-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 570
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
Expand Price Alerts to Stop-Loss/Take-Profit orders #2240
Comments
Would be a cool feature if possible to implement. The lack of Stop-Loss and Take-Profit orders in core is a significant limitation for the platform. This would require the wallet to be online to work, right? |
Yes, continuous connection would be necessary |
Pushed to July to add some discussion time for this issue. |
Maximum expiration time of a transaction is one day. Oldest possible TaPoS header is 65535 blocks old. So the user can not sign the order too early. Maybe best experience requires user keeping the wallet online and unlocked?
See bitshares/bsips#170 (comment) "a stop-loss order, which is known to be dangerous if publicly known in advance." |
Both cases would require the user to have the wallet open. User should not have to login or enforce that the wallet remains unlocked when leaving it open for Stop-Loss/Take-Profit. In general the question is if that is even desirable for an everyday trader (need to leave wallet open), and if it is he would need to re-sign the Stop-Loss/Take-Profit every 24hours. When Custom Active is ready there will be more secure alternatives to build a Stop-Loss/Take-Profit centralized service. |
The price alerts of the latest version can be expanded into stop-loss and take-profit orders.
Idea:
Price alerts get a "add order" button, which signs a respective sell order on price alert creation, but does not broadcast it. It will only get broadcast when the price alert is triggered. It could also ask the user to sign when the price alert is triggered, but that forces a split second decision of the user, which would be unfavorible.
Thoughts?
Related
#406
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: