pull down to refresh
Like would they exit the Ark but still be locked into the DLC on-chain somehow?
Yes! Unilateral exit means you broadcast the chain of presigned transactions, so your VTXO turns into a UTXO, but spending this UTXO still requires the correct unlock script. In the case of a 2-party DLC, there would be three ways to unlock it: one for each winner with the correct attestation, and a delayed refund for both. This means the Ark operator as the market operator is still part of the DLC, just onchain now instead of in a VTXO.
Did this help?
@k00b I noticed fetching all territory feeds went from consistently taking 8+ hours to just 15 minutes (!!)
I thought there was a bug in my code, but then I saw you made some performance improvements in the git history.
Nice job!!
@nitter's replies are virtue signalling.
This is a fair point, and one I’d be willing to discuss with someone who actually engages with what I write, instead of this whack-a-mole discussion.
See how I did that? I quoted what you wrote, and then I replied to it.
inb4 "Discord is a walled garden and you shouldn't use it." Stay uninformed then.
PSAs should be public service announcements. Do you not agree?
For me, @nitter’s replies are less about the people who read, and more about the people who write there. I’m sorry; I think this wasn’t clear.
Thanks for sharing!
If people buy conditional DLC-VTXOs and still have some sats remaining in their wallet balance, can they do a unilateral exit with those sats? And people cannot exit the Ark once they've purchased some conditional VTXO at market price, but they can exit after claiming those DLC-VTXOs?
You can always use Ark's unilateral exit for your VTXOs, locked with a DLC or not. You cannot exit the DLC contract. Does this make sense? This confused me too, but it's a very nice property.
Have you given any thought to this liquidity constraint under a DLC model? I have been wondering for some time if it's possible to do LMSR based prediction markets on Ark without a DLC type construct, due to this liquidity limitation.
I definitely see liquidity as a major problem here, but because of Ark, not because of DLCs. I haven't thought much about this yet, though. So maybe I will arrive at the same conclusion later.
Happy to chat here: https://calendly.com/james-birkeland/30min. Not available this week, but next week I have some time.
Don't have much time myself currently. Will get back to you! I'm also planning to post about this on Delving Bitcoin soon, but with some math and numbers regarding liquidity requirements.
Hey, thanks for your interest! Good questions! I hinted at them a little bit with this in my journal:
To exit the position, users sign with the MM to receive an unencumbered VTXO at the new market price. After entering a position, you can still unilaterally exit the Ark, but not the DLC contract: The refund paths only become available after the oracle has had time to attest and the winners have had time to claim the DLC-VTXOs for themselves. MM liveness gates pricing and exit, but never custody.
But let me also reply to your quotes directly:
But the fundamental question of doing prediction markets in a non-custodial way is whether or not users have custody of their funds after a bet has been placed.
DLCs make it possible for you to always claim what you win if you win. They also make sure losers can withdraw if the oracle fails to attest. Trust moves from the market operator to correctly resolving a market and not running away with the funds to an ideally oblivious oracle.
If there's no "unilateral exit" where users can retrieve their funds and sell an event contract after it's been placed
Yes, the market maker gates prices, and thus whether you can exit at a better price, but DLCs guarantee contracts at the prices you bought them. If your prediction was correct, you can be sure you’ll get paid, but you can't expect to sell your shares before they go to 0 or buy more. It's a fine but important distinction IMO.
I'd be happy to chat.
Where?
It makes no sense as to why the fee is variable.
Every time you refresh a VTXO it costs the operator the same liquidity again until your old VTXO actually expires. So if you refresh early, it costs more.
trusted third parties are security holes
trusted
Could the entire platform basically operate on one batch,
So far, I think so, yes! Ark, the protocol, doesn’t really care about how you lock your VTXOs. The protocol works the same way.
To clarify, an Ark can have multiple batches onchain. If not everyone fits into one batch, you need to create another one. The question is just whether an Ark can support multiple markets without losing efficiency in terms of onchain footprint.
allowing new participants by just opening additional rounds?
Yes!
users would sort of preset an upper bound for how much they’re willing to spend in a market, but not have to buy the shares then.
Yes! I imagined the first step as entering the Ark. So before you bet, you would deposit money into the Ark that you could withdraw at any time. The only difference is that you couldn’t actually use the Ark to pay other users, only to bet on outcomes.
Sorry, I cannot explain Ark better than Elle Mouton
Let me know if anything / what is still unclear after you read it!
I’ve mostly ignored Ark so far
Me too, until I realized you could maybe build more than yet another wallet with it
How would you deal with the liquidity issues of being the market maker (especially if these have to be higher liquidity markets)?
Ideally it wouldn’t be me who has to deal with these issues, haha. I currently have no interest in making this a profitable company. I’m a developer, not a CEO. I’m sharing this for feedback and I'm fine with others "stealing the idea". Good execution still requires competence I might not have.
But since I have no illusions about others putting their money into code the author himself hasn’t even put money into, I had the idea of capping the amount of money that can be in a market, and only running one market at a time that also settles quickly. It should be something repetitive and very easy to verify, like the Bitcoin price, but maybe something more exciting.
What kind of minimum transaction size do you foresee?
I still need to do the math, since it depends on a lot of parameters, some of which are configurable, like how many traders share a UTXO, but I’m hoping 10,000 sats will be enough. Claude came up with an estimate of 75,000 sats, though, lol. I hope it used the wrong numbers haha.
Ideologies are still annoying.
I’d vote for "It's none of my business (literally)."
🫡