board… they were scammed, so they leave negative feedback about FLDC…… we now have a situation where FLDC has hundreds of negative feedback on their FLDC asset… and this greatly impacts their project, and its ability to do good, attract new users, etc
the FLDC project had nothing to do with my pump and dump… yet, they are greatly effected by it… and a reputation system helps people scream foul, but doesn’t help FLDC re-establish their credibiity
Simple short-term solution is to disable DEX trading for FLDC… This makes it more difficult in the short-term to manipulate asset prices
Longer-term, clearly someone will build a centralized market and allow trading of non-DEX traded assets… but it would be a bit of work, and not something someone is going to do until there is decent CP/asset volumes.
I’ll stop beating the dead horse… but I fail to see why disabiling DEX trading at this point is an issue… 1) not technically tough to add another flag and check it before entering a DEX order… 2.) This will help make CP attractive to new developers who don’t want to worry about price pumps/dumps in the short-term.
[4/3/15, 11:58:35 AM] J-Dog: just using FLDC as an example since it would be effected by something like this…. I imagine they still want DEX trading