-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 649
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
BSIP81: Simple maker-taker fees #2136
Conversation
It should be noted that there is a possible drawback to this implementation: after the hardfork, if an old client software submits an I consider that to be reasonable behavior but it can be altered with additional complexities if there is a strong objection. |
Good catch. IMO the logic should be: if the owner didn't set a taker fee (old clients), then the old market fee rate applies to takers. It's an optional field, so it's not hard to distinguish between |
It's found that the specification was not clear enough. See also: bitshares/bitshares-core#2136 (comment)
Created a pull request to update the specification: bitshares/bsips#271. |
Thanks. The code looks good so far, but perhaps there are conflicts when merging. |
…rwise the maker fee
@MichelSantos please click "Ready for review"? Or you think it's still not ready for merge? |
I confirmed "ready" for review and will follow up with @MichelSantos. If anything is missing, he can push another PR. |
I was double-checking with some CLI tests. I think that it's ready for review. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks.
…r does not set the taker fee
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The CI tests have passed. Looks like github has issues updating the CI status.
Thanks. |
This initial PR contains 3 tests of BSIP81. At least 4 additional tests still remain to be completed.
This PR might need to be redone onto an alternate branch.